The 'Protocols of Zion' in Orthodoxy and Its Unfortunate Distribution

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?"

- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Achipelago

I post the articles below to inform Orthodox Christians of the reality of the distribution of the forged and ridiculous document known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Orthodox circles. This is not only done in Russia which is well known, but also in Greece, Mount Athos, Serbia, certain Orthodox Monasteries in North America and many other places with a majority Orthodox population. Today this document is becoming extremely popular in Islamic countries where the ideology known as "The Narrative" uses it to make up lies against Jews and Americans.

Unfortunately it is even referred to by some venerable holy elders and saints of the past and present who accepted it in the simplicity of their hearts and were mislead by its contents, which is not uncommon in the history of the Church or in the lives of the Saints. The Protocols follow a certain paradigm that, although extremist and false, could fit in with an Orthodox worldview if it were indeed true. Since most of our holy elders and saints who accepted this document were not scholars to evaluate its forged nature, I don't think it is proper to blame them for endorsing it. However, what is lacking is a critical evaluation of this document within Orthodox circles for those who are zealous for the Faith and seek the Truth above all else. It is in this spirit that they accept and endorse The Protocols, and it is in this spirit that they should also reject it when encountered with the Facts which should help enlighten the Truth of our Faith. These Facts should lead to the inevitable conclusion that not only are The Protocols a false document, but the illusion that Zionism is the great enemy of the Church, which is a concept inherited through these Protocols, is also without basis except through one's imagination and speculation.

I will not over-extend myself in a long refutation of The Protocols of the Holy Elders of Zion here, but I do want to cite a few articles below to help begin ones research of this document and the ideology behind it. And I would encourage people to be aware of this information so that we can help illuminate our sincere brothers and sisters in Christ who unwittingly undermine Orthodoxy by their endorsement of this forgery.

1. Moscow Times: 'Protocols of Zion' Puts Church in Hot Water - This article reveals the reality of the distribution of The Protocols in Russia and the war against its distribution. More can be read here about the effects of The Protocols in Russian society.

2. The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion - This is the Wikipedia entry for the document that does an excellent job in a summary format exposing the fraud and forgery behind it. This is an excellent place for one to begin their research.

3. The London Times Exposure - The London Times was the first to totally expose the forgery in 1921.

4. SERMON AGAINST THE POGROMS by Saint Antony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan of Kiev - The Protocols arose during the time of the pogroms of Russia when Jews became the scapegoat for Russian miseries and Bolshevism. Saint Antony in this sermon (April 20, 1903) tries to illumine his listeners against such a mindset of hatred and enmity against the Jews and he forms here a proper Orthodox attitude towards the Jews.

5. EXPOSÉ OF ... "THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION" - This is a short history of how The Protocols became popular in America to promote anti-Bolshevik bias.

6. Jews Protest The Protocols - This article from the 1920's further shows how popular this forgery was becoming in America and to what extent the Jews went to fight its distribution and endorsement.

7. Sergei Nilus - This is the man responsible for first publishing this forged document in Russia which lead to its distribution throughout Europe by Russian expatriates after the 1917 revolution. Another piece here shows a contemporary Orthodox extremist perspective on this man in relation to The Protocols and how its justification is done based solely on his great veneration for St. Seraphim of Sarov.

8. THE JEWISH QUESTION IN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH - This piece puts the question in a proper contemporary perspective.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

What Is the Mark of the True Christian?

by St. Anastasius the Sinaite

St. Anastasius was a priest and abbot of Mt. Sinai. His zeal for true faith led him to travel through Egypt, Arabia, and Syria to combat the errors of the Acephalites and Eutychians. His writings show not only a thorough command of Holy Scripture and a wide knowledge of the writing of the Church Fathers and other Christian writers, but also classical erudition and a solid grounding in Aristotelian philosophy. Of his prolific output the most important works are Guide Against the Acephalites and Answers to Questions. It is from the latter that the present passage is translated. St. Anastasius died in great old age in 686.[1]

QUESTION: What is the mark of the true Christian?

ANSWER: Some say correct faith and pious works. Jesus, however does not define the true Christian in these terms. It is possible for one to have faith and good works, and to be conceited over these and not to be a perfect Christian. A Christian is a veritable dwelling place of Christ, held together by good works and pious beliefs. True faith, without works is dead, as are works without faith. We must, therefore, use every effort to keep ourselves clean from foul deeds so that it may not be said of us They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him (Titus 1:16), wherefore the Lord says If a man loves Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love Him, and We will come unto him and make Our home with him (John 14:23).

Do we not learn from this that the house of the soul is built through correct belief and good works, and thus God dwells within us. I will dwell in them, He says, and walk in them (II Cor. 6:16). The Apostle also points this out when he says Know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates (II Cor. 13:5)? Will not the devil then know whether or not the Master of the house, Christ, is inside your mind? When he sees you angry, or shouting, or using oaths, or foul language, or blaming someone, or abusing him, or finding fault, or reproaching someone, or condemning, or hating, or treating someone unjustly, or being conceited, or boasting, or being elated, or not praying habitually and remembering death, then he knows that God, your protector and provider is not inside your soul. And so, the evil one enters like a thief, not finding the divine light in your heart, and he loots the house of your soul, and your last state becomes worse than your first.

From Deuteronomy: And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God (Deut. 10:12).

From David: Ye that love the Lord, see to it that ye hate evil (Ps. 96:10); The Lord preserveth all that love Him, but all the sinners shall He utterly destroy (Ps. 144:20). And: for not a God that willest iniquity art Thou. He that worketh evil shall not dwell near Thee, nor shall transgressors abide before Thine eyes (Ps. 5:2, 3).

From Isaiah: And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to Me with their mouth, and they honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: but in vain do they worship Me (Is. 29:12). They seek Me day by day, and desire to know My ways, as a people that had done righteousness, and had not forsaken the judgment of their God (Is. 58:2), says the Lord, and: When ye stretch forth your hands, I will turn away Mine eyes from you, for your hands are full of blood. Wash you, be clean; remove your iniquities from your souls before Mine eyes; cease from your iniquities; learn to do well; diligently seek judgment, deliver him that is suffering wrong, plead for the orphan, and obtain justice for the widow(Is. 1:15-18).

From Solomon: The ways of an ungodly man are an abomination to the Lord; but He loves those that follow after righteousness (Prov. 15:9). And: By alms and by faithful dealings sins are purged away; but by the fear of the Lord every one departs from evil (Prov. 15:27).

From Sirach: Say not, I have sinned, and what harm hath happened unto me? for the Lord is longsuffering, He will in no wise let thee go… and say not, His mercy is great; He will be pacified for the multitude of my sins: for mercy and wrath come from Him, and his indignation resteth upon sinners (Sir. 5:46). As His mercy is great, so is His correction also: He judgeth a man according to His works… for every man shall find according to his works (Sir. 16:12-14).

From the Apostolic Constitutions: “Therefore let him who is to be baptized be a stranger to wickedness, abstaining from sin, a friend of God, an enemy of the devil, an heir of God, a co-heir of Christ, renouncing Satan and his demons and his works, chaste, pure, holy, a lover of God, a son of God, praying as a son to the Father and saying thus as is the custom of the faithful: Our Father, Who art in heaven,… [2] So that he may not call God Father unworthily, and be reproached by Him, as Israel, the first born son who once heard that A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor (Mal. 1:6)? For the glory of fathers is the holiness of their children, and the honor of a master is the fear of his servants. [3]

From St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Lord’s Prayer: “He Who is good does not have the nature to become the father of an evil will, nor the Holy One of one polluted in his life; nor He Who is changeless of one constantly changing; nor He Who is Life of one dead through sin; nor He Who is pure and untainted of one disfigured by disgraceful passions; nor the bountiful one of a miser; nor He Who is found in every good, in any way of those who are involved in evil. If anyone looking at himself sees that he still needs cleansing and he recognizes his conscience as being full of defilement and evil crimes, and, before cleansing himself of these and similar evils, he insinuates himself into God’s family by calling Him Father, being unrighteous, he calls on the Righteous One, being impure he calls the Pure One Father, his words would be insult and mockery, as if he were naming God as the Father of his own vileness. For the word father indicates the cause of the one who comes to exist through him.

“Therefore a man who with a bad conscience calls God his father does nothing other than blame God as the author and cause of his own wickedness. But light has not fellowship with darkness, says the Apostle. Light rather associates itself with light, the just with the just, the incorrupt with the incorrupt. Their opposites, however, relate to their own kind. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Matt. 7:18).

“If then someone who is slow of heart and seeks after lying, as Scripture says, dares to use the words of the prayer, let him know that the father he calls is not the heavenly one, but rather, the infernal one, for he is a liar and become the father of lies, within whomever they be. He is sin and the father of sin. For this reason those who are subject to passions are called children of wrath, and the apostate from Life is called the son of perdition.

“Would you like to know the properties of the evil character? They are envy, hate, slander, conceit, avarice, passionate lust, and the sickness of megalomania. These and suchlike characterize the form of the adversary. If someone whose soul is infected with such stains were to call on the Father, what sort of father would hear him? Clearly the one who has kinship with the one who calls on him, and this is not the heavenly one, but the infernal one. The one whose family features he bears will recognize the family relationship. Thus the prayer of an evil man, as long as he persists in his wickedness, becomes an invocation of the devil. When he has abandoned his wickedness and lives innocently, his voice will call on the good Father.”

The same Gregory, To the Monk Lybbius: “If someone puts on the name of Christ, but does not show a life corresponding to that name, he makes a lie of the name. For neither is it possible for the Lord not to be justice, purity and truth, and estrangement for every evil, nor is it possible for a Christian not to show that he partakes of those qualities.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism: “It is of no benefit to us to be called Christians if we do not correspond in our deeds. For it is written: If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham (John 8:39).”

St. John Chrysostom, On St. Matthew: “Whoever calls God Father, with this small word, confessed the remission of sins, the redemption from punishment, justification, sanctification, liberation, adoption as son, kinship with the Only-Begotten, and the bestowal of the Spirit. Nor is it possible for someone to call God Father, if he is not a partaker of all those good things, and has not become a son of God. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Rom. 8:14). Thus whoever calls God Father should demonstrate appropriate behavior so as not to appear unworthy of the kinship. No man can serve two masters… God and mammon (Matt. 6:24).”

“Do not philosophize too much, for God has declared it once and for all and said that it is impossible for service of one to be compatible with service of the other. So do not say it is possible. For, when one tells you to seize (others’ property) and the other tells you to free yourself of what you have; one says to be chaste, the other to fornicate; one says to eat and drink, the other to fast and exercise self-control; the one to despise things of this world, the other to cleave to them; the one to marvel at marble walls and buildings, the other not to value these things but rather to pursue philosophy, how is it possible for these to be compatible with each other?

“He here calls mammon a master, not because of its own nature, but because of the wretchedness of those who bow and submit to it. Thus the Apostle calls the belly a god, not because of any worthiness of such a mistress, but from the wretchedness of those who serve her.”

St. Basil the Great, from The Ascetics: “If we believe the Lord when He says, Whoseover committeth sin is the servant of sin (John 8:34), and again, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8:44), we see that he (the sinner) is not only in fellowship, but a slave (of the devil), and his father and his master he calls the one whose work he does. The Apostle also bears witness to this, saying, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness (Rom. 6:16)? Nor should faith be dead, as the body without the spirit is dead. And again: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19). The Lord asks, why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? We, who are ruled by the Lord, must confess Him also by our actions, not having sin reigning or ruling within us, so that it may not be said of us that they loved Him with their mouth… their heart was not right with Him (Ps. 77:39).

“Let us listen to the Apostle saying, Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate,… nor drunkards, … nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9,10). And again, no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be ye not partakers with them (Eph. 5:5-7). If we were to be among these, we who claim to believe, who await the kingdom, we would not be partners of the King, but associates of the King’s enemies.

“If we have come to know Christ, we have come to know the Truth. If we know the Truth, we will live in truth, in our deeds. Otherwise, when He comes again, He will put our lot with the unbelievers, saying: Verily I say unto you, I know you not (Matt. 25:12). It will not help us to cry, Lord, Lord. Even the demons believe with an empty faith.

Chrysostom, On Fasting: “Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee, the lifting up of my hands… (Ps. 140:2). Look at your hands and examine them. And if they hold nothing stolen or defiling, say this with boldness: Let my prayer be set forth as incense. If you have stolen something or committed something forbidden, do not call, do not lift your hands until you cease your wickedness. Even if, by God’s permission, you are able to lift your hands, your prayer, being defiled, can in no way ascend to heaven, but you will hear When ye stretch forth your hands, I will turn away mine eyes from you: and though ye make many supplications, I will not hearken to you (Is. 1:15).”

Chrysostom, On St. Matthew: “Let us now learn what things defile a man. Let us learn, and shun them. Even in the Church we see among many that they try to keep such a custom, to make an effort to come in clean clothing, and to wash their hands and feet, but not even giving a thought to presenting God with a clean soul. Saying this, I do not forbid anyone to wash his hands and his mouth, but I would that he wash them as is proper. Not only with water, but, instead of water, with virtues. Defilement of the hands is theft, evil actions, attacks on one’s neighbor. (Defilement) of the mouth is blasphemy, abuse, foul language, ribaldry, mockery, insult.

“If, then, you are conscious of committing or uttering none of these things, nor being defiled by any of these defilements, come with confidence. Or have you received these defilements a myriad times? Do you rinse your hands and tongue, but carry in them deadly and noxious filth? Tell me, if you had dung and mire in your hands, would you dare to pray? Not at all. There is, however, no harm in these, in the other there is death and destruction. How is it that you show piety in the irrelevant but indifference to what is forbidden? What then, says one, should one not pray? One should, but not in a defiled state and in such filth. What then, he says, if I have been taken by it? Cleanse yourself. How and by what means? Weep, groan, give alms, confess, apologize to those offended by you, be reconciled. With these wipe clean your tongue, so as not to anger God more greatly.

“If someone were to embrace your feet with hands full of dung, you would not only not hear him, but even repel him with your foot. How do you then thus dare to approach God? The tongue of one who prays is the hand with which we embrace God’s knees. Do not therefore defile it, so that He may not say to you: Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear you. Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. 18:21). By your words you will be either justified or condemned. You do not dare to pray fresh after the company of your wife, but after abusive and insulting speech and other wickedness you stretch forth your hands before being properly cleansed. How do you not tremble, tell me, calling on that terrible and awesome name? Have you not heard St. Paul say: I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hand without wrath and doubting (I Tim. 2:8).

Chrysostom, On St. John: “The Lord tells us that faith is of no benefit to us if our life remains corrupt: Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; Many will say unto Me on that day Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Thy name?… And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you (Matt. 7:21-23). What use is faith when the Lord does not acknowledge us? When we do not do God’s will, we are in the snare of the devil. And, just as the sparrow, even if it is not completely entangled, but caught only by one foot, is in the trapper’s power, so it is also with us. Even if we are not completely entangled, but only in respect to either our faith or our life, we are in the devil’s power, for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (II Peter 2:19).”

St. John of the Ladder: “He who claims to have true faith, but commits sins, is like a face with no eyes. Conversely, he who does not have faith, but is good in his actions is like one drawing water and pouring it into a vessel with holes.”

Mark the Monk: “Some, without doing the commandments, think they have right faith. Others, doing (the commandments), expect the kingdom as their just desert. Both miss out on the kingdom.”

Maximus the Monk, from The Ascetic Chapters: “A Christian pursues wisdom in the following three things: the commandments, dogma, and faith. The commandments free the mind from the passions, dogma leads to a knowledge of the truth, and faith to contemplation of the Holy Trinity, to Whom be all glory, honor, and worship, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages.”

Endnotes

1. Archbishop Filaret of Chernigov: Historical Study of the Church Fathers (in Russian), vol. 3, p. 178.

2. Apostolic Constitutions, 3:18.

3. Apostolic Constitutions, 7:24.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The True Faith Must Be Persecuted In This World

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Reflection:

The True Faith must be persecuted in this world. The Savior Himself said this clearly and openly to His apostles.

St. Apollinaris of Hierapolis in writing against the Montanist heretics says: "Let them tell us before God who, out of all their prophets, beginning with Montanus and his wives, was persecuted by the Jews and killed by the ungodly? No one. Who, from among them was taken away for of the Name of Christ and was crucified on the cross? Again, no one. Have any one of the women ever been flogged or stoned in the Jewish synagogues? Nowhere and never."

However, the Orthodox saint wants to say, that the True Faith must be persecuted in this world. Heresies are generally closer to the worldly and demonic spirit, which is why the world and the demon do not persecute their own. To be constantly persecuted, with brief intervals in between, is a characteristic of the Faith and of the Orthodox Church. This persecution existed throughout all of history, either from without or within; externally from unbelievers and internally from heretics.

HOMILY: About the Persecution of the Pious

"It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God" (Acts of the Apostles 14:22).

"In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12).

The Lord Jesus prophesied this and by His example He proved it. The apostles also said this and by their examples they proved it. All the God-bearing Fathers of the Church, confessors and martyrs said this and they proved this by their example.

Therefore, is there any need to doubt that, through a narrow door, one enters the kingdom of God? Should we hesitate for a moment that, "it is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God?" No, there is no basis nor justification for doubt. Can sheep live among the wolves and not be attacked by them? Can a candle burn in the midst of cross winds and not sway back and forth? Can a good fruit-bearing tree grow along side the road and not be disturbed by passersby? Thus, the Church of pious souls cannot but be persecuted and be persecuted by heathens, by idolaters, by heretics, by apostates, from passions and vices, from sin and transgressions, from the world and by demons. So it is that not one devout soul can remain without persecution, be it externally or internally, until it is separated from the body and the world.

Someone might oppose this and prove it otherwise according to his calculation and according to his logic. But, in this case, neither the mind nor the logic of one man is of any avail. Thousands who were crucified speak otherwise, thousands burned alive cry out otherwise, thousands who were beheaded prove otherwise and thousands who were drowned witness otherwise. O my brethren, the Christian Faith is mighty not only when it agrees with sensory reasoning and sensory logic but when, and especially when, it contradicts sensory reasoning and sensory logic.

Those who want to live a godly-life will be persecuted. This the apostle prophesied at the beginning of the Christian era and twenty Christian centuries render a multi-voiced echo to confirm the truth of the prophecy.

O Resurrected Lord, grant us light that we may be pious to the end and give us the strength to endure persecution to the end. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Could This Be Noah's Ark?

A story worth watching: new Noah’s Ark claim on Ararat at over 4000 meters (14,000 feet, above permanent snow line and well above tree line). Pictures show wood beams, complex joints, wooden nails, racks, doors, staircases and rooms in a large structure buried under the ice that might have preserved it for millennia. Too early to comment; read the announcement and look at the pictures. Click on ENG on the site for English. See also CMI news flash, Discovery Online, and WND.

Other possible explanations should be considered before jumping to conclusions, but the amount of detail in the photographs and the number of witnesses, the exploration all documented on film, makes it very intriguing to say the least, much more detailed than most prior eyewitness accounts. However, some spectacular claims in the past have turned out to evaporate on inspection. The principle “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” should restrain acceptance of the claim at face value. CMI updated its post with some cautions about the credibility of the team, but it appears those doubts are being cast by a rival search team. This claim will require corroboration by independent investigators and clarity about the location and characteristics: detailed maps and multiple measurements.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Hawking Suffers Paranoid Delusions

Cosmologist Suffers Paranoid Delusions: Media Promotes His Views

April 26, 2010
Creation-Evolution Headlines

“They’re coming to get us, and I’m sure of it, because I know everything.” What would you think of someone who talked like that? What if he were one of the most famous cosmologists alive today? The man is Stephen Hawking – that wheelchair-bound math wizard who talks with a speech synthesizer and once fell into a black hole in The Simpsons. Now, the Discovery Channel is poised to air his views on SETI and alien life, and the science media, as usual, can’t get enough of his opinions.

The BBC News reported that Hawking considers it “perfectly rational” to believe that aliens exist, but he also believes we should do everything possible to avoid making contact. He said, “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.” Normally, scientists do not try to build a universal principle from a sample size of one. PhysOrg briefly parroted these opinions without comment, as did Jessica Griggs at New Scientist. Clara Moskowitz gave Hawking the most paranoid-sounding headline, though, on Space.com: “If Aliens Exist,They May Come to Get Us, Stephen Hawking Says.”

Along with Hawking’s evidence-challenged delusions that they’re out to get us, he believes he has an inside scoop on the secrets of the universe. The next episode of his Discovery Channel series, Moskowitz revealed, is titled, “The Story of Everything.”

With all due respect to Hawking’s struggle with ALS and the courage he has exhibited in his many years proving that a life is valuable despite physical disabilities, these factors are no excuse for saying dumb things. The men in blue suits tried to cure this madman of his delusions by subjecting him to shock treatment in NASA’s “Vomit Comet” in 2007 (picture above and on Engadget.com), but it obviously didn’t work. But then, would you expect evolutionary psychologists to cure paranoia brought on by evolutionary cosmology? The Discovery Channel should look for more rational content at the Discovery Institute. We had a little fun here at Hawking’s expense, the poor, good-natured genius. Now read what physicist Rob Sheldon thinks of all this.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Media Scares: From the Printing Press to Facebook

Don't Touch That Dial!

A history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook.

By Vaughan Bell
Feb. 15, 2010
Slate

A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment. It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565. His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.

Read the rest here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

9 Sites of Cult Massacres and Suicides

By NileGuide

Cult. For you, the word may conjure up images of The Rocky Horror Picture Show or Kevin Smith’s Clerks, but there’s a big difference between cult classics and classic cults. The former are fun, lovable, and infinitely re-playable pieces of nearly pop culture. The latter are scary, overzealous, and fanatic organizations that reap real harm on victims and their families.

Cults have existed for as long as people have been getting together and listening sincerely to the most charming guy in the room. In modern times, we’ve seen a resurgence of charismatic religious prophets guiding their flocks with drug-induced visions of apocalyptic futures. Race wars, judgment days, alien infiltration; all are fair game for tall tales that will get a large group of people to commit horrible acts like mass suicide or massacre. Let’s take a look at some of the most infamous destructive cults, where to find their headquarters, and what to do while you’re touring the abodes of those bat-guano crazy cult leaders.

Read the list of macabre tourist sites here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The 5 Most Fraudulent Psychics of All-Time

Over the years, plenty of frauds have sought to prey on those desperate to connect with lost love ones. Regardless of your beliefs on psychic abilities, the case against mysticism is pretty easily made against these five famous psychics and mediums.

See entire piece here.

Here is the list:

5. John Edward
4. Sylvia Browne
3. Miss Cleo
2. Mina Crandon
1. Uri Geller

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

No Evidence For European Ash Cloud

Remember That Ash Cloud? It Didn't Exist, Says New Evidence

By Sean Poulter
26th April 2010
Daily Mail

Britain's airspace was closed under false pretences, with satellite images revealing there was no doomsday volcanic ash cloud over the entire country.

Skies fell quiet for six days, leaving as many as 500,000 Britons stranded overseas and costing airlines hundreds of millions of pounds.

Estimates put the number of Britons still stuck abroad at 35,000.

However, new evidence shows there was no all-encompassing cloud and, where dust was present, it was often so thin that it posed no risk.

The satellite images demonstrate that the skies were largely clear, which will not surprise the millions who enjoyed the fine, hot weather during the flight ban.

Jim McKenna, the Civil Aviation Authority's head of airworthiness, strategy and policy, admitted: 'It's obvious that at the start of this crisis there was a lack of definitive data.

'It's also true that for some of the time, the density of ash above the UK was close to undetectable.'

The satellite images will be used by airlines in their battle to win tens of millions of pounds in compensation from governments for their losses.

The National Air Traffic Control Service decision to ban flights was based on Met Office computer models which painted a picture of a cloud of ash being blown south from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

These models should have been tested by the Met Office's main research plane, a BAE 146 jet, but it was in a hangar to be repainted and could not be sent up until last Tuesday - the last day of the ban.

Evidence has emerged that the maximum density of the ash was only about one 20th of the limit that scientists, the Government, and aircraft and engine manufacturers have now decided is safe.

British Airways chief Willie Walsh always insisted the total shutdown went too far.

'My personal belief is that we could have safely continued operating for a period,' he said.

Mark Tanzer, chief executive of Britain's ABTA, which represents British travel agents and tour operators, said about 100,000 stranded British travellers should have been returned home by Monday morning.

About 35,000 more will remain marooned until Friday, the group said.

'While most flights are back to normal, and most stranded British passengers will be back by the end of this weekend, there is still quite a high level of disruption in some destinations.

'In some areas of the world, there is a significant lack of air capacity to enable British people to be returned quickly,' Tanzer said.

Many Icelandic airports are closed and though authorities say Eyjafjallajokull is now producing much less ash, they confirmed no signs of the eruption ending.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Is Orthodoxy a Religion?

by Fr. John Romanides

Many are of the opinion that Orthodoxy is just one religion among many and that its chief concern is to prepare the members of the Church for life after death, securing a place in Paradise for every Orthodox Christian. Orthodox doctrine is presumed to offer some additional guarantee, because it is Orthodox, and not believing in Orthodox dogma is seen as yet another reason for someone to go to Hell, besides his personal sins that would otherwise send him there. Those Orthodox Christians who believe that this describes Orthodoxy have associated Orthodoxy exclusively with the afterlife. But in this life such people do not accomplish very much. They just wait to die, believing that they will go to paradise for the simple reason that while they were alive they were Orthodox Christians.

Another section of the Orthodox is involved with and active in the Church, interested not in the next life, but chiefly in this life, here and now. What interests them is how Orthodoxy can help them to have a good life in the present. These Orthodox Christians pray to God, have priests say prayers for them, have their homes blessed with holy water, have services of supplication sung, are anointed with oil, and so forth, all so that God will help them to enjoy life in the present: so that they do not get sick, so that their children find their place in society, so that their daughters are ensured a good dowry and a good groom, so that their boys find good girls to marry with good dowries, so that their work goes well, so that their businesses go well, even so that the stock market goes well, or the industry they work in, and so on. So we see that these Christians are not so very different from other people who follow other religions, for those people do the very same things.[1]

From what we have said, we can clearly see that Orthodoxy has two points in common with all other religions. First, it prepares believers for life after death, so that they will go to paradise, whatever they imagine that to be. Second, Orthodoxy protects them in this life so that they will not have to experience sorrow, difficulties, disaster, sickness, war, and the like – in other words, so that God will take care of all their needs and desires. Thus, for this second type of Orthodox Christian, religion plays a major role in the present life and on a daily basis at that.

But among all these Christians we have just discussed, who cares deep down whether God exists or not? Who really yearns for Him and seeks Him out? The question of God's existence does not even come up, since it is clearly better for God to exist, so that we can appeal to Him and ask Him to satisfy our needs, in order for our work to go well and for us to have some happiness in this life. As we can see, human beings have an extremely strong predisposition to want God to exist and to believe that God exists, because we have a need for God to exist in order to ensure everything we have mentioned. Since we need God to exist, therefore, God exists. If people were not in need of a God and could take measures to ensure sufficiency for the necessities of life by some other means, then who knows how many would still believe in God. This is what happens in Greece as a rule.

So we see that many people who were previously indifferent to religion become religious towards the end of their lives, perhaps after some event that has frightened them. This happens because they feel that they cannot live any longer without appealing to some god for help – that is, it is the result of superstitious beliefs. For these reasons, human nature encourages man to be religious. This holds true not only for Orthodox Christians, but also for adherents to all religions. Human nature is the same everywhere. Since as a result of the Fall the human soul is now darkened, people are by nature inclined toward superstition.

Now the next question is this: Where does superstition stop and real belief begin?

The Fathers' views and teachings on these matters are clear. Consider first someone who follows, or rather thinks that he follows the teachings of Christ, simply by going to Church every Sunday, communing at regular intervals, and having the priest bless him with water, anoint him with oil and so on, without examining these things very closely.(2) Does this person who remains at the letter of the law, but does not enter into the spirit of the law, stand to gain anything of any account from Orthodoxy? Now consider someone who prays exclusively for the future life, for himself and for others, but is completely indifferent towards this life. Again, what particular benefit does such a person stand to gain from Orthodoxy? The former tendency can be seen in parish priests and those who flock around them with the attitude described above. The latter tendency can be seen in some elders in monasteries, usually retired archimandrites waiting to die, and the few monks who follow them.(3)

Since purification and illumination are not their main focus or concern, both these tendencies, from the viewpoint of the Fathers, have set the wrong goals for themselves. But insofar as purification and illumination become their focus and the Orthodox asceticism of the Fathers is practiced with a view towards attaining noetic prayer, then and only then can everything else be placed on a firm foundation. These two tendencies are exaggerations that reflect two extremes and share no common core. But there is a common core, a structure that runs throughout Orthodoxy and holds it together. When we take into account this one core, this unique structure, then every subject that concerns Orthodoxy finds its proper place on a firm foundation. And this core is purification, illumination, and theosis.

What will happen to man after death was not an overriding concern for the Fathers. Their primary concern was what will man become in this life. After death, his nous cannot be treated. The treatment must begin in this life, because "in hades there is no repentance."(4) This is why Orthodox theology is not outside of this world, futuristic, or eschatological, but is clearly grounded in this world, because Orthodoxy's focus is man in this world and in this life, not after death.

Now why do we need purification and illumination? Is it so that we can go to Heaven and escape Hell? Is that why they are necessary? What are purification and illumination and why do Orthodox Christians want to attain them? In order to find the reason for this and to answer these questions, you need to have what Orthodox theology considers the basic key to these issues.

The basic key is the fact that, according to Orthodox theology, everyone throughout the world will finish their earthly course in the same way, regardless of whether they are Orthodox, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, or anything else. Everyone on earth is destined to see the glory of God. At the Second Coming of Christ, with which all human history ends, everyone will see the glory of God. And since all people will see God's glory, they will all meet the same end. Truly, all will see the glory of God, but not in the same way – for some, the glory of God will be an exceedingly sweet Light that never sets; for others, the same glory of God will be like "a devouring fire" that will consume them. We expect this vision of God's glory to occur as a real event. This vision of God – of His Glory and His Light – is something that will take place whether we want it to happen or not. But the experience of that Light will be different for both groups.

Therefore, it is not the Church's task to help us see this glory, since that is going to happen anyway. The work of the Church and of her priests focuses on how we will experience the vision of God, and not whether we will experience the vision of God. The Church's task is to proclaim to mankind that the true God exists, that He reveals Himself as Light or as a devouring fire, and that all of humanity will see God(5) at the Second Coming of Christ. Having proclaimed these truths, the Church then tries to prepare Her members so that on that day they will see God as Light, and not as fire.(6)

When the Church prepares her members and everyone who desires to see God as Light, She is essentially offering them a curative course of treatment that must begin and end in this life. The treatment must take place during this life and be brought to completion, because there is no repentance after death. This curative course of treatment is the very fiber of Orthodox tradition and the primary concern of the Orthodox Church. It consists of three stages of spiritual ascent: purification from the passions, illumination by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and theosis, again by the grace of the Holy Spirit. We should also take note. If a believer does not reach a state of at least partial illumination in this life, he will not be able to see God as Light either in this life or in the next.(7)

It is obvious that the Church Fathers were interested in people as they are today at this moment. Every human being needs to be healed. Every human being is also responsible before God to begin this process today in this life, because now is when it is possible, not after death. Everyone must decide for himself whether or not he will pursue this path of healing.

Christ said, "I am the Way."(8) But where does this Way lead? Christ is not referring to the next life. Christ is primarily the Way in this life. Christ is the Way to His Father and our Father. First, Christ reveals Himself to man in this life and shows him the path to the Father. This path is Christ Himself. If a man does not see Christ in this life, at least by sensing Him in his heart, he also will not see the Father or the Light of God in the life to come.(9)

Notes:
(1) As we noted in the Prologue, Father John's words are at times caustic.
(2) Of course, genuine Orthodox Christians do these same things and it is not wrong for them to desire to do them. The problem is when someone stagnates at this level.
(3) As a rule, this is seen when the spiritual father and his monks are not interested in hesychasm.
(4) St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II,
Chapter IV.
(5) Of course, all people have a partial experience of this vision of God immediately after the departure of the soul from the body at their biological death.
(6) "In the fire of revelation on the final day, the deeds of each will be tested by fire as Paul says. If what one has built up for himself is a work of incorruptibility, it will remain incorruptible in the midst of the fire and not only will it not be burned up, but it will be made radiant, totally purified of the perhaps small amount of filth…" St. Nikitas Stithatos, "On Spiritual Knowledge," §79, The Philokalia, vol. III, page 348 [in Greek] [in English, page 165].
(7) "We have fallen so far from the vision of Him, corresponding to the dimness of our sight, since we have voluntarily deprived ourselves of His Light in this present life." St. Symeon the New Theologian, Extant Works, Discourse 75 [in Greek].
(8) John 14:6.
(9) "…At Christ's Second Coming, all mankind will be raised and will be judged according to their works. The sinners who did not acquire spiritual eyes will not cease to exist. They will continue to exist ontologically as persons, but they will not participate in God. The righteous will both participate in God and commune with Him. As Saint Maximos the Confessor teaches, the sinners will live with an 'eternal lack of well being,' while the righteous will live in a state of 'eternal well being.'" Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, The Person in Orthodox Tradition (Levadia: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1994), p. 162 [in Greek].

From the book, Patristic Theology: The University Lectures of Father John Romanides, by Uncut Mountain Press.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Why We Need Religion

By Jeff Jacoby
April 18, 2007
Boston Globe

"I WOULD ban religion completely," British pop-music star Elton John said in a much-noted interview last November. "It turns people into hateful lemmings, and it's not really compassionate."

It isn't exactly news that many people find religion odious, but what is being called the New Atheism has lately become a booming industry. A profusion of books, articles, and lectures extols secularism and derides faith in God as pernicious and absurd. Such antipathy to religion was once relegated to the edges of polite society. Today it shows up front and center.

A California congressman is cheered for announcing that he is an atheist. A New York Times Magazine cover story -- "Why Do We Believe?" -- considers "evolutionary adaptation" and "neurological accident" as explanations for religious belief, but not the possibility that God may actually exist. A forthcoming book by Christopher Hitchens, a noted journalist, is titled "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Yet you rarely have to look far to be reminded of the indispensability of God and religion .

On the front page of Sunday's Boston Globe, a photo shows the Rev. Wayne Daly walking with two Boston police officers through Grove Hall in Roxbury. "Targeting areas racked by deadly violence," the caption explains, "members of the Black Ministerial Alliance began an effort yesterday to pair with police as intermediaries."

Some 50 priests and ministers will fan out across the city's most dangerous precincts, knocking on doors and introducing residents to the police officers patrolling their neighborhoods. The goal is to break through the intimidation or distrust that often keeps residents from speaking up about criminal activity. "Underpinning the alliance's strategy," a news story notes, "is the idea that residents in these neighborhoods . . . may be more willing to talk to law enforcement officials in the future if ministers have paved the way."

No doubt Hitchens and Sir Elton would find this unfathomable. If religion transforms decent people into "hateful lemmings," why turn for help to the local clergy? If religion "poisons everything," who in his right mind would trust men for whom religious witness is a way of life?

Of course, most of us have no trouble understanding why the pastors are regarded as honest brokers, or why officials hope their involvement will make the city safer. But here's a better question: What prompts these ministers to stick their necks out? Why do they want to be allies of the police in neighborhoods where gangs are ruthless toward "snitches" and other good citizens? For that matter, why do they go into urban ministry in the first place? Surely there are easier, safer, or more lucrative ways to make a living.

There are. But the ministers are driven by a Judeo-Christian moral calculus in which goodness and devotion to others are worth more than an easy, safe, or lucrative career. Judeo-Christian morality demands decency and loving-kindness of its followers -- not as a matter of reason or opinion or "evolutionary adaptation," but of God's will. And from that moral impulse comes the selflessness and strength to rise above oneself.

"I see that moral impulse at work every day," Christian leader Charles Colson has written, "when 50,000 volunteers in Prison Fellowship . . . go into horrid holes, loving the most unlovable people in the world. You don't do that out of any kind of human instinct -- it is contrary to selfish human nature."

Can ardent secularists, firm in their belief that there is no God to whom we must answer and no morality except that which human beings devise, be good and loving people? Sure they can. And yet when acts of charity and goodness are most needed, it isn't generally groups of New Atheists who are seen answering the call. Who is more likely to care for paupers dying in the streets of Calcutta? Secular humanist associations? Or Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, who take God's word -- "Therefore love the stranger" -- as a binding obligation? When Boston's police need moral and trustworthy intermediaries, do they find them in an organization that campaigns against religion? Or in the Black Ministerial Alliance?

The world Elton John dreams of -- a world in which religion is banned -- is one we have already glimpsed. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot showed us what lies at the end of that road. Of course there are exceptions to every rule; of course not everyone who believes in God is good; of course dreadful things have been done in the name of all religions. But a world without God would be an evil place indeed.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

72% of Millennials 'More Spiritual Than Religious'

April 26, 2010
By Cathy Lynn Grossman
USA TODAY

Most young adults today don't pray, don't worship and don't read the Bible, a major survey by a Christian research firm shows.

If the trends continue, "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships," says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. In the group's survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they're "really more spiritual than religious."

Among the 65% who call themselves Christian, "many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only," Rainer says. "Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith."

Key findings in the phone survey, conducted in August and released today:

•65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

•65% rarely or never attend worship services.

•67% don't read the Bible or sacred texts.

Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.

"We have dumbed down what it means to be part of the church so much that it means almost nothing, even to people who already say they are part of the church," Rainer says.

The findings, which document a steady drift away from church life, dovetail with a LifeWay survey of teenagers in 2007 who drop out of church and a study in February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which compared the beliefs of Millennials with those of earlier generations of young people.

The new survey has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.

Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior":

•68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."

•50% do not attend church at least weekly.

•36% rarely or never read the Bible.

Neither are these young Christians evangelical in the original meaning of the term — eager to share the Gospel. Just 40% say this is their responsibility.

Even so, Rainer is encouraged by the roughly 15% who, he says, appear to be "deeply committed" Christians in study, prayer, worship and action.

Collin Hansen, 29, author of Young, Restless, Reformed, about a thriving minority of traditionalist Christians, agrees. "I'm not going to say these numbers aren't true and aren't grim, but they also drive people like me to build new, passionately Christian dynamic churches," says Hansen, who is studying for the ministry. He sees many in his generation veering to "moralistic therapeutic deism — 'God wants you to be happy and do good things.' ... I would not call that Christianity, however."

The 2007 LifeWay study found seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30, both evangelical and mainline, who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23. And 34% of those had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30.

The Pew survey found young people today were significantly more likely than those in earlier generations to say they didn't identify with any religious group. Neither are Millennials any more likely than earlier generations to turn toward a faith affiliation as they grow older.

See also:

Young adults 'less religious,' not necessarily 'more secular'

Young adults aren't sticking with church

For a reply, read these links:

In Defense of Organized Religion (1 of 2)

In Defense of Organized Religion (2 of 2)

Why We Need Religion

Why People Leave the Church

Is Orthodoxy a Religion?

The Illness of Religion

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Bad Habits Can Age You by 12 Years, Study Suggests

By LINDSEY TANNER
Associated Press
April 26, 2010

CHICAGO - Four common bad habits combined — smoking, drinking too much, inactivity and poor diet — can age you by 12 years, sobering new research suggests.

The findings are from a study that tracked nearly 5,000 British adults for 20 years, and they highlight yet another reason to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

Overall, 314 people studied had all four unhealthy behaviors. Among them, 91 died during the study, or 29 percent. Among the 387 healthiest people with none of the four habits, only 32 died, or about 8 percent.

The risky behaviors were: smoking tobacco; downing more than three alcoholic drinks per day for men and more than two daily for women; getting less than two hours of physical activity per week; and eating fruits and vegetables fewer than three times daily.

These habits combined substantially increased the risk of death and made people who engaged in them seem 12 years older than people in the healthiest group, said lead researcher Elisabeth Kvaavik of the University of Oslo.

The study appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.

The healthiest group included never-smokers and those who had quit; teetotalers, women who had fewer than two drinks daily and men who had fewer than three; those who got at least two hours of physical activity weekly; and those who ate fruits and vegetables at least three times daily.

"You don't need to be extreme" to be in the healthy category, Kvaavik said. "These behaviors add up, so together it's quite good. It should be possible for most people to manage to do it."

For example, one carrot, one apple and a glass of orange juice would suffice for the fruit and vegetable cutoffs in the study, Kvaavik said, noting that the amounts are pretty modest and less strict than many guidelines.

The U.S. government generally recommends at least 4 cups of fruits or vegetables daily for adults, depending on age and activity level; and about 2 1/2 hours of exercise weekly.

Study participants were 4,886 British adults aged 18 and older, or 44 years old on average. They were randomly selected from participants in a separate nationwide British health survey. Study subjects were asked about various lifestyle habits only once, a potential limitation, but Kvaavik said those habits tend to be fairly stable in adulthood.

Death certificates were checked for the next 20 years. The most common causes of death included heart disease and cancer, both related to unhealthy lifestyles.

Kvaavik said her results are applicable to other westernized nations including the United States.

June Stevens, a University of North Carolina public health researcher, said the results are in line with previous studies that examined the combined effects of health-related habits on longevity.

The findings don't mean that everyone who maintains a healthy lifestyle will live longer than those who don't, but it will increase the odds, Stevens said.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem on the Holy Light

In an interview with the National Herald, Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem answered a few questions of interest regarding the annual miracle of the Holy Light (Holy Fire) which is celebrated in the Holy Sepulchre every Holy Saturday afternoon.

Regarding this Holy Light which although many say is a great miracle of Orthodoxy, others propose various theories to debunk this miracle, Patriarch Theophilos says the following:

"All the various perspectives and theories regarding the Holy Light come from people who are in complete ignorance, they have no religious sentiment even when they are disputed, and they do not want to receive the mystery of the divine economy, namely the Incarnation, beyond which I think all other things are redundant."

To the question about what exactly happens in the ceremony, he responded:

"The ceremony of the Holy Light is part of all the ceremonies and mysteries of our Church. The ceremony of the Holy Light is the sole and exclusive privilege of the Church of Jerusalem as this ceremony takes place at the specific site of the Crucifixion and Burial, and especially the Resurrection of Christ, in other words in the new tomb."

He further explained that the Touching of the Holy Light "is a Mystery of the Church, it is a ceremony."

To the question about what he feels when he is kneeling in prayer and this Touching of the uncreated light occurs, he responded:

"What occurs then occurs in the whole world, it is the experience which a person receives when they participate in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist."

For more on the Holy Light 2010, see here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

M.I.A's Controversial New Video "Born Free"

Warning: Video contains Graphic Violence, Nudity and Strong Language.



For those who can stomach some nudity and violence, I thought this shocking new video by M.I.A is worth a look at as it depicts very well the absurdity of genocide from a famous artist today who once lived through it.

Read more about the video here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Religions NOT Different Paths to the Same Wisdom

Separate Truths

It is misleading — and dangerous — to think that religions are different paths to the same wisdom.

By Stephen Prothero
April 25, 2010
Boston Globe

At least since the first petals of the counterculture bloomed across Europe and the United States in the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true. This claim, which reaches back to “All Religions Are One” (1795) by the English poet, printmaker, and prophet William Blake, is as odd as it is intriguing. No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same. Capitalism and socialism are so self-evidently at odds that their differences hardly bear mentioning. The same goes for democracy and monarchy. Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, both essentially the same and basically good.

This view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture, not least on the “Oprah Winfrey Show” and in Elizabeth Gilbert’s bestseller, “Eat Pray Love,” where the world’s religions are described as rivers emptying into the ocean of God. Karen Armstrong, author of “A History of God,” has made a career out of emphasizing the commonalities of religion while eliding their differences. Even the Dalai Lama, who should know better, has gotten into the act, claiming that “all major religious traditions carry basically the same message.”

Of course, those who claim that the world’s religions are different paths up the same mountain do not deny the undeniable fact that they differ in some particulars. Obviously, Christians do not go on pilgrimage to Mecca, and Muslims do not practice baptism. Religious paths do diverge in dogma, rites, and institutions. To claim that all religions are basically the same, therefore, is not to deny the differences between a Buddhist who believes in no god, a Jew who believes in one God, and a Hindu who believes in many gods. It is to deny that those differences matter, however. From this perspective, whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) or whether human beings have souls (yes, say Hindus; no, say Buddhists) is of no account because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials.”

This is a lovely sentiment but it is untrue, disrespectful, and dangerous.

The gods of Hinduism are not the same as the orishas of Yoruba religion or the immortals of Daoism. To pretend that they are is to refuse to take seriously the beliefs and practices of ordinary religious folk who for centuries have had no problem distinguishing the Nicene Creed of Christianity from the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism from the Shahadah of Islam. It is also to lose sight of the unique beauty of each of the world’s religions.

But this lumping of the world’s religions into one megareligion is not just false and condescending, it is also a threat. How can we make sense of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir if we pretend that Hinduism and Islam are one and the same? Or of the impasse in the Middle East, if we pretend that there are no fundamental disagreements between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

This naive theological groupthink — call it Godthink — is motivated in part by a laudable rejection of the exclusivist missionary view that only you and your kind will make it to heaven or nirvana or paradise. For most of world history, human beings have seen religious rivals as inferior to themselves — practitioners of empty rituals, perpetrators of bogus miracles, and purveyors of fanciful myths. This way of seeing has given us religious violence from the Crusades and the Holocaust to Rwanda and Nigeria. In response to such violence, the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment popularized the ideal of religious tolerance, and we are doubtless better for it.

I understand what these people are doing. They are not describing the world but reimagining it. They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood. In the face of religious bigotry and bloodshed, past and present, we cannot help but be drawn to such hope, and such vision. Yet we must not mistake either for clear-eyed analysis.

When it comes to safeguarding the world from the evils of religion, including violence by proxy from the hand of God, the claim that all religions are one is no more effective than the claim that all religions are poison. As the New Atheists (another species of religious lumpers) observe, we live in a world where religion seems as likely to detonate a bomb as to defuse one. So while we need idealism, we need realism even more. We need to understand religious people as they are — not just at their best but also their worst. We need to look at not only their awe-inspiring architecture and gentle mystics but also their bigots and suicide bombers.

What the world’s religions share is not so much a finish line as a starting point. And where they begin is with this simple observation: Something is wrong with the world. In the Hopi language, the word “Koyaanisqatsi” tells us that life is out of balance. Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” tells us that there is something rotten not only in the state of Denmark but also in the state of human existence. Hindus say we are living in the “kali yuga,” the most degenerate age in cosmic history. Buddhists say that human existence is pockmarked by suffering. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic stories tell us that this life is not Eden; Zion, heaven, and paradise lie out ahead.

So religious folk agree that something has gone awry. They part company, however, when it comes to stating just what has gone wrong, and they diverge even more sharply when they move from diagnosing the human problem to prescribing how to solve it. Moreover, each offers its own distinctive diagnosis of the human problem and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation.

Christians see sin as the human problem, and salvation from sin as the religious goal. Buddhists see suffering (which, in their tradition, is not ennobling) as the problem, and liberation from suffering as the goal. Confucians see social disorder as the problem, and social harmony as the goal. And so it goes from tradition to tradition, with Hindus seeking release from the cycle of life, death, and rebirth, Muslims seeking paradise via submission to Allah, and practitioners of the Yoruba religion seeking sacred connections — among humans, between humans and the persons of power they call the orishas, and between humans and the natural environment.

The great religions also differ fundamentally when it comes to the techniques they employ to take you from problem to goal. In Confucianism, the rules and rituals of ancient Chinese civilization foster the religious goal of social harmony. But according to Daoists, these very rules and rituals cause the human problem of lifelessness. Civilization is a vampire, Daoists claim, sucking the life out of us, depleting our qi (vital energy), and taking us to an early grave. The only way to pursue the Daoist goal of fostering life is to live in harmony with the naturalness, simplicity, and spontaneity of what Daoists call the Way.

Finally, each of the world’s religions looks to different exemplars — Christian saints, Hindi holy men — to chart the path from problem to goal. Inside Buddhism alone, these exemplars include the arhat (for Theravadins), the bodhisattva (for Mahayanists), and the lama (for Tibetan Buddhists).

For more than a century, scholars have searched for the essence of religion. They thought they found this Holy Grail in God, but then they discovered Buddhists and Jains who deny God’s existence. Today it is widely accepted that there is no one essence that all religions share. What they share are family resemblances — tendencies toward this belief or that behavior. In the family of religions, kin tend to perform rituals. They tend to tell stories about how life and death began and to write down these stories in scriptures. They tend to cultivate techniques of ecstasy and devotion. They tend to organize themselves into institutions and to gather in sacred places at sacred times. They tend to instruct human beings how to act toward one another. They tend to profess beliefs about the gods and the supernatural. They tend to invest objects and places with sacred import.

These family resemblances are just tendencies, however. Just as there are tall people in short families (none of the other men in Michael Jordan’s family was over 6 feet tall), there are religions that deny the existence of God and religions that get along just fine without creeds. Something is a religion when it shares enough of this DNA to belong to the family of religions. What makes the members of this family different (and themselves) is how they mix and match these dimensions. Experience is central in Daoism and Buddhism. Hinduism and Judaism emphasize the narrative dimension. The ethical dimension is crucial in Confucianism. The Islamic and Yoruba traditions are to a great extent about ritual. And doctrine is particularly important to Christians.

There is a long tradition of Christian thinkers who assume that salvation is the goal of all religions and then argue that only Christians can achieve this goal. Philosopher of religion Huston Smith, who grew up in China as a child of Methodist missionaries, rejected this argument but not its guiding assumption. “To claim salvation as the monopoly of any one religion,” he wrote, “is like claiming that God can be found in this room and not the next.” It might seem to be an admirable act of empathy to assert that Confucians and Buddhists can be saved. But this statement is confused to the core, since salvation is not something that either Confucians or Buddhists seek. Salvation is a Christian goal, and when Christians speak of it, they are speaking of being saved from sin. But Confucians and Buddhists do not believe in sin, so it makes no sense for them to try to be saved from it. And while Muslims and Jews do speak of sin of a sort, neither Islam nor Judaism describes salvation from sin as its aim. When a jailer asks the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), he is asking not a generic human question but a specifically Christian one. So while it may seem to be an act of generosity to state that Confucians and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews can also be saved, this statement is actually an act of obfuscation.

A sports analogy may be in order here. Which of the following — baseball, basketball, tennis, or golf — is best at scoring runs? The answer of course is baseball, because runs is a term foreign to basketball, tennis, and golf alike. Different sports have different goals: Basketball players shoot baskets; tennis players win points; golfers sink putts. To criticize a basketball team for failing to score runs is not to besmirch them. It is simply to misunderstand the game of basketball.

So here is another problem with the pretend pluralism of the perennial philosophy sort: Just as hitting home runs is the monopoly of one sport, salvation is the monopoly of one religion. If you see sin as the human predicament and salvation as the solution, then it makes sense to come to Christ. But that will not settle as much as you might think, because the real question is not which religion is best at carrying us into the end zone of salvation but which of the many religious goals on offer we should be seeking. Should we be trudging toward the end zone of salvation, or trying to reach the finish line of social harmony? Should our goal be reincarnation? Or to escape from the vicious cycle of life, death, and rebirth?

While I do not believe we are witnessing a “clash of civilizations” between Christianity and Islam, it is a fantasy to imagine that the world’s two largest religions are in any meaningful sense the same, or that interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims will magically bridge the gap. You would think that champions of multiculturalism would warm to this fact, glorying in the diversity inside and across religious traditions. But even among multiculturalists, the tendency is to pretend that the differences between religions are more apparent than real, and that the differences inside religious traditions just don’t warrant the fuss practitioners continue to make over them.

We pretend that religious differences are trivial because it makes us feel safer, or more moral. But pretending that the world’s religions are the same does not make our world safer. Like all forms of ignorance, it makes our world more dangerous, and more deadly. False rumors of weapons of mass destruction doubtless led the United States to wade into its current quagmire in Iraq. Another factor, however, was our ignorance of the fundamental disagreements between Christians and Muslims, on the one hand, and Sunni and Shia Islam, on the other. What if we had been aware of these conflicts as of 9/11? Would we have committed 160,000 troops to a nation whose language we do not speak and whose religion we do not understand?

What we need is a realistic view of where religious rivals clash and where they can cooperate. The world is what it is. And both tolerance and respect are empty virtues until we actually know whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating or respecting.

Stephen Prothero is a religion professor at Boston University. This article is adapted from his new book, ”God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter.”

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Authenticity of “Secret Mark”

[To read more about Secret Mark, see here.]

Handwriting Expert Weighs In on the Authenticity of “Secret Mark”

April 26, 2010
Biblical Archaeology Review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON D.C. (April 26, 2010)—Handwriting Expert Weighs In on the Authenticity of “Secret Mark.”

A number of scholars have concluded that Columbia University professor Morton Smith forged the famous Clement letter containing “Secret Mark,” two passages from a secret—and different—copy of the Gospel of Mark. In a four-part treatment in Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), including contributions by eminent New Testament scholars Helmut Koester and Charles Hedrick, BAR concluded that Smith, now dead, was innocent.

Oddly enough, despite the scores of articles and books that have been written on the subject, no one had bothered to consult a handwriting expert in the language in which the alleged forged letter is written: Greek. BAR has now done so by retaining Venetia Anastasopoulou, an internationally known Greek handwriting expert who has frequently testified before Greek courts on matters of handwriting analysis and graphology.

Venetia Anastasopoulou is a member of the National Association of Document Examiners (U.S.A.) and the International Graphology Association (U.K.). She holds a Certificate in Forensic Sciences from the University of Lancashire (U.K.) and a diploma in Handwriting Analysis from the International Graphology Association (U.K.). BAR retained her to compare the handwriting in which the Clement letter was written with Greek handwriting known to be Smith’s.

In her 36-page report, now available for download on the BAR Web site, Anastasopoulou compares numerous letters, parts of letters and words in the Clement letter with Smith’s Greek handwriting, and concludes that “It is highly probable that Morton Smith could not have simulated the document of ‘Secret Mark.’”

Visit http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/secret-mark-handwriting-analysis.asp to download a full copy of Anastasopoulou’s handwriting analysis of “Secret Mark.”

For additional information, please visit http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ or contact Dorothy D. Resig at 1.800.221.4644. ext. 242.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Did I Find King David’s Palace?

by Eilat Mazar

There can be little doubt that King David had a palace. The Bible tells us that Hiram of Tyre (who would later help King Solomon build the Temple) constructed the palace for David: “King Hiram of Tyre sent envoys to David, with cedar logs, carpenters and stonemasons; and they built a palace for David” (2 Samuel 5:11). Nine years ago I wrote an article in BAR suggesting where, in my opinion, the remains of King David’s palace might lie. I proposed looking in the northern part of the most ancient area of Jerusalem, known as the City of David....

Read the rest of the article here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Kneeling In Church On Sundays

by the late Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens

Preamble

The issue of kneeling on Sundays continues to engage clergy and laity, due to the fact that diametrically opposite views have been formulated concerning this practice.

On the one hand there are those who claim that this practice is prohibited by the Sacred Canons. In particular, Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod states that no kneeling should be practiced on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost. According to this canon, kneeling, it states, is not consistent with the joyous and paschal character of these days, because kneeling is an expression of repentance and of godly sorrow.

On the other hand, there are others who make the opposite claim. They argue that kneeling at the time of the blessing of the Bread and the Wine, at the point we say “Your own from Your own we offer…,” is not a kneeling of sorrow, but of worship which is done because of the miracle which is effected at that moment by the God of our worship.

There is also a third category of theologians, who claim that kneeling on Sundays is neither recommended nor prohibited. It is simply tolerated, wherever it is enforced and observed.

There is no doubt that those Christians who kneel on Sundays do not do this out of irreverence, but out of great piety. They do it because they have been taught that at the point when we say “Your own from Your own we offer…” awe-inspiring mysteries take place: the Bread and the Wine that are used in the Eucharist are changed by the invocation (epiklesis) of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. At the same time, however, it is certain that these Christians have not read the Sacred Canons, and have not studied the Holy Fathers. They simply behave according to what their Christian conscience dictates, without realizing that their behavior violates the order of the Church.

In the following paragraphs, we try to present in an analytic and objective manner the various aspects of this issue in an attempt to specify what is right and should be followed by the faithful Christians.

A. What Does The Term Kneeling (In Church) Mean?

The Sacred Canons on lesser and proper kneeling: Before we proceed to the next step, it is useful to observe what the Sacred Canons mean by the term kneeling in church. To begin with, kneeling in church is an ancient religious custom, whereby the people who are at prayer express their faith. Such kneeling is distinguished by two types:

Firstly, there is the kind when a person that prays bends the knees while holding the body upright and looking towards the foreground. This position is usually accompanied by simultaneous crossing oneself. It is the position we take at the Vespers of Forgiveness, i.e. the Vespers of Pentecost. (Indeed, the first prayer of this Vespers alludes to this in saying, “offering supplication by bending the neck and inclining the knees”).

Secondly, there is the type when a faithful rests on his knees on the ground, places his hands on it and bends down his forehead onto the earth, or when he is standing up and decides to go down on the knees to the point that his face touches the floor and then stands up again. This is repeated several times.

Kneeling and Repentance: The first kind of kneeling is called a minor repentance, and the second, major repentance, or prostration or ground prostration. Major repentances are practiced in the Presanctified Divine Liturgies, at the point when the Holy Gifts pass by the faithful. Greater use of them is made by monastics, and sometimes spiritual masters impose these major repentances as a penance on those Christians who have sinned and repented for their sins. Saint John the Faster introduced this custom of penances, and called the major type of (church) kneeling simply kneeling. Basil the Great closely identified repentance with the prostration.

When do we kneel and when do we not kneel in church: A differentiation is made between the minor and the major types of kneeling in the Kollyvadian Book of Liturgical Rubrics of the erudite economos Fr. George Regas of Skiathos, where we read the following: “Repentances are of two kinds, minor and major. The minor ones are the prostrations we do when we cross ourselves and bow only our head without bending the knees. These minor repentances are done each day and on many occasions throughout the day without ceasing. The major repentances are characterized by the bending of the knees. These are never allowed on a Saturday or Sunday (apart from the Feast of the Precious Cross), but are done only during the Great Lent and on any day except Saturday and Sunday.”[1]

Kneeling and the four types of repentant persons: From what has been said so far, we gather that prayer which is accompanied by repeated kneeling has the meaning of repentance, i.e. the return of a sinner. It is known that in the ancient Church the repentant persons were subdivided into four types:

Firstly, there were those who mourned. These people remained outside the church nave and invited other faithful to pray for them.

Secondly, there were those who simply listened to the services. These people entered only the narthex, and listened from there the reading of the Scriptures.

Thirdly, there were those who bended the knee or knelt to the ground. These people remained in this position in order to indicate their repentance.

Fourthly and finally, there were those who remained standing.

These types of repentance indicated people who had humbled themselves and were seeking God’s mercy. They symbolized human falling into sin and standing up against it. The falling to the ground indicated contrition and compunction, whereas the standing up indicated deliverance and salvation. As Basil the Great writes, “Each day by practicing kneeling to the ground and standing up again we show that through sin we fell to the earth and through the love for mankind of our Creator we were recalled to heaven.”[2]

B. What The Sacred Canons And Their Interpreters Say

What to do or what not to do on Sundays: Sunday was always distinguished from any other day as a day of joy and celebration, because of the Resurrection. This is why on Sunday we do not fast, and when we go through a period of fasting and do not use oil, Sundays and Saturdays are exempted. The 66th Canon of the Holy Apostles stipulates: “If any clergyman is found to be fasting on a Sunday, or on a Saturday, except on Great Saturday, he should be defrocked.”[3]

Why we should follow the Sacred Canons: One may ask, why do the Canons deal with such matters and do not leave the people free to do what they like and what they wish? The question is plausible. Nevertheless, we should not follow on all matters what we like, but what is right. Otherwise there will be no order in the Church and the symbolic actions will not be observed, in spite of their essentially dogmatic content. The ever-memorable professor of Liturgics John Foundoulis had this to say: “The position one takes in the Divine Liturgy should not be determined by our own personal piety and disposition, but by the Tradition of the Church, on the basis of the meaning which is given to every liturgical position and at every moment of the Church’s worship.”[4]

On Sundays we neither kneel nor fast: Along with fasting, the Sacred Canons prohibit all kneeling on Sundays.

What the Canons say: Saint Irenaeus writes: “The practice of not bending the knee on a Sunday is a symbol of the Resurrection, through which we were delivered by the Grace of Christ both from our sins and from the death which was put to death by Christ himself.”[5]

In a similar fashion pseudo-Justin bears witness in his 115th answer to the prohibition of all kneeling on Sundays. ´This custom was initiated in Apostolic times as blessed Irenaeus, the martyr-bishop of Lyons, says.”[6]

Of great importance for this matter is Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod, which stipulates: “Because there are some persons who kneel in church on a Sunday and during the days of Pentecost, with the view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it seemed best to the Holy Council that prayers should be offered to God while standing.”[7] In other words, the Holy Synod stipulates that on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost Christians should pray in Church standing.

Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod is even clearer. Here is what is specified: “We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when we honor the Resurrection of Christ. Since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of Saturday in question, let none of them bend the knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the Entrance in the Vespers, we bend the knees again, and begin to offer prayers to the Lord. For inasmuch as we have received it that in the night succeeding Saturday was the precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a whole night.” In other words from the evening of Saturday, after Vespers, until the Vespers of Sunday we are obliged not to kneel when we pray. Here is Balsamon’s comment on this Canon: “The Resurrection of Christ took place on Saturday evening, i.e. before Sunday had dawned, so that what relates to the feast might start at night and end towards the light and so the vigil of the Resurrection is celebrated through the entire night and day.”[8] Indeed, it is known that the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated during the days of the Great Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays. The reason for this is that the Divine Liturgy is a template of the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

What the Fathers say: Let us now see what the Fathers say about this matter. Peter of Alexandria says this in his Canon 15: “As for Sunday, on the other hand, we celebrate it as a joyous holiday because of Him who was resurrected on it, on which day we have not even received instruction to bend the knee.”[9]

St. Nikephoros the Confessor stipulates through his Canon 10 the following: “One must bend the knee for the sake of bestowing a kiss on Sunday and throughout Pentecost, but one ought not to make the usual genuflections.”[10]

Basil the Great says in his Canon 91: “We offer our prayers on the first of the Sabbaths (Sunday) in a standing position.”[11] And he goes on to explain the reasons which obligate us not to make the major genuflections on a Sunday and during the entire period of Pentecost. These reasons are basically the fact that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection of our Lord and consequently we are obligated to remain standing in an upright position as resurrected persons. Besides, every Sunday is a symbol of the eighth day, i.e. of the age to come and for this reason the Church trains and teaches the faithful to remember the age to come and to be prepared to welcome it in an upright position which indicates vigilance. “In which (Sunday) the upright position of prayer should be preferred as the stipulations of the Church have trained us to do, so that by a sort of active reminder our mind might transmigrate from the present to the future realities.”[12]

The minor kneeling (genuflection) or repentance used in worship. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite is the one among the Fathers who clarifies that the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not include the minor kneeling, the so-called minor repentance, which we make when we venerate the holy icons. The Church does not forbid practicing this type of genuflection in church on Sundays. This is why we hear, “Come let us worship and prostrate before Christ…”[13] These minor prostrations which are done in veneration are not forbidden. The major kneeling, however, which involves bending the knee to the ground and touching the floor with the forehead, is forbidden, because it is contrary to the paschal and eschatological character of Sunday, i.e. to the joyful and festive spirit, which, on this account, is incompatible with any sense of mourning or contrition which is indicated by the major kneeling. This why the Church sings: “This is the Day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in It.”[14]

C. Other Views

There are theologians, however, who do not agree with what we wrote above. Here are their main arguments. When the Myrrh-bearing women met with the Risen Lord they fell on his feet and venerated Him. It was a Sunday when this took place. It was on the Mount of Galilee that the eleven Disciples venerated the Lord in the same way after His Resurrection. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, describes the gathering of the church for worship where each believer “falls down with his face onto the ground to worship God.”[15] Here, of course, it is not clarified whether the Apostle refers to the Sunday gathering for worship.

Serious arguments for major (proper) kneeling on Sundays: Such arguments, biblical, historical and canonical, are provided by Professor P. Trempelas in his book “Kneeling on Sundays.”[16] In this book, the wise professor invokes the witness of Codices 865 and 2055 of the National Library of Greece concerning the Hierarch who “makes three repentances.” Nevertheless this detail is not serious enough as to justify kneeling on Sundays. The same observation applies to the Typikon (Book of Liturgical Rubrics) of the 12th-13th century which has been published by Dimitrievsky and makes mention of “a triple kneeling of the priest.”[17] For these references, however, Matthew Vlastares’ comment made in the Pedalion (Rudder) is important: “The typika (rubrics) which are made by the founders of monasteries should be observed as long as they do not contradict the canons.” The same professor tries, on the basis of Canon 91 of Basil the Great, to render relative the upright position in Sunday prayers by writing that the opinion of the Holy Father is derived “from the unwritten tradition,”[18] although Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod had preceded it. At the same time the ever-memorable professor appeals to the witness of the Typikon of St. Savva, saying that it foresees for Sundays “bending of our knee and bowing towards the earth.”[19] Nevertheless in the edition of this Typikon of the year 1771 that was printed in Venice by Hierodeacon Spyridon Papadopoulos, the exact text reads as follows: “bending and bowing unto the earth.”[20] Indeed, it is known that Trempelas’ arguments were offset by other counter-arguments through the special study of Metropolitan Hezekiel the Thessaliotis in the journal Ekklesia.[21] Finally, with regard to the argument that in the ordinations, which usually occur on Sundays, we kneel down, it should be carefully observed that the most important codices do not refer to kneeling, either of the candidate or of the people. The later liturgical practice speaks of the kneeling of the candidate, but not of the people.

In addition, the ever-memorable Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in his book “The Period of the Pentecostarion” insists on the distinction of various forms of kneeling. He clearly states, regarding this matter, that “this manner of combining the upright position with the bowing down in worship does not contradict the stipulations of the Church but satisfies a deep psychological need. This need is the worshipful prostration in the face of the one who already stands before us, under the species of bread and wine, namely, our King and Savior.”[22] And it seems that the solution to the whole problem is hidden behind this point.

Professor Basil Anagnostopoulos of the Theological School of Halki in his monograph “Kneeling at the Consecration of the Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord on Sundays: The Tradition of the Theological School of Halki” deposits his living memories from the School, where all the Patriarchs and Rectors of the last decades, such as the Patriarchs Maximos and Athenagoras, Melito of Chalcedon, Germanos of Thyateira, Gennadios of Elioupolis, Michael of America, as well as the two last Rectors of the period of his studies and the two of the period of his professorial service, used to kneel on Sundays. Ezekiel the Thessaliotis, however, deposits the witness of Polykarpos of Trikke and Stagoi (as Deacon to Patriarch Anthimos VII) according to which in the Patriarchate “no one ever bent the knee on a Sunday, because they regarded this custom as alien and strange to Greek Orthodoxy.”[23] Also, Archimandrite Eusebios Matthopoulos, the founder of the Zoe Brotherhood of Theologians, honored the custom of kneeling, having taken it from his Geronta Fr. Ignatios Lampropoulos.

A serious argument in support of the non-absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays, which is put forth, is the Church’s praxis, whereby she transferred, through its pertinent authority and apparently for pastoral reasons, the Vespers of the Sunday of Pentecost when all believers kneel, from the vesperal hours of the Sunday of Pentecost when believers also kneel (because there is no prohibition of kneeling on this occasion, according to Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod) to the morning of the Sunday of Pentecost. Therefore, according to this view, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not have an absolute character, but can be overlooked on account of spiritual-pastoral expediency. The position of Trempelas is indeed, that “since the transference of the Vespers to the morning was allowed, the prohibition of kneeling is of relative force and tolerable of exceptions and flexibility.” Also, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes, that the prayers of kneeling should not be said in the morning because in this way the prohibition of kneeling is thereby abolished. “Hence when we read these prayers in the morning, we do it wrongly and sinfully and in contradiction to the Sacred Canons.”[24] In addition, it is known that the Church has accepted the liturgical repentances on Sunday worship. At this point we should remark that we regard of special importance the observation of Professor Trempelas that the Sacred Canons which prohibit kneeling on Sundays do not impose penalties for possible transgressions of the specific stipulation.

Professor Ioannes Foundoulis attributes the introduction of the custom of kneeling to Russian influence, which was exerted upon our customs most probably by Queen Olga through the practice that was established in the Palace chapel and was transmitted from there to the parishes. In Russia, this custom was introduced at the time of Peter the Great and was due to European influence. The same distinguished Greek liturgist, criticizing the support of this custom, writes: “The tragic aspect of this case is not that some faithful and even some clergy bend their knee at the consecration of the Precious Gifts, but that this is taught and encouraged by the teachers of the Church in spite of the Sacred Canons and the ages long ecclesiastical tradition and order. Our piety in worship is bound to the liturgical order and consists in our coordinating ourselves to the rhythm and the pattern of common prayer. Otherwise we cause disarray and arbitrariness by not obeying the ecclesiastical institutions and not trying to understand their spirit, but, rather, to introduce our personal pietistic and pious-looking practices which are alien to our ecclesiastical tradition.”[25]

D. The View of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece

The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece at its meeting of October 1999 included in its agenda the topic entitled, “Liturgical precision, orderliness and unity, and ballot vote on a Constitution for a Special Synodal Committee of Liturgical Regeneration” with Metropolitan Nikodemos of Patrai as chairman on account of his tempered knowledge of liturgical matters. The Most Reverend Metropolitan Nikodemos presented to the Synodal body the conclusions of the 10 member Committee which had examined the above topic under his chairmanship. On the matter of kneeling the Committee proposed the following: “That kneeling on Sunday is not required at the consecration and is not imposed. It is simply tolerated.”

This view was based on a combination of the two opposing views that were outlined above, because it was determined that neither those who over-emphasize the absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays are right, nor do those who bend their knees at the awesome moment of the consecration ignore “what the Spirit (of the sacred Canons) says to the Churches.” In other words, the Holy Synod took the view that according to the rule (canon) Christians should not kneel on Sundays at the moment of “Your own from Your own we offer…” because this is what the Sacred Canons suggest because it is characteristic of these days to stress the Resurrection. Nevertheless, kneeling can be tolerated by concession (kat oikonomian), because it does not indicate any irreverence, but rather indicates great reverence and conscientious recognition of the awe-inspiring sacrifice which takes place on the Holy Table at the invocation (epiklesis) of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

What St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite says: We prefer to base our view not so much on the exercise of concession for those who bend the knee, or less on the absolute potency of the prohibition, but mainly on the distinction of the two senses of “kneeling” – as they were explained above and as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite had explained the Canon. Here is what he writes in his interpretation of Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod. “Note, however, that the present Canon is not referring to those genuflections which among us are more commonly called major repentances, which, properly speaking, are called prostrations that are made before kissing the icons of the saints or before the awesome sacraments and are not prohibited neither on a Sunday nor on the days of the period of Pentecost as Canon 10 of St. Nikephoros says. Indeed this is what the sacred hymns also say on occasions: 'Before You we fall down who was raised from the Tomb,' or 'Come let us worship and fall down before Christ the risen One…' and other such like hymns.”[26] And St. Nikodemos continues: “In my view the Canon does not refer to this kind of genuflection, but to the genuflection wherein while bending our knees we pray, as we do, for instance, during the evening of Holy Pentecost.”[27]

That is to say, yes the literary meaning of kneeling is the attachment of the knees to the ground, but this should be avoided on Sundays, because the Sacred Canons explicitly prohibit it and therefore, both clergy and laity should bend their body deeply when the consecration takes place in order to indicate that they stand before the sacrament in a spirit of veneration and worship. In this way, neither the Sacred Canons are infringed, nor is the pious disposition of the faithful overlooked or criticized.

Certainly we understand that this solution may cause the reaction of those who are used to kneeling to the ground on Sundays. This matter, however, has to do with pastoral and liturgical discipline, because people should be taught rightly why the Sacred Canons prohibit kneeling in church on Sundays. This is the duty of the clergy, who are required to undertake the responsibility to teach the faithful what is right and to use the liturgical sermon to educate their parishioners. There is no reason to allow the infiltration into the Divine Liturgy of personal and sentimental elements which change its character. Also, there is no need to try to find on every occasion pretexts or explanations of deviations which are not approved by the Church. The Divine Liturgy is not a personal affair. The Church lays down the order and she has specified that paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which stresses the Resurrection and which has been from the beginning associated with Sunday. We do not need to prove the paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which is connected with the Resurrection and the Last Things (eschatology). Besides, the Church prohibited the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on days of fasting and this, of course, has been today restricted to the period of the Great Lent, but the primary sense still remains intact: the Eucharist is an eschatological event and cannot be anything else but a celebratory occasion, full of joy and radiance.[28]

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

[1] See his Typikon, Thessalonica, 1994, p. 42.

[2] Ralles-Potles, Syntagma, vol. 4, p. 286.

[3] Translator’s note: See the Πηδάλιον Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου καὶ Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ (3η ἔκδοσις, Ζάκυνθος, 1864), ἐκδ. Ἀστήρ, Ἀθῆναι 1970, σ. 82. The English translation of the above, i.e. The Rudder of Agapius and Nikodemus, translated by D. Cummings, published by The Orthodox Christian Education Society, Chicago Illinois, 1957, p.110 gives the number 64 for this Canon, because, as it states it is so number in the majority of editions. However, the more recent editions of the Sacred Canons (Ἱεροὶ Κανόνες) of H. Alivizatos (1949) and Bl. Feidas (1997) give the number 55 to this Canon.

[4] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, p. 237.

[5] Εἰρηναίου, Ἀποσπάσματα ἐξ ἀπολεσθέντων ἔργων, ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 5, 1955, p. 174, 15-17.

[6] ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 4, 1955, p. 128.

[7] The Rudder, p. 196.

[8] The Rudder, pp. 394-5.

[9] The Rudder, pp. 754-5.

[10] The Rudder, p. 965.

[11] The Rudder, p. 855.

[12] The Rudder, p. 855.

[13] The Introit of the Small Entrance of the Divine Liturgy.

[14] The 3rd Antiphon of the Divine Liturgy.

[15] I Cor. 14:25.

[16] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ἐν ταῖς Κυριακαῖς, Τύποις Φοίνικος, Ἀθῆναι 1948.

[17] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ... ενθ. αν. σ. 8. Πρβλ. Αlekej Dmitrievskij, Opisanie Liturgitseskich Rukopisej, I, Τυπικά, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), p. 812.

[18] Εκκλησία, τευχ. 33-34, 1948.

[19] Εκκλησία 25-26 σ. 198.

[20] p. 5.

[21] Εκκλησία 33-34, 1938.

[22] Περίοδος Πεντηκοσταρίου, Το Εκκλησιαστικόν Έτος 2, έν Αθήναις 1973, σσ. 94-95.

[23] Ekklesia, issues 33-34, 1948, p. 280.

[24] Pedalion, p. 151.

[25] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, pp. 239-240.

[26] The Rudder, p. 965.

[27] Ibid.

[28] On this see further the article of The Most Reverend Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the journal Synaxis, 51 (1994) 88-89. See also, Archimandrite Kyrillos Kostopoulos, Sacred Tradition Regarding Kneeling: A Theological Reference to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Lord’s Day, Athens 2000.


Source: Translated by Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas and edited by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr