"Three Hermits" by Leo Tolstoy

AN OLD LEGEND CURRENT IN THE VOLGA DISTRICT (1886)

'And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.' - Matt. 6:7-8.


A BISHOP was sailing from Archangel to the Solovétsk Monastery; and on the same vessel were a number of pilgrims on their way to visit the shrines at that place. The voyage was a smooth one. The wind favourable, and the weather fair. The pilgrims lay on deck, eating, or sat in groups talking to one another. The Bishop, too, came on deck, and as he was pacing up and down, he noticed a group of men standing near the prow and listening to a fisherman who was pointing to the sea and telling them something. The Bishop stopped, and looked in the direction in which the man was pointing. He could see nothing however, but the sea glistening in the sunshine. He drew nearer to listen, but when the man saw him, he took off his cap and was silent. The rest of the people also took off their caps, and bowed.

'Do not let me disturb you, friends,' said the Bishop. 'I came to hear what this good man was saying.'

'The fisherman was telling us about the hermits,' replied one, a tradesman, rather bolder than the rest.

'What hermits?' asked the Bishop, going to the side of the vessel and seating himself on a box. 'Tell me about them. I should like to hear. What were you pointing at?'

'Why, that little island you can just see over there,' answered the man, pointing to a spot ahead and a little to the right. 'That is the island where the hermits live for the salvation of their souls.'

'Where is the island?' asked the Bishop. 'I see nothing.'

'There, in the distance, if you will please look along my hand. Do you see that little cloud? Below it and a bit to the left, there is just a faint streak. That is the island.'

The Bishop looked carefully, but his unaccustomed eyes could make out nothing but the water shimmering in the sun.

'I cannot see it,' he said. 'But who are the hermits that live there?'

'They are holy men,' answered the fisherman. 'I had long heard tell of them, but never chanced to see them myself till the year before last.'

And the fisherman related how once, when he was out fishing, he had been stranded at night upon that island, not knowing where he was. In the morning, as he wandered about the island, he came across an earth hut, and met an old man standing near it. Presently two others came out, and after having fed him, and dried his things, they helped him mend his boat.

'And what are they like?' asked the Bishop.

'One is a small man and his back is bent. He wears a priest's cassock and is very old; he must be more than a hundred, I should say. He is so old that the white of his beard is taking a greenish tinge, but he is always smiling, and his face is as bright as an angel's from heaven. The second is taller, but he also is very old. He wears tattered, peasant coat. His beard is broad, and of a yellowish grey colour. He is a strong man. Before I had time to help him, he turned my boat over as if it were only a pail. He too, is kindly and cheerful. The third is tall, and has a beard as white as snow and reaching to his knees. He is stern, with over-hanging eyebrows; and he wears nothing but a mat tied round his waist.'

'And did they speak to you?' asked the Bishop.

'For the most part they did everything in silence and spoke but little even to one another. One of them would just give a glance, and the others would understand him. I asked the tallest whether they had lived there long. He frowned, and muttered something as if he were angry; but the oldest one took his hand and smiled, and then the tall one was quiet. The oldest one only said: "Have mercy upon us," and smiled.'

While the fisherman was talking, the ship had drawn nearer to the island.

'There, now you can see it plainly, if your Grace will please to look,' said the tradesman, pointing with his hand.

The Bishop looked, and now he really saw a dark streak -- which was the island. Having looked at it a while, he left the prow of the vessel, and going to the stern, asked the helmsman:

'What island is that?'

'That one,' replied the man, 'has no name. There are many such in this sea.'

'Is it true that there are hermits who live there for the salvation of their souls?'

'So it is said, your Grace, but I don't know if it's true. Fishermen say they have seen them; but of course they may only be spinning yarns.'

'I should like to land on the island and see these men,' said the Bishop. 'How could I manage it?'

'The ship cannot get close to the island,' replied the helmsman, 'but you might be rowed there in a boat. You had better speak to the captain.'

The captain was sent for and came.

'I should like to see these hermits,' said the Bishop. 'Could I not be rowed ashore?'

The captain tried to dissuade him.

'Of course it could be done,' said he, 'but we should lose much time. And if I might venture to say so to your Grace, the old men are not worth your pains. I have heard say that they are foolish old fellows, who understand nothing, and never speak a word, any more than the fish in the sea.'

'I wish to see them,' said the Bishop, 'and I will pay you for your trouble and loss of time. Please let me have a boat.'

There was no help for it; so the order was given. The sailors trimmed the sails, the steersman put up the helm, and the ship's course was set for the island. A chair was placed at the prow for the Bishop, and he sat there, looking ahead. The passengers all collected at the prow, and gazed at the island. Those who had the sharpest eyes could presently make out the rocks on it, and then a mud hut was seen. At last one man saw the hermits themselves. The captain brought a telescope and, after looking through it, handed it to the Bishop.

'It's right enough. There are three men standing on the shore. There, a little to the right of that big rock.'

The Bishop took the telescope, got it into position, and he saw the three men: a tall one, a shorter one, and one very small and bent, standing on the shore and holding each other by the hand.

The captain turned to the Bishop.

'The vessel can get no nearer in than this, your Grace. If you wish to go ashore, we must ask you to go in the boat, while we anchor here.'

The cable was quickly let out, the anchor cast, and the sails furled. There was a jerk, and the vessel shook. Then a boat having been lowered, the oarsmen jumped in, and the Bishop descended the ladder and took his seat. The men pulled at their oars, and the boat moved rapidly towards the island. When they came within a stone's throw they saw three old men: a tall one with only a mat tied round his waist: a shorter one in a tattered peasant coat, and a very old one bent with age and wearing an old cassock -- all three standing hand in hand.

The oarsmen pulled in to the shore, and held on with the boathook while the Bishop got out.

The old men bowed to him, and he gave them his benediction, at which they bowed still lower. Then the Bishop began to speak to them.

'I have heard,' he said, 'that you, godly men, live here saving your own souls, and praying to our Lord Christ for your fellow men. I, an unworthy servant of Christ, am called, by God's mercy, to keep and teach His flock. I wished to see you, servants of God, and to do what I can to teach you, also.'

The old men looked at each other smiling, but remained silent.

'Tell me,' said the Bishop, 'what you are doing to save your souls, and how you serve God on this island.'

The second hermit sighed, and looked at the oldest, the very ancient one. The latter smiled, and said:

'We do not know how to serve God. We only serve and support ourselves, servant of God.'

'But how do you pray to God?' asked the Bishop.

'We pray in this way,' replied the hermit. 'Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us.'

And when the old man said this, all three raised their eyes to heaven, and repeated:

'Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us!'

The Bishop smiled.

'You have evidently heard something about the Holy Trinity,' said he. 'But you do not pray aright. You have won my affection, godly men. I see you wish to please the Lord, but you do not know how to serve Him. That is not the way to pray; but listen to me, and I will teach you. I will teach you, not a way of my own, but the way in which God in the Holy Scriptures has commanded all men to pray to Him.'

And the Bishop began explaining to the hermits how God had revealed Himself to men; telling them of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

'God the Son came down on earth,' said he, 'to save men, and this is how He taught us all to pray. Listen and repeat after me: "Our Father."'

And the first old man repeated after him, 'Our Father,' and the second said, 'Our Father,' and the third said, 'Our Father.'

'Which art in heaven,' continued the Bishop.

The first hermit repeated, 'Which art in heaven,' but the second blundered over the words, and the tall hermit could not say them properly. His hair had grown over his mouth so that he could not speak plainly. The very old hermit, having no teeth, also mumbled indistinctly.

The Bishop repeated the words again, and the old men repeated them after him. The Bishop sat down on a stone, and the old men stood before him, watching his mouth, and repeating the words as he uttered them. And all day long the Bishop laboured, saying a word twenty, thirty, a hundred times over, and the old men repeated it after him. They blundered, and he corrected them, and made them begin again.

The Bishop did not leave off till he had taught them the whole of the Lord's prayer so that they could not only repeat it after him, but could say it by themselves. The middle one was the first to know it, and to repeat the whole of it alone. The Bishop made him say it again and again, and at last the others could say it too.

It was getting dark, and the moon was appearing over the water, before the Bishop rose to return to the vessel. When he took leave of the old men, they all bowed down to the ground before him. He raised them, and kissed each of them, telling them to pray as he had taught them. Then he got into the boat and returned to the ship.

And as he sat in the boat and was rowed to the ship he could hear the three voices of the hermits loudly repeating the Lord's prayer. As the boat drew near the vessel their voices could no longer be heard, but they could still be seen in the moonlight, standing as he had left them on the shore, the shortest in the middle, the tallest on the right, the middle one on the left. As soon as the Bishop had reached the vessel and got on board, the anchor was weighed and the sails unfurled. The wind filled them, and the ship sailed away, and the Bishop took a seat in the stern and watched the island they had left. For a time he could still see the hermits, but presently they disappeared from sight, though the island was still visible. At last it too vanished, and only the sea was to be seen, rippling in the moonlight.

The pilgrims lay down to sleep, and all was quiet on deck. The Bishop did not wish to sleep, but sat alone at the stern, gazing at the sea where the island was no longer visible, and thinking of the good old men. He thought how pleased they had been to learn the Lord's prayer; and he thanked God for having sent him to teach and help such godly men.

So the Bishop sat, thinking, and gazing at the sea where the island had disappeared. And the moonlight flickered before his eyes, sparkling, now here, now there, upon the waves. Suddenly he saw something white and shining, on the bright path which the moon cast across the sea. Was it a seagull, or the little gleaming sail of some small boat? The Bishop fixed his eyes on it, wondering.

'It must be a boat sailing after us,' thought he 'but it is overtaking us very rapidly. It was far, far away a minute ago, but now it is much nearer. It cannot be a boat, for I can see no sail; but whatever it may be, it is following us, and catching us up.'

And he could not make out what it was. Not a boat, nor a bird, nor a fish! It was too large for a man, and besides a man could not be out there in the midst of the sea. The Bishop rose, and said to the helmsman:

'Look there, what is that, my friend? What is it?' the Bishop repeated, though he could now see plainly what it was -- the three hermits running upon the water, all gleaming white, their grey beards shining, and approaching the ship as quickly as though it were not morning.

The steersman looked and let go the helm in terror.

'Oh Lord! The hermits are running after us on the water as though it were dry land!'

The passengers hearing him, jumped up, and crowded to the stern. They saw the hermits coming along hand in hand, and the two outer ones beckoning the ship to stop. All three were gliding along upon the water without moving their feet. Before the ship could be stopped, the hermits had reached it, and raising their heads, all three as with one voice, began to say:

'We have forgotten your teaching, servant of God. As long as we kept repeating it we remembered, but when we stopped saying it for a time, a word dropped out, and now it has all gone to pieces. We can remember nothing of it. Teach us again.'

The Bishop crossed himself, and leaning over the ship's side, said:

'Your own prayer will reach the Lord, men of God. It is not for me to teach you. Pray for us sinners.'

And the Bishop bowed low before the old men; and they turned and went back across the sea. And a light shone until daybreak on the spot where they were lost to sight.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Fusing Orthodox and Pentecostal Worship???

["As opposed to the true Orthodox spiritual life, the 'charismatic revival' is only the experiential side of the prevailing 'ecumenical' fashion - a counterfeit Christianity that betrays Christ and His Church. No Orthodox 'charismatic' could possibly object to the coming 'Union' with those very Protestants and Roman Catholics with whom, as the interdenominational 'charismatic' song goes, they are already 'one in the Spirit, one in the Lord,' and who have led them and inspired their 'charismatic' experience. The 'spirit' that has inspired the 'charismatic revival' is the spirit of antichrist , or more precisely those 'spirits of devils' of the last times whose 'miracles' prepare the world for the false messiah." - Fr. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina

For more on what Fr. Seraphim says, see here. The movement described below is a little different, though essentially the same, from what Fr. Seraphim describes. Ecclesiologically this is a heretical church and Orthodox should avoid participating in these churches at all costs. - J.S.]

Man Creates Church That Fuses Two

By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
02/16/2010

Archbishop P. Gregory Schell preaches in front of an Orthodox painting in the People's Cathedral in Denver, Sunday, January 31, 2010. Schell's spiritual journey has taken him all over the map. Raised Catholic, he would leave the church and become a Pentecostal pastor with an Assemby of God Church in Louisiana before circling back to a sacramental, liturgical and mystical form of religion -- the Eastern Orthodox version of ancient Christianity, except he has formed his own American expression of this brand of faith, which he calls the Christian Orthodox Church of America. He calls it convergent Christianity because he fuses Eastern Othrodoxy, American culture and Pentecostal (Protestant) worship forms. There are a handful of parishes and missions scattered from Pennsylvania to Texas.

There is cafeteria Christianity — selecting this doctrine and that rite but leaving those others off the tray — and then there is St. Isaac Church, where worship is more like a smorgasbord.

Archbishop P. Gregory Schell is not leaving much off the table at his feast of faith in northwest Denver.

"This is a place where East meets West, and Christ is in the center," says Schell, founder of the 10-year-old Christian Orthodox Church of America, a fusion of ancient Christianity and contemporary evangelical worship.

St. Isaac and the five other churches in Schell's national network were inspired by Eastern Orthodoxy and likewise claim an apostolic tradition reaching back to A.D. 52 and St. Thomas.

Yet, it is in many respects a modern American faith offering — what Schell calls "convergence worship": sacramental, liturgical, evangelical and charismatic.

"There is a hunger for real experience of God," Schell says. "There's a new generation looking for substance."

He is not daunted that the Eastern Orthodox establishment does not recognize his "orthodoxy," which means correct or accepted practice. His network of churches — scattered from Rome, Pa., to Pasadena, Calif. — is not part of the Eastern Orthodox fellowship.

"We deeply love and respect the Orthodox faith and Roman Catholic Church. We're one body in Christ," Schell says. "As a native American Orthodoxy, we humbly seek to build relationships with them."

Reverence and relevance

At St. Isaac, the first of two hours of Sunday service is celebrated with classic Eastern Orthodox liturgy, similar to a Catholic Mass — clerical procession, chiming bells, rattling fans, wafting incense, lifted icons, flickering candles and Holy Communion. It is said in English.

The second half is loud contemporary music, band, waving hands, swaying bodies and fiery preaching in the charismatic tradition.

"Don't let these robes fool you — I can preach," Schell says as he and his long purple vestment take center stage with booming voice and kinetic style. "We have to be both reverent and relevant. There's a time to be quiet and a time to party with Christ."

St. Isaac's congregation of 250 to 300 includes some displaced Catholics and is home to some evangelical Christians seeking the richness of early Christianity.

Bryan Ruth, a young father, says he grew up in a nondenominational Christian church but came to feel something was missing.

"What attracted me to this were the ancient roots, 2,000 years of history," Ruth says. "I had gone through a phase where Christianity had seemed almost shallow."

As a young man, Schell, now 56, left his Longmont home and the Roman Catholic faith he'd grown up in for a spiritual journey that took him all over the map.

By the time he hit Baton Rouge, La., he was attending an Assemblies of God church, a Pentecostal faith.

In 1989, he and his wife started a nondenominational church in a north Denver neighborhood.

"We held worship services right in a crack house," Schell says.

His continuing exploration of faith traditions led him to Eastern Orthodoxy — something familiar to the former Catholic, yet imbued, he says, with more mysticism.


No orthodoxy rooted in U.S.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a tradition that formed in the 5th to 13th centuries as a slowly widening rift divided the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Through the "Great Schism," Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism developed distinctive identities.

Eastern Orthodoxy allows married clergy and rejects universal papal authority.

"I thank God the sacramental roots were strong in me," Schell says. "There were already Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches, with ethnic and cultural ties to those countries, but there was not what you call an American-grown orthodoxy."

He wanted to grow one, establishing the Christian Orthodox Church of America, or COCOA, in 1999.

His churches celebrate seven sacraments: baptism, chrismation (confirmation), Holy Communion, marriage, holy orders, reconciliation and anointing of the sick. Teachings on sanctity of life and homosexuality are traditional and conservative. However, Schell ordains female deacons and priests.

Schell was ordained by Archbishop Joseph Mar Narsai, head of the Federation of St. Thomas Christians of America, a Santa Cruz, Calif.-based network of independent Catholic jurisdictions founded in 1963. Its membership is estimated at several thousand. That federation and Schell's Christian Orthodox Church of America are in full communion or fellowship.

Authenticity judgments

Schell says COCOA also has two Texas parishes, in Andrews and Menard, and others in Rome, Pa.; in Las Vegas; and near Pasadena, Calif. He estimates total COCOA membership at several hundred and projects it will reach 1,000 by 2012.

Being outside mainstream Eastern Orthodox Christianity doesn't faze Schell or the several priests he ordained. They counsel against Christians judging the authenticity of other Christians.

"I'm the church. You're the church," Father Jacob Givens thundered in his homily one Sunday. "We're the church."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Basis of the Acceptance of the Tome of Leo

by Rev. Dr. John Romanides

Returning to Leo's Tome it is important to point out that at Chalcedon it was accepted only as a document against the heresy of Eutyches, in spite of the fact that both Leo and his legates believed it to be a good statement against Nestorius also. It is even more important to keep in mind that during its reading at Session II [of the Fourth Ecumenial Council] the three now famous Nestorian sounding passages were each one challenged as the document was being read. During each interruption it was attacked and defended by the use of parallel passages from Cyril. After what must have been a somewhat stormy and long debate, bishop Atticos of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, Greece, made the motion that time out be taken to give the assembly the opportunity to carefully compare Leo's Tome with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril in order to make sure of what they were approving. The imperial representatives chairing the meeting gave the bishops five days in which to do this and suggested the formation of a committee under the presidency of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The committee reported back at the fourth session, at the beginning of which the imperial and senatorial representatives declared the unswerving faith of the emperor in the expositions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus with its approval of the two canonical letters of Cyril, i.e., the Second and Third to Nestorius. This profession of the imperial faith had been made also at the end of Session I, and now in anticipation of the committee's report on the question of Leo s agreement with Cyril's Twelve Chapters it was repeated. The committee report was included in the minutes in the form of a listing of the individual opinions of its members, all of whom expressed their belief that Leo's Tome agreed with Nicaea, Ephesus, and the letter of Cyril. Most of the bishops mentioned the (one) letter of Cyril, which cannot be any other than the Twelve Chapters since this was the one the Illyrians and Palestinians were concerned about as is clear from the motion of the Illyrian Atticos which initiated the careful comparison of Leo's Tome with the letter of Cyril. Some of the members mentioned their belief that the Tome agreed with the two letters of Cyril, dearly referring to the ones of Ephesus mentioned as part of the imperial faith. It is extremely interesting to note that among the similar individual opinions given by the rest of the Assembly and recorded in the minutes is that of none other than Theodoret of Cyrus, who claims that he finds the Tome of Leo in agreement with the letters of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, certainly a tremendous leap from his position just before the Council. In the light of his strong hesitation at Session VIII to anathematize Nestorius, a hesitation which infuriated the assembly, one wonders about his sincerity, especially since he tried to defend his former acts by an exposition of how he never taught two Sons. He was interrupted by shouts of "Nestorian".

The acceptance of Leo's Tome in the light of and in subordination to the letters of Cyril is also clearly contained in the Chalcedonian definition itself. It is declared that the Council accepts the Synodical (the Third letter to Nestorius is titled synodical, or since this is in the plural it could be a reference to the two of Ephesus, which in the minutes are called canonical, plus the one to John) letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to those of the East, "and to which (epistles) it reasonably adapted the letter of Leo ... (epistolas... hais kai ten epistolen tou Leontos... eikotos syncrmose...)." This is not a balance between Cyril and Leo, as many scholars would have us believe. Leo became very sensitive about the doubts raised about his tome, and especially disturbed did he become over determined opposition in certain quarters like Palestine where Juvenal was deposed for accepting the Tome. In a letter to Julian of Cos (cxvli, 3) in which he shows much concern with accusations of heresy against himself, he writes that,..."if they think there is any doubt about our teaching, let them at least not reject the writings of such holy priests as Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria, with whom our statement of the faith so completely harmonizes that anyone who professes consent to them disagrees in nothing with us." No one can doubt the sincerity with which Leo wanted to be in agreement with those Alexandrine Fathers, but his defense of Theodoret compromised him. In a letter to the now restored Bishop of Cyrus he chides Theodoret for the tardy way in which he anathematized Nestorius (cxx, 5), yet in his opening remarks of this very same letter he speaks of "the victory you [Theodoret] and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches." Dioscoros relationship to Eutyches may have some parallels.

The Chalcedonian definition also speaks of itself as preserving the order and all the decrees concerning the Faith passed by the Holy Synod held formerly at Ephesus.... From Ibas ad Marim Persam and from the minutes of the Johannine Council of Ephesus, we learn that the Antiochenes rejected the Cyrillian Council of Ephesus and damned Cyril because the heretical Twelve Chapters had been accepted. In this same letter Ibas (as were many of Cyril's friends and Theodoret) was under the impression that Cyril abandoned his Ephesine position in his reconciliation with John in 433. However, Ibas stated at his trial in Byretus in 449 that Paul of Emessa had accepted the Alexandrine bishops interpretation of the Twelve Chapters as Cyril had accepted the confession of the Easterners. It is in the light of this that one should read the letter of John to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople (the order of the letter) in which he announces Antioch's acceptance of Nestorius excommunication and the Council of Ephesus. It is impossible to accept the opinion of many that Cyril laid aside his Twelve Chapters for the sake of a reconciliation with John. As an individual he had no authority whatsoever to modify the decisions of an Ecumenical Council and there is no evidence to substantiate this supposition. Although the Endemousa Synod of Constantinople seems to have overemphasized the Cyrillian allowances of 433, it accepted the Twelve Chapters as part of Ephesus which it approved in toto.

In the light of the evidence it is clear that Cyril's Third letter to Nestorius, including the Twelve Chapters, was not repudiated by Chalcedon as many claim. On the contrary, the Twelve Chapters were used as the very basis of the Council's attitudes toward Nestorianism and Leo's Tome. It is too bad that the Chalcedonians themselves present at the Council of 531 in Constantinople did not fully realize the crucial role played at Chalcedon by Cyill's Twelve Chapters. Their answer to Severus accusation that the Twelve Chapters were laid aside in 451 was that it was accepted and approved as part of Ephesus I. This, of course, is incontestable, but not anywhere near the reality of the matter. The significance of the use made of the Twelve Chapters at Chalcedon should be obvious enough to those who claim that they fail to find the terms characteristic of Cyrillian Christology in the definition. Groundless also are the theories (brought forward by many Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars embarrassed by the Cyrillianism of the Fifth Ecumenical Council) concerning an alleged Neo-Chalcedonian movement which was supposed to have put Leo's Tome aside and returned to the Twelve Chapters of Ephesus I, especially to the twelfth anathema. The truth of the matter is that in pronouncing anathema on those who do not accept the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 is simply repeating what was done at Ephesus in 431 and again at Chalcedon in 451.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Strange Teachings of Muhammad

Frontpage Magazine
June 02, 2009

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, who al Qaeda has called "one of the most wanted infidels in the world," issuing a 60 million dollar bounty on his head. Popular Arabic magazines also call him "Islam's public enemy #1". He hosts a television program, “Truth Talk,” on Life TV. His two sites are Islam-Christianity.net and FatherZakaria.net. He was recently awarded the Daniel of the Year award.

Front Page: Fr. Zakaria Botros, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Botros: Thank you for inviting me.

Front Page: Let’s begin with your own personal story, in terms of Islam and Christianity.

Botros: I am a Copt. In my early 20s, I became a priest. Of course, in predominantly Muslim Egypt, Christians—priests or otherwise—do not talk about religion with Muslims. My older brother, a passionate Christian learned that lesson too late: after preaching to Muslims, he was eventually ambushed by Muslims who cut out his tongue and murdered him. Far from being deterred or hating Muslims, I eventually felt more compelled to share the Good News with them. Naturally, this created many problems: I was constantly harassed, threatened, and eventually imprisoned and tortured for one year, simply for preaching to Muslims. Egyptian officials charged me with abetting “apostasy,” that is, for being responsible for the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Another time I was arrested while boarding a plane out of Egypt. Eventually, however, I managed to flee my native country and resided for a time in Australia and England. Anyway, my life-story with Christianity and Islam is very long and complicated. In fact, an entire book about it was recently published.

Front Page: I apologize for asking this, but what were some of the tortures you endured when you were imprisoned?

Botros: Due to my preaching the Gospel, Egyptian soldiers broke into my home putting their guns to my head. Without telling me why, they arrested me and placed me in an extremely small prison cell (1.8x1.5x1.8 meters, which was further problematic, since I am 1.83 meters tall), with other inmates, and in well over 100 degree temperatures, with little ventilation, no windows, and no light. No beds of course, we slept on the floor—in shifts, as there was not enough room for all of us to lie down. Due to the lack of oxygen, we used to also take shifts lying with our noses under the crack of the cell door to get air. As a result, I developed a kidney infection (receiving, of course, no medical attention). Mosquitoes plagued us. Food was delivered in buckets; we rarely even knew what the gruel was. The prison guards would often spit in the bucket in front of us, as well as fling their nose pickings in it.

Front Page: My heart goes out to you in terms of this terrible suffering you endured. What is your primary purpose in what you do?

Botros: Simple: the salvation of souls. As I always say, inasmuch as I may reject Islam, I love Muslims. Thus, to save the latter, I have no choice but to expose the former for the false religion it is. Christ commanded us to spread the Good News. There is no rule that says Christians should proselytize the world—except for Muslims! Of course, trying to convert the latter is more dangerous. But we cannot forsake them. This is more important considering that many Muslims are “religious” and truly seek to please God; yet are they misdirected. So I want to take their sincerity and piety and direct it to the True Light.

Front Page: In what way can you summarize for us why you think that Islam is a “false” religion?

Botros: Theologically, as I am a Christian priest, I believe that only Christianity offers the truth. Based on my faith in Christ, I reject all other religious systems as man-made and thus not reflective of divine truths. Moreover, one of the greatest crimes committed by Muhammad—a crime which he shall surely never be forgiven for—is that he denied the grace and mercy that Christ brought, and took humanity back to the age of the law.

But faith aside, common sense alone makes it clear that, of all the world’s major religions, Islam is most certainly false. After all, while I may not believe in, say, Buddhism, still, it obviously offers a good philosophical system and people follow it apparently for its own intrinsic worth. The same cannot be said about Islam. Of all the religions it is the only one that has to threaten its adherents with death if they try to break away; that, from its inception, in order to “buy” followers, has been dedicated to fulfilling some of the worst impulses of man—for conquest, sex, plunder, pride. History alone demonstrates all this: while Christianity was spread far and wide by Christians who altruistically gave up their lives, simply because they believed in Christ, Islam spread by force, by the edge of the sword, by fear, threats, and lurid enticements to the basest desires of man. Islam is by far the falsest religion—an assertion that is at once theologically, philosophically, and historically demonstrable.

Front Page: You always document your discussions with Islamic sources. Why do Muslim clerics and imams have such a difficulty discussing what Islam itself teaches and instead just attack you personally?

Botros: I think the answer is obvious. The Islamic sources, the texts, speak for themselves. Muslims have no greater enemy than their own scriptures—particularly the Hadith and Sira—which constantly scandalize and embarrass Muslims. To date, I have done well over 500 different episodes dedicated to various topics regarding Islam. And for every one of these episodes, all my material comes directly from Islam’s textual sources, particularly usul al-fiqh—the Koran, hadith, and ijma of the ulema as found in their tafsirs.

So what can the sheikhs of Islam do? If they try to address the issue I raise based on Islam’s texts and sharia, they will have no choice but to agree—for instance that concubinage is legal, or that drinking camel urine is advocated. The only strategy left them, then, is to ignore all that I present and attack my person, instead.

And when well-meaning Muslims ask their leaders to respond to these charges, one of their favorite responses is to quote the Koran, where it says “Do not ask questions of things that will hurt you.”

Front Page: So what does it say about a religion whose religious teachers and members have to ignore their own theological texts because they cannot endure what those texts really say? What sense does any of this make?

Botros: Again, this is a reflection of the fact that Islam is less a faith, more a vehicle for empowerment. As you say, what is the point for a person to closely guard and follow a religion that he himself has to rationalize, ignore, minimize, constantly reinterpret, dissemble over, and so forth? The fact is, most Muslims do not know what is in their own texts; at best, they know, and here and there try to follow, the Five Pillars. This is why the issues I broach often traumatize Muslims—like a freshening slap across the face: a short, sharp, shock. The stubborn, who take it as an attack of “us versus them,” irrespective of truths, just fume and plot to kill me; the other, more reasonable Muslims, who are really searching for the truth, end up waking up to the biggest hoax perpetrated on the human race in 1400 years, and many come to the ultimate Truth.

A better question is why do the ulema hide these issues from both infidel scrutiny as well as the eyes of the average Muslim? One would think that if anyone is dedicated to the truth it would be the ulema; yet their deceptive tactics reveal the opposite. For instance, it is often the case that, after I quote problematic passages from certain Islamic books, they have a strange tendency of disappearing from the book shelves of the Arabic world. The bottom line is, many Muslims think of Islam less as a spiritual system dedicated to ascertaining and putting one on the course of the truth, and more a way of life—first and foremost not to be questioned—that if followed closely, will result, not only in future paradise, but earthly success, honor, and power.

Front Page: You have pointed to a hadith that instructs women to breastfeed men. What exactly is going on here and what do the ulema (prominent Muslim theologians past and present) have to say?

Botros: This is a perfect example of what I just said. After I made popular the Islamic notion of rida‘ al-kabir—wherein women must “breastfeed” strange men in order to be in their presence—instead of confronting their own hadiths which documented this, the ulema attacked me. Why? Because they have no answer. Much easier to turn it around and slander me, instead of simply addressing their own texts.

Past and present, the ulema have by and large supported this shameful practice—including Ibn Taymiyya, “sheikh al-Islam.” Moreover, sometime after I publicly documented rida‘ al-kabir, a top Islamic scholar in al-Azhar—the most authoritative institution in Sunni Islam—actually issued a fatwa authorizing Muslim women to “breastfeed” strange men, to which the Egyptian populace (happily) revolted. Yet when I alone mentioned it earlier, I was accused of “distorting” Islam.

Front Page: So Islamic texts command that women must breastfeed strange men. Ok, so who would create such an instruction? For what purpose? Who even wrote this down and thought of it? Le's even say that I am being open-minded and am ready to accept this as an understandable teaching. What’s the rationale here? Yes, women should breastfeed strange men because...?

Botros: Because Muhammad—“Allah’s prayers and blessings be upon him”—said so. Period. Who created such a practice? Muhammad. Why? Who knows; the texts say he laughed after commanding the woman to breastfeed that man. Maybe he was joking around, trying to see how far people will believe in him as a prophet? The top hadith compilers wrote it down, preserving it for later generations. As for what purpose does it serve, one can ask that question about any number of things Muhammad said: what purpose does drinking camel urine serve? What purpose does commanding men to wear only silver as opposed to gold serve? What purpose does banning music serve? What purpose does anathematizing dogs serve? What purpose does commanding people to eat only with their right hands, never their left, serve? What purpose does commanding Muslims to lick all their fingers after eating serve? Simple: sharia law’s totalitarian approach serves to brainwash Muslims, making them automatons that never question their religion, or, in the words of their own Koran, “Do not ask questions that may prove harmful to them.”

Front Page: Tell us a bit about Muhammed’s sex life as documented by Islamic sources.

Botros: This is a very embarrassing topic for me to discuss; and I only do so out of my love for Muslims—though I know it is painful for them to hear. Yet such is how healing begins, through initial pain and suffering. In short, according to Islam’s scriptures, Muhammad was, well, a pervert: he used to suck on the tongues of young boys and girls; he dressed in women’s clothing (and received “revelations” in this state); he had at least 66 “wives”; Allah supposedly sent him special “revelations” allowing him to have sex with his step-daughter-in-law, Zainab, and to have more wives than the rest of Muslims; he constantly dwelt and obsessed over sex—his first question to a “talking donkey” was if the latter “liked sex”—and he painted a very lurid and lusty picture of paradise, where, according to some top Muslim interpreters, Muslims will be “busy deflowering virgins” all day; and he had sex with a dead woman. There is more, but why dwell on such shameful things? Again, I stress, it is not I who maintains this but rather Islam’s own books—much, of course, not known to non-Arabic readers, as they have never been translated (except, as I understand, by some heroes at a website called Jihad Watch).


Front Page: Yes, that’s our friend Robert Spencer’s website. But wait, here’s the key. Many people right now will point at you and make accusations against you for saying these supposedly horrible things. But again, the issue is not that you are making these allegations. The issue is that Islamic scriptures themselves say it. So if Muslims are offended or shocked by these realities then they must confront their own scriptures and deal with them. They need to confront who wrote them and why, and either accept them or categorically reject them as lies, etc.

For the record, pinpoint some Islamic scriptures for us that detail these ingredients of Muhammad’s sex life so that, once again, we crystallize that the issue is not you making accusations, but simply revealing what Islamic scriptures themselves say.

Botros: Where does one start? According to the Koran alone (33:37), Allah made it legitimate for Muhammad to marry his own daughter-in-law, whom he lusted after. A few verses later (33:50), Allah made it legitimate for Muhammad to have sex with any woman who “offered” herself to him—a privilege which was allowed for Muhammad alone. Indeed, these “revelations” which granted Muhammad all his sexual desires were so frequent that his child-wife, Aisha, would often say to Muhammad, “My, your Lord is always quick to fulfill your desires!” And to his faithful followers, Muhammad permitted all the infidel woman that they could capture, as concubines (Koran 4:3). All this is from the Koran alone; it would take several hours just to go over the hadiths and sira accounts dealing with the sexual perversions of Muhammad. In fact, I have devoted numerous episodes dealing specifically with Muhammad’s sexual depravities—including his sleeping with a dead woman, have a fetish for the smell of menstruation blood, dressing in women’s clothing, and so forth. (Jihad Watch has translated many of these.)

Front Page: One of your more popular videos is your Ten Demands.

What has the impact been of your ministry?

Botros: It has been glorious—praise be to God alone, whose instrument I am. Haya TV (“Life TV”) and I receive daily countless e-mails from Muslim converts to Christianity. Our programs reach millions of Arabic speaking viewers around the world. It is even banned in certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia, even though people from there still manage to access our programs.

Front Page: How about the feedback you receive?

Botros: Mostly positive; mostly from those who have, as I call it, “crossed over,” that is, converts to Christianity. And of course some are angry and full of hate. But like I said, it is not feedback—positive or negative—that motivates me, but rather unconditional love for those sincere souls living in bondage.

Front Page: You’ve obviously been instrumental in Muslims coming to Christ, yes?

Botros: That’s what they tell me. In fact, many of them tell me I am like a father to them, which I am honored to be called, though I remind all we have but One Father. For instance, one man recently contacted me, in tears, telling me how, when he was a Muslim, he wanted to kill me—to cut off my head! He spent much time and effort plotting how he can find me so he can kill me (and “please” Allah and his prophet). So he kept watching my shows, hoping somehow to find a clue that would help him locate me. Instead, a miracle occurred: over time, he realized I wasn’t making things up, that everything I said was in fact in Islam’s books. He stopped hating me. And in time, he came to Christ. It is stories like these that keep me going.

Front Page: In your view, who was Muhammad?

Botros: Well, I have received the answer from Islam’s own books. Ironically, Ibn Taymiyya, who happens to be the hero of the modern mujahid movement, explained the prerequisites of prophet-hood very well. One of the things he stressed is that, in order to know if a prophet is in fact from God, we must study his sira, or his biography, much like the Christ’s statement that “You shall know them from their fruits.” So, taking Ibn Taymiyya’s advice, I recently devoted a number of episodes analyzing the biography of Muhammad, which unequivocally proves that he was not a prophet, that his only “fruits” were death, destruction, and lust. Indeed, he himself confessed and believed that he was being visited and tormented by a “jinn,” or basically a demon, until his wife Khadija convinced him that it was the angel Gabriel—which, of course is ironic, since Muhammad himself later went on to say that the testimony of a woman is half that of a man: maybe over time he realized she was wrong, and that his first assumption was right.

Front Page: Fr. Botros, thank you for visiting us today.

Botros: Thank you, and may the true God richly bless you.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Naturalism’s Moral Foundations

by Dr. William Dembski

Jeffrey Dahmer: “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” [Biography, "Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within," A&E, 1996.]

Naturalists like to stress that you don’t need God or religion to be good. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins even suggest that leaving God out of the equation actually allows one to be more moral because then our moral acts are authentic, motivated by deep conviction rather than by having a divine gun to our heads.

Even so, Dahmer’s logic is compelling. We need some external reference point — God — to justify being good. And that justification is significant in its own right. Without it, we can still rationalize particular evils, but we cannot dispense with the category of evil entirely.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Skull of St. Bridget Probably Not Authentic

ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2010) — The putative skull of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden that has been kept in a shrine in Vadstena Abbey is probably not authentic. A new study conducted at Uppsala University reveals that the two skulls, believed to be from Saint Bridget and her daughter Catherine (Katarina), are not from maternally related individuals. Furthermore, dating shows that the skulls are not from the time period when Bridget and Catherine lived.

The findings are published in the journal PLoS ONE.

Vadstena parish assigned Associate Professor Marie Allen's research group at Uppsala University's Department of Genetics and Pathology the task of examining DNA from both skulls, in order to confirm kinship and authenticity. A sensitive method based on analysis of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA was used to analyse the skulls. This method makes it possible to examine very small amounts of DNA, and it is often a successful analysis on aged and degraded material.

Saint Bridget of Sweden lived between 1303 and 1373, and was canonized in 1391. In 1999, the Pope declared Bridget one of Europe's Patron Saints. According to the legend, the skulls of both Bridget and her daughter Catherine (1331-1381) have been kept as sacred relics at Vadstena Abbey, located in central Sweden. Bridget was renowned for her revelations, prophecies and pilgrimages. After her death, her remains were taken from Rome to Vadstena, where they were placed in a shrine in 1381. Through the years, small pieces of the relics were selected and given to churches, monasteries, kings and popes. Currently, the shrine in Vadstena contains two skulls, as well as 23 other bones. Among these, a femur bone is thought to be from Saint Bridget. A third skull that was stolen from Vadsrena in 1645, is now in an abbey in Holland. An anthropological and archaeological study from the 1950s concluded that the two skulls that remains in Vadstena probably are from two women, aged between 60-70 years and 50-55 years, respectively. This corresponds well with the theory that the skulls in the Vadstena relic shrine could be from Bridget and her daughter Catherine.

The scientists analysed small pieces of the skulls and concluded that both skulls are female by a nuclear DNA-analysis. Moreover, a maternal relationship can be excluded by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. There were indications of a difference in the preservation of the DNA, which could be due to an age difference between the skulls. Professor Göran Possnert at Uppsala University's Tandem Laboratory performed further testing, using advanced radiocarbon dating (C-14) technology. The results confirmed those obtained by the DNA analysis.

"One skull cannot be attributed to Bridget or Catherine as it dates back to the period 1470-1670. The other skull, thought to be from Saint Bridget, is dated to 1215-1270 and is thus not likely to be from the 14th Century when Bridget lived. It cannot, however, be completely excluded that the older skull is from Bridget if she had a diet dominated by fish, which can shift the dating results. But this is unlikely," says Göran Possnert.

"The results from both methods support each other. Our DNA analyses show that we can exclude a mother and daughter relationship. This is also confirmed by the dating as a difference of at least 200 years between the skulls is seen," says Marie Allen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Triumph of Orthodoxy in the Fifth Century

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

With great difficulty and with even greater effort and sacrifice, the tares of heresy were sifted from the wheat of the truth of Orthodoxy.

The heretics have always made use of lower means and mediocre persons in undermining Orthodoxy. Archmandrite Eutyches of Constantinople and Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who spread the heretical teaching, that there were not two natures in Christ, Divine and Human, rather one nature, had as their ally in the imperial court the mediocre eunuch Chrysaphius. Empress Eudoxia was secretly aligned with them. Patriarch Flavian, as a lion, fearlessly defended Orthodoxy in which he was assisted by Plucheria, the sister of the emperor. The eunuch Chrysaphius presented to Emperor Theodosius the most disgusting slanders against Flavian in order that the emperor would remove him from the throne and bring in the heretic Eutyches as patriarch. When this and all else did not succeed, the heretics plotted to kill Flavian. At the Robber Council in Ephesus [431 A.D.] they beat him so badly and trampled upon him that St. Flavian, on the third day, gave up his soul to God. What happened in the end? At the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon 451 A.D.], Eutyches and Dioscorus were anathematized. The eunuch was ousted from the court and shamefully ended his life. The Empress Eudoxia was banished from Constantinople to Palestine. Flavian and Plucheria were proclaimed as saints and the Orthodox Faith victoriously confirmed.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Peaceful Soul Generates a Pure Heart

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

For every man, peace of soul is precious. With those who have attained peace of soul, the body can be in constant motion - in work, in pain - but their souls, affixed to God, always remain in unwavering peace.

St. Seraphim of Sarov teaches: "It is necessary to concern oneself with all means in order to preserve peace of soul and not to be disturbed by the insults of others. That is why it is necessary, at all costs, to restrain yourself from anger with the help of vigilance over one's self, preserving the mind and heart from indecent movements. For preserving peace of soul, it is also necessary to avoid judging others. By not judging and by silence, peace of the soul is preserved. When a man is in such a state of mind, he receives divine revelations. In order for man to be preserved from judging others, he must be vigilant over himself; he must not receive from anyone non-spiritual thoughts and he should be dead toward everything worldly. We must tirelessly guard the heart from indecent thoughts and influences. `With closest custody, guard your heart for in it are the sources of life' (Proverbs 4:23). From perpetual vigilance over the heart, purity is born, in which the Lord is seen according to the words of eternal truth: `Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God'" (Matthew 5:8).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Gift of Faith and Truth Belongs to the Humble

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"When the Messiah [Christ] comes, will He perform more signs than this man has done?" (John 7:31).

The Lord Jesus performed miraculous works before all and all saw but not all believed. The people witnessed His miracles and believed in Him. Servants heard His words and believed in Him. But the leaders of the people and the masters of the servants also witnessed His miracles and did not believe in Him. And so, in those days the words of the Savior came true: "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first" (Matthew 19:30). "For behold, some who are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last" (Luke 13:30). Those who were first in honor and authority were last in having faith in Him; and those who were last in honor and authority were the first in having faith in Him.

Why did the people and servants believe and the princes and scribes not believe? Because, the people and servants considered themselves insignificant and unimportant and did not have any personal pride nor envy toward Christ. The people and servants, without malice and prejudice, looked upon the divine miracles and listened to the divine words and were amazed and rejoiced. The princes and the scribes considered themselves first among the people and in the world and so they were filled with pride and envy and were unable, even for a moment, to look upon the miraculous works nor to listen to the divine words without malice and envy.

Brethren, do you see how man, without humility and meekness, is unable even to recognize truth nor to rejoice in the truth? Do you see how the proud and the envious do not even allow God to be ahead of them? As did Satan, at one time!

Lord Jesus, Eternal Truth, cleanse our hearts of pride and envy that we may be able to see You and to rejoice in You. To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Testimony Regarding Tattoos

When I was in high school I really wanted to get a tattoo and a body piercing. So, during high school I got a body piercing (in my bellybutton). Shortly after I graduated from high school I got a tattoo. Neither action was well thought-out, but more of a spur of the moment thing. In fact, I’m grateful that the man who did my tattoo wouldn’t do what I originally wanted. He told me to go home and really think about it until I knew what I wanted and where I wanted it. If he would have done whatever I wanted at that moment, I would be even more regretful at this point. So, I ended up getting something I thought I would want for the rest of my life on my ankle. Now, about five years after I got my tattoo I have a scar where my body piercing was and a tattoo that I wish I didn’t have.

I got a navel piercing and tattoo to be different and cool. After a while of having both, I didn’t care much about showing them off. It really surprised me in a way when people would point to me and ask me about my tattoo. It started to annoy me that when certain people noticed my body piercing or tattoo, I suddenly had become more cool in their eyes. I felt like they liked me more, only after they had found out that I was the type of person who would have a body piercing or tattoo.

Shortly after I got my tattoo, I realized that a lot more people from many different groups of society were getting body piercings and tattoos. The trend of tattoos and body piercings was becoming popular among more and more people regardless of what "group" they were in (i.e. the "rebellious" crowd, as well as the more average straight-laced group of people).

After a few years I got sick of my body piercing because so many other people were doing the same thing. Then it came down to deciding whether I wanted metal or a scar. I chose the scar.

Here’s why:

After I was touched by the Lord I was told by a friend that body piercing and tattoos were wrong because the Bible said so. I was immediately defensive and confused. I wanted to follow the Lord and do what was right in His eyes. So, while I was with my friend one time we decided to look it up in our NIV Bibles for ourselves. We found Leviticus 19:28: "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord."

We couldn’t find anything that directly said you should not pierce your body. In fact, I was surprised to see in certain parts of Scripture that women wore nose rings in the Old Testament. For instance, Abraham’s servant gave Rebekah a nose ring as a gift when he knew he had found the right wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:34-51 NIV). I believe, however, that nose rings were common in their culture, just as common as earrings have been in American culture for a long time. Therefore, there is not the same reasons behind Rebekah wearing a nose ring as someone in America might have today. It would be as simple as her being given earrings today.

I decided to pray about whether it was right for me to have a body piercing and tattoo. During the time I was praying and seeking God about this the Lord led me to Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

I was also convicted by 1 Corinthians 3:16 NIV: "Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple."

I felt that I had harmed my body by tattooing it and piercing it. I passed out when I got my body pierced and came close to passing out when I got my tattoo. Basically, I went through a lot of pain to look cool. I felt that it was wrong for me to have pierced and tattooed my body, especially because of the reasons behind both--vanity and pride. Between vanity and pride and harming my body that the Lord had created I knew that I had sinned. Now I can see that I was not honoring God with my body by piercing it and putting a permanent mark on it. Although I was able to remove my piercing, my tattoo is not something that I can just wash away. It is on my leg to stay.

I know the Lord has forgiven me. His grace and love are so amazing. I was living a sinful, ungodly life and then I found the Lord. Jesus died for us all and God raised Him from the dead so that our sins can be forgiven and that we may be cleansed of our iniquities. Now, we can enter into an amazing love relationship with Him. God did this all through Jesus! The point of this testimony is to share how I was convicted of sin in my life. It doesn’t matter what the sin was. We all need to repent and follow the Lord. If we love Him, we will obey Him.

John 14:15 NIV: "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

1 John 5:3-5 NIV: "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."

Contributed by a young Christian girl who asked to remain anonymous.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Russian Cartoon About the Tikhvin Mother of God Icon

This is a beautiful Russian cartoon about the Tikhvin Mother of God Icon. I don't know Russian, though I know many of my readers do, so the only reason I post this is so someone can translate it.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Panegyric to Great Martyr Theodore the Tyro

St. Theodore the Tyro (Feast Day - February 17)

In Praise of Blessed Theodore, the Great Martyr

by Saint Gregory of Nyssa

You, the people who belong to Christ, a holy flock, a royal priesthood which had come from every place, city and the countryside, what is the source of that sign which brought you to this sacred place? Who are you who hasten here and planned this [journey] beforehand? Is it not the season of winter which is untroubled by war, when armed soldiers are not present, sailors set sail over the foamy [waves] and the farmer puts to rest the ox used for plowing in the stall? It is not clear that the holy martyr sounded the trumpet from among the roster of warriors, rouses people from diverse regions to a place of rest, proclaims a home, not in preparation for war but to a sweet and attractive peace for Christians? We believe that in the year when the barbarian invasion stopped and the horrible war against the savage Sythians came to an end we witnessed no frightening, terrible war, no triple crested helmet nor a brandished sword glittering in the sun, but the all-powerful cross of Christ which wards them off, the means by which he obtained glory through his suffering.

Furthermore, I ask you to consider closely those who keep blameless religious observance such as the martyrs who compose an outstanding assembly of the just as well as those deemed worthy of recompense while still in the world. Let me affirm that they are still with us. Their great honor is open for all to see: by recognizing the fruit of piety, you must strive to share in their reverence. Desire the honors which Christ dispenses according to the worthiness of his athletes. But if it pleases him that we may enjoy future benefits which a pure hope offers to the just when the judge of our lives comes to us, we may see the company of the saints which is so magnificent and glorious. For the soul which is ascending is fond of residing in its own inheritance and converses in an incorporeal manner with its own brethren; the body a deserving and immaculate vehicle for that purpose which never allows the harm originating from its own passions to reside with incorruptibility. Enwrapped with much honor and solicitude, it dwells in this holy place as an inestimable treasure reserved for the time of regeneration and shares the uniqueness with regard to other bodies. For this common death which is similar in nature has no comparison. There are other abominable matters, for example, no one should lightly disregard the tomb, but if this person opens himself to persuasion, he is liable to have no share in the repugnance of this present age, thereby avoiding the burden of the human condition.

Should a person come to a place similar to our assembly today where the memory of the just and the rest of the saints is present, first consider this house's great dignity to which souls are lead. God's temple is brightly adorned with magnificence and is embellished with decorations, pictures of animals which masons have fashioned with delicate silver figures. It exhibits images of flowers made in the likeness of the martyr's virtues, his struggles, sufferings, the various savage actions of tyrants, assaults, that fiery furnace, the athlete's blessed consummation and the human form of Christ presiding over all these events. They are like a book skillfully interpreting by means of colors which express the martyr's struggles and glorify the temple with resplendent beauty. The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence and offer significant testimony; the pavement on which people tread is combined with small stones and is significant to mention in itself.

These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr's] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing. If anyone takes dust from the martyr's resting place, it is a gift and a deserving treasure. Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled. The body appears as if it were alive and healthy: the eyes, mouth, ears, as well as the other senses are a cause for pouring out tears of reverence and emotion. In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek.

From all this, oh devout people, learn that "the death of His holy ones is admirable before the Lord" [Ps 115.6], for all men comprise one and the same body; they share the same substance as one dough and are carried off to death. However, the martyr's suffering bestows grace which is lovable, joyful and undeniable as the text above teaches. Therefore we believe that appearances hold out the promise of future blessings procured from trials endured in the world. Many are those who pursue [pleasures of] the stomach, vainglory and the rubbish of all this world's charms while neglecting that which is to come; rather, such persons believe that death puts an end to all these things [Phil 3.19]. But a thoughtful person will learn about great matters from that which is small and about archetypes from shadows. To whom will the honor of kings go? Who will be remembered among men with regard to that arrogance resulting from visible reality? Which general who has captured fortified cities and has enslaved many peoples is celebrated as this soldier, poor man and conscript, whom Paul has armed [Eph 6.11] and whom the angels have anointed for combat and whom Christ has crowned with victory [2 Tim 4.8]? Since these words unite you to the martyr's trials, follow the saint's uncommon example and forsake any useless pursuit because everyone loves such things.

The fatherland is majestic by reason of beholding the sun. Job is noble because he came from the [land of the] sun's rising and continued to observe those customs with which he was acquainted [Job 1.3]. On the other hand, the martyr possesses the entire earth and every citizen who dwells under the sun. However, a list of armed men is taken from that vicinity when their regiment is transferred to our region where its leaders post them to rest during the winter. But when war suddenly arises not by an incursion of barbarians but by Satan's ordinance and decree which God opposes (for every Christian is put under the ban of a severe prescription and is condemned to death), the thrice blessed [Theodore] reveals his piety and gives witness everywhere to his faith in Christ in addition to being inscribed upon the forehead with a confession. He is no longer a novice nor untried by battle and combat, but has fortified his soul to resist dangers; he is neither afraid nor a coward reluctant to speak. The evil spirits have convened a court along with their leaders and taxiarchs which is reminiscent of Herod and Pilate who condemned the Lord to be crucified by a similar judgment. They said, "What is the source of your courage, you who dare to mock the king's decree? Do you not submit in trembling to those royal decrees? Do you not worship the authorities who are in power?" Maximianus was then king whom these leaders served.

With stern countenance and resolute mind [Theodore] responded to their charges by saying, "I do not know the gods because they are false, whereas you err by honoring and addressing them, having been influenced by demons who have deceived you from [the worship of] God [cf. Jn 3.18]. But as for me, Christ is God, the Only Begotten Son of God. Therefore on behalf of the true religion and by confessing him, let him who inflicts wounds go ahead and cut; let him who strikes thrash; let him who burns lead to the flame, and let him who is grieved by my words cut out my tongue. Each member of the body needs patience bestowed by the Creator." The tyrants were at a loss by these words and could not sustain the first refutation of his integrity because this youth was bursting with passion and sought death as if it were a sweet drink.

For a brief period the [persecutors] were at a loss and took counsel with regard to future action. One of the military leaders with a refined demeanor scorned the martyr by the following response: "Theodore, are you the Son of God? Was he born to suffer as a man? My god was not born for this purpose, but I believe that he is a son and that his birth befits his divinity. But you and your childish, pathetic reasoning should make you blush and hide due to your profession in an effeminate god whom, like a mother, you worship her twelve sons who gave birth to a multitude of demons just like a hare or a sow which effortlessly conceive and give birth!"

The tyrants mocked the saint by this two pronged attack of idolatry and under the guise of clemency said, "Give us a short time to consider such madness. Perhaps by giving him a brief rest he might change his mind for the better." These [despots] called wisdom insanity, reckoned madness and labeled derangement eloquence just like drunks who vehemently berate sober persons. However, this pious man and soldier of Christ made full use of manly behavior in the respite allotted to him.

What did he do? You certainly have enough time to ponder over his tale with joy. The gods' temple erected to their mythical mother was located in the capitol city of Amasea by a river bank where such mislead persons devised their folly. But the noble man remained fearless while his detractors watched for an opportune moment and a occasion because they yearned to accuse him of setting a fire and impatiently expected him to admit it. Once everyone learned of this incident (for a blazing fire started in the midst of the city), [Theodore] did not disclose the deed nor hasten to speak about it. However, it was certainly clear to [his accuser's] arrogance and to the confusion of their great joy that this incident was a source of distress for the temple and its graven image. It was reported to the magistrates that he was responsible for burning the temple and a judgment more fearful than the first resulted due to his provocation.


Once the [judges] took their seats in court, the magistrate eloquently questioned Theodore who stood in their midst and who quickly turned the interrogation into a confession [of faith]. Since they could not accuse him and their fearful threats had no effect, they changed their tactics and benignly attempted to withdraw the accusation by offering him promises. "If you wish to submit to our counsel," they said, "we will at once reinstate your renown from such disgrace, change your ignominy into honor and will swear that you share in the glory which belongs to the office of chief priest." When he heard of this honor, the thrice-blessed [Theodore] said, "I judge the priests of idols as wretched men and pity the attendants of such vain practices. I both greatly feel for and loath the chief priest. He is among the worst and most miserable of men, a fact which is more unimaginable than any unjust circumstance; he is the cruelest of murderers and is more wanton than any dissolute person. Therefore let your devastating actions run their course. Tell me, you who make such depraved promises, by choosing a life of piety and righteousness with respect to God, it is better to be a outcast in God's house than to dwell in the tents of the wicked [Ps 83.11]? I pity the kingdom's subjects to whom you continuously read the iniquitous law because its authority is considerable. They can keep the title of chief priest for themselves, cloth themselves with dark purple in imitation of evil chief priests and wrap their melancholy with bright dignity. When approaching the impure altar, [M.745] they sacrifice butchered birds before kings, examine the entails of wretched cattle, sell meat stained with blood and defile their clothing."

After the just man had uttered these words, the leaders no longer feigned goodwill but accused him as being most disrespectful of the gods, contemptuous of kings and a blasphemer. First they tortured him by tearing his body which they had suspended upon a tree. While the executioners were vigorously at work, he remained steadfast, constant and sang about his torments from the Psalm, "I will bless the Lord at all times, his praise ever in my mouth" [Ps 33.2]. Those torments of the flesh diminished while he sang and were as though another man were being mistreated. In this fashion the prison sanctioned his punishment. Another phenomenon occurred with regard to the saint: at night he heard a multitude singing, and those outside saw their radiant splendor in the dead of night. This marvelous visitation troubled the prison guard and a sound emanated from inside the cell; no one was present except the martyr who remained at peace with the other sleeping prisoners.

After many such events, [Theodore] was strengthened by his confession and piety, and they brought a vote of condemnation upon him. He was ordered to be burned and in this way finished his wonderful, blessed journey to God. However, [Theodore] left behind a lesson from his agony: he summoned the people, taught the church, put demons to flight, brought angelic peace, implored benefits from God, healed various illnesses in that place, provided a safe haven for those tossed by afflictions, was a rich treasury for the poor, a quiet inn of rest for travellers and a continuous festal celebration. If we keep the yearly festival, an enthusiastic multitude will always be in attendance; the highway leading there bore them along like ants with some going and others departing.

Therefore, oh blessed anniversary graciously provided by the Creator, we flock to your festival with the martyrs' holy band which worships a common God. By recalling the victory of our many struggles, you return to us, and when you arrive, you provide us with a day of celebration. We beseech you, whether you dwell in the air above or in some celestial circle or angelic chorus, that you assist the Lord or worship him as a faithful servant with the powers and virtues. Come from that place to those who beseech you, invisible friend! You have learned of his death, a means by which you might give double thanks to God who conferred this favor through one passion and one pious confession that you may rejoice in the blood he shed and in the grievous fire he endured. As a result you will have as worthy ministers those who witnessed the spectacle. We lack many benefactors. Intercede on behalf of the people that they may share one kingdom because the martyr's country is one of affliction whose citizens and brethren and kinsmen have died and have been honored. We fear afflictions and expect danger because we are close to the ungodly Sythians who grieve us with war. As a soldier, fight for us; as a martyr, grant courage to your fellow servants. Since you have prevailed over this life yet are familiar with humanity's sufferings and needs, grant peace that the festivals may continue, that the furious, insolent, mad barbarians might not triumph over the temples or altars and that they might not tread the holy place.

We who have been kept safe and unharmed ponder your beneficence and implore protection for the future. Should we experience stress and dishonor, let your people beseech the chorus of your fellow martyrs; the prayers of many just people will exonerate sin. Remember Peter, awaken Paul along with John the theologian and beloved disciple, who are solicitous on behalf of the churches which they have founded and on whose behalf they endured dangers and death. They did not engage in idol worship which was inimical to our Head [Christ] in order that heresy may resemble thorns to pluck out vines, that weeds might not suffocate wheat, that no rock hinder the true, rich dew and that anything without root may show the power of the fertile word [cf. Mt 13.25, 7, 20]. But by the power of your intercession and those with you, oh marvelous and most bright among the martyrs, the young shoot will return to you, the flourishing citizenship of Christians will endure to the end in the splendid, fruitful field of faith in Christ which always bears the fruit of eternal life in Christ Jesus the Lord. To him with the Father and Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor now and forever. Amen.

Apolytikion in the Second Tone
Great are the achievements of faith! In the fountain of flame, as by the water of rest, the holy Martyr Theodore rejoiced; for having been made a whole-burnt offering in the fire, he was offered as sweet bread unto the Trinity. By his prayers, O Christ God, save our souls.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
Having received the Faith of Christ in thy heart as a breastplate, thou didst trample upon the enemy hosts, O much-suffering champion; and thou hast been crowned eternally with a heavenly crown, since thou art invincible.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Icon of the Mother of God "Tikhvin" on Mt Athos

The Weeping Tikhvin Icon of Mt. Athos is to be found behind the altar in the Prophet Elias Skete. On February 17, 1877 (Thursday of the Second Week of Lent) seven monks remained in the church after the Hours had been read. They were astonished to see tears flowing from the right eye of the icon, and collecting on the frame. Then a single large tear came from the left eye.

The monks wiped the tears from the icon's face, then left the church and locked the doors behind them. Three hours later, they returned for Vespers and saw traces of tears on the icon, and a single tear in the left eye. Again they wiped the tears from the icon, but they did not reappear.

Regarding this manifestation of tears as a sign of mercy from the Mother of God, the monks established an annual commemoration of the icon on February 17. The weeping Tikhvin Icon of Mt. Athos is not to be confused with the original wonderworking Tikhvin Icon (June 26).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Fr. John Karastamatis' Murderer Denied Parole

Man Who Killed Santa Cruz Priest Denied Parole for Five Years

By Jennifer Squires
Santa Cruz Sentinel
02/08/2010

VACAVILLE - A former taxicab driver who pleaded no contest to killing the first priest of Santa Cruz's Greek Orthodox church was denied parole Monday, the Santa Cruz District Attorney's Office reported.

Edward Bowman, now 63, was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison in 1988 and Monday's hearing at Solano State Prison was his third chance for release and parole. The Parole Board ruled he will not be eligible again until 2015, according to Jeff Rosell, the assistant district attorney assigned to the case.

Priest John Karastamatis was bludgeoned and stabbed to death outside the office of The Prophet Elias Greek Orthodox Church in downtown Santa Cruz on May 19, 1985. He was 47.

Bowman, a parishioner, was arrested in January 1986 as the investigation focused on he and his wife, Anna. She had killed herself during a standoff with Santa Cruz police at the couple's River Street home in December 1985 that started when she fired through the door at detectives, according to Sentinel archives. Investigators said she also would have faced charges, if she had not died.

What led to the brutal slaying hasn't ever been sorted out. Investigators and the District Attorney's Office have said the priest possibly interrupted the Bowman's burglarizing the church, but Bowman has had several alternate explanations.

"Basically, it was self defense was what he said this time," Rosell said, speaking of Bowman's statements to the Parole Board on Monday. "It was absolutely contradictory to the evidence."

The inconsistencies in Bowman's explanation of the crime was one of the reasons the Parole Board cited in denying Bowman's release, according to the District Attorney's Office.

To Bowman's credit, he hasn't been involved in violence during his incarceration, according to the D.A.'s Office.

"He's doing the things inside that an inmate should be doing," Rosell said, such as taking classes.

The hearing drew many of Karastamatis' relatives and lasted the entire afternoon, Rosell said.

"A lot of people spoke at the hearing," he said, adding that, other than Bowman, everyone who commented at the hearing was in favor of keeping the Bowman behind bars.

Karastamatis and his family helped solidify the Greek community in the county in the early 1980s and were instrumental in the construction of the congregation's first church building. His widow, Anastasia, remains active at Prophet Elias.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Myrrh Flows From Icon of St. Evgeny Rodionov

Icon of Soldier Beheaded For Not Taking Off His Cross Gives Myrrh in Penza Church

Penza, 17 February 2010, Interfax – An icon of Evgeny Rodionov has started giving myrrh in the St. Luke Church at the Penza regional oncologic dispenser. The Russian soldier Rodionov was executed in Chechnya in 1996 as he refused to renounce his Orthodox faith.

“Myrrh came out in two spots, in a palm of his hand and where one wears the cross,” the church Rector Alexy Burtsev told journalists.

According to him, it happened during the All-Night Vigil on February 15. Parishioners, who stood behind praying, felt a strange pleasant aroma.

The priest noted that on February 15, 1996, Penza-born Evgeny Rodionov was captured in Chechnya, imprisoned for a hundred days, and when he refused to renounce his Christian faith, militants beheaded him.

See also here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodox Cross to be Planted at Southernmost Point of America

Russian Traveler Fedor Konyukhov to Set Orthodox Cross on the Southernmost Point of American Continent

Bobruisk, 17 February 2010, Interfax – Renowned Russian traveler Fedor Konyukhov will set a worship cross at Cape Horn (Chili) to commemorate perished sailors.

The cross was made and consecrated in Bobruisk. Students of Bobruisk Art College №15 gave it as a present to Konyukhov, the local Diocese reports.

Cape Horn is southernmost tip of Tierra del Fuego archipelago located off South American mainland. Shipwrecks lie buried here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Global Warming Honcho Finally Fesses Up

The disgraced former head of a U.N. backed climate research center admits

1. No global warming in the last 15 years.

2. It might have been warmer in medieval times than now.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

PNAS: Free Will Into the Dumpster

17 February 2010
Paul Nelson
Uncommondescent.com

The article is open access, so you can choose to download it. Or choose not to download it. Or choose to click over to YouTube, or the Huffington Post, to see what’s doing there.

Whatever happens, “you” — meaning the person reading this right now — won’t be making a decision. Physics and chemistry will. These forces will inform you of their “decision,” so to speak, by the perceptual illusion, constructed in the infinite wisdom of natural selection, which gives you the misleading sense of having made a choice. Otherwise known as free will, which doesn’t exist.

Anthony Cashmore, the author of this Inaugural Article in the PNAS, is a molecular biologist and botanist at the Universtiy of Pennsylvania. I didn’t see a single sentence about botany in the article, but I suppose National Academy members have catholic [small c, please] interests and can range over the intellectual landscape to alight on whatever problems attract them.

What I really didn’t see, however, was any new science. As Cashmore notes, the existence (or not) of free will has been debated since antiquity. It’s a classically philosophical problem. The pages of the PNAS are open to materialistic solutions, as evidenced by the Cashmore article. His Inaugural Article, remember: this is what a botanist most wants to say to his NAS colleagues, by way of introducing himself.

Could a defender of the reality of free will — i.e., of an irreducible person acting from mind, on the basis of reasons, goals, ends or purposes — publish her arguments in the PNAS? After all, that’s the other side of this ancient debate.

Homework assignment: Did the members of the National Academy really elect, as in choose, Cashmore? Or should that be credited to physics too?

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Evolution A Fact?

Just to Recap:

Darwin was wrong.
Missing links still missing.
There is no such thing as junk DNA.
Birds did not descend from Dinosaurs.
Irreducible complexity is still irreducibly complex.
Tiktaalik has been invalidated by an earlier ancestor.
Haeckel’s embryo drawings are still fake (and still in textbooks).

Yet, evolution is a fact?

Tweet

Share on Tumblr