The Copt Who Converted to Orthodoxy

Becoming Orthodox

By Minas Monir
Cairo, Egypt
April 18, 2010
Pravmir.com

When I was a child at primary school, I remember an important question that made me think deeply about who Christ is. I was sitting in the classroom when the teacher of History asked me," What do you say about Issa (an Arabic name for Jesus)?" I replied, "He is the Son of God." As could be expected of a pious Muslim woman, the answer perplexed her, so I said, "But he is a man." Although it was me who answered the question, I was not less perplexed than her! I returned home and told my mother about what had happened while she was washing dishes and preparing dinner. I said, "I think Christ can't be but a man. However, He is the Son of God because he was born miraculously and without a father." She said, "Christ is a true God, you should learn to confess that whenever you are asked about Him. Christ says, “Whoever disowns me before others I will disown before my Father in heaven (Matt 10:33)." I felt the weight of the question and the importance of reaching an answer. Is He a God or a man or something else?

I was raised in a Coptic family. The word Copt comes originally from the Greek word for Egypt, Aigyptos, and the word Copt merely meant Egyptian. After the Muslim conquest of Egypt in the 7th century and the subsequent transformation of Egypt to a Muslim majority country, the term Copt came to apply only to the minority of Egyptians who remained Christian. My family was not greatly involved in the religious life of the Coptic Church, largely because we lived in an Arab Gulf country at the time rather than Egypt. After my father passed away, we moved back to Egypt where we experienced a new and different religious atmosphere, being surrounded by Coptic churches. Christ was my main concern but the question remained unanswered.

Read the rest of the two part story here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The "Manna" of Saint John the Theologian

Commemoration of the Annual Miracle of the "Manna" at the Tomb of St. John the Theologian (Feast Day - May 8)

"The feast day of this great apostle and evangelist is celebrated on September 26. This day (May 8) commemorates the miracle which appeared at his grave. When John was over one hundred years old, he took seven of his disciples, went outside the town of Ephesus and ordered them to dig a grave in the form of a cross. After that, the elder went down into this grave and was buried. Later on, when the faithful opened John's grave, they did not find his body. On May 8 of every year, dust [also called 'manna'] is raised from his grave from which the sick are healed of various diseases." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Each year, for about a thousand years, from the grave of the holy Apostle John on May 8th, there came forth a fine ash-dust, which believers called "manna", and gathered it up after an All-Night Vigil and were healed of sicknesses by it. Therefore the Church celebrates the memory of the Apostle John the Theologian still on May 8 to commemorate this annual miracle, even though his main feast is on September 26.

Many pilgrims of medieval times made note of this extraordinary annual miracle. Both Augustine and Gregory of Tours make reference to it. Anglo-Saxon Willibald, later a bishop and a saint, visited Ephesus in 724 and marvelled at the miracle of the manna that bubbled from the tomb of the Apostle. Symeon Metaphrastes in the tenth century writes of the festival on May 8th being of such great magnitude that it seemed there were more people in attendance to take part in the miracle and receive a portion of its distribution than there were stars in the sky. For the unhappy Metropolitan George Tornikes (1155–56), the tomb with its inexhaustible dust was his sole consolation for having to live in what he considered a barbarous place with a dilapidated church.

Abbot Daniel, a Russian pilgrim of the early 12th century, visited the Basilica of St. John that was built over his tomb, and described the feast celebrated on May 8th as well as the shrines and relics surrounding the area:

"It is 60 versts from the isle of Chios to Ephesus; and at this latter place is seen the tomb of St. John the Evangelist. On the anniversary of his death, holy dust rises from this tomb, which believers gather as a remedy against every kind of disease; the garment which John wore is also here. Quite near is the cave in which rest the bodies of the Seven Sleepers who slept for 360 years, having fallen asleep in the reign of the Emperor Decius, and awakened in the time of the Emperor Theodosius. In this same cavern are the (remains of the) three hundred Holy Fathers and of St. Alexander; the tomb of Mary Magdalene is also here, as well as her head; and the holy Apostle Timothy, the disciple of St. Paul, reposes in his ancient coffin. In the old church the picture of the Holy Virgin is preserved; it was with this that the holy (fathers) refuted the heretic Nestorius. Here, too, one sees the Bath of Dioscorides, where St. John the Evangelist laboured with Prochorus in the house of Romana. We saw, also, the harbour, named the 'Marble Port', where St. John the Evangelist was cast up by the sea."

According to one author, the most elaborate description of the miracle dates to 1304 by Catalan Muntaner who arrived in a mercenary force:

"On Saint Stephen’s day, every year, at the hour of Vespers, it comes out of the tomb (which is four-cornered and stands at the foot of the altar and has a beautiful marble slab on the top, full twelve palms long and five broad), and in the middle of the slab there are nine very small holes, and out of these holes, as Vespers are being sung on St. Stephen’s day, (on which day the Vespers are of St. John), manna like sand comes out of each hole and rises a full palm high from the slab, as a jet of water rises up. And this manna issues out . . . and it lasts all night and then all Saint John’s day until sunset. There is so much of this manna, by the time the sun has set and it has ceased to issue out, that, altogether, there are of it full three cuarteras of Barcelona [about 120 quarts]. And this manna is marvelously good for many things; for instance he who drinks it when he feels fever coming on will never have fever again. Also, if a lady is in travail and cannot bring forth, if she drinks it with water or with wine, she will be delivered at once. And again, if there is a storm at sea and some of the manna is thrown in the sea three times in the name of the Holy Trinity and Our Lady Saint Mary and the Blessed Saint John the Evangelist, at once the storm ceases. And again, he who suffers from gall stones, and drinks it in the said names, recovers at once. And some of this manna is given to all pilgrims who come there; but it only appears once a year."

Regarding the Basilica of St. John the Theologian built by the Empror Justinian, originally it had been in a cruciform shape with six massive domes. More recently they have uncovered a baptistry and and a small chapel to the side. The tomb of the Apostle is today exposed to the elements, but originally it was located under the main central dome of the church. Unfortunately three relics which were still in the church during Ottoman times are now lost to us - a piece of the True Cross worn by the Apostle John around his neck, a garment of the Apostle made by the Theotokos, and most significantly for biblical scholarship today was the original manuscript of the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) which was authored by this apostle. Today the Basilica is in ruins.


Read also:

The Repose of St. John the Theologian According to His Disciple Prochorus

My Pilgrimage To The Tomb of Saint John the Apostle In Ephesus

Apolytikion in the Second Tone
Beloved Apostle of Christ our God, hasten to deliver a people without defense. He who permitted you to recline upon His bosom, accepts you on bended knee before Him. Beseech Him, O Theologian, to dispel the persistent cloud of nations, asking for us peace and great mercy.

Kontakion in the Second Tone
Who can recount your greatness, O virgin, for miracles flow and healing springs forth from you. You intercede for our souls, as the Theologian and friend of Christ.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On the Comprehension of Ecclesiastical Literature

A monk complained to St. Arsenios the Great that while reading Holy Scripture he does not feel, neither the power of the words read nor gentleness in his heart.

To that the great saint replied to him: "My child, just read! I heard that the sorcerers of serpents, when they cast a spell upon the serpents, the sorcerers are uttering the words, which they themselves do not understand, but the serpents hearing the spoken words sense their power and become tamed. And so, with us, when we continually hold in our mouths the words of Holy Scripture, but even though we do not feel the power of the words, evil spirits tremble and flee for they are unable to endure the words of the Holy Spirit."

My child, just read! The Holy Spirit Who, through inspired men, wrote these divine words, will hear, will understand and will hasten to your assistance; and the demons will understand, will sense, and will flee from you. That is: He Whom you invoke for assistance will understand, and those whom you wish to drive away from yourself will understand. And both goals will be achieved.

- St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Experience of Time and Eternity in Orthodox Worship

By: Dr. Jane M. deVyver

These few words ore offered to help people in general to have a better understanding of what Orthodox liturgical practices are supposed to convey and why. In particular, comments are directed towards Orthodox cantors, singers and choir directors to help guide them in accurately fulfilling their roles in Divine Services and to resist the contemporary spread of innovative liturgical practices that undermine the fullness of what Orthodox Worship should be all about.

Standing in Two Worlds

As soon as we step into an Orthodox church, we are stepping into another world — another realm. We are stepping out of our everyday world, into the eternal world — and we have the opportunity to experience a foretaste of God’s heavenly Kingdom. The architecture of an Orthodox church, its icons and the way in which its Divine Services are conducted should all convey the reality of this other heavenly realm and help us to participate in it and experience it. In an Orthodox church building, with its icons and Divine Services, we are standing in two worlds, with one foot in the temporal world and one foot in the eternal world. We are given the opportunity to transcend the sense of time of our daily lives in the temporal world, and to encounter the transfigured and redeemed time of the Heavenly Kingdom. St. Paul instructs us in several of his Epistles to “redeem the time.” There are many different meanings of this phrase, but one meaning is that in Orthodox Divine Services we can experience what we might call “redeemed time.”

Two Kinds of Time

In English, we are somewhat restricted in talking and thinking about time, partly due to the general lack of adequate words to express transcendent experience, and partly because we have just one word for ‘time’ — which generally refers to chronological, calendar time as measured by a clock. However, in the Greek language, with its inherent thought-patterns, the language in which the New Testament was written and the Eastern Fathers thought and wrote, there are two words for time. “Chronos” (as in ‘chronological’) is the Greek word for the earthly, temporal, measurable, clock time where we live our everyday lives. “Chronos” time and space are chief characteristics of God’s created world and therefore are not bad in themselves, but are to be redeemed, along with everything else in the fallen world. However, Greek (and some other languages) has a second word, (and therefore a second category of thought) for time — “kairos.” This refers to what we might describe as “Eternal” or “Divine time,” or “Transfigured time,” or “Redeemed time”— a realm wherein we step outside of and transcend the “clock” time of our everyday lives in the world. “Kairos” time is the realm of artistic creativity, wherein one “stands outside oneself,” and is caught up into another realm or level of existence. “Kairos” time is the present now time: “Today Christ is born! Today Christ is Risen! Today Christ is Baptized! This is the day of salvation! “Kairos” time is also the “fullness of time,” when the Eternal breaks into and penetrates our fallen earthly existence, transfiguring it and us, wherein we are granted the gift to temporarily catch a glimpse of standing in the Presence of God. This is the realm of what might be called “religious experience”—or having a “personal experience” of God; it is the present moment of repentance and conversion . We have stepped into “Kairos” time when we are “caught up” and don’t even notice the passage of “chronos” time.

“Kairos” is the transcendent time into which we are invited to enter and to experience in Orthodox Divine worship—the Divine time of this other world, this other realm. This is the “redeemed time” into which we are invited to enter when we step into an authentic Orthodox church temple. This is the “redeemed time” that we can experience in authentic Orthodox icons. This is the “redeemed time” in which we can participate during authentically-rendered Orthodox Divine Services. The degree to which the architecture, icons and liturgy can enable us to temporarily transcend this fallen temporal world and have a foretaste of heavenly worship in God’s Presence can vary enormously, but the extent to which the earthly worship reflects the heavenly worship is the most important. When the Divine Services are sung and chanted and prayed in a way that reflects heavenly worship, then even a mediocre physical church building, with mediocre icons, (or even when served in a hospital, nursing home, prison, home, or other setting outside a church building), can be transformed temporarily into the eternal Kingdom and where those present are invited to participate in the continuous worship of heaven. This is a totally awesome gift that we are offered!

Sometimes people can intuitively experience this sense of transcendence of time, space and place—the transcending of the temporal, everyday life of the ‘world’— without knowing just how to express in words the experience of standing with one foot in heaven and one foot on the earth. But on the other hand, sometimes the opposite might occur, for it is also very easy—and an enormous temptation that must be rigorously resisted—to bring the experiences of our daily, temporal life in the fallen world into the life of the Church and its Divine Services. We also can be tempted to bring with us the experience of both secular and heterodox music. Usually we do this without even being aware of what we are doing, because it is a unconscious expression of how we have been socialized in our lives in the culture around us. Let us reflect a bit about what this means in practice, to help us recognize it when it occurs.

Orthodox Worship Transports us into the Eternal Realm

Every Christian is called to “be in the world, but not of the world.” But this is a very difficult and life-long struggle, and is totally contradictory to everything that the culture around us teaches. But what exactly does it mean to be in the world but not of the world? One concise explanation of what this phrase means is that while we live our daily lives in the physical world around us, our values and priorities must be focused on God’s values and His priorities. That is—our hearts are to be committed to acquiring the treasures of God’s spiritual riches over all temporal, earthly wealth and power, and what the ‘world’ considers to be important. Participating in the “kairos” experience of Eternity in Orthodox worship can be a significant component of helping us not to be a part of the fallen world, while yet living in it. Our encounter with the Church, and its icons and liturgy is supposed to lift us up out of this world, and transport us temporarily into the heavenly, eternal realm, where the worship of God is continuous. But in order to have the opportunity for this to occur, we have to cooperate with the Lord in achieving this goal in a number of ways: in the way in which we design our Orthodox churches; in the way in which we paint our Orthodox icons; and most importantly, in the way in which we sing and chant the Divine Services. We must cooperate with God and have authentic Orthodox church architecture, authentic Orthodox icons, and authentic Orthodox Divine Services— authentic, precisely because they accurately reflect Orthodox Theology and Tradition.

Vital Principle: Orthodox Worship on Earth Is a Reflection of Divine Worship in Heaven

What steps can we take in our personal effort to cooperate with God in order to achieve these goals? To start with, we need to accept what is perhaps the most fundamental and vital principle of Orthodox liturgical theology, namely, that Divine Worship on earth is a reflection of Divine Worship in Heaven, and a foretaste of the fullness of Divine Worship that is to come. We proclaim this essential principle every time we sing the Cherubic Hymn in the Divine Liturgy: “Let us who mystically represent the cherubim, and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now lay aside all earthly cares. That we may receive the King of All, Who comes invisibly upborne by the angelic hosts.” The meaning of these words is truly awesome and even mind-boggling—that we sinful and inadequate and frail human beings, are allowed to represent the cherubim, who are the angels, second in rank to the seraphim, who worship God continually before His Holy Throne and Altar.

The concept of earthly worship reflecting heavenly worship does not start with Christianity, but is received by Orthodox Christians from the Old Testament Jewish Tradition. God instructed Moses to create a Tabernacle modeled on the heavenly Tabernacle, and gave careful detailed instructions about how to make the Tabernacle, and how to do the liturgical rites to be performed in the Tabernacle, which are also modeled on those of heavenly worship. The Tabernacle of Moses, and its successor, the Temple in Jerusalem, are explicitly described by God to Moses as a correspondence between the invisible heavenly prototype and its visible counterpart on earth. The Church, which is the New Jerusalem and an image of God’s Heavenly Jerusalem, continues the Old Testament concept of the correspondence between the earthly temple and worship and their heavenly prototypes. In the New Testament, there are various descriptions of heavenly worship, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John. This correspondence between the invisible heavenly prototype and the visible earthly expression is a vital characteristic of Christian architecture and worship from the earliest Christian centuries, and is a fundamental principle of Orthodox liturgical theology.

Orthodox Architecture and Icons Correspond to Heavenly Prototypes

Since our primary focus here is on liturgical practice, we will only very briefly cite a few examples of how this fundamental principle is expressed in Orthodox architecture and iconography. First, one very important example in Orthodox architecture is that the traditional Orthodox dome over a basically square, rather than rectangular space, is understood to be a reflection of the heavens over the earth, and symbolizes that the liturgical action that occurs beneath the dome is a reflection of the heavenly worship. (There are many other ways in which Orthodox church architecture symbolizes the heavenly realm and its continuous worship of the Holy Trinity, which we don’t have space to consider here. For further discussion, see: The Artistic Unity of the Russian Orthodox Church: Religion, Liturgy, Icons and Architecture, by Dr. Jane M. deVyver, M.Th., M.A., Ph.D.; St. Innocent/Firebird Videos, Audios & Books, Redford, MI; 1992; http://www.firebirdvideos.com/books/artistic.htm)

Second, in authentic Orthodox icons, which, in addition to the iconostasis, normally cover the walls and ceiling of the Orthodox temple, and reveal salvation history while making the invisible heavenly realm visible, also reflect the Orthodox experience of standing in two worlds at once. Authentic icons correspond to and reflect the vision of the transfigured, redeemed and Eternal Reality in a similar way as Divine Services do. Some of the techniques used to convey this reality are: not depicting the figures as we see things with our outer bodily eyes, but showing the bodies, nature, animals and buildings in a ‘stylized’ way, as seen with the inner, spiritual eyes. Another iconographic technique, which symbolizes that time and space are transcended in the Divine realm, is the use of what is called “reversed perspective.” This means that instead of trying to depict a three-dimensional image on a two-dimensional surface by using “Renaissance perspective,” in which things in the background are shown to be smaller than things in the foreground, icons use what is called “reversed perspective,” where things in the foreground are smaller, and things in the background are larger. “Renaissance perspective” tries to imitate the world as seen with our human, temporal eyes, whereas “Reversed perspective” seeks to convey the Eternal, heavenly realm—Reality from God’s perspective, not from human perspective. (Again, there are many other iconographic techniques by which authentic icons reflect Orthodox theology that we don’t have space to discuss here. See again the above cited “Artistic Unity” book.)

Characteristics of Heavenly Worship

Let us now discuss the major thrust of this article, namely, the experience of time and eternity in Orthodox Divine worship. First, we must accept the Orthodox Church’s premise that what we do in our Divine Services is a reflection of Divine worship. Having accepted this premise, then let us ask— what are the characteristics of heavenly worship? Perhaps the most prominent elements of heavenly worship, as described especially in the Apocalypse/Revelation, is that the angels are in continuous prayer, continuously singing hymns, and falling down in worship. (There are other characteristics that won’t be discussed here, in order to maintain our focus on liturgical singing and chanting.)

How Orthodox Worship Corresponds to Heavenly Prototypes

How are these characteristics reflected in Orthodox worship? First of all, the numerous references in the Apocalypse/Revelation and in many of the Psalms of the angels singing, or worshipers being called to sing psalms and hymns, is reflected in the Orthodox Tradition of singing and chanting all Divine Services. A chanter “reads” hymns and prayers, but to “read” does not mean to speak-read, but to chant-read. (In other languages of the Orthodox world, the same word is used to refer to both chanting and singing, although in English we usually distinguish between the two.)

Second, another vital component of Orthodox worship is the experience of “time.” There are several liturgical practices characteristic of Orthodox worship which are intended to convey that what we are doing in Orthodox Divine Services is a reflection of Divine worship, wherein we participate in the continuous singing of the angels before God’s throne in heaven, and wherein we leave the temporal world and its “chronos” concept of earthly time, and enter into the “kairos” concept of transfigured and redeemed time. These liturgical practices, vital to the authentic celebration of Divine worship and to an accurate reflection of Orthodox theology, include:

1) Not sharply cutting off at the ends of phrases.

2) In general, singing and chanting “legato” (smoothly) and holding out the last syllable.

3) Overlapping between the singers, cantors, priests and deacons.

4) Not having “empty spaces,” where the singers or chanters stop before the next liturgical action starts, and there are silent “holes” in what should be the continuous flow of worship.

(5) Singing and chanting at an appropriate tempo that is neither too fast nor too slow, and at a volume that is neither shouting nor inaudible, (as is appropriate to what is being sung or chanted, the acoustics of the church, and size of the choir, etc.). Racing through hymns and responses and shouting at full-volume reflect the rat-race of our temporal world, not the peace of the heavenly realm.

(6) The texts and their theology are of primary importance to Orthodox liturgical practice, and basically “drive” the music. Therefore the words must be pronounced carefully with great attention to diction, so the words are understandable. If the tempo is too fast, clear diction disappears, and there are simply sounds, not words. Much of our magnificent Orthodox theology is contained in the beautiful poetry of the hymns of the Divine Services, which is lost if not sung and chanted in an understandable way (and of course, in an understandable language).

Recognizing the Contemporary Liturgical-Practice “Heresy”

When we fail to adhere to these basic elements of the liturgical practice of Orthodox Divine Worship, and allow our secular and worldly practices and mentality to creep in, we basically are participating in what can be called a modern-day heresy that gradually undermines and erodes the fundamental principle of liturgical theology, namely, that what we do in our Divine Services is a reflection of, and corresponds to, continuous heavenly Divine Worship. It is vital that we recognize this growing, insidious “heresy” for what it is and avoid it, and not protest against and reject our centuries of authentic Orthodox Tradition.

Since it is natural for us Orthodox to be influenced by our surrounding Protestant and secular culture, we might point out here that the very concept of earthly worship as corresponding to heavenly worship is totally absent in Protestantism. As a result, what is called “worship” easily becomes individualistic, self-centered and worldly, instead of God-centered—“what do I get out of it?” rather than, “how can I worship God more fully and more continuously?” What should be worship, then easily becomes “entertainment,” especially in the music dimension of church services, so that people will “enjoy” themselves. In contrast, only Orthodox call their church services “Divine Services,” reflecting on earth the experience of the continuous worship of God in Heaven. And only Orthodox call the Mass/Eucharist/Communion service the “Divine Liturgy.” Orthodox must guard against a “protesting” against Traditional Orthodox liturgical practice and introducing individualistic personal preferences, under the influence of secular culture and music practice, and Protestant “worship” ideology and practice which contradict Orthodox liturgical theology and practice. It is urgent and vital that we resist the temptation to insidiously secularize and protestantize our Orthodox Divine worship, and recall to mind that the word “Orthodox” means both “correct worship,” as well as “correct doctrine.”

It is vital that we understand the meaning of Orthodox Divine Services as Divine, not earthly and worldly Worship, so that choir directors, choir singers and chanters authentically fulfill their privileged and honored roles given to them to properly lead heavenly worship on earth. If we know why Orthodox do things a certain way, it helps us to resist the worldly influences and temptations to alter Orthodox liturgical practice to conform to what we have been socialized in our worldly lives to think is the “correct” way of doing things. To succumb to these worldly, secular, “protestantizing” temptations is to participate in this modern “heresy.”

Some Practical Ways to Avoid this Contemporary “Heresy”

What are some practical ways in which we can maintain our authentic Orthodox Liturgical Tradition and practice, and avoid the above-described creeping, insidious American “heresy”? Here are just a few examples, intended primarily for choirs and chanters, which is usually where the worldly practices sneak in.

(1) From the Western worldly perspective, no one should speak until the previous person has finished. For more than one person to speak at the same time is either rude, or hostile, as in arguing, and not considered “good order.” In Western Protestant and Roman Catholic liturgical practice, for example, it is virtually impossible to get a choir or minister/priest to sing/say their next part until the other one completely stops. In authentic Orthodox liturgical practice, however, in most cases, the choir, cantor, priest or deacon definitely should not stop until what comes next has started, especially in short back-and-forth exchanges, such as the Prokeimenon, etc. In Litanies/Ektenias, the choir’s responses of “Lord have mercy” etc., should be smooth and legato and not hurried or staccato, and definitely not abruptly cut off — in order to adequately convey the sense of the transfigured and non-hurried time of continuous heavenly worship.

Liturgical Tempo: Worldly vs. Redeemed TIme

(2) The struggle between worldly time versus redeemed time is perhaps nowhere more obvious than in the tempo at which the Divine Services are sung and chanted. Certainly, there are acceptable variations in tempos between parishes, priests, deacons, choir directors and chanters, and there is not just one way that is “correct.” But let us suggest a few basic principles that can be used as guidelines in singing and chanting to help our worship adequately convey the reality of standing in two worlds at once, and reflect on earth the continuous heavenly Divine Worship that is on-going before God’s Throne, in which we are called to participate, and to more fully experience the Eternal and Divine Presence in Orthodox Divine Worship, and to resist the temptation of singing everything “fast/faster/fastest” (similar to “loud/louder/loudest”).

(a) Some hymns should be sung faster or slower, determined by the words, the place in the Divine Service, the content or character of the Service, and the liturgical feast or season of the year—in general, more briskly for major joyful feasts, or services such as Weddings, more slowly during penitential seasons. Pascha Matins and Vespers, for example, should be brisk. If the words are akin to “Let us rejoice in the Lord!” the tempo would normally be more brisk than “Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me!” Tempos are also likely to be tied to the choice of the musical settings of particular hymns that reflect the significance of the season, service or particular day. Panikhidas (or whatever the reader calls Memorial Services for the departed) and funerals should never be raced through, but sung reverently, so that the beautiful words can be grasped; so that life in the Divine Presence of the departed can be more fully evoked; and so that the soul of the departed can be better aided by our prayers to “dwell with the blessed.” In the Divine Liturgy, it is appropriate for the opening Three Antiphons to be sung somewhat briskly but not speeding. On the other hand, the Anaphora should always be sung very reverently and slowly, not only because it is the holiest part of the Divine Liturgy, during which the bread and wine are consecrated and transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also because it is at this place in the Divine Liturgy that we especially “represent the cherubim” and participate with “the thousands of archangels and hosts of angels, the Cherubim and Seraphim” in worship before God’s Throne, as they continually sing “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are full of Thy Glory! Hosanna in the Highest!” At the Epiclesis, during which we sing: “We Praise Thee. We bless Thee. We give thanks unto Thee, O Lord. And we pray unto Thee, O our God.” — this should always be sung slowly and reverently, and never to be rushed through, even if one is in a parish where the priest says the silent priestly prayers out-loud for the congregation to hear, after the choir finishes singing this hymn.

(b) Generally, no Service and no hymn or response should be sung so fast that it is like a race with a stop-watch to see how fast one can get through it. The contemporary American liturgical-practice “heresy” especially rears its ugly head in this regard not only in Panikhidas and all Services in general, but most especially in the singing of the responses in Litanies, which are increasingly rendered in rapid, staccato syllables, abruptly severed at the end. And, to cite another specific example, there is a spreading tendency to sing the magnificent Vespers hymn, “O Gladsome Light,” (especially the frequently-sung Dvoretsky setting) in a way that reflects the rat-race of the world and our everyday lives, instead of providing a glimpse into heavenly Light and eternal Glory. At the same time, of course, it is desirable to avoid singing hymns so inappropriately slowly that one might feel like dozing in between notes or syllables.

(c) Sometimes choir directors and singers think that in order to have energy in one’s singing it must be loud and fast, and that softer or slower equals lack of energy. This is not true. Trained vocal production, infused with a sincere spiritual understanding and concentration, can produce even greater energy and vitality in softer or slower hymns or phrases. On the other hand, singing inappropriately loudly can sound like an irreverent shouting match of ‘loud, louder and loudest,’ and singing too quickly can be devoid of energy and reverence, and can appear to be a race to see how fast one can “get through the service,” and go home.

(d) It is important to remember that singers and chanters are blessed with the extremely important role of leading the congregation in prayer and worship, and should receive proper training in order to fulfill their roles in the best way possible. The singing and chanting must be done in a manner that is understandable, audible and intelligible to the people, and an offering of praise to God, whether one or one hundred people are present, and always to be rendered in the most prayerful and reverent way possible. The chanter must never mumble unintelligibly as though to himself, but always keep in mind that he or she is praying before the throne of God. Nothing should be rushed; diction must be very distinct (especially final consonants, d’s and t’s in particular), with the words read accurately and meaningfully, and with pauses in the proper places so that the listener can understand and comprehend what is being chanted or sung. It is easy to give in to the temptation of racing through familiar prayers, especially the Trisagion (Holy God) Prayers that are so familiar; but then instead of praying the words, one simply mouths empty sounds, whose meaning is diminished and minimized for both the listener and the chanter. The chanter and singer should make every effort to chant and sing every prayer and Service (such as the Panikhida), no matter how familiar, as though it were for the first time. Similar as in singing, there are a variety of styles or ways of chanting that the same person might use at different times, according to what the texts are or their liturgical use. For example, the Psalms are chanted one way, major hymns another, the Epistle in yet another way, and the Holy Saturday Matins Prophecy of Ezekiel in a completely distinctive way.

Continuous Worship: Avoiding Empty Holes or Gaps

(3) As we already said, for Protestants and Roman Catholics (and of course, in secular music performance) there is no concept whatsoever of earthly worship corresponding to continuous, unending heavenly worship. As a natural consequence of this attitude, having “down-time” or “quiet-time” in church services is regarded as perfectly acceptable. The concept and practice of having “a moment of silence” to pray privately or to honor the departed is common, and this is perfectly acceptable in secular and heterodox settings. On the other hand, it is absolutely not acceptable in public Orthodox worship, and any “empty spaces” should be strictly avoided, because it disrupts the continuity and flow that should characterize Orthodox Divine worship. How can this concept be implemented in our own parishes? Here are a few practical suggestions.

(a) Singers should have the next thing to be sung or chanted ready immediately after the previous hymn is completed, so the choir director can give the pitches immediately, sometimes even before the priest/deacon or cantor has finished.

(b) Singers should learn the order of Divine Services, and pay attention to what is happening in the Service and always know what comes next and where it is.

(c) Choir directors should watch the liturgical action that is happening at the altar or elsewhere, so that the singing can be stretched out if necessary because the priest or deacon has not yet finished his part of the liturgical action. Here are a few examples of when this is most commonly necessary:

(i) when the choir is singing during the censing of the church/temple, such as during Psalm 104/103 at the beginning of Great Vespers, during the Magnification in Matins, or other time. The tempo of the singing must be adjusted to accommodate the size of the temple and how long it takes the priest or deacon to cense all around it, and might require a repetition of part of the hymn.

(ii) Another very important place that has to be closely watched is before the Great Entrance during the singing of the Cherubic Hymn or its replacement, including at the Presanctified Liturgy. Much of traditional Orthodox liturgical practice involves singing that “covers” liturgical action and prayers by the priest, such as during the singing of the Cherubic Hymn, so that there is a continual, unbroken flow. It is important that the choir should continue to sing until the door opens and the clergy are ready to process out for the Great Entrance (or already have processed out, according to local practice), and not to just stop when the hymn has been sung once, resulting in an empty hole in what should be a continuous liturgical flow; the tempo of the singing and possible repetition should be adjusted to accommodate the priest’s liturgical action. (In parishes where the procession comes out during the singing of the Cherubic Hymn and processes down the side aisle and back up the center aisle, of course the choir director is to coordinate with the priest, whose direction is always to be followed.)

(iii) A further place that has to be closely watched is at the end of the Cherubic Hymn, after the Great Entrance. Frequently the musical setting is short, and doesn’t “cover” the liturgical action if sung too fast. The priest has considerable liturgical action to do at this time—placing the Holy Gifts on the altar, holding the aer (large veil) around the censor and placing it over the Holy Gifts, and then censing the Holy Gifts, before he can begin the Litany of Supplication. If there is a deacon, he is holding the censor, and cannot come out to do the Litany until the censing is completed. Therefore the choir director must carefully watch what is happening at the altar at this point and conduct appropriately, usually by singing more slowly and “stretching out” the Alleluias, to avoid the disruption of the continuous liturgical flow of Divine Service by having an empty hole.

(iv) An additional place in the Divine Liturgy where there must be close coordination between the priest and choir, is during the Anaphora. There are considerable local variations in liturgical practice during the Anaphora but the basic principles of not being in a rush and not having empty holes should be maintained in accommodating the local practices and coordinating with the priest in charge.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we hope that these few words have been helpful in understanding why things are done in certain ways in Orthodox liturgical practice, and therefore to understand why it is so necessary to guard against the temptations to change Traditional liturgical practice (changes that at first might be barely perceptible), in order for it to conform more with what we experience around us in our everyday lives — that is, that it conforms more with the values and practices of the secular, temporal world, rather than reflecting and corresponding to Divine Reality and the opportunity to participate in the experience of standing in the Presence of the Eternal God in Orthodox Divine Worship.

(The author has a seminary M.Th. (Masters of Theology), M.A. and Ph.D. degrees, with many years of studying, teaching and writing on a wide variety of Orthodox subjects, including liturgical theology, and the history and meaning of icons and other Orthodox liturgical arts, as well as a lifetime of singing Divine Services, plus chanting and conducting.)

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Can Orthodox Christianity Speak To Eastern Religions?

by Kevin Allen

I recently had a conversation with a dear Eastern Orthodox priest, whose twenty six year old son had left home the day before to live indefinitely at a Buddhist monastery. He was heart broken. His son was not a stranger to Eastern Orthodoxy or to its monastic tradition, having even spent two months on the holy mountain of Mt. Athos.

His son's journey is not an isolated event. Eastern religious traditions are a growing and competing force in American religious life. Buddhism is now the fourth-largest religious group in the United States, with 2.5 - 3 million adherents, approximately 800,000 of whom are American western "converts"? There are actually more Buddhists in America today than Eastern Orthodox Christians! The Dalai Lama (the leader of one of the Tibetan Buddhist sects) is one of the most recognized and admired people in the world and far better recognized than any Eastern Orthodox hierarch? Have you looked in the magazine section of Borders or Barnes and Noble lately? There are more publications with names like "Shambala Sun", "Buddhadharma", and "What is enlightenment?" on the shelves than Christian publications!

In addition to losing seekers to eastern spiritual traditions (many of them youth), eastern metaphysics has also seeped into our western cultural worldview without much notice. They are doing a better job (sadly) "evangelizing" our culture than we Eastern Orthodox Christians are!

The Lord Himself commands us clearly "that repentance and remission of sins (baptism) should be preached in His name to all nations" (Luke 24:47). Buddhists (of which there are many sects) and Hindus live among us in America in ever-growing numbers, in our college classrooms, on our soccer fields, and in our "health foods" stores - they are right in our own backyards! They are a rich, potential "mission field" for the Eastern Orthodox Church in the United States. Unfortunately with few exceptions, like the writings of Monk Damascene [Christensen] and Kyriakos S. Markides, we are not talking to this group at all.

As a former Hindu and disciple of a well-known guru, or spiritual teacher, I can tell you Orthodox Christianity shares more "common ground" with seekers of non-Christian spiritual traditions of the east than any other Christian confession! The truth is when Evangelical Protestants attempt to evangelize the eastern seeker they often do more harm than good, because their approach is western, rational, and doctrinal, with (generally) little understanding of the paradigms and spiritual language (or yearnings) of the seekers of these eastern faiths.

There are three "fundamental principles" that Buddhists and Hindus generally share in common:

1. A common "supra-natural" reality underlies and pervades the phenomenal world. This Supreme Reality isn't Personal, but Trans-personal. God or Ultimate Reality in these traditions is ultimately a pure consciousness without attributes.

2. The human soul is of the same essence with this divine reality. All human nature is divine at its core. Accordingly, Christ or Buddha isn't a savior, but becomes a paradigm of self-realization, the goal of all individuals.

3. Existence is in fundamental unity (monism). Creation isn't what it appears to the naked eye. It is in essence "illusion" and "unreal". There is one underlying ground of being (think "quantum field" in physics!) which unifies all beings and out of which and into which everything can be reduced.

What do these metaphysics have in common with our Eastern Orthodox Faith? Not much, on the surface. But in the eastern non-Christian spiritual traditions, knowledge is not primarily about the development of metaphysical doctrine or theology. This is one of the problems western Christians have communicating with them. Eastern religion is never theoretical or doctrinal. It's about the struggle for liberation from death and suffering through spiritual experience. This "existential-therapeutic-transformational" ethos is the first connection Eastern Orthodoxy has with these traditions, because Orthodoxy is essentially therapeutic and transformative in emphasis!

The second thing we agree on with Buddhists and Hindus is the fallen state of humanity. The goal of the Christian life according to the Church Fathers is to move from the "sub-natural" or "fallen state", to the "natural" or the "according to nature state" after the Image (of God), and ultimately to the "supra-natural" or "beyond nature" state, after the Likeness. According to the teaching of the holy Fathers the stages of the spiritual life are purification, illumination and deification. While we don't agree with Buddhists or Hindus on what "illumination" or "deification" means (because our metaphysics are different) we agree on the basic diagnosis of the fallen human condition. As I once said to a practicing Tibetan Buddhist: "We agree on the sickness (of the human condition). Where we disagree is on the cure".

Eastern Orthodoxy - especially the hesychasm (contemplative) tradition - teaches that true "spiritual knowledge" presupposes a "purified" and "awakened" nous (Greek), which is the "Inner 'I'" of the soul. The true Eastern Orthodox theologian isn't one who simply knows doctrine, but one "who knows God, or the inner essences or principles of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception. " As a well-known Orthodox theologian explains, "When the nous is illuminated, it means that it is receiving the energy of God which illuminates it..." This idea resonates with eastern seekers who struggle to experience - through non-Christian ascesis and/or through occult methods - spiritual illumination. They just don't know this opportunity exists within a Christian context.

As part of their spiritual ascesis, Buddhist and Hindu dhamma (practice) emphasizes cessation of desire, which is necessary to quench the passions. Holy Tradition teaches apatheia, or detachment as a means of combating the fallen passions. Hindu and Buddhist meditation methods teach "stillness". The word hesychia in Holy Tradition - the root of the word for hesychasm - means "stillness"! We don't meditate using a mantra, but we pray the "Jesus Prayer". Buddhism, especially, teaches "mindfulness". Holy Tradition teaches "watchfulness" so we do not fall into temptation! Hindus and Buddhists understand it is not wise to live for the present life, but to struggle for the future one. We Orthodox agree! Americans who become Buddhist or Hindu are often fervent spiritual seekers, used to struggling with foreign languages (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Japanese) and cultures and pushing themselves outside of their "comfort zones". We converts to the Eastern Orthodox Church can relate! Some Buddhist and Hindu sects even have complex forms of "liturgy", including chant, prostration and veneration of icons! Tibetan Buddhism especially places high value on the lives of (their) ascetics, relics and "saints".

The main difference in spiritual experience is that what the eastern seeker recognizes as "spiritual illumination", achieved through deep contemplation, Holy Tradition calls "self contemplation". Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), who was experienced in yoga (which means 'union') before becoming a hesychast - monk and disciple of St. Silouan of the Holy Mountain wrote from personal experience, "All contemplation arrived at by this means is self-contemplation, not contemplation of God. In these circumstances we open up for ourselves created beauty, not First Being. And in all this there is no salvation for man."

Clement of Alexandria, two thousand years ago wrote that pre-Christian philosophers were often inspired by God, but he cautioned one to be careful what one took from them!

So we acknowledge the eastern seeker through his ascesis or contemplative methodologies may experience deep levels of created beauty, or created being (through self-contemplation), para-normal dimensions, or even the "quantum field" that modern physics has revealed! However, it is only in the Eastern Orthodox Church and through its deifying mysteries that the seeker will be introduced to the province of Uncreated Divine Life. It is only in the Orthodox Church that the eastern seeker will hear there is more to "salvation" than simply forgiveness of sins and justification before God. He will be led to participate in the Uncreated Energies of God, so that they "may be partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4). As a member of the Body of Christ he will join in the deifying process, and be increasingly transformed after the Likeness! Thankfully, deification is available to all who enter the Holy Orthodox Church, are baptized (which begins the deifying process) and partake of the holy mysteries. Deification is not just for monks, ascetics and the spiritual athletes on Mount Athos!

Eastern Orthodoxy has much to share with eastern spiritual seekers. Life and death hangs in the balance in this life, not the millions of lives eastern seekers think they have! As the Apostle Paul soberly reminds us, " ... it is appointed for men to die once but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27).

May God give us the vision to begin to share the "true light" of the Holy Orthodox Faith with seekers of the eastern spiritual traditions.

References

1. Makarian Homilies; Glossary of The Philokalia
2. Hierotheos Vlachos, Life after death; 1995; Birth of the Theotokos Monastery
3. On Prayer; Sophrony; pages 168-170

Kevin Allen, is a former Hindu practitioner before becoming an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

10 Reasons I Believe the Holy Light Is a Miracle 2

Continued from Part One

Reason One: The Insufficiency of All Skeptical Claims (Part 1)

“As someone withdrawing from the light does not in the least do harm to the light, but does very great harm to himself, becoming immersed in darkness, so also one accustomed to scorning the power of the Almighty does not in the least do harm to it [His power], but upon himself brings extreme harm.” - St. John Chrysostom

The witness and testimony of the Holy Light miracle lacks clarity and is compromised by witnesses polarized at the extreme ends of a spectrum from belief to disbelief. While there is a remarkable similarity in reports with regard to the miraculous properties of the Holy Light, the vast majority of sources attribute the phenomenon to deceit and trickery. It is these latter accounts that I will analyze here to determine their reliability and validity in the discussion of the facts of the Holy Light.

An Evaluation of Skepticism and Human Knowledge

A skeptic is one who doubts. The standard dictionary definition of a skeptic is quite revealing when it describes them as those who hold to “the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain and who have doubts concerning basic religious principles.” In fact, skepticism “...confidently challenges not merely religious or metaphysical knowledge but all knowledge claims that venture beyond immediate experience” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1997, 26:569). The key words here are “immediate experience.”

Translated into common parlance, this simply means that the skeptic is not prepared to accept anything that cannot be verified empirically (viz., via the scientific method). Paul Kurtz, well-known skeptic and former editor of The Humanist (official organ of the American Humanist Association), put it like this:

"To adopt such a scientific approach unreservedly is to accept as ultimate in all matters of fact and real existence the appeal to the evidence of experience alone; a court subordinate to no higher authority, to be overridden by no prejudice however comfortable" (“Scientific Humanism,” The Humanist Alternative, 1973, p. 109, emp. added).

Chet Raymo, in his book, Skeptics and True Believers, is forced to admit the following: "Skepticism offers only uncertainty and doubt.... Science cannot rule out heaven and hell because they are beyond the reach of empirical investigation" (1998, p. 5,77). Thus, in the end the skeptic does not say he cannot know that God exists. Rather, he says he doubts that God exists because He cannot be seen, felt, measured, weighed, or probed by the scientific method.

Thirty-four years before Chet Raymo wrote about “Skeptics and True Believers,” Harvard professor George G. Simpson wrote: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything....” (This View of Life, 1964, p. 769). Simply put, the point is this: If science cannot deal with something, that “something” either does not exist (worst-case scenario) or is completely unimportant (best-case scenario).

Welcome to the make-believe world of the skeptic in which science reigns supreme, and a cavalier attitude toward all things non-empirical rules the day.

But what about those concepts that, although non-empirical and therefore unobservable via the scientific method, nevertheless are recognized to exist, and are admitted to be of critical importance to the entire human race—concepts like love, sorrow, joy, altruism, etc.? Arlie Hoover accurately assessed the situation in which the skeptic finds himself in regard to the existence of such items when he wrote:

"Why does the scientific method reject subjective factors, emotions, feelings? Simply because it is not convenient! Because the method will not allow you to deal with the immense complexity of reality. The scientist, therefore, selects from the whole of experience only those elements that can be weighed, measured, numbered, or which lend themselves to mathematical treatment....

"This is a fallacy we call Reductionism. You commit the Reductive Fallacy when you select a portion of a complex entity and say the whole is merely that portion. You do this when you say things like: love is nothing but sex, man is just an animal, music is nothing but sound waves, art is nothing but color.... When it gets down to the real serious questions of life—origin, purpose, destiny, meaning, morality—science is silent....

"If science can’t handle morality, aesthetics, and religion that only proves that the scientific method was reductive in the first place. Sir Arthur Eddington once used a famous analogy to illustrate this reductionism. He told of a fisherman who concluded from his fishing experiences with a certain net that “no creature of the sea is less than two inches long.” Now this disturbed many of his colleagues and they demurred, pointing out that many sea creatures are under two inches and they just slipped through the two-inch holes in the net. But the ichthyologist was unmoved: 'What my net can’t catch ain’t fish, he pontificated, and then he scornfully accused his critics of having pre-scientific, medieval, metaphysical prejudices.

"Scientific reductionism or 'Scientism'— as it is often called — is similar to this fisherman with the special net. Since the strict empirical scientist can’t 'catch' or 'grasp' such qualitative things like freedom, morality, aesthetics, mind, and God, he concludes that they don’t exist. But they have just slipped through his net. They have been slipping through his net all the way from Democritus to B.F. Skinner to Carl Sagan" (“Starving the Spirit,” Firm Foundation, 98[4]:6, January 1981, p. 6).

In speaking of Skepticism and its offspring of Humanism, Sir Julian Huxley wrote: “It will have nothing to do with absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and absolute authority” (Essays of a Humanist, 1964, pp. 73-74). To that list, one might add absolute joy, absolute love, absolute freedom, absolute peace, etc. The skeptic has paid a high price for his scientism — the rejection and abandonment of some of the human race’s most important, valuable, worthwhile, and cherished, concepts. Why? In order to be able to say: I doubt that God exists!

Beyond the empirical proof demanded of skeptics, there is also logic and the proofs of substantiation and conclusions based on valid premises. To arrive at truth, conclusions must be validated by the Principle of Sufficient Reason. According to Leibniz who formulated this Principle, “for any idea to be valid, there should be sufficient grounds [sufficient reason]; that is, a conclusion should have substantiation [or grounds] proceeding from propositions and assertions that have already been proven.”

Do the skeptics adhere to the Principle of Sufficient Reason in their skepticism over the validity of the Holy Light miracle? Is there any validity to their claims?

My own conviction to this question is that there is no sufficient validity to the skeptical claims of skeptics regarding the miracle of the Holy Light. This will be shown in various ways as I set forth my 10 Reasons Why I Believe the Holy Light Is a Miracle. Before I do so, however, my first reason is exclusively dedicated to ten points that show why the skeptical claims are completely insufficient in themselves.

1. Skepticism of the Holy Light is Associated With a Worldview

A worldview refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. For example, a skeptic determines knowledge through empirical proof and thus has a Naturalist worldview that does not allow for explanations beyond the natural world. A Christian, a Muslim and a Jew have Theistic worldviews, allowing for an explanation of things beyond empirical and reasonable proof that is supernatural, but they interpret their theism and supernatural beliefs in different ways. There are even differences within particular beliefs that help determine how they view the world, as for instance in Christianity which is broken up into its various bodies and denominations, so that, for example, an Orthodox Christian may have a different worldview from a Catholic or Protestant Christian.

What we find with the skeptical claims throughout history trying to disprove the Holy Light is that the skeptics making their arguments always do so in light of their worldview. Even theistic skeptics have put aside the supernatural claims of Orthodox Christians mainly because it contradicted the worldview which defines them. Such an interpretation of evidence is not only biased but it commits the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, which is committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof. In this type of argument, a conclusion masquerades as a premise. An example of circular reasoning is: "The Holy Light is not a miracle because there are no such things as miracles", or "The Holy Light is a false miracle because only Islam has true miracles", etc. To put it simply, a circular argument is used as a mechanism to prevent an assertion from being challenged or questioned, or to "win" a debate by sending it round and round in circles.

When we trace the history of skepticism towards the Holy Light, we see exactly how the reality of such skepticism is in fact based on the clash of worldviews.

In April 637, the Arabs, after a long siege captured Jerusalem, which was surrendered by Patriarch Sophronius. Early sources after the ninth century indicate that Muslims generally believed in the miraculous nature of the Holy Light, being eye-witnesses of the event. If anything, at certain times they tried to prevent the ceremony of the Holy Light from taking place because it was converting so many Muslims to Christianity, though this was in vain. In the eleventh century we start to see reports of Muslims trying to undermine the miracle, but this was done to justify persecution of Christians. For the most part, for Muslims the miracle was undeniable and they gave many stories to give alternate explanations, but all without any substantial proof. And this was done because it contradicted their worldview.

During the Latin occupation of the twelfth century, we begin to receive accounts of the miracle of the Holy Light given from Western perspectives. As eye-witnesses of the event, again they could not deny what they observed. However on March 9, 1238 Pope Gregory the IX issued a Bull forbidding participation in the ceremony of the Holy Light with the Greeks on grounds that it was a fraud. It should be noted that this Bull was issued after never having observed the ceremony nor explaining what deceitful means were employed in obtaining the Holy Light. This condemnation in general ended any sympathetic Western reactions to the Holy Light. In 1524 Fra Francesco Suriano wrote a treatise on the Holy Land and in describing the Holy Light indicates why he refused to believe it: "The said fire, however, does not descend in truth...I think that the privation of such a grace is due to the sins and heresy of these nations." In other words, because the miraculous properties of the Holy Light didn't fit in their worldview (and political motivations as we will examine later on), the miracle must not be true.

It wasn't until 1696 when the English chaplain Henry Maundrell approached the ceremony of the Holy Light with a skepticism that became standard during the Renaissance and through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Yet Maundrell's purpose was to beforehand was to rid the ceremony of its "superstition" by describing it as a ceremony performed with a "pagan frenzy". With the rise of Humanism coupled with the condemnation of the Pope, the ceremony of the Holy Light was viewed with increasingly negative Western assessments not necessarily based on any evidence, but because the phenomenon clashed with their worldviews and tastes. Even Greek thinkers after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 and educated in the West slowly began to be skeptical of the supernatural character of the Holy Light, not based on personal experience, but it conformed to the prevailing attitude of the age of scientific realism and skepticism. Even many religious skeptics began to doubt, like Adamantios Koraes, because they believed that religion must be viewed through the "prism" of the scientific discoveries of their age. The miracle of the Holy Light, therefore, was an effrontery to one's systematic approach to religious phenomena.

All of these approaches persist in all the arguments against the miraculous nature of the Holy Light till this day in the twenty-first century and there is nothing new under the sun. All challenges to the authenticity of the miracle are based on nothing more than an opposing worldview. For some it is more of a critique of Orthodoxy that it is a critique of the Holy Light, while for others it is more of a critique of Christianity or God in general, or even such things as the exact location of the Holy Sepulchre (as Protestants later argued). I have yet to read an honest critique of the Holy Light given with an open mind to the possibility of its authenticity.

2. Contradictions Among Skeptics

When we examine the historical records of Muslims, Heterodox, Skeptics, and Non-Believers, one of the more interesting facts we find is that all of the challenges against the authenticity of the Holy Light contradict each other. In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. In reference to the Holy Light, what we find among the skeptics is the contradictory "observations" which demonstrate how the "fraud" of the Orthodox clergy is pulled off to deceive the people. One finds similar contradictory theories among scholars today who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Because there are so many accounts which try to explain naturalistically how the miracle occurs, and because there are contradictory problems with all of them due to their hearsay origins, I will narrow the critique to four Muslim critics of the Holy Light to give a sample of the contradictions found.

I. Krachkovsky was an Orientalist who wrote a piece in Russian titled "The Holy Fire According to the Story of al-Biruni and Other Muslim writers of the 10th-13th Centuries" (The Christian East, Petrograd, 1915) in which he provides the accounts of these Muslim writers concerning the Holy Light. From him the skeptics have used these sources to show that the Holy Light is a "fraud". What the skeptics fail or ignore to do however is read the commentary of the scholar who compiled them - I. Krachkovsky. He explains the contradictory nature of these accounts when he writes: "The very diversity of these accounts, and the way they contradict each other, indicate that here also it is hardly possible to expect a basis in fact." In other words, since the accounts which explain how the "fraud" takes place are contradictory, then the possibility these accounts are true are pretty much impossible.

Here are some samples of contradictions that I. Krachkovsky points out, which obviously cannot all be true, yet all the authors seem so sure of themselves that they have uncovered the "plot". Ibn al-Qalanisi (d. 1160), Yakut (d. 1229), al-Jawhari (d. 1242), and Mudjir ad-din (d. c. 1496) were four Muslim writers who attempted to explain naturally how the "fraudulent" Holy Light miracle took place. Yet what we find is that their "explanations" in fact contradict each other. Ibn al-Qalanisi and Mudjir ad-din, for example, say that a thin iron thread is attached to all the oil lamp wicks by which the "trickery" is performed, but Yakut and al-Jawhari say it was attached to only one oil lamp wick. Furthermore, according to Yakut, the thread is said to be simply lit by someone, yet according to al-Jawhari the wick bursts into a flame from a complex, hidden apparatus containing sulfur which is calculated to an exact time for it to light. Al-Jawhari even contradicts himself when he writes in the beginning of his account that all the Christians are participants in the conspiracy regarding this "sham" miracle, and yet at the end of the same account he reveals that the secret is only known to one monk who sets up the apparatus. These contradictions are just one of many problems with these accounts that we will further examine later.

It should also be noted that the elaborate and fanciful tales of the Muslims are not held by later critics and non-believers, thus discrediting them. The issue of deception performed by the Orthodox clergy and monks became much more simplistic and conspiratorial especially after the Latins were no longer allowed to participate in the ceremony. And whenever pilgrims from the West would visit the Holy Land having heard about the miracle, the Latins would make it a point to inform them that the miracle was "in fact" deceit on the part of the clergy, and gullibility coupled with superstitious naivete on the part of the believers. In light of this, one wonders where the real conspiracy was to be found, by the Orthodox or by the Latins trying to discredit the whole thing.

Thus are the accounts of Western authors fueled by the Latin's jealousy and intrigues, insisting without proof that the ceremony was a hoax. The contradictions this developed range from J. Doubdan writing in 1651 that the Patriarch uses a "flint" inside the tomb to ignite the flame, to Dr. Johann Nepomuk Sepp explaining in 1863 that the Patriarch "rubbed his hands with some kind of phosphorous-like substance" to ignite it. In the twentieth century the range of explanations go from the simplistic accusation of the Patriarch using "a cigarette lighter" by a pilgrim in 1988, to the more complex and ridiculous theory of Carl-Martin Edsman who wrote in 1955 that a light flashes inside the tomb when it is ignited by "spreading alcoholic spirit about the Tomb" (Bishop Auxentios of Photike, The Paschal Fire In Jerusalem, ch. 1). It seems that with all the contradictions of the critics, the only thing they agree on is that they are very sure of their opinions which are based on pure speculation and grounded in absolutely no facts.

Continued...Reason One: The Insuffiency of All Skeptical Claims (Part 2)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Nilus the Myrrhgusher

St. Nilus the Myrrh-Gusher (Feast Day - November 12 and May 7)

Saint Nilus the Myrrhgusher of Mt. Athos was born of pious parents in Greece, in a village named Hagios Petros, in the Kynouria region of the Peloponnese. He was orphaned in his youth and was raised by his uncle, Hieromonk Makarios. In 1601, they went to live at the Holy Monastery of Malevi, dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. Having attained the age of maturity, he received monastic tonsure and was found worthy of ordination to deacon, and then to the priesthood.

The desire for greater monastic struggles brought uncle and nephew to Mount Athos in 1615, where Makarios and Nilus lived in asceticism at a place called the Holy Rocks or Hagios Petros, where St Peter the Athonite had lived years earlier, the site of today's Skete of Kafsokalyvia. After buying a piece of land for a single gold coin from Great Lavra, they built a kellion.

Upon the repose of St Makarios, the venerable Nilus, aflame with zeal for even more intense spiritual efforts, found an isolated place on a cliff almost inaccessible for any living thing. With the help of another monk he descended to the cave to live there alone, in prayer and fasting, until his repose. At a shallow place in the cave, Fr. Nilus built an altar dedicated to the Meeting of the Lord in the Temple.

Upon his departure to the Lord in 1651, St. Nilus was glorified by an abundant flow of curative myrrh, for which Christians journeyed from the most distant lands of the East.



The Myrrh-Gushing Relics

On his deathbed, St. Nilus told his disciples to bury his body in a small cave beneath the cave where he lived, sternly forbidding anyone to disturb his body. Although the saint did not seek human glory during his life or after his death, the Lord glorified him in the following way. From his grave, a fragrant myrrh began to flow through a small opening in the cave and down the side of the cliff into the sea. Soon this miracle became widely known, and ships would come to collect the myrrh. The place where the myrrh streamed down the cliff came to be called Karavostasion (the boat stop). The myrrh had curative properties, and many people were healed of their illnesses.

Once, two monks came to the cave and tried to find the relics of St. Nilus. While they were digging, a large rock fell from above, crushing the foot of one monk. Unable to help his companion, the other monk went to get a mule and someone to help him carry the injured brother from that place.

As he lay there in agony, the monk saw St. Nilus before him. He asked the monk what was the matter. The monk explained what they intended to do and how he had been injured. The saint said, "How dare you, poor man, attempt something so dangerous without the saint's express wish? Take care in the future that you do not attempt a task beyond your ability, and without the will of God."

St. Nilus touched the monk's leg, and he was made well. With great joy he started back to his cell. On the way, he met his companion who was leading a mule. The monk who was healed told the other how he had been healed by St. Nilus. Then they both glorified God and St. Nilus. After this, no one dared to disturb the saint's relics.



Please also read The Truth About the Prophecies of Saint Nilus the Myrrhgusher, which are false prophecies attributed to St. Nilus, but are in fact delusions of a possessed monk.



Apolytikion in the First Tone
Thrice-blessed Nilus, thou didst live as a God-pleasing monk on Mount Athos, seeking the Lord in prayer and fasting, and thou didst become a pure vessel of the Spirit shining with rays of virtue upon the faithful. And now thou dost enlighten those who cry to thee: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, Glory to Him Who hath sanctified thee, Glory to Him Who through thee works healings for all.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Alexis Toth of Wilkes-Barre

St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre (Feast Day - May 7)

Our holy Father Alexis, the defender of the Orthodox Faith and zealous worker in the Lord's vineyard, was born in Austro-Hungary on March 18, 1854 into a poor Carpatho-Russian family. Like many others in the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Toths were Eastern Rite Catholics. Alexis' father and brother were priests and his uncle was a bishop in the Uniate church. He received an excellent education and knew several languages (Carpatho-Russian, Hungarian, Russian, German, Latin, and a reading knowledge of Greek). He married Rosalie Mihalich, a priest's daughter, and was ordained on April 18, 1878 to serve as second priest in a Uniate parish. His wife died soon afterwards, followed by their only child - losses which the saint endured with the patience of Job.

In May, 1879, Fr Alexis was appointed secretary to the Bishop of Presov and also Administrator of the Diocesan Administration. He was also entrusted with the directorship of an orphanage. At Presov Seminary, Father Toth taught Church History and Canon Law, which served him well in his later life in America. St Alexis did not serve long as a professor or an administrator, for the Lord had a different future planned for him. In October, 1889 he was appointed to serve as pastor of a Uniate parish in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Like another Abraham, he left his country and his relatives to fulfill the will of God (Gen 12:1).

Upon his arrival in America, Father Alexis presented himself to the local Roman Catholic diocesan authority, Archbishop John Ireland, since there was no Uniate bishop in America at that time. Archbishop Ireland belonged to the party of American Catholics who favored the "Americanization" of all Roman Catholics. His vision for the future was founded on a common faith, customs, and the use of the English language for everything except liturgical celebrations. Naturally, ethnic parishes and non-Latin rite clergy did not fit into this vision. Thus, when Father Toth came to present his credentials, Archbishop Ireland greeted him with open hostility. He refused to recognize him as a legitimate Catholic priest or to grant permission for him to serve in his diocese.

As a historian and professor of Canon Law, Father Toth knew his rights under the terms of the Unia and would not accept Archbishop Ireland's unjust decisions. In October of 1890, there was a meeting of eight of the ten Uniate priests in America at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania under the chairmanship of Father Toth. By this time the American bishops had written to Rome demanding the recall to Europe of all Uniate priests in America, fearing that Uniate priests and parishes would hinder the assimilation of immigrants into American culture. Uniate bishops in Europe refused to listen to the priests' pleas for help.

Archbishop Ireland sent a letter to his parishes ordering their members not to attend Father Toth's parish nor to accept any priestly ministrations from him. Expecting imminent deportation, Father Toth explained the situation to his parishioners and suggested it might be best for him to leave and return to Europe.

"No," they said. "Let's go to the Russian bishop. Why should we always submit ourselves to foreigners?" It was decided to write to the Russian consul in San Francisco in order to ask for the name and address of the Russian bishop. Ivan Mlinar went to San Francisco to make initial contact with Bishop Vladimir; then in February, 1891 Father Toth and his church warden, Paul Podany, also made the journey. Subsequently, Bishop Vladimir came to Minneapolis and on March 25, 1891 received Father Toth and 361 parishioners into the Orthodox Church of their ancestors. The parishioners regarded this event as a new Triumph of Orthodoxy, crying out with joy: "Glory to God for His great mercy!"

This initiative came from the people themselves, and was not the result of any coercion from outsiders. The Russian Orthodox Church was unaware of the existence of these Slavic Uniate immigrants to America, but responded positively to their petition to be reunited to the Orthodox Church.

The example of St Alexis and his parish in returning to Orthodoxy was an encouragement to hundreds of other Uniates. The ever-memorable one was like a candle upon a candlestick giving light to others (Mt.5:15), and his flock may be likened to the leaven mixed with meal which leavened the whole (Mt.13:33). Through his fearless preaching he uprooted the tares which had sprung up in the wheat of true doctrine, and exposed the false teachings which had led his people astray. Although he did not hesitate to point out errors in the doctrines of other denominations, he was careful to warn his flock against intolerance. His writings and sermons are filled with admonitions to respect other people and to refrain from attacking their faith.

While it is true that he made some strong comments, especially in his private correspondence with the church administration, it must be remembered that this was done while defending the Orthodox Church and the American Mission from unfounded accusations by people who used much harsher language than Father Toth. His opponents may be characterized by intolerance, rude behaviour, unethical methods and threats against him and his parishioners. Yet, when Father Alexis was offended or deceived by other people he forgave them, and he would often ask his bishop to forgive his omissions and mistakes.

In the midst of great hardships, this herald of godly theology and sound doctrine poured forth an inexhaustible stream of Orthodox writings for new converts, and gave practical advice on how to live in an Orthodox manner. For example, his article "How We should Live in America" stresses the importance of education, cleanliness, sobriety, and the presence of children in church on Sundays and Holy Days.

Although the Minneapolis parish was received into the Orthodox Church in March, 1891, it was not until July, 1892 that the Holy Synod of Russia recognized and accepted the parish into the Diocese of Alaska and the Aleutians. This resolution reached America only in October, 1892. During that time there was a climate of religious and ethnic hostility against the new converts. Father Alexis was accused of selling out his own Carpatho-Russian people and his religion to the "Muscovites" for financial gain.

In reality he did not receive any financial support for a long time, for his parish was very poor. Until his priestly salary began to arrive from Russia, the righteous one was obliged to work in a bakery in order to support himself. Even though his funds were meager, he did not neglect to give alms to the poor and needy. He shared his money with other clergy worse off than himself, and contributed to the building of churches and to the education of seminarians in Minneapolis. He was not anxious about his life (Mt.6:25), what he would eat or drink or wear. Trusting in God to take care of him, St Alexis followed the admonition of Our Savior to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Mt.6:33). So he bore the tribulation, slander, and physical attacks with patience and spiritual joy, reminding us that "godliness is stronger than all" (Wisdom of Solomon 10:12).

Bishops Vladimir, Nicholas, St Tikhon, and Platon recognized the special gifts of Father Toth, so they often sent him forth to preach and teach wherever there were people of Slavic background. Even though he was aware of his shortcomings and inadequacies, yet he was obedient to the instructions of the bishops. He did not hesitate or make excuses, but went immediately to fulfill his mission. St Alexis visited many Uniate parishes, explaining the differences between Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Uniatism, stressing that the true way to salvation is in Orthodoxy.

Like Josiah, "he behaved himself uprightly in the conversion of his people" (Sir 49:2). He was instrumental in the formation or return of seventeen parishes, planting a vineyard of Christ in America, and increasing its fruitful yield many times over. By 1909, the time of his blessed repose, many thousands of Carpatho-Russian and Galician Uniates had returned to Orthodoxy. This was a major event in the history of the North American Mission, which would continue to shape the future of Orthodoxy in this country for many generations to come. Any future growth or success may truly be regarded as the result of Father Toth's apostolic labors.

Who can tell of the saint's spiritual struggles? Who can speak of the prayers which his pious soul poured forth unto God? He did not make a public display of his piety, but prayed to God in secret with all modesty, with contrition and inward tears. God, Who sees everything done in secret, openly rewarded the saint (Mt.6:6). It is inconceivable that St Alexis could have accomplished his apostolic labors unless God had blessed and strengthened him for such work. Today the Church continues to reap the fruits of his teaching and preaching.

Father Toth's efforts did not go unrecognized in his own lifetime. He received a jeweled miter from the Holy Synod, as well as the Order of St Vladimir and the Order of St Anna from Czar Nicholas II for distinguished service and devotion to God and country. In 1907, he was considered as a candidate for the episcopal office. He declined this honor, however, humbly pointing out that this responsibility should be given to a younger, healthier man.

At the end of 1908, St Alexis' health began to decline due to a complication of illneses. He went to the seashore in southern New Jersey in an attempt to regain his health, but soon returned to Wilkes-Barre, where he was confined to bed for two months. The righteous one reposed on Friday, May 7, 1909 (April 24 on the Old Calendar), the feast of Sts Sava and Alexius the Hermit of the Kiev Caves. St Alexis' love and concern for his spiritual children did not cease with his death. Before closing the account of his life, it would be most appropriate to reveal but one example of his heavenly intercession:

In January, 1993 a certain man prayed to St Alexis to help him obtain information about his son from whom he had been separated for twenty-eight years. Placing his confidence in the saint's boldness before God, he awaited an answer to his prayer. The very next day the man's son telephoned him. It seems the young man was in church when he was suddenly filled with an overwhelming desire to contact his father. He had been taken to another state by his mother, and she changed his name when he was a child. This is why his father was unable to locate him. Having learned from his mother that his father was an Orthodox Christian, he was able with the help of an Orthodox priest to obtain his father's phone number in a distant city. As a result of that telephone call, the young man later visited his father, who rejoiced to see what sort of man his son had become. The father gave thanks to God and to St Alexis for reuniting him with his son.

St Alexis was a true man of God who guided many Carpatho-Russian and Galician immigrants through the dark confusion of religious challenges in the New World and back to the unity of the Orthodox Church through his grace-filled words and by his holy example. In his last will and testament St Alexis commended his soul to God's mercy, asking forgiveness from everyone and forgiving everybody. His holy relics now rest at St Tikhon Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania where the faithful may come to venerate them and to entreat St Alexis' intercessions on their behalf.

Apolytikion in Tone Four
O righteous Father Alexis, our heavenly intercessor and teacher, divine adornment of the Church of Christ! Entreat the Master of All to strengthen the Orthodox Faith in America, to grant peace to the world and to our souls, great mercy!

Kontakion in Tone Five
Let us, the faithful, praise the Priest Alexis, a bright beacon of Orthodoxy in America, a model of patience and humility, a worthy shepherd of the flock of Christ. He called back the sheep who had been led astray and brought them by his preaching to the Heavenly Kingdom!

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Russian Church Warns Against Glorification of Stalin

Russian Orthodox Church Warns Against Glorification of Stalin

Moscow, 6 May 2010, Interfax - The Moscow Patriarchate believes that no accomplishments of the USSR, including the victory over fascism, can justify Stalin's crimes.

"An inhuman system was established under Stalin's regime, and nothing can justify it - neither industrialization, nor the atomic bomb, nor keeping of the state borders, not even the victory in the Great Patriotic War, because it was not the personal merit of Stalin, but the achievements of our multinational people," says a letter by Hieromonk Philipp (Ryabykh), deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations addressed to editor-in-chief of Zavtra newspaper Alexander Prokhanov and posted at the web-site of the Department.

Father Philipp addressed the letter in the name of the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk. Before, Alexander Prokhanov had forwarded Metropolitan Hilarion a letter asking Metropolitan to comment on his view of the role of Stalin in history expressed by Metropolitan Hilarion in an article earlier.

According to Fr. Georgy, Stalin's regime "was based on terror, coercion, suppression of human personality, deception and false denunciations. Such a regime was devouring itself, when the torturers themselves became victims, and, therefore, it had temporary success only."

"Glorification of infidels and their methods of governing the country cannot consolidate the peoples of historical Russia. Conversely, it only separates our communities," Father Philipp stressed.

According to him, the victory in the Great Patriotic War "was gained by our people not due to Stalin's governance."

"Some competent historians believe that it is Stalin who is to blame for all untold losses suffered by this country which had sacrificed millions of lives of our citizens for the victory due to unreasoned pre-war internal policy," the letter says.

In his comments of Prokhanov's words that Stalin has allegedly recreated "the great Russian territories", Father Philipp stresses that it was "the leader of all times and peoples" who planted "a time-bomb" by remaking "the great Russian territories" according his own will and creating artificial borders between the former Soviet republics.

"As a result of this, Stalin's policy, we are now reaping the fruits of extremism, nationalism and xenophobia. The Russian Orthodox Church remains the only connecting link within the territory of historical Russia (the present Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Moldova and other currently independent states). There would be no issue of dividing the integrated country raised early in 1990s, if it had not been for the experiment of such national and territorial division of the former Russian Empire," the letter states.

Father Philipp expressed his hope that the disputes related the recent history of Russia "will be civilized and will not divide the whole nation into two hostile sides."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Five Former Insiders Speak Out on Area 51

The Road to Area 51

After decades of denying the facility's existence, five former insiders speak out

by Annie Jacobsen
April 5, 2009
Los Angeles Times

Area 51. It's the most famous military institution in the world that doesn't officially exist. If it did, it would be found about 100 miles outside Las Vegas in Nevada's high desert, tucked between an Air Force base and an abandoned nuclear testing ground.

Then again, maybe not-- the U.S. government refuses to say. You can't drive anywhere close to it, and until recently, the airspace overhead was restricted--all the way to outer space. Any mention of Area 51 gets redacted from official documents, even those that have been declassified for decades.

It has become the holy grail for conspiracy theorists, with UFOlogists positing that the Pentagon reverse engineers flying saucers and keeps extraterrestrial beings stored in freezers. Urban legend has it that Area 51 is connected by underground tunnels and trains to other secret facilities around the country. In 2001, Katie Couric told Today Show audiences that 7 percent of Americans doubt the moon landing happened--that it was staged in the Nevada desert. Millions of X-Files fans believe the truth may be "out there," but more likely it's concealed inside Area 51's Strangelove-esque hangars--buildings that, though confirmed by Google Earth, the government refuses to acknowledge.

The problem is the myths of Area 51 are hard to dispute if no one can speak on the record about what actually happened there. Well, now, for the first time, someone is ready to talk--in fact, five men are, and their stories rival the most outrageous of rumors. Colonel Hugh "Slip" Slater, 87, was commander of the Area 51 base in the 1960s. Edward Lovick, 90, featured in "What Plane?" in LA's March issue, spent three decades radar testing some of the world's most famous aircraft (including the U-2, the A-12 OXCART and the F-117). Kenneth Collins, 80, a CIA experimental test pilot, was given the silver star. Thornton "T.D." Barnes, 72, was an Area 51 special-projects engineer. And Harry Martin, 77, was one of the men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels. Here are a few of their best stories--for the record:

On May 24, 1963, Collins flew out of Area 51's restricted airspace in a top-secret spy plane code-named OXCART, built by Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. He was flying over Utah when the aircraft pitched, flipped and headed toward a crash. He ejected into a field of weeds.

Almost 46 years later, in late fall of 2008, sitting in a coffee shop in the San Fernando Valley, Collins remembers that day with the kind of clarity the threat of a national security breach evokes: "Three guys came driving toward me in a pickup. I saw they had the aircraft canopy in the back. They offered to take me to my plane." Until that moment, no civilian without a top-secret security clearance had ever laid eyes on the airplane Collins was flying. "I told them not to go near the aircraft. I said it had a nuclear weapon on-board." The story fit right into the Cold War backdrop of the day, as many atomic tests took place in Nevada. Spooked, the men drove Collins to the local highway patrol. The CIA disguised the accident as involving a generic Air Force plane, the F-105, which is how the event is still listed in official records.

As for the guys who picked him up, they were tracked down and told to sign national security nondisclosures. As part of Collins' own debriefing, the CIA asked the decorated pilot to take truth serum. "They wanted to see if there was anything I'd for-gotten about the events leading up to the crash." The Sodium Pento-thal experience went without a hitch--except for the reaction of his wife, Jane.

"Late Sunday, three CIA agents brought me home. One drove my car; the other two carried me inside and laid me down on the couch. I was loopy from the drugs. They handed Jane the car keys and left without saying a word." The only conclusion she could draw was that her husband had gone out and gotten drunk. "Boy, was she mad," says Collins with a chuckle.

At the time of Collins' accident, CIA pilots had been flying spy planes in and out of Area 51 for eight years, with the express mission of providing the intelligence to prevent nuclear war. Aerial reconnaissance was a major part of the CIA's preemptive efforts, while the rest of America built bomb shelters and hoped for the best.

"It wasn't always called Area 51," says Lovick, the physicist who developed stealth technology. His boss, legendary aircraft designer Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, called the place Paradise Ranch to entice men to leave their families and "rough it" out in the Nevada desert in the name of science and the fight against the evil empire. "Test pilot Tony LeVier found the place by flying over it," says Lovick. "It was a lake bed called Groom Lake, selected for testing because it was flat and far from anything. It was kept secret because the CIA tested U-2s there."

When Frances Gary Powers was shot down over Sverdlovsk, Russia, in 1960, the U-2 program lost its cover. But the CIA already had Lovick and some 200 scientists, engineers and pilots working at Area 51 on the A-12 OXCART, which would outfox Soviet radar using height, stealth and speed.

Col. Slater was in the outfit of six pilots who flew OXCART missions during the Vietnam War. Over a Cuban meat and cheese sandwich at the Bahama Breeze restaurant off the Las Vegas Strip, he says, "I was recruited for the Area after working with the CIA's classified Black Cat Squadron, which flew U-2 missions over denied territory in Mainland China. After that, I was told, 'You should come out to Nevada and work on something interesting we're doing out there.' "

Even though Slater considers himself a fighter pilot at heart--he flew 84 missions in World War II--the opportunity to work at Area 51 was impossible to pass up. "When I learned about this Mach-3 aircraft called OXCART, it was completely intriguing to me--this idea of flying three times the speed of sound! No one knew a thing about the program. I asked my wife, Barbara, if she wanted to move to Las Vegas, and she said yes. And I said, 'You won't see me but on the weekends,' and she said, 'That's fine!' " At this recollection, Slater laughs heartily. Barbara, dining with us, laughs as well. The two, married for 63 years, are rarely apart today.

"We couldn't have told you any of this a year ago," Slater says. "Now we can't tell it to you fast enough." That is because in 2007, the CIA began declassifying the 50-year-old OXCART program. Today, there's a scramble for eyewitnesses to fill in the information gaps. Only a few of the original players are left. Two more of them join me and the Slaters for lunch: Barnes, formerly an Area 51 special-projects engineer, with his wife, Doris; and Martin, one of those overseeing the OXCART's specially mixed jet fuel (regular fuel explodes at extreme height, temperature and speed), with his wife, Mary. Because the men were sworn to secrecy for so many decades, their wives still get a kick out of hearing the secret tales.

Barnes was married at 17 (Doris was 16). To support his wife, he became an electronics wizard, buying broken television sets, fixing them up and reselling them for five times the original price. He went from living in bitter poverty on a Texas Panhandle ranch with no electricity to buying his new bride a dream home before he was old enough to vote. As a soldier in the Korean War, Barnes demonstrated an uncanny aptitude for radar and Nike missile systems, which made him a prime target for recruitment by the CIA--which indeed happened when he was 22. By 30, he was handling nuclear secrets.

"The agency located each guy at the top of a certain field and put us together for the programs at Area 51," says Barnes. As a security precaution, he couldn't reveal his birth name--he went by the moniker Thunder. Coworkers traveled in separate cars, helicopters and airplanes. Barnes and his group kept to themselves, even in the mess hall. "Our special-projects group was the most classified team since the Manhattan Project," he says.

Harry Martin's specialty was fuel. Handpicked by the CIA from the Air Force, he underwent rigorous psychological and physical tests to see if he was up for the job. When he passed, the CIA moved his family to Nevada. Because OXCART had to refuel frequently, the CIA kept supplies at secret facilities around the globe. Martin often traveled to these bases for quality-control checks. He tells of preparing for a top-secret mission from Area 51 to Thule, Greenland. "My wife took one look at me in these arctic boots and this big hooded coat, and she knew not to ask where I was going."

So, what of those urban legends--the UFOs studied in secret, the underground tunnels connecting clandestine facilities? For decades, the men at Area 51 thought they'd take their secrets to the grave. At the height of the Cold War, they cultivated anonymity while pursuing some of the country's most covert projects. Conspiracy theories were left to popular imagination. But in talking with Collins, Lovick, Slater, Barnes and Martin, it is clear that much of the folklore was spun from threads of fact.

As for the myths of reverse engineering of flying saucers, Barnes offers some insight: "We did reverse engineer a lot of foreign technology, including the Soviet MiG fighter jet out at the Area"--even though the MiG wasn't shaped like a flying saucer. As for the underground-tunnel talk, that, too, was born of truth. Barnes worked on a nuclear-rocket program called Project NERVA, inside underground chambers at Jackass Flats, in Area 51's backyard. "Three test-cell facilities were connected by railroad, but everything else was underground," he says.

And the quintessential Area 51 conspiracy--that the Pentagon keeps captured alien spacecraft there, which they fly around in restricted airspace? Turns out that one's pretty easy to debunk. The shape of OXCART was unprece-dented, with its wide, disk-like fuselage designed to carry vast quantities of fuel. Commercial pilots cruising over Nevada at dusk would look up and see the bottom of OXCART whiz by at 2,000-plus mph. The aircraft's tita-nium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the sun's rays in a way that could make anyone think, UFO.

In all, 2,850 OXCART test flights were flown out of Area 51 while Slater was in charge. "That's a lot of UFO sightings!" Slater adds. Commercial pilots would report them to the FAA, and "when they'd land in California, they'd be met by FBI agents who'd make them sign nondisclosure forms." But not everyone kept quiet, hence the birth of Area 51's UFO lore. The sightings incited uproar in Nevada and the surrounding areas and forced the Air Force to open Project BLUE BOOK to log each claim.

Since only a few Air Force officials were cleared for OXCART (even though it was a joint CIA/USAF project), many UFO sightings raised internal military alarms. Some generals believed the Russians might be sending stealth craft over American skies to incite paranoia and create widespread panic of alien invasion. Today, BLUE BOOK findings are housed in 37 cubic feet of case files at the National Archives--74,000 pages of reports. A keyword search brings up no mention of the top-secret OXCART or Area 51.

Project BLUE BOOK was shut down in 1969--more than a year after OXCART was retired. But what continues at America's most clandestine military facility could take another 40 years to disclose.

ANNIE JACOBSEN is an investigative reporter who sat for more than 500 interviews after she broke the story on terrorists probing commercial airliners. When she isn't digging into intelligence issues for the likes of the National Review, she's snapping together Legos with her two boys.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr