Serbian Monks Abandon Monasteries Over Removal of Bishop Artemije

Turmoil Continues in Serbian Church as Monks Rebel

EarthTimes
June 2, 2010

Belgrade, Serbia - The Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) continues to be racked by dissent, as monks in two monasteries have openly rebelled against the church leadership, the daily Blic said Wednesday.

Monks from monasteries the Crna Reka and Holy Archangels launched their rebellion in support of Bishop Artemije, the former head of the Kosovo eparchy whom the SPC replaced because he had ignored orders and was implicated in corruption scandals.

The monks said they were set to abandon their monasteries despite orders from the SPC to remain in place.

The influential Bishop Amfilohije, the provisional administrator of the Kosovo eparchy, which also covers a part of south-western Serbia, met the monks in Crna Reka at an unspecified date but had failed to reach a settlement.

"They ... were told that the Church cannot allow pseudo-zealotry, sectarianism that undermines the unity of the Church," the Kosovo eparchy said in a statement.

The Kosovo eparchy has been in focus not only because of the secession of Kosovo in 2008, but also because of alleged financial abuse. The allegations have so far led to the criminal indictment and arrest of Artemije's right-hand man, Simeon Vilovski.

Monks at the Crna Reka monastery caused outrage last year when they disclosed they were "curing" drug addicts by torturing them.

For context, see here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Fr. Seraphim Rose on the Reception of Converts

The following is a letter[1] which was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose to Fr. Alexey Young — now Hieromonk Ambrose. It was on the problem of certain people not accepting converts who were received into the Orthodox Church through either Chrismation or Confession, but insisted that all must be Re-baptized.

In this letter Fr. Seraphim emphasizes the fact that converts can be received into the Church through either Confession or Chrismation, and denounces the view that such a reception makes a convert an "irregular" or "incomplete" Orthodox Christian. He further points out that it is a matter which should be left to the priest and bishop to decide how one is to be received, and not the business of anyone else.

This letter especially addresses a common problem within Orthodoxy today that is often found among the more fanatical Orthodox, especially in monastic communities here in America and abroad: the rebaptism of converts who have already been received through Confession or Chrismation. This is a great evil being done in the Church today, often done in secret without the permission of a bishop, and influenced by the baseless presumptions of schismatics who care little for the unity and welfare of the Church.

Jan. 28/Feb.10, 1976

We forgot to ask you how LM is getting along in your community. Is she getting a longing for big-city life? She told me that she and JK are not getting along, and she thinks it must be jealousy. But could it be that J just can’t stand L’s type —outspoken, always right, still reflecting something of the hothouse atmosphere of the “Boston”[2] approach?

I’ve written and talked to L about this hothouse approach to Orthodoxy — filled with gossip, knowing “what’s going on,” having the “right answer” to everything according to what the “experts” say. I begin to think that this is her basic problem, and not Fr. Panteleimon directly.

An example: she is horrified that T was received into the Church [from Roman Catholicism] without baptism or chrismation. “That’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and the bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more, her) business. The rite by which he was received has long been approved by the Church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because T might have hesitated much more at being baptized. The Church’s condescension here was wise. But L would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor” [on this subject]. My dear, he was there, composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the church atmosphere. And if she is going to tell T now that he is not “really” a member of the Orthodox Church, she can do untold harm to a soul.

Another example: L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being a member of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers. If the priest or bishop who receives such people were wrong (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of Church within the Church is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests,” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today — and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.

At times we would like to think that the whole “Fr. Panteleimon problem” in our Church is just a matter of differing emphasis which, in the end, will not be so terribly important. But the more we observe, the more we come to think that it is much more serious than that, that in fact that an “orthodox sectarianism” is being formed at that expense of our simple people. Therefore, those who are aware of all this must be “zealots according to knowledge.” The Church has survived worse temptations in the past, but we fear for our converts lest in their simplicity they be led into a sect and out of the Church.

God is with us! We must go forward in faith.

Notes:

1. This letter is from “Letters from Father Seraphim”

2. The references in this letter to "Boston" refer to the schismatic Old Calendar Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA. The references to "Fr. Panteleimon" refer to the same monasteries' founder and spiritual father.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Mount Athos: International Status and Legal Framework

The Athos Monastic Community was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century and was under Turkish rule until the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, at which time it was liberated by the Greek army. The following article by Prof. Patrinellis places Mount Athos in its historical and political context.

The new reality that emerged from the Balkan Wars made it necessary to redraw the political map of Macedonia. The international position of Mount Athos, however, was seen as a problem sui generis, and the territory constituted an apple of discord, particularly between Greece and Russia—which, it must be remembered, had never abandoned its aspirations to the role of protector of the Orthodox peoples of the Balkans. During the negotiations preliminary to the signing of the Treaty of London in 1913, as well as at the Ambassadors’ Conference held there that same year, Russia produced a whole string of alternate proposals for the future status of Mount Athos: internationalisation, neutrality, joint sovereignty or joint protectorate under Russia and the other Orthodox Balkan states. While the reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek government, which needed Russian support in other areas, was half-hearted, the Athonite Community (with the exception of the Russians) declared by official resolution that it would employ every means to resist the adulteration of the traditional autonomy of the Holy Mountain and ‘Greek sovereignty over it’. While the issue was left unresolved at that time, there was a tacit acceptance of the existing de facto Greek sovereignty over the Athonite peninsula.When the issue was raised again after the end of the First World War, conditions had become more favourable for the Greek side: on the one hand there were far fewer Russian monks on the Mountain, and on the other the new Bolshevik regime in Russia displayed little interest in the matter. With the Treaties of Neuilly (1919), Sevres (1920) and Lausanne (1923), Greek sovereignty over Mount Athos was officially recognised.

All that remained was to settle the legal dispositions of Greece’s relations with the Holy Mountain and to draw up an internal rule for the governance of the monastic community. In 1924 a five-member committee of eminent Athonites prepared a ‘Charter for the Holy Mountain of Athos’, which codified regulations and administrative dispositions stemming not only from written sources (Typika, chrysoboulla, sigillia, regulations, etc.) but also from tradition and customary usage. This Charter was approved that same year by the Athonite Assembly known as the ‘double Synaxis’. On the basis of this official text the Greek state drafted a Legislative Decree, which the Greek Parliament passed into law in 1926. At the same time, the 1927 Greek Constitution contained special articles (included in each subsequent constitution) on the general principles governing the status of Mount Athos.

These were the official documents defining the Athonite Peninsula’s relations with Greece and with the Church, as well as the competence of its administrative institutions, the Holy Synaxis and the Holy Epistasia. They also regulated relations between monks, between monk and monastery, between monastery and dependency, etc., in order to prevent friction and disputes.

The Greek State is represented by the Governor of Mount Athos, who answers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and who, together with the deputy governor, resides in Karyes. He ensures that the Charter is respected, attends the sessions of the Holy Community in an advisory capacity, and presides over local public services (police, customs, etc.).

Finally, with regard to the administration of justice, it should be noted that disciplinary matters and minor disputes between monks or monasteries are adjudicated initially by the individual monastic authorities, in the second instance by the Holy Community and in the third by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Misdemeanours and minor infractions are settled by the local police authorities, while criminal offences and land disputes between monasteries are in the jurisdiction of the competent courts in Thessaloniki.

Ch. G. Patrinellis
Professor of Modern History
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Metropolitan Paul of Kyrenia on the Papal Visit To Cyprus

It is with the deepest sorrow and spiritual anguish that we have been informed by His Beatitude the Archbishop during the convening of the Holy Synod on the 4th of May 2010, of the visit of the Pope upon the Orthodox soil of our saint-bearing island of Cyprus, which will be taking place pursuant to an official invitation that the President of the Republic of Cyprus extended to him as the Head of the State of Vatican. We have duly expressed our opposition - Synodically - to this visit, and have declared that we shall not participate in any event related to it, because our conscience does not permit it, inasmuch as the Pope is not just any political leader, but the leader of the heresy of Papism. The reason for this is that the Papists, with their adulteration of the proper Ecclesiology, have turned the Church of the living God from the Body of Christ to "a terrestrial political organization", a worldly organism and a state which has secular powers, the way that the Vatican is....

Exploiting the opportunity of this visit, the Pope had asked that his second status also be projected, as the religious leader of the Roman Catholics. That is why he requested and secretly secured through his diplomatic services (as was proven eventually) the approval that he was given - which unfortunately we were informed of only recently, without previously being asked if we consented.

We simply became the audience of that decision, with which we of course disagreed, but alas in vain, since everything had already been finalized and predetermined in advance, unbeknownst to us. The only item that my humble person had agreed to was an encyclical to be dispatched to the Christian flock, in order to prevent any scandalizing and turmoil in the conscience of the faithful, with serious repercussions and unforeseen reactions. It is a pity, watching the supporters of Ecumenism extending compliments and diplomatic politeness to heretics, to the point of praying together with them, despite the explicit prohibition by the sacred Canons, while simultaneously confronting the reactions of the faithful members of the Church (who are agonizing over the outcome of the theological dialogues and are scandalized seeing Orthodox clergy keeping company and praying together with various heretics) with sarcastic smiles and abundant disdain, as though they (the faithful members) are the enemies of the Church.

That is why we consented to the decision to send out a relative encyclical to the Christian flock, in which it would be mentioned that the Pope's visit was in response to an invitation by the President of the Republic, and that during his visit, there would be no theological dialogue taking place, while simultaneously pointing out the delusions of the Roman Catholics and the preservation of Unia. Unfortunately however, we came to realize afterwards, when reading the edited text - which, may it be noted, was sent to us six days after the Synod had convened - that its contents did not correspond to the positions that we had expressed synodically in order to consent to the issuance of the encyclical.

The Roman Catholics once again proved to be excellent diplomats. As made evident in the daily Press, they had arranged the Pope's schedule in such a manner that - by means of worship congregations, especially the one that will take place in the closed stadium of Nicosia where Roman Catholic clergy from the Middle East will be present - confusion will ensue among the pious Orthodox of Cyprus, who are not in a position to discern the Uniates. Seeing them participate in the ritual, dressed in Orthodox vestments, it is certain that they will be misled and scandalized, by perceiving them to be Orthodox clergy. It is also not precluded that many foreign Press agencies - also fooled by the external appearance of the Uniates - will erroneously transmit the news that it is common prayer with "all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches". The attempts of the Vatican to exploit the opportunity and present the Pope as the leader of Christianity and the entire world is very obvious.

With displays such as this, it is our humble opinion that the heretical Papists are not assisted in becoming aware of their delusion, but instead are encouraged to preserve their intolerance and remained fixed in their cacodoxies, thus provoking the religious sentiment of the Orthodox. The persistence therefore in the precision of the Orthodox dogma should not be misconstrued as fanaticism or religious intolerance. If only the heretical Papists would see their errors, spit out their delusions, return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and accept the undivided, Apostle-delivered Truth, the way it was formulated in the eight first centuries and safeguarded to this day by the Orthodox Church.

The argument that this visit will supposedly assist in the solving of the Cyprus issue can only cause us pain and immense concern. Let the governors be careful to not intervene in the matters of the Orthodox faith and exert detrimental pressures, supposedly for the sake of national interests, because the only thing they will achieve is the loss of Divine Grace, which will result in precisely the opposite of what they are pursuing. "Be not persuaded by potentates, by sons of men, for in them there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3), the Scripture characteristically mentions. Every time the Orthodox beseeched the Papists - and in fact mixing the matters of the Faith with politics - in order to supposedly obtain Papal help and protection, the exact opposite results were achieved. Those who harbor the illusion and cultivate the idea to the faithful people that by making partners of the heretics they will solve contemporary social or national issues and that the much-coveted union between the Orthodox and the members of other confessions will be achieved with secular criteria, should be aware that the Pope regards the said union with the Orthodox Church as an establishing of the Papal institution in the East and the submission of all the Orthodox, who will thereafter be under his pastoral jurisdiction as Uniates. History teaches us that the Pope has never hastened to aid and support the Orthodox. We share in the agony for the future of our suffering island, but we also humbly believe that Cyprus' vindication will not be achieved by encouraging contemporary syncretism, but rather with the help of almighty God, as has repeatedly been proven within History.

The immediate objective of the Pope is that he be accepted as the universal religious leader of all Christians, and the ultimate one is to be acknowledged as the leader of all religions. The invocation of the Lord's words "that they may all be one..." (John 17:21) for the purpose of laying the foundations for ecumenistic openings has no theological basis, unless it is supported by "the unity in the Faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit", otherwise it will be overlooking the prerequisites placed by Christ Himself: "...just as we are one" (John 17:22).

The Orthodox Church has never ceased to beseech the All-merciful God "for the union of all". It is the sedate, cleansed nous and the incessant Prayer that attract the Grace of the All-Holy Spirit and assist in the partaking of the uncreated Grace of God; not the communication skills and public relations. May the Lord shed His light upon us all, so that we might 'correctly preach the word of His truth'....

Source: Newspaper "Orthodox Press" - issue dated 5/28/2010

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Will We Succeed? The Science of Self-Motivation

ScienceDaily (June 1, 2010) — Can you help you? Recent research by University of Illinois Professor Dolores Albarracin and Visiting Assistant Professor Ibrahim Senay, along with Kenji Noguchi, Assistant Professor at Southern Mississippi University, has shown that those who ask themselves whether they will perform a task generally do better than those who tell themselves that they will.

Little research exists in the area of self-talk, although we are aware of an inner voice in ourselves and in literature. From children's books like "The Little Engine That Could," in which the title character says, "I think I can," to Holden Caulfield's misanthropic musings in "A Catcher in the Rye," internal dialogue often influences the way people motivate and shape their own behavior.

But was "The Little Engine" using the best motivational tool, or does "Bob the Builder" have the right idea when he asks, "Can we fix it?"

Albarracin's team tested this kind of motivation in 50 study participants, encouraging them explicitly to either spend a minute wondering whether they would complete a task or telling themselves they would. The participants showed more success on an anagram task, rearranging set words to create different words, when they asked themselves whether they would complete it than when they told themselves they would.

Further experimentation had students in a seemingly unrelated task simply write two ostensibly unrelated sentences, either "I Will" or "Will I," and then work on the same task. Participants did better when they wrote, "Will" followed by "I" even though they had no idea that the word writing related to the anagram task.

Why does this happen? Professor Albarracin's team suspected that it was related to an unconscious formation of the question "Will I" and its effects on motivation. By asking themselves a question, people were more likely to build their own motivation.

In a follow-up experiment, participants were once again parsed into the "I will" and "Will I" categories, but this time were then asked how much they intended to exercise in the following week. They were also made to fill out a psychological scale meant to measure intrinsic motivation. The results of this experiment showed that participants not only did better as a result of the question, but that asking themselves a question did indeed increase their intrinsic motivation.

These findings are likely to have implications in cognitive, social, clinical, health and developmental psychology, as well as in clinical, educational and work settings.

"We are turning our attention to the scientific study of how language affects self-regulation," Professor Albarracin said. "Experimental methods are allowing us to investigate people's inner speech, of both the explicit and implicit variety, and how what they say to themselves shapes the course of their behaviors."

Research like this challenges traditional paradigms regarding public service messages and self-help literature designed to motivate people toward healthier or more productive behavior.

"The popular idea is that self-affirmations enhance people's ability to meet their goals," Professor Albarracin said. "It seems, however, that when it comes to performing a specific behavior, asking questions is a more promising way of achieving your objectives."

The trio published its research, supported by the National Institutes of Health, in the April 2010 edition of the journal Psychological Science.

"This work represents a basic cognitive approach to how language provides a window between thoughts and action," said Dr. James W. Pennebaker, Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas. "The reason it is so interesting is that it shows that by using language analysis, we can see that social cognitive ideas are relevant to objective real world behaviors and that the ways people talk about their behavior can predict future action."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodoxy and Hip Hop Culture

Renowned Rapper Believes Church and Hip-Hop Have Much In Common

Moscow, 2 June 2010, Interfax – Ideals of hip-hop culture don't contradict the teaching of the Church, Russian rapper, composer and former participant in the Star Factory Dominic Joker believes.

"There are many things in common – in attitude to neighbors, in street postulates that instruct not to offend the sick, to help the sick," Joker told Interfax-Religion.

According to the rapper, "Hip-hop postulates correspond to the spiritual ones" and there's nothing contradicting the Church commandments. "There are individual representatives who are far from spiritual values, but it doesn't cast shadow to the whole culture," he said.

Joker also said that there are a lot of Orthodox people in hip-hop culture and even a special trend called "Orthodox rap."

He urged young people to be kinder. "Kindness is strength, only a strong man can be kind, anger is sickness. Be kinder and you'll save the world," Joker said.

"After a chess tournament, all figures: the king, the queen, the bishop, the pawn – all are collected in one box. We come here and we leave this place absolutely alone, we won't take anything with us; then does it make sense to ruin your priceless soul?" wonders the rap-musician.


Dominic Joker, "Abandoned By God"

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Monasticism in the Greek Archdiocese of America

There is some confusion among those in the Greek Archdiocese of America regarding how the monasteries of the same jurisdiction are regulated. This is clearly put forward in the Charter of 2003 under Article 21. Though early on there were talks of the monasteries functioning as Athonite communities, we see from the Charter regulations that this is clearly not the case due to the impracticality of such a proposal. Though Mount Athos is under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it also has a certain autonomous governance by the Holy Community (Ιερά Κοινότητα) which consists of a representative from each of the twenty monasteries, an executive committee of four members known as the Holy Administration (Ιερά Επιστασία) with the Protos as its head, and a Civil Governor appointed by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs to supervise the function of the institutions and the public order. In contrast, each monastery in the Greek Archdiocese of America functions "under the direct canonical jurisdiction and supervision of the Hierarch in whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction they are located," thus not sharing the same autonomy that Athos possesses. And of course, the differences between the monastic communites of Athos and the monastic communities of America are much wider on the everyday practical level as well.

Article 21
Holy Monasteries

a. Monasteries and organized communities of monastics function according to the long established, canonical tradition and practice of the Church. As such, they are ecclesiastical institutions, functioning under the direct canonical jurisdiction and supervision of the Hierarch in whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction they are located.

b. Monasteries are founded by the local Hierarch, following approval of the Eparchial Synod. Canonically, their administration and financial affairs are the responsibility of the local Hierarch, whose name is to be commemorated during Divine Worship.

c. The Monasteries that operate in the United States of America continue the long established monastic life and witness. They function according to the prevailing Monastic Law and the letter and the spirit of the Regulations that define their operation.

d. Regulations for the establishment, organization and operation of Monasteries shall be promulgated by the Eparchial Synod and approved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Cyprus Trip A Political Minefield For The Pope

Victor L. Simpson
May 30, 2010
Associated Press

Vatican City - Pope Benedict XVI, often under fire for political missteps on foreign trips, is heading into a potential diplomatic storm when he visits Cyprus this week, a pilgrimage to a divided island that could anger Turkey and the rest of the Muslim world.

Divisions between Greeks and ethnic Turks, splits in the Orthodox Christian community, and concerns over damaged Christian and Muslim houses of worship will be come under scrutiny during Benedict's three-day trip starting Friday.

The visit will be a key test of whether the pope has found his diplomatic feet.

The pope's linking of Islam to violence during a speech in Germany led to outrage in the Muslim world, nearly forcing cancellation of a trip to Turkey in 2006.

Other controversies arose from his remarks on a trip to Africa that condoms can make the continent's AIDS epidemic worse and his comments in Brazil that Latin America's native people wanted to become Christian even before Europe's conquerors arrived.

The Cyprus trip comes just days after the island's leaders - Greek Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias and the newly elected president of the breakaway Turkish Cypriots, Dervis Eroglu - resumed peace talks after a two-month pause.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the rival leaders to ensure that the reunification talks do not fall apart, warning that time is working against them.

Cyprus police say that although they are aware of possible protests by some religious groups against the pope's trip, there have been no credible threats to his safety.

"We are continuing our planning regarding the pope's safety and all necessary measures will be taken to ensure that not even the slightest incident will take place," said police spokesman Michalis Katsounotos.

Cyprus was ethnically split in 1974 when Turkey invaded after a coup by supporters of union with Greece. Turkish Cypriots declared an independent republic in the north in 1983, but only Turkey recognizes it and maintains 35,000 troops there.

Officially, the island's division is not on the pope's agenda. Benedict has no plans to visit northern Cyprus, said Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi. He declined to anticipate what the pope might say on the issue.

Instead, the trip was designed around Cyprus' location as a bridge to the Middle East. Benedict will meet with leaders from Catholic churches in the region to draw up proposals for a major meeting of Middle Eastern bishops at the Vatican in October.

Still it will be hard to ignore Cypriot tensions, and the pope on Sunday appeared to anticipate that atmosphere when, during his remarks to pilgrims in St. Peter's Square, he asked for "prayers for the peace and prosperity of all the people of Cyprus."

The Cypriot ambassador to the Holy See, George F. Poulides, says Benedict will be staying at the Vatican Nunciature, located right on the so-called Green Line in Nicosia - the U.N.-patrolled buffer zone between bullet-pocked buildings and army sentry posts separating the ethnically divided communities.

"This is a historic trip, the first time a pope is visiting Cyprus," Poulides said.

But the Turkish Embassy to the Holy See said it regrets the pope will not visit the north, insisting he would be welcome there and saying it hopes Benedict won't ignore the Turkish community in his speeches. There is a tiny Catholic community with three churches in the north, the embassy said.

A government official in Ankara said Turkey would be watching the visit closely and may comment if there is indication of political support for the Greek Cypriots or any allusion to the alleged destruction of churches in the north.

During a 2006 Vatican audience, the late Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos gave the pope an album of photographs of destroyed churches in the north under the Turkish occupation and of others converted to restaurants, shops or other secular uses.

Reporters covering the meeting quoted Benedict as saying "such destruction (is) incredible."

The Turkish north has published a book showing the destruction of mosques, cemeteries and other signs of Turkish culture in the south. It is called, "Erasing the Past: Turkish Cypriot Culture and Religious Heritage under the control of the Greek Cypriot Administration."

There are also problems between Cypriot Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who are dominant in the south. Some hardline Orthodox clerics, who view the pope as a heretic, say Benedict should stay in Rome to avoid provoking the island's 800,000 Orthodox.

Benedict on Sunday said he was "making an apostolic journey to Cyprus, to meet and pray with the Catholic and Orthodox faithful there."

Doctrinal, theological and political differences caused the Orthodox and Catholic churches to formally split in the 11th century. Officials from both churches have been engaged in talks in recent years to heal "The Great Schism," but opposition to reconciliation still lingers.

Archbishop Chrysostomos II said such critics "can stay at home" if they don't like the papal visit, which most church leaders have welcomed.

To head off anti-pope groups from inflaming public opinion, the synod released a circular read out in churches assuring the faithful that no talks on sensitive religious matters will be held during the pope's visit.

Benedict is to hold an ecumenical prayer service shortly after arriving. He will also meet with the president and diplomatic corps as well as the island's small Maronite and Roman Catholic communities.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodoxy Cannot Be Separated From Its Icons

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

The veneration of icons is an integral part of Orthodoxy from which it cannot be separated. That the veneration of icons appears to some people the same as idolatry is no proof against icons. To the Jews it seemed that Christ worked miracles by the power of Satan and not God, and to the Romans it seemed that Christian martyrs were ordinary sorcerers and magicians.

Saint Nicephorus said to Leo the Armenian the iconoclastic emperor: "The icon is a divine thing and not to be worshipped." Following this, he explained "how God commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass and to raise it in the wilderness even though, just before this, He had commanded: 'Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image' (Exodus 20:4). He commanded this in order to save the chosen people from the idolatry of the Egyptians and He commanded that He, the One and Most High God, would manifest His power through a visible thing. In the same manner He manifests His power through icons. That is His holy will and our aid for salvation.

If icons are things of little significance or even idolatry, why would many of the holiest and most spiritual men and women in the history of the Church have suffered to the death for icons?

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Fast of the Holy Apostles and the New Calendar

Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos was a great Canonist of the Orthodox Church and was responsible for bringing many schismatic Old Calendarists back into communion with the Church. He wrote a book titled The Two Extremes, half of which tackled the extreme views of the Ecumenists while the other half took on the extreme views of the schismatic Old Calendarists and their influence within the canonical Body of Christ. The section below appears at the end of the book and tackles an often heard objection against the New Calendar regarding the Apostles Fast. Can the New Calendar be legitimate and canonically appropriate if in certain years it lessens the fast to a mere few days and sometimes even obliterates it?

The Elder informs us that he was asked by a young theologian regarding the Calendar change and the effect this had on the fast of the Holy Apostles. This man was concerned that the New Calendar not only reduces the number of fasting days for this fasting period, but in certain years when Pascha comes late it is obliterated altogether. This theologian considered this as a justification for the schismatic Old Calendarists. Elder Epiphanios responded with the following article and was originally published in Orthodoxos Typos. - J.S.

Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos

Concerning the Fast of the Holy Apostles

by Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos

It is true that the introduction of the Revised Julian (not Gregorian, as is put forth by the unlearned and bad intentioned)1 Calendar in the Church reduced the fast of the Holy Apostles by thirteen days and, if Pascha comes late, it does away totally with the fast. This fact is so detestable to Old Calendarists that they justify their rebellion against the Church. If they wanted to keep the Old Calendar however, they could still abide within ecclesiastical communion without objection. This is what the Holy Mountain practices. Who condemns this?

The reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles (which, by the way, was not enacted by an Ecumenical Synod, but is shown to be an ancient practice of indisputable respect) did not come about by one, two or three individuals, either clergy or laity, but was done by the Church to produce a corrected Calendar. The other Church, those who adhere to the Old Calendar, [originally] did not cut off communion from the Church of Greece or the Church of Constantinople over the Calendar change and the subsequent reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles, but continued a canonical relationship. Therefore, in borrowing from the above argument, who has the right to cut off the canonical relationship with the Church of Greece without going AGAINST the Church? And if you stand AGAINST the Church, you are simply outside the Church, becoming either schismatics or heretics.

I wonder how the Old Calenderists, with the stubborness they possess, do not anathematize all the Patriarchs, all the Bishops, all the Clergy, all the Synods, all the Churches, all the Saints, all the faithful, from the seventh century until today. They will ask: Why? Because simply, until that time, that is the seventh century, the fast of the Holy Apostles was not like it is today, but was much longer. Let me explain: This fast in the beginning was about a week in its duration. "During the week following Pentecost, the people who observed the fast went out to the cemetery to pray" (St. Athanasius, Letter to Emperor Constance). The Apostolic Constitutions prescribe the following: "After the feast of Pentecost, celebrate one week, then observe a fast, for justice demands rejoicing after the reception of the gifts of God and fasting after the body has been refreshed." Besides when the fast was to start (the first passage explains the fast was to be done the week of Pentecost, that is beginning with the day after Pentecost; whereas the second passage says it was to start a week later), the important matter is that the fast following Pentecost at that time was only one week. (At that time the feast of the Holy Apostles was not on June 29th. The fast is tied in with the Holy Apostles because after Pentecost they were sent out to preach).

In the proceeding centuries this fast underwent an extension. It began to be started on the day following the Feast of All Saints and lasted all the way until August 14th! This means that it lasted throughout the month of July, which further means it was the longest fast of the year surpassing by far the forty day fast of Great Lent. For example, if Great Lent with the additional Holy Week reaches to be 48 days, the fast of the Holy Apostles, on the occasion that Pascha lands on a late date, reached to be about 55 days, but on the occasion that it reached an early date it would last 89 days! For this we have a reliable witness of the seventh century in Saint Anastasios the Sinaite: "After the fast of Pentecost, this is what the Teachings of the Holy Apostles says. That after Pentecost to celebrate one week and after that to fast...You are to fast until the Dormition of the Theotokos" (St. Anastasios the Sinaite, On Three Forty Days Fasts). Thus the entire month of July is absorbed also!

What are our beloved Old Calendarists going to do, who detest change of ancient practices and traditions? If they are true to themselves, it is their duty, first, to put this fast in its proper place as it was in the seventh century so that the entire month of July is absorbed; and second, it is their best interest to renounce all the Churches, from the seventh century until today, since they dared to do away with a fast of ancient tradition. They will not exempt, it is understood, even Saint Anastasios from renunciation, who speaks with sympathy and not disgust against those who with boldness make the reduction, even calling them - listen! listen! - "Holy" Fathers. Is it possible for "Holy Fathers" to reduce fasts?

Among those to be renounced will surely be Saint Theodore the Studite, who: 1) did not condemn the prior practices of the aforesaid fast; and 2) also prescribed during feasts as well as Saturdays and Sundays during this fast, as well as the fast for Christmas, not only for fish to be allowed but also cheese and eggs. This is what he says: "During the forty day fast of the Holy Apostles we do not eat fish, cheese or eggs except on the days we do not sing the hours. Instead we eat two cooked dishes - one vegetable dish with olive oil and one of legumes without oil - and have two servings of wine at the ninth hour and two in the evening. On feast days, however, on which we are permitted fish and other such foods, we eat at the sixth hour and drink three measures of wine at the sixth hour and two in the evening. This regiment is also maintained during the forty day fast of the Holy Apostle Philip [Christmas]" (Migne, PG 99:1713-1716). He, therefore, isn't worthy either...let him be renounced!2

Worthy of being renounced also is the Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon (12th cent.), who not only allows the older practice, but confesses that in his day it was only seven days, at least for the laity: "Obligatory fasts are seven days before the following four feasts - before the Feast of the Holy Apostles, the Birth of Christ, the Transfiguration of Christ and the Falling Asleep of the Holy Theotokos. There is only one forty day fast, that of Holy and Great Pascha. Anything besides the seven day fast of the feast of the Holy Apostles and the feast of the Birth of Christ is according to one's will or of the foundational (monastic) typikon where one dwells."

With this opportunity I will speak about another fast, which with the passage of time has been totally abolished from common practice and has not brought on rebellion or schism, nor even protests and resistance. I speak of the fast which comes before the feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross, which was many days. Only the laity were allowed a one day fast, which was on the feast itself. Monastics however had also besides this a fast that lasted for a period of 4-14 days! Behold the testimony of Saint Theodore the Studite: "For the monastics, to the glory and praise of the wooden Cross, 14 days are kept, for others 12, and for others 4; but all the people of Christ are to keep pure this day of the Exaltation, on the 14th day of the month of September" (Migne, PG 99:1696). Where today is this multiple-day fast before the feast of the Precious Cross? In which Sacred Monastery is it kept? Which monastics even know about it? Dare that it not be kept by those who know about it!

For the above reason I very much abstain from advocating either for or against the reduction in fasts, unless they have been codified within the laws of the Ecumenical Synods, as is the fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays and that of Great Lent. I believe these things need to be worked out by those who have Confessors [Spiritual Fathers], according to their alloted discernment, to lead the faithful according to each one's strength. May the changers and the reorganizers be gone. Let us not provoke questions and confusion. Let pastoral good sense prevail. Let us not disturb the conscience of the simple. Our Shepherds should not discard the apostolic word: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being" (1 Cor. 10:23). I do not advocate towards any change of the established fasts. I simply want to emphasize that we the faithful are not given the power through subjects like these to create revolutions against our Church and schisms.

1 Elder Epiphanios is correct in not referring to the New Calendar as "Gregorian", since the New Calendarists follow the Julian Calendar for its moveable feast days staying faithful to the First Ecumenical Synod. Thus the New Calendar can best be described as a revised version of the Julian Calendar.

2 This same Holy Father, in speaking about the fast of Great Lent, taught that fish can be eaten not only on Palm Sunday but also on the day before on the Saturday of Lazarus. Today different Churches have different rules regarding this practice.

Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Panagia Paramythea Without the Silver Covering

This is how it normally looks like at Vatopaidi Monastery on Mount Athos when pilgrims visit it.

This is what it looks like without the silver encasement.

Read more about this icon here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Justin Martyr: An Apologetic Hero

The Samaritan’s head rolled from his twitching body. Another Christian was dead. He knew the cost, and yet refused to denounce Christ. Society felt threatened by the new religion and could not tolerate those who rejected the gods of the state. “Kill them, kill them all” was the cry.

The martyr’s name was Justin. A passionate man of probing intellect, he studied and rejected many of the philosophies of second-century Rome. Instead, he found great joy in the teachings of Socrates and Plato. That changed one day. A stranger confronted him with the Gospel of Christ, and Justin embraced it with his whole heart. It became the focus of his life—and the reason for his death.

In the millennia since Christ’s ascension, many men and women have traded life for faith, mostly in anonymity. Justin’s name is known and his story is repeated because of his literary deposits to history. Eusebius reported that Justin had written many valuable books, and listed at least eight that were in circulation in the fourth century (Eusebius, pp. 154-155). Today, only three works remain that are accepted without question to be genuinely Justinian: The First Apology of Justin, The Second Apology of Justin, and Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. The latter work is a discussion between Justin and Trypho (a prominent Jew of his day). In it Justin tells of his conversion and urges Trypho to accept Christ as Messiah. (Interestingly, they argue over whether Isaiah 7:14 should be translated “young woman” or “virgin.”)

His Apologies (which are addressed to Roman authorities) argue that, when correctly understood, Christianity need not be persecuted. Christians should be judged on their own merits—not on rumors or the deeds of evil-doers who merely claim allegiance to Christ. His approach contains strategies that are useful to modern apologists.

First, Justin’s apology centers on the belief that man is a rational being and that Christianity is a sensible religion. He wrote: “In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative” (1:172). He thus pleaded with the Romans to base their decisions about Christians upon clear, honest thinking. “Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true...it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.” (1:163; cf. 1:191). This appeal to rationality is foundational to any defense of the Faith. Without that footing, no meaningful discussion can be built.

Second, Justin compared the behavior of Christians to that of the average Roman. Christians, he argued, are morally, ethically, and spiritually exemplary (1:167-168). He revealed the inconsistency of persecuting Christians by showing the absurdities of idolatry. Confusion over what was to be worshiped by the Romans was common. Some people worshiped animals that others used as sacrificial offerings (1:171). In light of such comparisons, Christianity was not deserving of persecution. This line of argumentation may be employed today. What better citizen can a country have than a morally upright person who believes that governments rule by divine right, and that prayers are to be offered for rulers before the Almighty’s throne? (See Romans 13:1-6, 1 Timothy 2:1-4, and 1 Peter 2:13-17.)

Third, the great apologist argued for Christianity by showing that Christ fulfilled a host of Old Testament prophecies (1:173-181). So convinced was he of the force of this argument that he made no excuse for referring to Scripture. Clearly, fulfilled prophecy remains one of the most impressive evidences for Christianity. It not only demonstrates the divine origin of Scripture, but also shows Christ to be worthy of praise, glory, and honor.

Western culture is running headlong into the same corruption of ancient Rome. Justin’s society is now ours, as is his battle. The Lord still summons His people to stand in defense of the Faith (1 Peter 3:15; Philippians 1:16-17). Who will stand with Justin Martyr?

REFERENCES

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955 reprint).

The First Apology of Justin, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint).

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Martyrdom of Saint Justin the Philosopher together with his companions Chariton, Charites, Paeon, and Liberianus, who Suffered at Rome

Saint Justin the Philospher, Martyr and Apologist (Feast Day - June 1)

Chapter I.—Examination of Justin the Philosopher by the Prefect

In the time of the lawless partisans of idolatry, wicked decrees were passed against the godly Christians in town and country, to force them to offer libations to vain idols; and accordingly the holy men, having been apprehended, were brought before the prefect of Rome, Rusticus by name. And when they had been brought before his judgment-seat, said to Justin, “Obey the gods at once, and submit to the kings.” Justin said, “To obey the commandments of our Savior Jesus Christ is worthy neither of blame nor of condemnation.” Rusticus the prefect said, “What kind of doctrines do you profess?” Justin said, “I have endeavored to learn all doctrines; but I have acquiesced at last in the true doctrines, those namely of the Christians, even though they do not please those who hold false opinions.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Are those the doctrines that please you, you utterly wretched man?” Justin said, “Yes, since I adhere to them with right dogma.” Rusticus the prefect said, “What is the dogma?” Justin said, “That according to which we worship the God of the Christians, whom we reckon to be one from the beginning, the maker and fashioner of the whole creation, visible and invisible; and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who had also been preached beforehand by the prophets as about to be present with the race of men, the herald of salvation and teacher of good disciples. And I, being a man, think that what I can say is insignificant in comparison with His boundless divinity, acknowledging a certain prophetic power, since it was prophesied concerning Him of whom now I say that He is the Son of God. For I know that of old the prophets foretold His appearance among men.”

Chapter II.—Examination of Justin Continued

Rusticus the prefect said, “Where do you assemble?” Justin said, “Where each one chooses and can: for do you fancy that we all meet in the very same place? Not so; because the God of the Christians is not circumscribed by place; but being invisible, fills heaven and earth, and everywhere is worshipped and glorified by the faithful.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Tell me where you assemble, or into what place do you collect your followers?” Justin said, “I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the whole time (and I am now living in Rome for the second time) I am unaware of any other meeting than his. And if any one wished to come to me, I communicated to him the doctrines of truth.” Rusticus said, “Are you not, then, a Christian?” Justin said, “Yes, I am a Christian.”

Chapter III.—Examination of Chariton and Others

Then said the prefect Rusticus to Chariton, “Tell me further, Chariton, are you also a Christian?” Chariton said, “I am a Christian by the command of God.” Rusticus the prefect asked the woman Charito, “What say you, Charito?” Charito said, “I am a Christian by the grace of God.” Rusticus said to Euelpistus, “And what are you?” Euelpistus, a servant of Caesar, answered, “I too am a Christian, having been freed by Christ; and by the grace of Christ I partake of the same hope.” Rusticus the prefect said to Hierax, “And you, are you a Christian?” Hierax said, “Yes, I am a Christian, for I revere and worship the same God.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Did Justin make you Christians?” Hierax said, “I was a Christian, and will be a Christian.” And Pæon stood up and said, “I too am a Christian.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Who taught you?” Pæon said, “From our parents we received this good confession.” Euelpistus said, “I willingly heard the words of Justin. But from my parents also I learned to be a Christian.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Where are your parents?” Euelpistus said, “In Cappadocia.” Rusticus says to Hierax, “Where are your parents?” And he answered, and said, “Christ is our true father, and faith in Him is our mother; and my earthly parents died; and I, when I was driven from Iconium in Phrygia, came here.” Rusticus the prefect said to Liberianus, “And what say you? Are you a Christian, and unwilling to worship [the gods]?” Liberianus said, “I too am a Christian, for I worship and reverence the only true God.”

Chapter IV.—Rusticus Threatens the Christians with Death

The prefect says to Justin, “Hearken, you who are called learned, and think that you know true doctrines; if you are scourged and beheaded, do you believe you will ascend into heaven?” Justin said, “I hope that, if I endure these things, I shall have His gifts. For I know that, to all who have thus lived, there abides the divine favor until the completion of the whole world.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Do you suppose, then, that you will ascend into heaven to receive some recompense?” Justin said, “I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Let us, then, now come to the matter in hand, and which presses. Having come together, offer sacrifice with one accord to the gods.” Justin said, “No right-thinking person falls away from piety to impiety.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Unless ye obey, ye shall be mercilessly punished.” Justin said, “Through prayer we can be saved on account of our Lord Jesus Christ, even when we have been punished, because this shall become to us salvation and confidence at the more fearful and universal judgment-seat of our Lord and Savior.” Thus also said the other martyrs: “Do what you will, for we are Christians, and do not sacrifice to idols.”

Chapter V.—Sentence Pronounced and Executed

Rusticus the prefect pronounced sentence, saying, “Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to yield to the command of the emperor be scourged, and led away to suffer the punishment of decapitation, according to the laws.” The holy martyrs having glorified God, and having gone forth to the accustomed place, were beheaded, and perfected their testimony in the confession of the Savior. And some of the faithful having secretly removed their bodies, laid them in a suitable place, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ having wrought along with them, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Apolytikion in Tone Four
O Justin, teacher of divine knowledge, you shone with the radiance of true philosophy. You were wisely armed against the enemy. Confessing the truth you contended alongside the martyrs, with them, ever entreat Christ our God to save our souls!

Kontakion in Tone Two
The whole Church of God is adorned with the wisdom of your divine words, O Justin; the world is enlightened by the radiance of your life. By the shedding of your blood, you have received a crown. As you stand before Christ with the angels, pray unceasingly for us all!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A History of the Apostle's Fast

"The Apostles almost always fasted."
Saint John Chrysostom (Sermon 57 on the Gospel of Matthew)

Patristic Testimony Concerning the Fast

The fast of the holy Apostles is very ancient, dating back to the first centuries of Christianity. We have the testimony of St. Athanasius the Great, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Leo the Great and Theodoret of Cyrrhus regarding it. The oldest testimony regarding the Apostles Fast is given to us by St. Athanasius the Great (†373). In his letter to Emperor Constance, in speaking of the persecution by the Arians, he writes: "During the week following Pentecost, the people who observed the fast went out to the cemetery to pray." "The Lord so ordained it," says St. Ambrose (†397), "that as we have participated in his sufferings during the Forty Days, so we should also rejoice in his Resurrection during the season of Pentecost. We do not fast during the season of Pentecost, since our Lord Himself was present amongst us during those days … Christ’s presence was like nourishing food for the Christians. So too, during Pentecost, we feed on the Lord who is present among us. On the days following his ascension into heaven, however, we again fast" (Sermon 61). St. Ambrose basis this practice on the words of Jesus concerning his disciples in the Gospel of Matthew 9:14, 15: "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridgeroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.”

St. Leo the Great (†461) says: "After the long feast of Pentecost, fasting is especially necessary to purify our thoughts and render us worthy to receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ... Therefore, the salutary custom was established of fasting after the joyful days during which we celebrated the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.''

The pilgrim Egeria in her Diary (fourth century) records that on the day following the feast of Pentecost, a period of fasting began. The Apostolic Constitutions, a work no later than the fourth century, prescribes: "After the feast of Pentecost, celebrate one week, then observe a fast, for justice demands rejoicing after the reception of the gifts of God and lasting after the body has been refreshed."

From the testimonies of the fourth century we ascertain that in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch the fast of the holy Apostles was connected with Pentecost and not with the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul on June 29. In the first centuries, after Pentecost there was one week of rejoicing, that is Privileged Days, followed by about one week of fasting.

The canons of Nicephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople (806-816), mention the Apostle's Fast. The Typicon of St. Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of Studios in Constantinople speaks of the Forty Days Fast of the holy Apostles. St. Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429) explains the purpose of this fast in this manner: "The Fast of the Apostles is justly established in their honor, for through them we have received numerous benefits and for us they are exemplars and teachers of the fast ... For one week after the descent of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Apostolic Constitution composed by Clement, we celebrate, and then during the following week, we fast in honor of the Apostles."

Duration of the Fast

The Fast of the Apostles came into practice in the Church through custom rather than law. For this reason there was no uniformity for a long time, either in its observance or its duration. Some fasted twelve days, others six, still others four, and others only one day. Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch (†1204), regarding the Apostle's Fast, said: "All the faithful, that is the laity and the monks, are obliged to fast seven days and more, and whoever refuses to do so, let him be excommunicated from the Christian community."

From the work On Three Forty Days Fasts, which is credited to a monk of the monastic community of St. Anastasios the Sinaite (6th or 7th century), we learn that the Fast of the holy Apostles lasted from the first Sunday after Pentecost to the feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God on August 15. Later, however, the Fast of the Dormition was separated from it and the month of July was excluded from the Fast of the Apostles. St. Symeon of Thessalonica speaks of the Apostle's Fast as of one week's duration.

In the Orthodox Church the Fast of the holy Apostles lasts from the day after the Sunday of All Saints to the 29th of June, the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul. This fast may be of longer or shorter duration depending upon which day Pascha is celebrated. According to the Old Calendar it could last from as little as 8 days to as many as 42 days depending on the date of Pascha, but this is shortened by the New Calendar which sometimes obliterates the Fast altogether. If the feast of Pascha occurs sooner, then the Apostle's Fast is longer; if Pascha comes later, then the Apostle's Fast is shorter.

Prescription For the Fast

The Fast of the Apostles is somewhat more lenient than the Great Fast before Holy Week and Pascha. The Kievan Metropolitan George (1069-1072) approved the Rule for the Kiev Caves Monastery which does not allow meat or dairy products to be eaten during the Apostle's Fast. On Wednesday and Friday, they prescribed dry food, that is, bread and water or dry fruits. On Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday they permited fish, wine and oil. In addition to this, they directed that one hundred prostrations (profound bows to the ground) be made daily, excepting Saturdays, Sundays and holy days (the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist falls on June 23rd and fish, oil and wine is permitted no matter the day). This rule was transferred to Russia via the Kiev Caves Monastery who based their rule on that of the Monastery of Studios in Constantinople. We can thus assume this was the rule for the Fast practiced by both the Roman Empire and the Russian Empire. This is the rule still practiced today with possible minor variations among jurisdictions.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Baptistery of Saint Lydia Near Philippi (video)

Read more here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Attributes of the Church

by Saint Justin Popovich

The attributes of the Church are innumerable because her attributes are actually the attributes of the Lord Christ, the God-man, and, through Him, those of the Triune Godhead. However, the holy and divinely wise fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, guided and instructed by the Holy Spirit, reduced them in the ninth article of the Symbol of Faith to four — I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. These attributes of the Church — unity, holiness, catholicity (sobornost), and apostolicity — are derived from the very nature of the Church and of her purpose. They clearly and accurately define the character of the Orthodox Church of Christ whereby, as a theanthropic institution and community, she is distinguishable from any institution or community of the human sort.

I. The Unity and Uniqueness of the Church

Just as the Person of Christ the God-man is one and unique, so is the Church founded by Him, in Him, and upon Him. The unity of the Church follows necessarily from the unity of the Person of the Lord Christ, the God-man. Being an organically integral and theanthropic organism unique in all the worlds, the Church, according to all the laws of Heaven and earth, is indivisible. Any division would signify her death. Immersed in the God-man, she is first and foremost a theanthropic organism, and only then a theanthropic organization. In her, everything is theanthropic: nature, faith, love, baptism, the Eucharist, all the holy mysteries and all the holy virtues, her teaching, her entire life, her immortality, her eternity, and her structure. Yes, yes, yes; in her, everything is theanthropically integral and indivisible Christification, sanctification, deification, Trinitarianism, salvation. In her everything is fused organically and by grace into a single theanthropic body, under a single Head — the God-man, the Lord Christ. All her members, though as persons always whole and inviolate, yet united by the same grace of the Holy Spirit through the holy mysteries and the holy virtues into an organic unity, comprise one body and confess the one faith, which unites them to each other and to the Lord Christ.

The Christ-bearing apostles are divinely inspired as they announce the unity and the uniqueness of the Church, based upon the unity and uniqueness of her Founder — the God-man, the Lord Christ, and His theanthropic personality: "For another foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11).

Like the holy apostles, the holy fathers and the teachers of the Church confess the unity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church with the divine wisdom of the cherubim and the zeal of the seraphim. Understandable, therefore, is the fiery zeal which animated the holy fathers of the Church in all cases of division and falling away and the stern attitude toward heresies and schisms. In that regard, the holy ecumenical and holy local councils are preeminently important. According to their spirit and attitude, wise in those things pertaining to Christ, the Church is not only one but also unique. Just as the Lord Christ cannot have several bodies, so He cannot have several Churches. According to her theanthropic nature, the Church is one and unique, just as Christ the God-man is one and unique.

Hence, a division, a splitting up of the Church is ontologically and essentially impossible. A division within the Church has never occurred, nor indeed can one take place, while apostasy from the Church has and will continue to occur after the manner of those voluntarily fruitless branches which, having withered, fall away from the eternally living theanthropic Vine — the Lord Christ (Jn. 15:1-6). From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have fallen away from the one and indivisible Church of Christ, whereby they ceased to be members of the Church and parts of her theanthropic body. The first to fall away thus were the gnostics, then the Arians, then the Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on—all the other members of the legion of heretics and schismatics.

II. The Holiness of the Church

By her theanthropic nature, the Church is undoubtedly a unique organization in the world. All her holiness resides in her nature. Actually, she is the theanthropic workshop of human sanctification and, through men, of the sanctification of the rest of creation. She is holy as the theanthropic Body of Christ, whose eternal head is the Lord Christ Himself; and whose immortal soul is the Holy Spirit. Wherefore everything in her is holy: her teaching, her grace, her mysteries, her virtues, all her powers, and all her instruments have been deposited in her for the sanctification of men and of all created things. Having become the Church by His incarnation out of an unparalleled love for man, our God and Lord Jesus Christ sanctified the Church by His sufferings, Resurrection, Ascension, teaching, wonder-working, prayer, fasting, mysteries, and virtues; in a word, by His entire theanthropic life. Wherefore the divinely inspired pronouncement has been rendered: ". . . Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).

The flow of history confirms the reality of the Gospel: the Church is filled to overflowing with sinners. Does their presence in the Church reduce, violate, or destroy her sanctity? Not in the least! For her Head — the Lord Christ, and her Soul — the Holy Spirit, and her divine teaching, her mysteries, and her virtues, are indissolubly and immutably holy. The Church tolerates sinners, shelters them, and instructs them, that they may be awakened and roused to repentance and spiritual recovery and transfiguration; but they do not hinder the Church from being holy. Only unrepentant sinners, persistent in evil and godless malice, are cut off from the Church either by the visible action of the theanthropic authority of the Church or by the invisible action of divine judgment, so that thus also the holiness of the Church may be preserved. "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (I Cor. 5:13).

In their writings and at the Councils, the holy fathers confessed the holiness of the church as her essential and immutable quality. The fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council defined it dogmatically in the ninth article of the Symbol of Faith. And the succeeding ecumenical councils confirmed it by the seal of their assent.

III. The Catholicity (Sobornost) of the Church

The theanthropic nature of the Church is inherently and all-encompassingly universal and catholic: it is theanthropically universal and theanthropically catholic. The Lord Christ, the God-man, has by Himself and in Himself most perfectly and integrally united God and Man and, through man, all the worlds and all created things to God. The fate of creation is essentially linked to that of man (cf. Romans 8:19-24). In her theanthropic organism, the Church encompasses: "all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Col. 1:16). Everything is in the God-man; He is the Head of the Body of the Church (Col. 1:17-18).

In the theanthropic organism of the Church everyone lives in the fullness of his personality as a living, godlike cell. The law of theanthropic catholicity encompasses all and acts through all. All the while, the theanthropic equilibrium between the divine and the human is always duly preserved. Being members of her body, we in the Church experience the fullness of our being in all its godlike dimensions. Furthermore: in the Church of the God-man, man experiences his own being as all-encompassing, as theanthropically all-encompassing; he experiences himself not only as complete, but also as the totality of creation. In a word: he experiences himself as a god-man by grace.

The theanthropic catholicity of the Church is actually an unceasing christification of many by grace and virtue: all is gathered in Christ the God-man, and everything is experienced through Him as one's own, as a single indivisible theanthropic organism. For life in the Church is a theanthropic catholicization, the struggle of acquiring by grace and virtue the likeness of the God-man, christification, theosis, life in the Trinity, sanctification, transfiguration, salvation, immortality, and churchliness. Theanthropic catholicity in the Church is reflected in and achieved by the eternally living Person of Christ, the God-man Who in the most perfect way has united God to man and to all creation, which has been cleansed of sin, evil, and death by the Savior's precious Blood (cf. Col. 1:19-22). The theanthropic Person of the Lord Christ is the very soul of the Church's catholicity. It is the God-man Who always preserves the theanthropic balance between the divine and the human in the catholic life of the Church. The Church is filled to overflowing with the Lord Christ, for she is "the fullness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Wherefore, she is universal in every person that is found within her, in each of her tiny cells. That universality, that catholicity resounds like thunder particularly through the holy apostles, through the holy fathers, through the holy ecumenical and local councils.

IV. The Apostolicity of the Church

The holy apostles were the first god-men by grace. Like the Apostle Paul each of them, by his integral life, could have said of himself: "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2:20). Each of them is a Christ repeated; or, to be more exact, a continuation of Christ. Everything in them is theanthropic because everything was recieved from the God-man. Apostolicity is nothing other than the God-manhood of the Lord Christ, freely assimilated through the holy struggles of the holy virtues: faith, love, hope, prayer, fasting, etc. This means that everything that is of man lives in them freely through the God-man, thinks through the God-man, feels through the God-man, acts through the God-man and wills through the God-man. For them, the historical God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the supreme value and the supreme criterion. Everything in them is of the God-man, for the sake of the God-man, and in the God-man. And it is always and everywhere thus. That for them is immortality in the time and space of this world. Thereby are they even on this earth partakers of the theanthropic eternity of Christ.

This theanthropic apostolicity is integrally continued in the earthly successors of the Christ-bearing apostles: in the holy fathers. Among them, in essence, there is no difference: the same God-man Christ lives, acts, enlivens and makes them all eternal in equal measure, He Who is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). Through the holy fathers, the holy apostles live on with all their theanthropic riches, theanthropic worlds, theanthropic holy things, theanthropic mysteries, and theanthropic virtues. The holy fathers in fact are continuously apostolizing, whether as distinct godlike personalities, or as bishops of the local churches, or as members of the holy ecumenical and holy local councils. For all of them there is but one Truth, one Transcendent Truth: the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. Behold, the holy ecumenical councils, from the first to the last, confess, defend, believe, announce, and vigilantly preserve but a single supreme value: the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The principal Tradition, the transcendent Tradition, of the Orthodox Church is the living God-man Christ, entire in the theanthropic Body of the Church of which He is the immortal, eternal Head. This is not merely the message, but the transcendent message of the holy apostles and the holy fathers. They know Christ crucified, Christ resurrected, Christ ascended. They all, by their integral lives and teachings, with a single soul and a single voice, confess that Christ the God-man is wholly in His Church, as in His Body. Each of the holy fathers could rightly repeat with St. Maximus the Confessor: "In no wise am I expounding my own opinion, but that which I have been taught by the fathers, without changing aught in their teaching."

And from the immortal proclamation of St. John of Damascus there resounds the universal confession of all the holy fathers who were glorified by God: "Whatever has been transmitted to us through the Law, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the evangelists, we receive and know and esteem highly, and beyond that we ask nothing more. . . Let us be fully satisfied with it, and rest therein, removing not the ancient landmarks (Prov. 22:28), nor violating the divine Tradition." And then, the touching, fatherly admonition of the holy Damascene, directed to all Orthodox Christians: "Wherefore, brethren, let us plant ourselves upon the rock of faith and the Tradition of the Church, removing not the landmarks set by our holy fathers, nor giving room to those who are anxious to introduce novelties and to undermine the structure of God's holy ecumenical and apostolic Church. For if everyone were allowed a free hand, little by little the entire Body of the Church would be destroyed."

The holy Tradition is wholly of the God-man, wholly of the holy apostles, wholly of the holy fathers, wholly of the Church, in the Church, and by the Church. The holy fathers are nothing other than the "guardians of the apostolic tradition. " All of them, like the holy apostles themselves, are but "witnesses" of a single and unique Truth: the transcendent Truth of Christ, the God-man. They preach and confess it without rest, they, the "golden mouths of the Word." The God-man, the Lord Christ is one, unique, and indivisible. So also is the Church unique and indivisible, for she is the incarnation of the Theanthropos Christ, continuing through the ages and through all eternity. Being such by her nature and in her earthly history, the Church may not be divided. It is only possible to fall away from her. That unity and uniqueness of the Church is theanthropic from the very beginning and through all the ages and all eternity.

Apostolic succession, the apostolic heritage, is theanthropic from first to last. What is it that the holy apostles are transmitting to their successors as their heritage? The Lord Christ, the God-man Himself, with all the imperishable riches of His wondrous theanthropic Personality, Christ—the Head of the Church, her sole Head. If it does not transmit that, apostolic succession ceases to be apostolic, and the apostolic Tradition is lost, for there is no longer an apostolic hierarchy and an apostolic Church.

The holy Tradition is the Gospel of the Lord Christ, and the Lord Christ Himself, Whom the Holy Spirit instills in each and every believing soul, in the entire Church. Whatever is Christ's, by the power of the Holy Spirit becomes ours, human; but only within the body of the Church. The Holy Spirit—the soul of the Church, incorporates each believer, as a tiny cell, into the body of the Church and makes him a "co-heir" of the God-man (Eph. 3:6). In reality the Holy Spirit makes every believer into a God-man by grace. For what is life in the Church? Nothing other than the transfiguration of each believer into a God-man by grace through his personal, evangelical virtues; it is his growth in Christ, the putting on of Christ by growing in the Church and being a member of the Church. A Christian's life is a ceaseless, Christ-centered theophany: the Holy Spirit, through the holy mysteries and the holy virtues, transmits Christ the Savior to each believer, renders him a living tradition, a living life: "Christ who is our life" (Col. 3:4). Everything Christ's thereby becomes ours, ours for all eternity: His truth, His righteousness, His love, His life, and His entire divine Hypostasis.

Holy Tradition? It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man Himself, with all the riches of his divine Hypostasis and, through Him and for His sake, those of the Holy Trinity. That is most fully given and articulated in the Holy Eucharist, wherein, for our sake and for our salvation, the Savior's entire theanthropic economy of salvation is performed and repeated. Therein wholly resides the God-man with all His wondrous and miraculous gifts; He is there, and in the Church's life of prayer and liturgy. Through all this, the Savior's philanthropic proclamation ceaselessly resounds: "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Mt. 28 20). He is with the apostles and, through the apostles, with all the faithful, world without end. This is the whole of the holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church of the apostles: life in Christ = life in the Holy Trinity; growth in Christ = growth in the Trinity (cf. Mt. 28: 19-20).

Of extraordinary importance is the following: in Christ's Orthodox Church, the Holy Tradition, ever living and life-giving, comprises: the holy liturgy, all the divine services, all the holy mysteries, all the holy virtues, the totality of eternal truth and eternal righteousness, all love, all eternal life, the whole of the God-man, the Lord Christ, the entire Holy Trinity, and the entire theanthropic life of the Church in its theanthropic fullness, with the All-holy Theotokos and all the saints.

The personality of the Lord Christ the God-man, transfigured within the Church, immersed in the prayerful, liturgical, and boundless sea of grace, wholly contained in the Eucharist, and wholly in the Church—this is holy Tradition. This authentic good news is confessed by the holy fathers and the holy ecumenical councils. By prayer and piety holy Tradition is preserved from all human demonism and devilish humanism, and in it is preserved the entire Lord Christ, He Who is the eternal Tradition of the Church. "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (I Tim. 3 16): He was manifest as a man, as a God-man, as the Church, and by His philanthropic act of salvation and deification of humanity He magnified and exalted man above the holy cherubim and the most holy seraphim.

Originally published in Orthodox Life, vol. 31, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1981), pp. 28-33. Translated by Stephen Karganovic from The Orthodox Church & Ecumenism (in Serbian) by Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) (Thessalonica: Chilandar Monastery, 1974), pp. 64-74.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

About the Mystery of Holy Unction (Anointing)

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"...and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" (Mark 6:13).

The holy apostles did this and it is commanded that we do the same. The Apostle James writes to us: "Is there any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:14-15). You should not call anyone except the priests, the elders of the church; you should not anoint him in any other name except the Name of the Lord, so that it will not appear as witchcraft. No one will be able to raise him except the Lord Himself nor can any other forgive his sins except the One Lord.

Why oil and not something else? Because it is commanded and so that we may show obedience and faith. Why is it commanded that we baptize with water and anoint [chrismate] with oil [myron] and communicate with bread and wine? That is God's choice and God's prudence and ours is to believe and to obey. Various elements are used in the different Mysteries [Sacraments], but the Grace of God is one as our Lord is one and everything is from the Lord.

Why does our Lord need some materials in order to pour out His Grace upon us? The Lord does not need the material but we do as long as we are material, we need material. Condescending to our weakness, the Lord uses matter. To the incorporeal angels, He gives Grace in an incorporeal manner.

Oil alone is helpless of itself as every other material is helpless of itself, but the Grace of God is All-powerful. Through oil, the Lord gives the Grace of His Holy Spirit and that Grace heals the sick, raises the infirm and restores sanity to the insane.

O my brethren, how inexpressible is God's goodness! What did not God do for us? And what more could we possibly desire? He knew all of our needs beforehand and, for all of them, He foresaw the cures in advance. He only seeks from us that we believe in Him and fulfill His prescriptions. Is it not insolent and shameful that we more often conscientiously follow the instructions of physicians, mortal men such as we are, and neglect the prescriptions of the Immortal God?

O All-good Lord, melt our stony hearts by the power of Your Grace so that before the hour of our death, we may show indebted thanksgiving toward You: toward You O our All-good and our All-wise God! To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

About the Mystery of Ordination and Priesthood

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them" (Acts of the Apostles 6:6).

By laying their hands on the chosen faithful, the apostles consecrated bishops, priests and deacons. It is apparent from this that the Christian Faith is not only a teaching, but also a power. It is not only necessary to know but also to have power. It is not only necessary to be chosen by men but you should be confirmed by God. If power were not necessary for the priestly vocation, neither would the laying on of hands be necessary, but only the teaching from mouth to ear. The laying on of hands, therefore, signifies the transferring of authority and bringing down power on the chosen one. The power is in the Grace of God Who strengthens man, sanctifies and illumines him. Truly, the Grace of God is that which teaches, leads, shepherds and through the Mysteries [Sacraments] strengthens the flock of Christ. A priest is the vessel of this inexpressible, awesome and all sufficient power of Grace. Blessed is that priest who understands what kind of precious treasury he has become! Blessed is he if the fear of God does not leave him day and night until his last breathe! There is no greater honor on earth, no greater responsibility than the calling of the priestly service. By the laying on of hands by the bishop, the priest has come into contact with the heavenly and eternal source of Grace and with the authority of the apostles. By that, the priest has become a companion in Grace and co-celebrant with all the Orthodox priests from apostolic times until today with the great hierarchs, with the countless number of saints, confessors, miracle-workers, ascetics and martyrs. He is gently adorned by their dignity but he is burdened by their merits, their examples and their reproaches.

O my brethren, great and most great is the shepherd over Christ's spiritual flock. He is responsible to pray to God for all and all the faithful are required to pray to God for him.

O Lord, Supreme Hierarch, sustain the Orthodox priests in strength, in wisdom, in purity, in zeal, in meekness and in every apostolic virtue by the Grace of Your Holy Spirit. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr