Ten Albanians Baptized Where Saint Lydia Was Baptized

Saint Lydia of Thyatira is considered by many to have been the first person in Europe to have been baptized into the Christian faith. Krenidas stream, which flows near the Krenidas (or western) Gate, is the stream approximately one-half mile outside of Philippi where Lydia and her family were baptized by the Apostle Paul. Presumably this is also where the jailer and his family were baptized also. A modern baptismal area with bench seats has been constructed near the stream.


This afternoon, with today being the feast of Saint Lydia of Thyatira the Equal to the Apostles, Metropolitan Prokopios of Philippi, Neopolis and Thasos maintained the tradition of baptizing ten heterodox in the Krenidas stream where Lydia was first baptized. All ten catechumens were from Albania.


It was a moving ceremony for the ten newly-illumined Orthodox Christians. Following the Metropolitans homily in which he related the life of Saint Lydia and prayed that the newly-illumined follow in her footsteps, he offered the following words to them: "You are received with joy into the bosom of the Church. This is Christianity. Without discrimination and barriers. I ask that you always remember this day of your baptism. This is a great honor and may you always be faithful children of the Church. All of us will always be near you."

Baptistery of Saint Lydia

See here about St. Lydia and these shrines. See more here and here. For video, see here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Metr. Hilarion Serves Liturgy In Crypt of St. Peter

On 19 May 2010 Metropolitan Hilarion served the Divine Liturgy in the Crypt of the Apostle Peter in Rome, beneath St. Peter's Basilica.

Read more and see photos here.

Prior to this, on 15 May 2010, Metropolitan Hilarion also served the Divine Liturgy in Ravenna at Sant’Apollinare in Classe.

Read more and see photos here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Splendor of the Divine Liturgy

The following text serves as the Preface to the book Experiences During the Divine Liturgy by Protopresbyter Stephanos K. Anagnostopoulos. I offer it not only for its profound words regarding the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, but also to make people aware of this excellent book, which I consider the best book on the Divine Liturgy in the English language, offering truly a "genuine liturgical conscience" of this sacred rite. Though currently out of print, it is my hope that it will soon be reprinted and re-edited as a better translation.

by Elder Ephraim of Arizona

The Divine Liturgy, what a splendor indeed! Man has been honored by God in such a way that He Himself comes down to earth with His Angelic Orders every time there is a Liturgy, in order to nurture man with His Most Holy Body and His Most Precious Blood! For He has given us everything. Is there anything physical or spiritual, perishable or everlasting, that has not been offered to us? None! Is there anything superior to His Most Holy Body and Blood, which is given to us on a daily basis? There is certainly not. God has enabled man, who is full of soil and dirt, to serve the Divine Liturgy. So priceless is the Divine Love that just a tiny drop exceeds any earthly, physical and secular love.

Adam and Eve's sin was the starting point of all the distressing events that have occurred to this day and of those that will occur until the end of time. Disobedience, like a sperm inside Eve's womb, gave birth to and transmitted physical and spiritual death to all of humanity. Poor Eve, could there have been a way for her to see that "the split second" taste of the fruit would cause such turmoil, thus compelling the Holy Trinity to have a "co-entreaty" so that the one Person of the Life-Giving Trinity would be sent to the world and endure, by the works of His hands, the blows, insults, whipping, spitting as well as all kinds of obscenity and ultimately be hung on the Cross as a curse! "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13).

The sweet redemption of our Jesus, the light of our troubled souls, His Passion and Life-Giving Resurrection, are re-enacted in every Divine Liturgy through which every sinful soul is delivered. Great indeed is Jesus' love for us! For He took on our human nature and was hung on the Cross, giving us freedom and thus wiping clean all our debts towards our Heavenly Father. And as our beloved Brother He makes us worthy of His co-inheritance which consists of the infinite riches of His Heavenly Father. And if during the time when the Law, which existed before Christ, had overshadowed things, and the blood of oxen and goats as well as a calf's embers purified those who had partaken of them, how much more will Christ's Most Holy Blood, which is partaken from the Holy Altar of the Holy Churches of God, cleanse us from sin and warm up our souls in order to receive the divine love of our most sweet Jesus. The Lamb which was slaughtered for our personal salvation will rinse us with His Most Precious Blood from the filth of our sins and give us eternal rest.

In any case, we owe it to ourselves to become partakers of this heavenly banquet which offers us this most wonderful Mystery of the Holy Altar. Once inside the church, we should stand in fear and devoutness, since our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy angels are present. Those who are attentive and devout are filled with grace and blessings; however, those who are inattentive are condemned, being unworthy.

On the one hand, the Angels serve the Divine Liturgy, and on the other, the faithful come to church in order to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ - "Receive the Body of Christ and taste the Fountain of Immortality" - so that they will live in Christ and not perish in sin. Thus, "let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself" (1 Cor. 11:28-29). For instance, when someone wants to appear before a king, it takes him days to get ready, in terms of general preparation, cleanliness, speech, manner, ethos, etc., so that he would succeed in drawing the king's compassion and, in this way, have his desirable request granted. Even though there is no comparison as far as the two different kings are concerned, each believer should prior to Holy Communion prepare oneself in order to obtain divine mercy and forgiveness. Those who appear before a secular king are, most of the time, adorned by iniquity, flattery, pretence as well as deceit, in order to obtain that which is desired; nevertheless, the Christian believer who appears before the King of kings who in turn keeps an eye on the inner person must be adorned by holiness, humility and the sheer ethos of the soul that is more precious than lost gold.

The Lord created His Church on earth as a Bride, so that She would intercede for His children. He left us the Great Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, in order to be cleansed, become holy and thus become one with God. He has invited us all; some in their childhood, others in their middle as well as old age. As He is Good, He took hold of us like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, in order to make us partakers of His divine Kingdom. Nothing repelled Him - no ulcer, no wound, no illness, not even the deformity of spiritual phenomena which may characterize our soul. As a father He accepted us, as a mother He breast-fed us, and as an unmercenery doctor He took care of us and clothed us in the garment of adoption, with grace ignoring the heavy debt of our trespasses. We thus owe Him infinite love and worship. Love should remain in the heart like a life-giving source, gushing forth springs of communion wine and streams of divine eros.

We should be partakers of the Sacrifice of the Slaughtered Lamb as often as we can, and as long as we are free to do so, since Holy Communion is a great aid for the believer which in turn helps him to fight sin. Also, we should approach this divine Mystery in a spirit of compunction, crushed hearts, and a good sense of our sins. Great is the mercy of God Who condescends to enter into us; not abhorring the multitude of our sins. Nonetheless, due to His infinite love and affection, we are sanctified, and in this way we are made worthy to become His children and co-heirs of His Kingdom. Hence, let us prepare with a pure conscience aiming at the fortification of our senses, and in chastity let us enter along with the Holy Apostles to the Mystical Supper and partake of our sweet Jesus so that He should dwell with us unto the infinite ages of ages.

Unworthy as I am, I serve my Lord. A ministry rendered that is holy and mighty. Everyday I offer God a well-pleasing sacrifice, the Lamb of God, Immaculate to His Immaculate Father and God, in order that He might be merciful for the things with which we sadden the most good God. He whom we cause grief and Who sacrificed His only begotten Son. My God, Your most beloved Son for our sake! And who are we to deserve this ultimate sacrifice! "For being enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10).

It is a fact that numerous interpretations of the Divine Liturgy which were mainly based on the illumination and grace of the Holy Spirit were handed down to us by the Church Fathers. What makes this current analysis of the Divine Liturgy of my spiritual child Father Stephanos Anagnastopoulos noteworthy and beneficial, is the fact that it is offered through the experiences and revelations of worthy Liturgists of the Most High, older and more recent ones.

I, as well as its author, wish that this book will lead us all to the genuine liturgical conscience and life in order to urge us in a spirited way, as grateful servants, to try to rest the heart of His feelings so that He will be comforted, according to the Psalter: "...and because of His servants shall He be comforted" (Psalm 134:14). May we sense that which God offered us and thus rejoice in the beauty of His eros. Amen.

The most unworthy of all
+ Father Ephraim

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint David of Gareji and His Monastery

Saint David of Gareji (Feast Day - May 20)

Saint David of Gareji was Syrian by birth. The future ascetic became a disciple of St. John of Zedazeni and journeyed with him to Georgia. St. David and his spiritual son Lucian settled on a mountain above Tbilisi, the capital of Kartli.

At that time Kartli was constantly under threat of the Persian fire-worshippers. St. David would spend entire days in prayer, beseeching the Lord for forgiveness of the sins of those who dwelt in the city. When he was finished praying for the day, he would stand on the mountain and bless the whole city. Once a week Sts. David and Lucian would go down into the city to preach. A church dedicated to St. David was later built on the mountain where he labored.

St. David’s authority and popularity alarmed the fire-worshippers, and they accused him of adultery, in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the people. As a “witness” they summoned a certain expectant prostitute, who accused him of being the child’s father. Hoping in God, the holy father touched his staff to the prostitute’s womb and ordered the unborn child to declare the truth. From out of the womb the infant uttered the name of his true father.

Outraged at this slander, the bystanders savagely stoned the woman to death. St. David pleaded with them to stop, but he was unable to placate the furious crowd. Deeply disturbed by these events, St. David departed the region with his disciple Lucian.

The holy fathers settled in a small cave in the wilderness and began to spend all their time in prayer. They ate nothing but herbs and the bark of trees. When the herbs withered from the summer heat, the Lord sent them deer. Lucian milked them and brought the milk to St. David, and when the elder made the sign of the Cross over the milk it was miraculously transformed into cheese.

Shaken by the holy father’s miracle, Lucian told him, “Even if my body rots and wastes away from hunger and thirst, I will not permit myself to fret over the things of this temporal life.”

The fathers kept a strict fast on Wednesdays and Fridays—they ate nothing, and even the deer did not come to them on those days.

A frightful serpent inhabited a cave not far from where they lived and attacked all the animals around it. But at St. David’s command the serpent deserted that place.

Once local hunters were tracking the fathers’ deer, and they caught sight of Lucian milking them as they stood there quietly, as though they were sheep. The hunters paid great respect to St. David and, having returned to their homes, reported what they had seen.

Soon the Gareji wilderness filled with people who longed to draw nearer to Christ. A monastery was founded there, and for centuries it stood fast as a center and cornerstone of faith and learning in Georgia.

After some time St. David set off on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He entrusted Lucian to fulfill his responsibilities at the monastery and took some of the other brothers with him. When the pilgrims were approaching the place called the “Ridge of Grace,” from which the holy city of Jerusalem becomes visible, St. David fell to his knees and glorified God with tears. Judging himself unworthy to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, he was satisfied to gaze upon the city from afar.

Then he stood at the city gates and prayed fervently while his companions entered the Holy City and venerated the holy places. Returning, St. David took with him three stones from the “Ridge of Grace.” That night an angel appeared to the patriarch of Jerusalem and informed him that a certain pious man named David, who was visiting from afar, had taken with him all the holiness of Jerusalem.

The angel proceeded to tell him that the venerable one had marched through the city of Nablus, clothed in tatters and bearing on his shoulders an old sack in which he carried the three holy stones. The patriarch sent messengers after the stranger with a request that he return two of the stones and take only one for himself. St. David returned the two stones, but he declined the patriarch’s invitation to visit him. He took the third stone back with him to the monastery, and to this day it has been full of the grace of miraculous healing.

After St. David brought the miraculous stone from Jerusalem, the number of brothers at the monastery doubled. The venerable father ministered to all of them and encouraged them. He also visited the cells of the elder hermits to offer his solace. In accordance with his will, a monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist was founded in the place called “Mravalmta” (the Rolling Mountains).

The Lord God informed St. David of his imminent departure to the Kingdom of Heaven. Then he gathered the fathers of the wilderness and instructed them for the last time not to fall into confusion, but to be firm and ceaselessly entreat the Lord for the salvation of their souls.

He received Holy Communion, lifted up his hands to the Lord, and gave up his spirit.

St. David’s holy relics have worked many miracles: approaching them, those blind from birth have received their sight. To this day, believers have been healed of every spiritual and bodily affliction at his grave.

Source

About the Monastery of Saint David

Saint David Gareji is a rock-hewn Georgian Orthodox monastery complex located in the Kakheti region of Eastern Georgia, on the half-desert slopes of Mount Gareji, some 60-70 km southeast of Georgia's capital Tbilisi. The complex includes hundreds of cells, churches, chapels, refectories and living quarters hollowed out of the rock face.

The complex was founded in the 6th century St. David Garejeli, one of the thirteen Assyrian monks who arrived in the country at the same time. His disciples, Dodo and Lucian expanded the original lavra and founded two other monasteries known as Dodo's Rka (literally, "the horn of Dodo") and Natlismtsemeli ("The Baptist"). The monastery saw further development under the guidance of the 9th century Georgian saint Ilarion. The convent was particularly patronized by the Georgian royal and noble families. The 12th century Georgian king Demetre I, the author of the famous Georgian religious hymn "Thou Art a Vineyard", even chose David Gareji as a place of his confinement after he abdicated the throne.

The high artistic skill of David Gareji frescoes made them an indispensable part of world treasure. From the late 11th to the early 13th century, the economic and cultural development of David Gareji reached its highest phase, reflecting the general prosperity of the medieval Kingdom of Georgia. New monasteries Udabno, Bertubani and Chichkhituri were built, the old ones were enlarged and re-organized.

With the downfall of the Georgian monarchy, the monastery suffered a lengthy period of decline and devastation by the Mongol army (1265), but was later restored by the Georgian kings. It survived the Persian attack of 1615, when the monks were massacred and the monastery's unique manuscripts and important works of Georgian art destroyed, to be resurrected under Onopre Machutadze, who was appointed Father Superior of David Gareji in 1690.

After the violent Bolshevik takeover of Georgia in 1921, the monastery was closed down and remained uninhabited.

The monastery remains active today and serves as a popular destination of tourism and pilgrimage.

Read more here, here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Russian Movie 'Еxposure' About Georgy Kochetkov

Fr. Georgy Kochetkov

by Mira Parker

In the 1990's, there were preachers of reform in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. Primarily there were the priests Georgy Kochetkov and Alexander Borisov, who advocated for reforms of inner Church life, that changed the Church to serving the spirit of this world by destroying the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, of Holy Church Tradition. Such Elders as Ioann Krestiankin knew where such aggressive reformers can bring people and how dangerous and poisonous their teachings are. At that time Elder Ioann Krestiankin called on all Orthodox Christians to help: "If we won't destroy this movement, they will destroy the Church!"

One known Moscow priest visiting Pskovo Pecherky (Pskov Cave) Monastery asked Elder Ioann: "Father, I can't say the names of Gregory Kochetkov and Alexander Borisov during the Proskomedi. May we remember their names during Proskomedi?" And Father Ioann answered: "We can't! They slandered the Mother of God."

When the Russian Orthodox Church didn't support the reform of Georgy Kochetkov about modern the Russian language as a language for services in the Orthodox church, Kochetkov started to practice his idea in life. He and his friends decided to send second priest Mikhail Dubovitsky to a mental hospital and announced him as crazy.

This movie is about that horrible story. The movie is in Russian. There are no copies on the Internet with English or other subtitles yet. But you can see the recordings that Kochetkov and his friends were taking on that day. They had a few cameras in different spots of the church.

Elder Ioann Krestiankin

Kochetkov himself brought the video to the Moscow Patriarchate. He thought the video will be evidence of craziness in the young priest Mikhail Dubovitsky. In fact this video exposed Georgy Kochetkov, his sect and his methods.

By a decision of the Patriarch of Russia Aleksei II, priest Georgy Kochetkov was suspended from serving and taking Holy Communion for a few years. His very aggressive 12 disciples were suspended from taking Holy Communion as well.

Patriarch Alexei II sent a group of monk-theologians to investigate the teachings of Georgy Kochetkov; they found them heretical for very many reasons. The Resume of the Commission of the Patriarchate is 2000 pages, so I won't mention everything, just a few things...

He wrote his own Creed and his own prayers. Not one of these prayers ends as our Orthodox prayers, simply because he doesn't believe in the Holy Trinity. He was saying that the Son of God was born from the righteous marriage of Mary and Joseph (as physical father). He doesn't believe in the immortal soul. He is an ecumenist.

A few years later Kochetkov was forgiven after he renounced his teaching in a written form. And they allowed him to serve as a priest. In fact Kochetkov and his followers scream and shout about being persecuted by the Moscow Patriarchate. Some articles in English on the Internet call him "dissident".

Kochetkov is not on the Russian Orthodox Church payroll plan. He is "zashtatnyi sotrudnik", which means not on the list of employees of the Church. He lives on the donations of his sponsors (different organizations).

Fr. Mikhail Dubovitsky

Georgy Kochetkov started to move abroad. Now he has 18 parishes in Europe and is heading to the United States.

When we hear about Georgy Kochetkov or other modernists and ecumenists, let us remember the words of our beloved Elder Ioann Krestiankin: "If we won't destroy this movement, they will destroy our Church!" May Our Lord help us to do so!

Russian movie "Еxposure":

Part I: http://video.mail.ru/inbox/florio/328/352.html

Part II: http://video.mail.ru/inbox/florio/328/353.html

Part III: http://video.mail.ru/inbox/florio/328/354.html

Read more here, here, here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

An Open Interview With Monk Arsenios of Vatopaidi

Realnews
16 May, 2010
by Sotiris Stathopoulos

Why did you make a statement to the investigating committee at this time?

In 2008, both Elder Ephraim and I, had just attended the investigative committee and handed over a memo, in which we had asked not testify as witnesses. They had then told us to wait outside. Eventually, we had left the building, under the impression that the committee had agreed to not ask us to give a statement. Two years later though, today, when so many people continue to twist the truth, we decided that it is crucial that our position which is the only truth, be heard. All this time, so many things have been said about us without our permission, and we had been witnessing an unprecedented smear campaign which defamed the image of the Great and Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi and its mission.

Many people have been wondering how it is possible for a monk, or even an Abbot, to talk with the close associate of the Prime Minister, Mr. Yiannis Angelou, meet up with ministers (even for a few occasions, as you have testified at the committee) and also be a frequent visitor of the KED [Ktimatiki Eteria Dimosiou = Landed Comany of (Greek) State]. Normal citizens with similar affairs cannot easily achieve this.

Why don't monks from other monasteries meet up with government officials? Elder Ephraim didn’t visit the late Andreas Papandreou. I didn’t think that we had been given any special treatment. On the contrary, many times I thought we were not welcome. I visited the then appropriate ministers on very few occasions and only because we had to preserve our right to have our views heard just as the views of the local authorities of Xanthi had been heard. By the way, we were not welcomed by the said local authorities. I have never talked with Mr Angelou on the phone. They even went as far as to falsely state that I had been phoning him through public offices and that I was even calling him by his first name. It suffices to say that when I had to speak with him once, because he was going to visit the Holy Mount Athos, I only spoke to his private secretary to finalize the details and not him.


Did the previous government give you facilities so that the exchanges would take place? In their statements three witnesses insisted that you had been talking to Mr. Angelou.

I must draw your attention to something which has not been noted until now, among so many other similar things. Since 1998, all governments have recognized in several official documents and decisions the property rights which Vatopaidi has on the Vistonida Lake and its surrounding,s. This was never revealed to the public. The exchanges which took place had not been our choice. They had been the initiative of the former government. That is, it was a specific political decision. We had been dragged into the exchanges, forced by the then government, which wanted to please the local authorities who wanted to throw us out of their region. The local authorities included the former undersecretary Alexander Kontos, who in his statement to the investigating committee on the 2nd December 2008, had clearly declared that the local authorities had been pressing for a solution. One day later, on the 3 December 2008, Evangelos Basiakos confirmed that Kontos brought the Metropolitan of Xanthis, Panteleimon, to his office. According to this statement, the Metropolitan, whom Basiakos described as “very tough and unrelenting”, had told him: “Find a way to make them leave. The government should find a way so that they pack up and get out of here”.

Basiakos also attested that similar pressure was brought to him by Kontos and Euripides Stylianides. Peter Doukas also testified on 3 December 2008 that the local authorities had also been exerting pressure on him. Furthermore, this political will was also proven by the relevant documents. One of them, dated 10 July 2004, shows the very own handwriting of the former Minister of Agriculture and Development, Savvas Tsipourides, in which he endorsed the quick exchange. How could then Mr. Tsipourides say that he had no knowledge of the issue? He contradicts his own statement on the 2 December 2008, which he obviously forgets today, in which he had said that the idea for the exchanges was put on the table in order to throw out the monastery and free the area from its presence. He even informed us that the local authorities have been pressing so that we leave the area. He also lied in his statement where he said that I was carrying a laptop with me, which contained various pieces of land. Who? Me? Until very recently I didn’t even know how to use a typewriter! Even today, I am completely out of tune with this kind of technology. Besides, he testified that I was going to show him our preferred pieces of land, which of course he never saw.

Please take into account that as a result of the pressure exerted on us to agree to the exchanges, we had sent a letter, dated 2nd December 2004, to the KED, and the former minister Basiakos and the former undersecretary Doukas, in which we stated that we had finally agreed to proceed with the exchanges and had been asking them to show us the pieces of land which were going to be exchanged. His whole attitude raises questions and forces us to consider how to react from now on. I honestly cannot imagine why there was so much fabrication. I suppose, he believed that we would not react, as usual. But he was wrong. Now, as far as Mr Angleou’s statement is concerned, I cannot say if he has indeed received any phone calls from anyone on the issue. However, I assure you that the Great and Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi has never made any demands on him, either oral or written. We only wanted our voice heard just as the local authorities had been heard in every governmental office, even at that of the former prime minister. As the former minister Basiakos states on 3 December 2008, the voices of the local authorities of Xanthis had been heard even at the office of the former minister Theodor Rousopoulos, because they had been pressing for our withdrawal from the area. Among them was the Metropolitan of Xanthi, Socrates Xenides, who is president of the Litigation Group of Xanthi, the undersecretary George Petaliotis and the former undersecretary Mr. Kontos. This clearly shows that all these people had bowed to the local authorities’ demand to instigate our withdrawal from the area, which eventually led to our reluctant agreement to the exchanges. Today, Mr. Xinides’ brother is the secretary general of PASOK and Mr. Petalotis has become undersecretary.


How would you appraise the fact that the public furor broke out after the exchanges took place?

In view of your duty as a journalist I must ask you to carry out a deeper investigation into the issue and take into account the recent, relevant statements by the owner of the TV station, Alpha, Demetris Kontominas, of the 1st May 2010, and that of the reporter of Alpha, George Vlachos, to the investigating committee on the 4th November 2008. They both said that their main concern was to prevent the change of use of the Olympic land, which is something which never happened. They also conceded that in fact, the sale of the Olympic land to Vatopaidi, was very beneficial to the Greek government because the land was sold at a higher price than it was actually worth!!

So, what was the monastery’s biggest mistake, then? Do you believe that the former government is justly accused all this time?

I am deeply saddened that some people have managed to smear the image of Vatopaidi and its huge mission. The long standing mission of the monastery, its huge charitable and cultural effort and its historic contribution to Orthodoxy, has been scrapped all at once. I am very disappointed because the monastery is accused of initiating exchanges of land, when in fact it was the Greek government which forced it to accept. It is accused of acts which it only did in order to protect its longstanding interests and property. It is accused of bad intentions, when it only intended to contribute to the social good by establishing benefactor bodies and offering charity to people in need. Finally, I cannot understand the former government’s diffidence and its hesitation in coming out in the open and briefing the public about the true facts. As a result, a completely legitimate exchange of land acquired the extent of “a huge scandal”.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Two Holy Fathers on the Calendar Issue: Elder Ephraim of Katounakia and Elder Joseph the Hesychast

by Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi

When the New Calendar entered into the life of the Church after 1924, the entire Holy Mountain, for reasons of tradition, maintained the use of the Old Calendar, without severing communion with and maintaining dependency upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and consequently, with the other Orthodox Churches.

Because of this calendar change, some Athonite Monks - the self-titled "Zealots"- broke their spiritual communion with the Patriarchate and the rest of the Holy Mountain. They would participate neither in Liturgies, nor in festal celebrations, nor even communicate with the rest of the fathers.

Katounakia was one of the centers of the Zealots and Papa Ephraim was one of them. Moved by spiritual zeal, both he and Elder Joseph the Hesychast initially joined the extremist party of the so-called "Matthewites". When an issue arises concerning the faith, naturally fanaticism will rise up.

The grandiose Matthew, who so occupied Athonite monasticism, proceeded from another Matthew, a Cretan monk. Matthew had obvious rebellious tendencies, and thus they readily induced him to take hold of some authority on account of the calendar disorder.

Increasing the degree of fanaticism surrounding the calendar change, and depicting the Church as lapsed, Matthew created that which pleased him. He became "super-orthodox" and worked up his followers with sermons and demonstrations. This still occurs today with some of his followers - a fresh wound to the bosom of the Church.

As always, every source of scandal creates fanaticism and unrest - mostly from ignorance - until the true state of affairs is revealed. It was natural for the fathers in the desert areas to be found among the fanatics, since anxiety and ignorance were prevalent, and because they had an acute fear that perhaps they would betray their faith.

Then, in opposition to the Matthewite harshness, the Florinite moderation appeared. The Florinites avoided the severity of the Matthewites, maintaining a milder stance, even though they were still "zealots". The fathers then turned towards this faction. They chose the "lesser of two evils" as the better even though they were still not at peace with this.

The living Church, unjustly cast aside, was protesting with their consciences, causing them unrest. The solution for them was prayer.

Elder Joseph the Hesychast turned with insistence to his sure refuge of prayer, seeking an answer from on high. "Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me" (Ps. 48:15 LXX), was something that the blessed Elder knew well from his ascetic life.

Falling to his face with tears, pain of heart, and deep humility, he pleaded:

"We have sinned and trespassed against You, O Lord, and we have betrayed Your Most Holy will. Justly You have turned Your face from us, for we have confused and mocked the light of Your Truth. We have closed our eyes to the bedrock of the Truth, Your unswerving and unshakable Church, Your All-Holy Body, which You established amongst us through Your own presence, and which we have handed over to the conjectures of human thoughts and speculation. Remember, All-Good One, Your compassion and mercy towards us, for they are from the ages unto ages."

With pain and persistence, he continued knocking on the doors of God's compassion and mercy, and the All-Good One did not turn away from his humble supplication. As our blessed Elder Joseph related to us:

"During this intense petition, I was overcome by sleep. I discovered myself suddenly alone on one piece of the mountain of Athos that was separated from the rest. It stood in the oceans trembling from moment to moment, in danger of sinking into the sea. I was frightened and thought to myself, ‘Since this has broken off from the whole and is trembling, in a little while it'll sink and I'll be lost.’ Then, with one mighty leap, I found myself on the stable part of the mountain. Sure enough, the small section of rock that I had been standing on was swallowed up by the sea, and I glorified God Who had saved me from destruction! Immediately, I tied in the dream with the issue that had been occupying me and about which I had been petitioning the Lord not to allow me to be deceived in my judgment."

Similarly, while he was praying, Papa Ephraim of Katounakia heard a voice that told him, "In the person of the Florinites, you have renounced the entire Church."

The fathers found peace with this revelation that the Church had not ceased in its living presence. Afterwards, Elder Joseph also heard a divine voice inform him that, "the Church is found in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople."

When, at the suggestion of Elder Joseph, they left the zealots and returned to communion with the rest of the Athonite Fathers, they truly came to know the power of Grace in the Mysteries they celebrated.

Papa Ephraim always used to see Divine Grace consecrating the venerable gifts into the body and blood of Christ during the Divine Liturgy. For the entire time he was with the zealots, he saw something like a veil in front of him, hindering him from seeing this Divine Grace distinctly. This veil was withdrawn when he returned to the living Church.

In speaking about this, Elder Ephraim said: "First I, then Old Joseph, received revelations spiritually regarding the calendar scandal; that is, that the living Church is in Constantinople and not in the faction of the so-called zealots. We returned then to the living Church, where the rest of the Holy Mountain also is."

After being reconciled with the Church once again under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in 1952 they went to the neighbouring brotherhood of Danielaioi to celebrate Pascha. The fathers welcomed them with much love: "Welcome, welcome. Elder Joseph, please take the stasidion [chair in church reserved for the elders]. Father Ephraim, please come and celebrate the Liturgy for us."

"The Danielaioi chanted the hymn 'Theotoke Parthene' (O Virgin Theotokos) on the solea and I, standing in the sanctuary, could almost see the Mother of God; so great and so tangible was the grace I was feeling,' the Elder confessed with nostalgia.

But Father Nikephoros (a companion of the elders), accustomed to their zealot neighbours, started grumbling and getting very upset. The Elder found himself in a difficult position. While praying, he felt that the will of God opposed him. He was frightened then. He consulted Elder Gabriel, the Abbot at the Monastery of Dionysiou, as well as Father Gerasimos, the Hymnographer. They told him: "My brother, obey your spiritual father." In prayer it was even harder. He felt that God had imposed a penance on him. The dilemma was whether to maintain obedience or follow the Church. He was forced to choose the first option, which made us realize that obedience is fundamental to the Church; for the divine founder of the Church "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a Cross" (Phil. 2:8).

Then, he went through a crisis of conscience of another kind. He, who had been informed that he was subject to the Patriarchate, and that the word "Church" means love, which he found in the warm behaviour of Danielaioi; he whose heart leapt for joy when he said the word "Church" like a child's heart leaps when it needs its mother's hug; he who considered Elder Joseph and his brotherhood his own beloved family; how could he now abandon them? Fortunately, these doubts lasted only a few days. He then thought: "In spirit I will always be with the Church, but with my body I will be with the Zealots for a while, as long as my elder is alive."

Thus he made peace with himself. He waited patiently until 1975, i.e. for 23 years. He never gave anyone the right to criticize him. When he finally established his own brotherhood, he left the Zealots forever with great humility.

(Elder Ephraim of Katounakia: Obedience Is Life, by Holy Hesychasterion "St. Ephraim", Katounakia, Mount Athos; p.56)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The 13 Martyrs of Kantara: Defenders of Leavened Bread In the Eucharist

The 13 Holy Martyrs of Kantara (Feast Day - May 19)

To the west of the Castle of Kantara in the province of Kyrenia on Cyprus, there is the Monastery of Panagia Kantariotissa, which was built in the 12th century and renovated by Archbishop Chrysanthos of Cyprus in 1777. In 1783 the iconostasis of the monastery's church was made gold and was decorated with icons.

In the early 13th century a group of thirteen monks who came from Mount Athos settled in the monastery and revived the ascetic way of life and Orthodox tradition on the island, which infuriated the Frankish rulers of Cyprus, and notably the Latin Church.

During the Frankish Period, the Latin Church, through its representatives in Cyprus, had made great persecutions against the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus has managed to survive only through constant struggle, with continued resistance and with many great sacrifices. The most striking Orthodox resistance against the Latins, is the suffering of the thirteen monks of the monastery of Panagia at Kantara. Their deaths, after horrific torture, took place on May 19, 1231 and it is on May 19th that the Orthodox Church honors their memory, because they have been declared saints.

The thirteen monks/saints were:
1. John (Abbot) 2. Conon 3. Jeremiah 4. Mark 5. Cyril 6. Theoktistos 7. Barnabas 8. Maximus 9. Theognostus 10. Joseph 11. Gennadius 12. Gerasimos 13. Germanos

As saints, they are unknown to the Cypriot chronographers. Details, however, about them and their suffering are found in a relevant text Titled "Diigisis: The thirteen Saints and Fathers who were killed through burning by the Latins in the island of Cyprus in the year 1231." The text "Diigisis" survived in two manuscripts of the 14th century - one (located at the National Library in Paris) written in 1426 and the second (No. 575 at the Marciana Library in Venice) manuscript was published originally by K. Sathas [Medieval Library, Volume B, Venice, 1873, pages.20-39].

From the manuscripts we derive the following information:

Two monks named John and Conon arrived in Cyprus in 1228 from a monastery in Pamphyla, Asia Minor. They settled at the Monastery of Panagia Kantariotissa, but all was not peaceful for the Orthodox in Cyprus.

The first conflict with the Latin clergy of Cyprus must have happened in 1228. It was during a time when the persecution of the Orthodox by the Latins in Cyprus was on the rise. The Latin Church on the island was informed about the great reputation of the monks of Kantara, and had sent a representative to the monastery named Andreas to inquire about the monks who were there.

The latter was welcomed and hosted and initially the entire conversation had a friendly tone, until they started to talk about the issue of using unleavened bread in communion, an issue which had caused much controversy between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Churches (the azymite controversy). The monks of Kantara confessed that during their Orthodox ritual they used leavened bread in accordance with tradition.

The dispute over the use or not of unleavened bread during the mystery of the Eucharist had arisen because the Latins believed that the Last Supper had happened during the day of unleavened bread, as evidenced by the Evangelist Luke. The Orthodox on the other hand supported that the Jews called "the day of the unleavened bread" the period between sunset on Good Thursday until sunset on Good Friday. And it was named so, not because during that time they ate unleavened bread, but because they prepared it. Therefore, since the Last Supper took place during the evening of Holy Thursday, Christ must have used bread made with yeast, and not bread without yeast, because the latter had not yet been prepared since its use was on Good Friday.

The big difference then, between the Orthodox and Latins was highlighted with an acute manner during the discussion between the Latin Andreas and the monks of Kantara, with the former leaving very angry from the monastery.

As the "Diigisis" records, the monks of Kantara had even suggested a process to establish which was the correct view about the use of unleavened bread. After both conducted the Liturgy, with them (using leavened bread) and the Latins (using unleavened), a representative of each faith had to fall in the fire to prove that the one of the two who advocated the truth would not burn! This suggestion was not accepted, and the monks were ordered to appear before the Latin archbishop of Nicosia to answer.

After an overnight vigil in their monastery, the thirteen monks began their journey to Nicosia the next day singing the 119th Psalm. In the monastery of Saint George of Mangana (or Saint George Lampontos) in Nicosia, where they arrived, Orthodox crowds flocked to see the monks of Kantara.

Then the monks came before the Latin archbishop who was called Efstorgios, and who was surrounded by a large number of Latin clergy. Efstorgios questioned them, and the monks with frankness argued also before him about the Orthodox view of the use of leavened bread. Then the Latin archbishop jailed them after earlier humiliating them through torture.

In prison, the monks remained, in accordance with the text "Diigisis", for three years, enduring much suffering. From the suffering in prison, one of them, Theognostus (Theodoretus), died. His body was burned by the Latins (April 5, 1231).
During the period of imprisonment, the monks were interrogated and tortured again and again, but the attempts to make them renounce their views about the use of leavened bread failed.

Finally, by order of the Pope, the monks were treated as heretics, which for them it meant torture and execution. Among other tortures they suffered, as it is reported in the text "Diigisis", they were also tied behind horses which dragged them along the river bed of the River Pidias which then passed through Nicosia (between Paphos Gate and the Gate of Famagusta). Finally, half dead, the monks were thrown and burned at the stake (May 19, 1231).

This terrible crime of the Latins caused great reaction both in Cyprus itself and outside it, and the Patriarch of Constantinople Germanos sent a letter addressed to Pope Gregory IX, and in his letter, among other things, he asked: "Well, Your Holiness, Beatitude and Apostle Peter's successor. Is this what a meek and humble of heart disciple of Christ orders to happen to monks?"

Also, Germanos wrote to Pope Gregory that the suffering and death of the monks of Kantara was the last event needed to complete the course of war between the two Churches. The King of Cyprus Henry I was also involved in the crime because he had been forced by the Latin priests to order the torture and killing of the monks. This is because the Latin churchmen felt that they, themselves as priests, could not provide such a mandate!

The monastery of Panagia Kantariotissa continued its existence after the tragedy of the thirteen monks, and its final dissolution happened in the late 19th, or early 20th century. Today only the church of the monastery is preserved which is in a very advanced stage of deterioration because of the looting it suffered by the Turkish invaders after 1974, and by not being maintained.

The remains of Panagia Kantariotissa church

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance

May 19th is the memorial day for the victims innocently killed in Pontos.

The Pontian Greek Genocide was enacted by the Turks who were acting under the leadership of the mass murderer Kemal Ataturk.

Records kept mainly by priests show a minimum 350,000 Pontian Greeks exterminated through systematic slaughter by Turkish troops. Other estimates, including those of foreign missionaries, spoke of 500,000 deaths.

Read more here and here.




News story: Mass grave of Pontian Greeks Discovered


Greek Genocide survivors recall the removal and destruction of all able-bodied Greek men from their towns.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Exclusive Interview With Abbot Ephraim of Vatopaidi

May 16, 2010
Kyriakatiki Eleftherotypia
by Yianna Papadakou

Father Ephraim unleashes both fire and meaningful messages against members of the Karamanlis government in an interview with the Kyrakatik Elefterotypia, shortly before the final verdict of the investigating committee for the Vatopaidi scandal.

He reveals that it was the then Prime Minister Karamanlis who had the initiative to meet with him at Holy Mount Athos back in July 2006! However, he insists that the only subject of the discussion was the creation of the 'Saint Gregory Palamas Foundation'. But, he avoids connecting the establishment of the Foundation at the Olympic land, even though its building plans had been in place since 2006, something the then Prime Minister knew about.

Regarding Th. Rousopoulos he declares: ”We have not had any contact these days because of the defamation he went through” and insists that their relationship was purely spiritual. He says that G. Angelou was visiting the monastery every Feast of the Saturday of Saint Lazarus, but “they had never asked him to intercede so that the exchanges of land would take place…”

He declares with meaning that they had been drawn into the exchanges “by the previous government”. He attributes this stance to the reaction of the local authorities and stresses that this was the reason why Xanthi’s land had been exempt from the exchanges.

Do you really feel that you have been the cause of the scandal? Did you make any mistakes in the Vatopaidi case? Do you go to confession? Do you have a spiritual father?

- Let me clarify first of all, that this case is not a scandal. It is about the longstanding ongoing effort to protect the monastery’s property rights on the Vistonida Lake and its surrounding land against the Greek government. It came to light and was presented as a “scandal” in order to darken the image of the monastery and its long-standing presence, which in reality it is a centre of attraction for thousands of Christians throughout the world. If I could turn the clock back, I am not sure if I would let the monastery been drawn into these exchanges. I would have certainly asked the Greek government to safeguard the interests of the monastery as a legal entity. If this was a mistake, it will be assessed once this furor settles down, after the completion of all investigations, many years from now, I am afraid. I have always had a spiritual father. Confession is one of the Mysteries of the Church.


Who started the restoration of the monastery? Did you explain all these to the ministers of the former government? What help did you ask from them?

- The Great and Holy Monastery of Vataipedi became coenobitic in 1990, after the 18 monk brotherhood moved there, under my spiritual guidance. This task was especially difficult since the monastery had almost collapsed, most of the buildings had not been restored, but had been deserted and some had almost given way. One could also find some priceless relics, manuscripts, incunabula, historic documents etc, which were in danger of being destroyed or lost. We took under our wing a monastery spanning 35 thousand square kms, which together with its surroundings occupied an area larger than 70 thousand square kms, with mostly deserted and ruined buildings. We then started thinking how to give back to the monastery its old prestige. Therefore, we began commissioning studies, restoring the monastery and applying for the European community funding programs. I had never discussed these issues with any minister. On the contrary, I can say that most ministers had shown a negative attitude towards our effort to protect our property rights and we had met with immense difficulties in looking after them.

Did you have any private discussions with the former Prime Minister? What was the reason for the meeting in question?

- The former Prime Minister visited the Holy Mount Athos at his own initiative towards the end of July 2006. According to the Protocol provisions, he previously had come into contact with the Holy Community and the monasteries he wanted to visit were Vatopaidi and Iveron. There was no particular reason for the visit and we had not had any discussion with the former Prime Minister on the issue of the land exchanges. On the contrary, we only mentioned the establishment of the ‘Saint Gregorios Palamas Foundation', which intended to carry out a multiple charitable operation, for which he had promised to help where he could.

What was your relationship with Th. Rousopoulos? Do you keep in touch?

- My relationship with Rousopoulos was purely spiritual. Unfortunately because of the developments and the defamation he went through, we do not keep in touch these days. Unfortunately, faith and spirituality had come to be regarded as a punitive act.

Do you believe that the circulation of billions of Euros through companies, some of them offshore, is consistent with the Holy Mount Athos’ spirituality?

- Firstly, I must clarify that Vatopaidi had never itself undertaken any entrepreneurship. This is not our mission. It is for this reason that the monastery has assigned the management of its funds to third parties, specialists. I must firmly declare that the monastic community uses these monies entirely for the completion of the monastery’s restoration, the restoration of the holy relics, the feeding and hospitality of monks and visitors and conducting its charitable mission.

You have an impressive number of visitors at Vatopaidi. What did you mean when you told the investigating committee that “We are a national centre, we are truly serving the nation?”

- In every Orthodox country, the monasteries are centers whereby tradition and religion are protected. Vatopaidi is one such monastery. It totally conserves the nation’s tradition and serves Orthodoxy. I believe this is a great mission, a mirror of our nation and an ark of Orthodox tradition. This constitutes a true honor for Greece because of all those who visit us, simple citizens and even national leaders.

Do you actually believe that there have been some government officials who secretly collected monies in order to supply you with the governmental pieces of land?

- I firmly declare, “No”. It would constitute a great injustice to pretend otherwise. In fact, we have asked that all our bank accounts be revealed so that it is shown where every amount went to. As far as I know, evidence from the Bank of Greece investigation shows that no monies have been given to any government officials from third parties. As far as the so called “prime pieces” of land are concerned, (this reference is clearly the invention by some in order to misguide the authorities and the public), I must tell you that the land that the government gave to Vatopaidi in exchange for its assignment of the Vistonida Lake and its surrounding areas, can in no way be described as “prime pieces”. On the contrary, most of the land they offered us was inappropriate for any use, either because some building regulations were in place, or it was forest land, or like the Olympic land, it did not fulfill the safety regulations for the construction of any institution.


What would you give as a reply to Mr. Tsitourides statement that you had been directing the assignment of specific pieces of land which you desired, using a laptop?

- Firstly, I do not know the reasons behind Mr. Tsitourides lies. He was one of those who had recognized our property rights on the Vistonida Lake and its surroundings, and wished to proceed with the exchanges. However, I must firmly declare, that under no circumstances had we any knowledge of the available lands nor had we any right to pin point and chose. In any case, I do not know what is a ‘laptop’.

You have stated to the investigating committee that you had been drawn into the exchanges. Who had dragged you in and who benefited in the end?

- Since 1998, all governments had recognized with several documents and decisions, that Vatopaidi was the rightful owner of the Vistonida Lake and its surroundings. The act of exchange for this land was not our choice. It was the initiative of the then government who had to pacify the local authorities who had been demanding that we vacate the area, which led us to the exchanges. In his statement the President of the Litigation Committee of Xanthi, Mr. Ath. Xinides admitted that the exchanges were the result of their protests. Mr. Xinides was one of the most important local representatives and was related to the general secretary of the PASOK house committee. This was also stated to the investigating committee by other witnesses in 2008, like the former Minister of Agricultural Development, Mr. Basiakos and the former under Secretary Kontos. Why did the media never mention these truths to inform the public? We had been dragged into these exchanges, under pressure by the former government, and as a result we were made to look as if we had been participating in a political game, in which we had in fact been the losers.

What was your relationship with Mr. G. Angelou? Did you ever ask him to intervene in order to help you with the case?

- Mr Angelou had been visiting our monastery for three consecutive years during the Feast of the Saturday of Saint Lazarus. I had never ever asked him to mediate on anything.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Illuminati" Spelled Backwards Is "Itanimulli"?

Now go to this website and what do you see: http://www.itanimulli.com/

Then see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu0944l0phs&feature=player_embedded

Now read this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SUwLykr6yuYJ:snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/itanimullicom-ltlt-the-facts+ITANIMULLI.COM+the+facts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Lesson: When you connect the dots, make sure you get your facts right.

* This is an expose of the Itanimulli hoax.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Documentary: "Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer"

Website: http://mysteriesofthejesusprayer.com

Starring: Dr. Norris Chumley and V.Rev. Dr. John A McGuckin

Plot Outline: Christian monks and nuns appear on film describing and demonstrating their personal prayers of the heart and soul, for the first time ever on film. On a spiritual journey from the Holy lands of Egypt, to Mt. Sinai, Mt. Athos in Greece, Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Russia, Dr. Norris and Father John retrace the steps of ancient pilgrims in search of a word of wisdom from the ancient desert and forest dwellers.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Prince Charles To Return To Mount Athos

Charles To Make Spiritual Return

March 7,2010
By Adam Helliker
Express.co.uk

AS HE approaches his fifth wedding anniversary next month, Prince Charles is feeling the need for a male-only spiritual recharge: he is contemplating a solo sojourn to a monastery in northern Greece.

The religious enclave of Mount Athos, where no woman has set foot since the 11th century (and even female animals are banned), was a favourite retreat for Charles during his testing times with his first wife Diana. But since his marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles he has not felt the need to return, until now.

On previous visits to the remote religious community, the Prince has joined in prayer and meditation with monks during the mornings, spending his afternoons painting watercolours of the imposing monasteries dotted among the lush scenery.

Normally visitors to the self-governing republic have to share a dormitory, as well as the frugal lifestyle embraced by the monks, but in the only concession to his royal status, Charles is allocated a small whitewashed “cell”. He sleeps on a steel-framed bed with a foam mattress (possibly not the best choice for a man with an ever-aching back who is in his 62nd year).

There are nearly 2,000 monks housed in the republic’s monasteries, all of whom have devoted their lives to shunning sexual desire through prayer and following the Greek Orthodox faith. Every meal is taken in silence.


Charles was first introduced to Mount Athos by his father, who was born in Corfu and had to switch to Anglicanism from Greek Orthodoxy to marry the Queen. Philip’s mother, Alice, was deeply religious and became a nun in her later life. When she died in 1969 she left no possessions, having given everything away, and was buried, as she had requested, on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

Speaking about Charles’s last visit, one of the monks said: “Your Prince is always welcome here. It is a place where he seems to have found a lot of serenity in his life. He is treated just like a fellow monk and lives just as we do, from the food we eat to the hours we keep.”

A senior royal source adds that, increasingly as he gets older, Charles “is seeking answers to spiritual and philosophical questions. Nourishing the spirit is very important to him these days. He is a man beset by many pressures, so he relishes the prospect of spending time alone, with the time to concentrate on spiritual matters.”

Clarence House has always adhered to the line that the Prince’s visits are considered “private” and gives no details of whether, and when, he would go but if he does travel to Mount Athos this year, it’s likely to be in May.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

10 Reasons I Believe the Holy Light Is a Miracle 3

Continued from Part Two

Reason One: The Insufficiency of All Skeptical Claims (Part 2)

3. Pseudo-Witnesses and Pseudo-Evidence

The fact that critics of the miraculous properties of the Holy Light base their critique on the presuppositions of their worldview and present contradictory explanations for the phenomenon, it naturally follows that their testimony is based on pseudo-witnesses and their proofs are based on pseudo-evidence. Let us examine how this is so.

In order to have sufficient evidence even to doubt the miraculous properties of the Holy Light, one would need at least one of the following:

A. Someone who has personally witnessed or taken part in the fraudulent act and can sufficiently explain away the entire experience naturalistically.

B. Sufficient evidence that completely undermines the witnesses of this phenomenon who testify to the miraculous properties of the Holy Light.

Based on these criteria, no one since the time this phenomenon began centuries ago has presented a sufficient witness or sufficient evidence even to justify why any doubts exist outside of personal choice. They have certainly tried and have had many reasons to do so, but it has all been unsuccessful. Such reasoning confirms for us that there are other factors at play in the assault against the evidence in favor of the Holy Light being a supernatural phenomenon. To further add to the propaganda to discredit the Holy Light as a miracle, skeptics throughout the centuries until today present pseudo-witnesses and pseudo-evidence in their efforts to undermine the miracle.

Because skeptics often make use of the concepts of "eye-witnesses" and "personal testimony", it is important to turn to the field of Law, or Jurisprudence, as a branch of learning, because centuries-old international legal custom and established legal practices have worked out clear, well-defined criteria which precisely determine who can be admitted as a witness and what evidence can be submitted in a court case. In all systems of law, and even in everyday use of the word "witness", a reliable witness is a person who was personally present at a given event, that is, they saw it with their own eyes, they were eye-witnesses.

Skeptics of the Holy Light use as "witnesses" people who were not participants nor present in any way at the described event, except maybe at a disassociated distance. We can again bring forward the Muslim writers presented by Iosif Evstafevich Krachkovsky (1854-1914). In his analysis of these accounts, Krachkovsky observes the following:

“In the above-given survey, it is easy to see the main thing distinguishing Muslim stories about the miracle from Christian [reports about it]. The Muslim stories are all understandably brief, sometimes coming down to a simple mentioning (al-Djakhiz, Ali-al-Kherevi); none of them is based on personal observation. The one exception is Ibn-al-Djawzi and its source, al-Biruni, analysis of which we will defer for the time being. The fact that these are transmissions of a third-hand account explains such immediately obvious mistakes, as the date in al-Mac’udi, or Ibn-al-Qalanisi’s report of the belief of Christians about the place of the birth and ascension of Jesus Christ [as supposedly being the same place as His Resurrection]. In these stories, the factual side comes down to very little; from them we can sift out only that, during the whole time relating to the lives of the above-mentioned authors, the miracle took place every year and was a well-known, regularly-occurring event. Description of the miracle itself and of the whole rite is found solely in Ibn-al-Djawsi [this is the eyewitness-account reported by al Biruni which will be analyzed below]. All the remaining elements of the other reports should be regarded not as legitimate, historical accounts but as legendary stories. In one of them, with complete obviousness, are the telling effects of literary editing and reworking of the plot; this is the story [not quoted in this article] about the conversation of the high-ranking person with the monk concerning the 'real' cause of the miracle. This story may have arisen as an attempt to give meaning to the destruction by al-Hakim [the mad caliph] of the Jerusalem church through [the literary technique of] his possible conversation with someone in his retinue, as presented originally by Ibn-al-Qalanisi and al-Hariri [spelling?]. All the subsequent versions clearly represent reworkings of the storyline and details, where instead of al-Hakim is a ruler (in Yakut = Al-Kasvini) or al-Melik al-Mu’assam (in al-Jawharī’s story) or, finally, Saladdin himself (in Ibn-al_Djawzi; and instead of someone in his retinue — a monk (in-al-Jawharī), a priest (in Yakut = al-Kasvini) or [even] the patriarch (in Ibn-al-Djawzi)."

The trend by the Muslim writers highlighted above by Krachkovsky is the same exact trend which has continued among non-believers over the centuries until our times, with the only difference that they are done by people with different backgrounds that fit their biases and presuppositions. Because of this, the simple facts are discarded and the most absurd stories are spun to discredit the miracle.

4. Skepticism Based on Speculation Rather Than Empirical Evidence

In recent decades skeptics have arisen who are trying to bring to public awareness that the Holy Light is a natural phenomenon which can be scientifically explained and recreated. What do we mean by science and what do we mean by speculation? Solid science deals with areas where we have definite knowledge, good evidence. Speculation deals with areas where we have too little knowledge and information to make definite statements which are confirmable. So is the scientific evidence of the skeptics solid science or speculation?

It is true that the skeptics present a certain level of evidence for recreating certain aspects of the Holy Light, but the facts are that a great deal of speculation is required to piece the theory together as a valid explanation for the Holy Light miracle which occurs. For example, there is the case of the well-known skeptic in Greece Mr. Michael Kalopoulos, who enjoys being condescending to believers in the Holy Light on Greek TV. His whole argument rests on a dazzling spectacle in which he dips the wick of a candle in liquid phosphorus, and within minutes ignites on its own. Those who are naive of basic chemistry are indeed dazzled, not knowing what to think, some even dismissing the miraculous properties of the Holy Light immediately, as if the Patriarch uses such a concoction to simulate a miracle. Though the science he presents is correct in itself, it presents such an unsatisfactory answer to account for the miracle that any reasonable person must immediately dismiss it as a non-explanation. If the miracle occurred in a strictly scientifically controlled environment, then maybe it may have some value, but the fact is that his brief experiment explains nothing and recreates little when compared to the evidence: flashes of lightning, the self-ignition of individual candles among the crowd, the non-burning properties of the fire. It also presents certain problems, such as the fact that burning phosphorous is poisonous, yet there are no health problems in the crowded church of people holding these candles, and the fact that the phosphorous takes a matter of minutes to ignite when the wicks are drenched, but people purchase their candles well in advance of the ceremony. Let alone the fact that he would have to account for a wild conspiracy theory for the Patriarchs of Jerusalem using such tactics to deceive the faithful over the centuries. We will examine all this "evidence" presented by Kalopoulos in much more detail later.

This is pretty much the extent of the scientific evidence presented by skeptics, which is quite pathetic considering the extent they go to to dismiss the miracle. Presuppositions play a much greater role, as we examined earlier. As far as Kalopoulos is concerned, his agenda presented in his publications is to restore the ancient Greek religion among the Greek people and expose Christianity as false. He therefore uses a dazzling spectacle to shock the sensibilities of the audience, then offers a bunch of speculation to explain away the entire phenomenon of the Holy Light, and this comes from a man who has never witnessed the miracle in person nor accounts for all the evidence that supports the miracle.

Continued...Reason One: The Insufficiency of All Skeptical Claims (Part 3)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

We Are All The Children Of Byzantium

Professor Judith Herrin of Princeton University and King’s College delivered the 18th Runciman Lecture in London in February of 2009.

Despite the snow and the transport problems, the annual lecture in honor of the great scholar of Byzantium, Steven Runciman, was held as scheduled at King's College in London on Thursday. In the university amphitheater, after vespers in the chapel, Professor Judith Herrin of Princeton and King's College delivered the 18th Runciman Lecture on the subject «We Are All Children of Byzantium.»

The lecture coincided with the Byzantium 330-1453 exhibition which is being hosted by the Royal Academy in London. Below is an abridged version of Professor Herrin's lecture.

Tonight my aim is to celebrate Byzantium and its great civilization. My title has been chosen to follow in the well-laid paths of allegory - and initially I did not intend to suggest that «we» are in any biological way «children» of Byzantium. But in fact, many in this audience really will be descendants of Byzantine families, who can trace their genealogies back to the dynasties of Palaiologos, Komnenos or Laskaris. In addition, many contemporary Greek names reflect Byzantine origins: Xylis, Dragazis, Kedros or Lemos, others are identified as descendants by an addition to their names, the Costopouloi, Dimopouloi and Stathakopouloi, and yet others declare their proud ancestry in the Levant/Levent.

And together with these natural descendants, an even larger number might be adopted or spiritual children. Spiritual kinship, a prominent feature of many societies, ancient, medieval and modern, was widely practised in Byzantium as well as Islam and the medieval West. Children were regularly sponsored by godparents, linked to a particular teacher by a tradition of learning, to a master by service, or were simply adopted by other families.

In a lecture named after Steven Runciman it might be appropriate to suggest that he was a child of Byzantium by adoption. He adopted the identity of Byzantinist as a sort of self-definition, and many of us are proud to follow in his footsteps. On such an occasion, it hardly seems necessary to repeat our great debt to Steven, but this is an opportunity to thank our patron, Nicholas Egon, who set up an annual lecture in his name while Steven was still alive. Many will recall the times he sat in the front row and enjoyed the lectures by my distinguished predecessors and asked a penetrating question. This evening I would like to draw attention to one of Runciman's less well-known dictums - «I often wonder if it was the strength of Byzantine women that kept the empire going for so long.»

Thanks to the efforts of many scholars the epithets traditionally associated with Byzantium are being rolled back; the bad old stereotypes are being countered by substantive demonstrations of what the empire achieved in its millennial history, and what that means for us today… It's now possible to stress that from its inception the newly Christianized empire of Rome in the East Mediterranean was in contact with a vast range of other forces, initially Persian, Turkic, even Chinese, and later Islam, pagan Russia, the Slavs, Vikings and Jewish communities among others. These contacts were military, diplomatic, theological and sometimes involved intellectual debate. Not only did Byzantium define its character and role in relation to this wider world, but it also influenced even distant countries in the process. Its ancient Greek heritage as well as the formative Eastern, Roman and Christian features all played a part in the shaping of Europe, the Balkans and the medieval Mediterranean world.

Model for empires

Sometimes we may only find these influences at second hand, for instance, in the coronation ritual of European monarchs or the adaptation of Roman law to serve a medieval Christian society. But its examples still echo, for instance in a proud monarchy that was also linked to a most unusual cosmopolitanism. In this particular association, Byzantium set a model for most subsequent empires (the Hapsburg, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian). These were, in the main, true children and descendants of Byzantium. And today, a similar model of acceptance and toleration of difference may be cited as a guiding principle for contemporary metropoleis, like our own London.

In terms of imperial philanthropy, patronage of the arts, diplomacy and military tactics, Byzantine practice informed and helped to form its neighbors. And in the context of preserving and transmitting ancient wisdom with detailed commentary and explanation, Byzantine scholars excelled in many fields: medical, astronomical, historical and literary. Without making an excessive claim for the Byzantine contribution to world civilization, if we look at it more closely, we can see that Byzantium also continues to be our cousin

In this process of recognizing Byzantium as an integral part of our world, rather than the dead zone between us and the Greco-Roman world as Voltaire and Gibbon perceived it, many benefactors have helped - particularly in the mounting of great exhibitions - the recent ones in New York and London, supported by the J.F. Costopoulos, A.G. Leventis and the Stavros Niarchos foundations. In addition to whatever else they do, these major shows have attracted large crowds to admire the artistic products of Byzantium, and this wider appreciation is another factor in ending the received stereotypes. So building on that greater awareness, I would like to look at specific issues, individuals and objects, which help us to celebrate the many «children of Byzantium.» Recently, this term was also used by a politician - I will tell you which one at the end of my lecture. But now I propose that we all imagine ourselves «children of Byzantium» for the next 45 minutes or so, while I use the epithet to trace out some of the less obvious ways in which Byzantium continues to have an impact on us today.

Systematic endogamy

Young princes and princesses were regularly employed in political alliances. Sons, normally crowned as co-emperor by their fathers at a tender age, were often married to foreign princesses who arrived in Constantinople to be trained in Byzantine customs. Daughters had a harder role, because they might be sent abroad to reinforce peace treaties with the empire's enemies. In anthropological terms, Byzantine rulers practiced a systematic exogamy, marrying out, moderated by endogamy, when partners were chosen from among imperial subjects. But it was a gendered form of exogamy where females did all the moving, whether they were imperial princesses going out or outsiders coming in. This should remind us that women are bearers of meaning; they change their names at marriage, and carry their natal cultures from one social group to another. In the case of outgoing princesses, this responsibility was very strong; for incoming brides, however, acquiring Byzantine traditions was the more pressing need.

Yet imperial children, girls and boys, had no choice in the matter: Their marriages were arranged with a view to consolidating imperial policy, as were the marriages of most children of medieval rulers. The tradition was inherited from Rome and had become more developed as non-Roman forces pressed into the empire in the West during the 5th century AD. Political alliances, reinforced by marriage, became a more common way of trying to sustain foreign relations without constant fighting. In Byzantium, as dynastic monarchy became stronger, it was symbolized in the purple chamber, constructed to guarantee the legitimacy of imperial offspring, a notion that no other empire was able to emulate. The principle of «sacrificing» a high-born or imperial young woman to the wishes of a non-Roman ruler was clearly appreciated by the outsiders. But also perhaps by those women locked within the imperial system.

Let's start in the 5th century with the case of Galla Placidia, daughter of Emperor Theodosius I. After the sack of Rome in 410, when she was aged between 17 and 22, she was carried off as a prisoner by Athaulf, the Gothic leader. He took her to Gaul where in 414 they celebrated their marriage in great style and later she gave birth to their son, who was named Theodosius after his Roman grandfather. To their sorrow he died early in 415 and Athaulf was murdered. Galla was brought back to Rome as part of a new treaty concluded between Visigoths and Romans. In 417 she was married to a Roman general Constantius, and they had two children: Honoria and Valentinian. And then Constantius died.

Having experienced the loss of her two husbands, Galla seems to have determined to take her fate into her own hands. She must have played a part in her 5-year-old son's promotion to Caesar in 424 and assumed a major role as regent and mother of the future emperor of the West. For the next 25 years she dominated the imperial court at Ravenna, promoting the orthodox Christian cult through new churches designed to rival the Arian Christian monuments. Galla Placidia died at Rome in November 450 and was probably buried there. What is called her mausoleum at Ravenna was probably an oratory dedicated to St Lawrence. She exemplified a pattern of female authority that was to have a long life in Byzantium. It may also have inspired her own daughter, Honoria.

When Honoria was about 8 years old she was appointed empress. This was highly unusual. She therefore grew up as a woman accorded the highest authority in the Roman world and coins were struck in her honor. Instead of marrying, however, she lived in her own palace in Ravenna and began to plot against her brother Valentinian III with her steward Eugenius. When their schemes were discovered, Eugenius was killed and Honoria was exiled and forcibly betrothed to a wealthy senator. She then conceived a daring plan to avoid marrying him by calling on none other than Attila the Hun, to rescue her. She was able to do this by sending her trusted eunuch servant Hycinthus to the dreaded enemy of Rome with gold and, more important, her own ring. Attila interpreted the message as a declaration of her desire to marry him and quickly took up her cause - he demanded that Theodosius grant him «his bride» and half the western territories ruled by Valentinian (as her dowry) - and then set out to make good his claim. Curiously, in Constantinople this outrageous demand was considered more sympathetically than in Rome, where Valentinian was horrified.

And the threat was real enough; in 451 and again in 452, Attila advanced against the West, to rescue Honoria and take over Gaul, the part of the empire which he coveted. On both occasions he was held off. Only his unexpected death in 453 released the Roman world from the Hunnic threat. While this story is well known, there is another tantalizing possibility. Could it be the case that when Attila was held hostage in the Roman court he may have seen the young Honoria, who also spent a short time in the eastern capital with her mother Galla Placidia in 423? As a 12-year-old, Attila arrived in Byzantium in 418 as a guarantee for his uncle's good behavior. Huns were frequent visitors to the imperial court… In 423 he would have been about 17 years old, while Honoria was 5. Did she notice him? Did Attila see the young princess from Ravenna? We can imagine this wonderful moment, which may have occurred: two parties of hostages, Huns and imperial women from the West with Gothic connections - they could have met. They had both shared the «gilded cage» as unwilling guests of the imperial court, exposed to the same Byzantine traditions. If true, this would have given Honoria an additional reason for appealing to Attila 25 years later, as one royal hostage to another!

I have dwelt on these two well-known examples because they typify the Byzantine attitude to imperial children: The notion that princes and princesses could strengthen alliances, induce warmer relations with aggressive barbarian leaders and bring them into the civilizing fold of Byzantine influence continued till the very end of the eastern empire. It was realized in 731 when Leo III betrothed his son to the daughter of the Khazar leader, attempted several times in the late eighth and ninth centuries and successfully negotiated in 927. After making peace with the Bulgarians, Romanos I sent his granddaughter Maria to marry Tsar Symeon's son, Peter, in a union designed to secure the political alliance. Maria, who was renamed Peace in honor of the union, seems to have established a pro-Byzantine faction in Bulgaria which was not appreciated by Symeon's other sons, but it persuaded Peter to remain an ally of her grandfather and his successor Constantine VII. She kept in touch with her natal family, making visits back to Constantinople until her death in about 963.

'Invented tradition'

Although the policy appeared to have worked, Emperor Constantine VII later denounced his father-in-law for sending Maria off to Bulgaria, using the specious argument that Byzantine princesses should never be married to barbarians. Only the Franks in western lands might be permitted this privilege, because Constantine the Great had come from those parts. In 944 Romanos I had married his grandson to another western bride, Bertha, daughter of King Hugo of Provence. When he condemned the Bulgarian marriage but praised the Frankish one, Constantine was confirming an «invented tradition» that involved his own son.

The outstanding example of these unions is Theophano, niece of John I Tzimiskes. For several years the German emperor Otto I had wanted an imperial princess, born in the purple, for his son and heir, and sent Liutprand of Cremona to negotiate such a union, without success. But after a change of emperor, Theophano was finally dispatched to the West in 971. Some commentators noted that she was not a porphyrogennetos, a child born in the purple, but merely the niece of John I. They all, however, described the magnificent gifts she brought with her, and observed her numerous attendants and gifts with curiosity. She is the key instance of a pro-Byzantine plant in Western Europe through her marriage in 972 to Otto II, which was also recorded on an imitation Byzantine charter. She bore Otto three daughters and finally a son Otto III. The half-Byzantine prince received Greek education and displayed himself in imperial style. Theophano tried to arrange a Byzantine bride for him, and after her death negotiations were successfully concluded. The emperor's daughter, Zoe, was selected to perform the role. But in 1002 just as Zoe landed at Bari, Otto III died, so she had to turn around and go back to Byzantium where she then had a brilliant career. As a true born in the purple princess, she married three times and raised another man to the position of emperor, but to her sadness she never became a mother. This brought the Macedonian dynasty to an end.

Theophano, meanwhile, exercised considerable power in the medieval West, signing charters for her young son while she was regent, and on one occasion even adopting the masculine form of emperor, imperator, rather than the feminine. But two generations or so later, when most people would have retained only a slight memory of her ecclesiastical foundations and patronage, she gained notoriety from the condemnations of clerics like St Peter Damian, and this indicates why such aristocratic ladies from Byzantium were not appreciated in the West. They criticized Theophano for introducing diaphanous silk dresses, which they considered indecent, and extravagant jewelry (which made western women jealous), and for taking endless baths and washing, which they considered unnecessary.

Peter Damian also associated her with another Byzantine princess, Maria Argyropoulaina who married the son of the Doge of Venice in 1004. He complained that she used eunuchs to cut up her food, and then ate with a little two-pronged gold fork; insisted on washing in rainwater, and burnt many sweet smelling herbs in her rooms in Venice. Finally, he prophesied that Maria would end up in hell for such indecent and wicked actions. Later we shall see how this marriage formed a link in the ongoing connections between Constantinople and Venice.

These children of Byzantium, who impressed their husbands and appear to have performed an ambassadorial role to great effect, also upset celibate clergy in the Western church - an early example perhaps of people in the West projecting onto Byzantium the anxieties of their own society.

Different problems were faced by other princesses sent to newly evangelized territories of Bulgaria or to pagan Russia, e.g. Anna, sister of Basil II, who had the harder task since her husband Vladimir was hardly Christian and had developed a clear military rivalry with Byzantium. But since she represented the faith that the Russians were obliged to accept in order for the marriage to go ahead, she could at least act as a patron of Orthodoxy. Anna founded churches and monasteries to spread the new faith. And the founding saints of the Russian Church, Boris and Gleb, are sometimes traced back to Vladimir and Anna.

During the 11th century this tradition of out-marriage fell into disuse not because of a change of Byzantine policy but because Basil and Constantine failed to marry the three purple-born princesses of the Macedonian dynasty. Other generals from leading families took over power until Alexios Komnenos established his authority. At his accession, the Byzantine family hierarchy was re-established with a vengeance and continued through five generations. Despite Constantine VII's advice, an increasing number of western brides were sought for imperial princes. And in the 13th to 15th centuries, Byzantine princesses were even more frequently sent abroad to sustain alliances with the foreign powers that now encircled the capital.

'Family of kings'

One consequence of this marriage policy was the creation of a «family of kings» based in Constantinople, where emperors devised a virtual system of relatives with titles and ranks to form a hierarchy of precedence. At the time of the conversion of the Bulgar Khan Boris, emperor Michael III performed the role of godfather and gave the newly Christian ruler his own name, a clear example of spiritual adoption. This connection also implied a father to son relationship between the two rulers although it did not prevent serious challenges to Byzantine influence in Bulgaria under Boris-Michael's son Symeon.

Nonetheless, the conversion of the Bulgars, their closer relationship to the empire and the patriarch of Constantinople, and the marriage of Maria to Tsar Peter helped to prevent further outbreaks of war. Such informal family relations were not always understood, and many foreigners felt themselves slighted (and their masters insulted) when they were not seated close to the emperor's table at state banquets. In 963, when Liutprand, ambassador from the western emperor Otto I, realized that the Bulgarians were given places of honor, he felt this as a direct snub and complained. But according to the principle of «the family of kings,» the «barbarians» who represented the Bulgarian Tsar, that is the emperor's «brother» naturally took precedence over the envoy of the German ruler.

As in real families, the various «children» of the «father» often quarrelled over their honorary titles and costumes, possessions and access to the head of the family. But the emperor attempted to sweeten their differences in a fatherly fashion. He also demanded that his relatives abroad send their own young children to the Byzantine capital as hostages for good behavior. This was a typical Roman ploy to secure military negotiations: After a victory, the defeated enemy was obliged to let the emperor take his young sons and even daughters off to Constantinople. We have already seen how this may have affected Attila the Hun, back in the early fifth century, and an even more striking instance is the Ostrogoth, Theoderic, who spent almost a decade in Constantinople during the 460s, as a guarantee of his father's loyalty. In numerous cases, the result was a very curious mix of influence and resentment.

In this way, some filial respect was induced among the barbarians - Symeon, grandson of Boris/Michael acquired such a deep knowledge of Greek that he was called half a Hellene, though this didn't prevent him from challenging Byzantium and claiming the title basileus. Later in the 11th century the young Georgian princess Marta/Maria was sent to Constantinople as a hostage for the good behavior of her father. The imperial court must have had special facilities for these foreigners who had to be looked after and attended the court on every ceremonial occasion. I think we have to imagine classes for a mixture of children: Education in Greek language, Roman history, verses of Homer, military tactics and all the other aspects of medieval culture, taught by court eunuchs whose loyalty to imperial ideology was beyond question.

Finally, who also said we are all children of Byzantium?

In November 2004, in connection with Turkey's application to join the EU, Jacques Chirac addressed a student conference in Marseille, the day after a large demonstration against Turkish membership. His use of the phrase is interesting on many counts, not least the fact that some Turks are indeed also claiming to be children of Byzantium: They emphasize how firmly the Ottomans maintained imperial traditions into the modern era, preserved Byzantine chancellery habits, tax-keeping methods, and continued the multicultural and polyglot culture of Byzantium. This is claimed in the spirit of inclusivity and cousinhood, not of bickering and competition.

So in addition to the Balkan countries, and states emerging from the Russian and Soviet empires, Georgia and Armenia (distinctly different but orthodox), Syria and Lebanon with their ancient Christian communities, other groups such as the Copts in Egypt, can also claim to be children of Byzantium. In this larger family, Greece is our elder brother and sister. But it is also part of a wider group of siblings that is just beginning to be discovered. By drawing attention to the real, symbolic and imagined children of Byzantium, I think we can expand and enrich our sense of that great civilization.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr