Synaxarion for the Feast of the Transfiguration

On the sixth day of this month we commemorate the Divine Transfiguration of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Verses

Tabor was glorified above every region of the earth,
When it beheld the nature of God shining in glory.
Christ changed His human form on the sixth.

On the sixth day of the month of August, the Holy Church celebrates the commemoration of the Divine Transfiguration of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ with exceeding gladness. This is what took place. Since Christ had discoursed much with His Disciples about dangers and death, and His own Suffering, and about the slaughter of His Disciples, and the former were in the present life and at hand, whereas the good things were a matter of hope, wishing to assure their very sight and to show the kind of glory wherewith He was to come, He brought them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and His face shone as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light; and there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him.

He took along those three alone, because they were superior to the rest. For Peter showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; but John by being exceedingly beloved of Him; and James because he was able to drink the cup of which the Lord spoke. He brought forward Moses and Elias that He might set aright the incorrect conjectures made about Him by the multitudes. For since some were saying that He was Elias, but others that He was Jeremias, He brought the leading Disciples so that they might see the difference between the servants and the Master; and so that they might learn that He was the One Who had all power both of death and life.

To Him be the glory and the dominion unto the ages. Amen.

Apolytikion in the Grave Tone
You were transfigured on the Mount, Christ God revealing Your glory to Your disciples, insofar as they could comprehend. Illuminate us sinners also with Your everlasting light, through the intercessions of the Theotokos. Giver of light, glory to You.

Kontakion in the Grave Tone
You were transfigured upon the mount, O Christ our God, and Your disciples, in so far as they could bear, beheld Your glory. Thus, when they see You crucified, they may understand Your voluntary passion, and proclaim to the world that You are truly the effulgence of the Father.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Incorrupt Relics of St. John the Chozebite (+1960)

St. John Jacob of Chozeba (Feast Day - August 5)

Saint John the Chozebite, the son of Maxim and Catherine Jacob, was born July 23, 1913 in the Horodistea district of Moldavia. He was named for the holy prophet Elias (July 20). In 1914, his father died in the war, and his mother succumbed to a disease, leaving Elias as an orphan. His grandmother Maria raised him until he was eleven. She was a nun, so she was able to educate him in spiritual matters. She died in 1924, so young Elias went to live with other relatives. He had a great love for Christ and His Church, and longed for the monastic life.

He entered Neamts Monastery on August 15, 1933 when he was twenty years old. Here his soul was nourished by the beauty of the services, the experienced spiritual instructors, and the silence of the mountains. The young monk loved prayer, vigils, spiritual reading, and solitude, and soon he surpassed many experienced monks in obedience, humility, and patience. Seeing his great love for spiritual books, the igumen made him the monastery's librarian. Elias gave comfort to many of the brethren by recommending specific books for each one to read. Then he would advise them to read the book carefully, make their confession, and not miss the services if they wanted to find peace.

His spiritual efforts attracted the notice of Archimandrite Valerie Moglan, who recommended that Elias be permitted to receive monastic tonsure. He was tonsured on April 8, 1936 and received the name John. From that time, the young monk intensified his spiritual efforts, conquering the temptations of the demons, and progressing on the path of salvation.

St John made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with two other monks in 1936, and they decided to remain there. The monk Damascene fell ill, however, and had to be taken back to Romania by the monk Claudius after eight months.

At first, St John lived in Bethlehem near St Sava's Monastery. Romanian monks had lived at St Sava's since the sixteenth century, and John struggled there for almost ten years. He was made librarian of the monastery, and he fulfilled this obedience for about seven years.

In 1945 St John longed for the peace and solitude of the desert, and so he went to live as a hermit. He was ordained as a priest in 1947, and became abbot of the Romanian Skete of St John the Baptist by the Jordan. Pilgrims often came to him for Confession, Communion, and consolation. In his free time he composed religious poems and hymns.

After five years, he and his disciple went into the desert of Chozeba near Jericho. Here they lived in asceticism for eight years in the cave where, according to tradition, St Anna had prayed.

St John Jacob died on August 5, 1960 at the age of forty-seven and was buried in his cave. On August 8, 1980 his relics were found incorrupt and fragrant. They now rest in the St George the Chozebite Monastery.

In 1968 and 1970, St John's book SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT was published in two volumes, with the blessing of Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem. St John Jacob was glorified by the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1992.

Miracles

1. In 1980 a Greek archimandrite from America, who had visited St. John when he was younger and had not now known he was dead, saw the Saint in his dreams. The Saint said: "If you want to see me, come to the cave of St. Anna in the region of Jordan." After a month he went to the Monastery of Saint George of Chozeba. It was at his insistance that the abbot opened the tomb of St. John at the cave, and his relics were discovered to be incorrupt.

2. A priest who helped in the translation of St. John's relics from the cave to the monastery, was informed by the Saint in a dream that someone who took three hairs from him was to return them. It appears that the priest to whom the Saint appeared was the one who took the three hairs.

3. In 1986 a woman from Crete sent to the abbot of the Monastery of Chozeba a golden spoon as a thank offering for a miracle of St. John. The woman had been sick and was unable to move or speak, and everyone was waiting for her to die. St. John appeared to her dressed as a priest holding the Holy Chalice, and said: "I am Saint John of Chozeba." He put the spoon to her mouth and disappeared. From that moment the woman got better.

St. John is #8.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Relics of John the Baptist Celebrated In Bulgaria

Sliven Bishop Yoanikiy (center left) and Diaspora Minister Bozhidar Dimitrov (middle right) look at the relics of St. John the Baptist before laying them in state in the St. George Church in Sozopol, after they headed the transfer procession. Prime Minister Boyko Borisov offered a special silver sarcophagus for the relics, for which he payed with money of his own. Photo by Dar

Bulgaria, Sozopol in Euphoria over St. John the Baptist Archaeology Find

August 5, 2010
Novinite

The recently discovered relics of St John the Baptist have been laid in state in Bulgaria’s Sozopol after a transfer processing which brought much excitement and euphoria in the Black Sea town.

The relics, which include part of an arm bone, a skull bone, and a tooth, were found in a sealed marble reliquary in the St. John the Forerunner Church on the St. Ivan Island near Sozopol on July 28, 2010, by the team of archaeologists led by Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov.

The procession led by the Bulgarian Orthodox Bishop of Sliven Yoanikiy brought the relics of St. John the Baptist from the St. Ivan Island to the St. George Church in the downtown where they were laid in state.

Thus, the holy relics have been officially transferred from the archaeologists to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

Thousands of Bulgarians as well as dozens of buses with foreign tourists – Germans, Russians, Poles, Czechs - having their vacations along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast have immediately arrived on a pilgrimage trips to pay their respects to the relics of St. John the Baptist.

The samples from the reliquary and the bones are still to be tested by specialists have expressed their views that there is no doubt whatsoever that absolutely unique archaeological discovery consists of relics of St. John the Baptist.

The wide-ranging arguments for that start with the fact that the small sarcophagus was found in a “natural architectural environment” - hidden under the major slabstone on the floor of the St. John the Forerunner Church – the oldest church on the St. Ivan Island.

(The island off the Sozopol coast itself is named St. John the Baptist – as Ivan is the Bulgarian/Slavic name for John.)

Experts have pointed out that at the time of the building of the St. Ivan the Forerunner Church – 4th century AD – the tradition was to build in relics of saints in the construction instead of to lay them in state for pilgrims, and there was no intentional falsifications of such holy items.

The greatest argument supporting the thesis that the relics belong to St. John the Baptist is the “clue” found at 1.2 m from the reliquary. It consists of a small box bearing inscriptions that make it clear who and when brought the relics of St. John the Baptist to Sozopol.

The inscriptions make it clear that a man name Thomas, “God’s servant brought a particle of St. John on the 24th.” Even though some of the end letters are missing, the inscription in Greek makes it clear that the date refers to the birthday of St. John the Baptist, June 24. The use of genetive case in the inscription leaves no doubt that the relics belonged to one of the founders of Christianity.

“It is important to understand one thing – this is the first time ever in the world archaeological practice that relics of St. John are found together with an inscription which just literally nails the conclusion and leaves no doubts. There are no speculations here,” said the man who made the unique discovery, archaeologist Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov.

“I think that this is the discovery of the year, not just in the Bulgarian archaeology but also in the European archaeology. It is hard to speak of the symbols of early Christianity but Apolonia (i.e. the Greek name of Sozopol) and the St. Ivan Island were one of the earliest places where Christians settled as they were persecuted by the Roman authorities. Their heritage is connected with the entire Christian history,” explained the Director of the Burgas Regional History Museum Tsonya Drazheva who is also part of the archaeological team that found the relics of St. John.

The relics of St. John the Baptist will lay in state in the St. George Church in Sozopol until the completion of the repairs of the larger St. Cyril and St. Methodius Church nearby.

Once the larger church is completed, the relics of St. John will be transferred there, together with two other holy items already kept in Sozopol – the a piece of the Holy Cross of Jesus Christ donated to the town by the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov and the National History Museum, and relics of St. Andrew, which were donated to the town by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I during his visit to Sozopol last month.

On Wednesday, the Bulgarian government allocated additional BGN 420 000 for completing the renovation of the St. Cyril and St. Methodius Church which will be the home of the holy relics. Prime Minister Boyko Borisov

“As soon as this amazing archaeological discovery was made, I made some research, and found that such finds generate great returns from tourism and pilgrimage. Bulgaria and this region will now enter the world tourism maps as a pilgrimage site. The fact that this is a sea resort provides for an unique combination between cultural and sea tourism,” declared Bulgaria’s Finance Minister Simeon Djankov who participated in the procession carrying the relics together with Diaspora Minister Bozhidar Dimitrov, a Sozopol native.

The procession that transferred the relics of St. John the Baptist to the St. George Church in Sozopol was led by Sliven Bishop Yoanikiy, who carried the small sarcophagus with relics above his head. Bulgaria's Finance Minister Simeon Djankov is in the middle, while the man who discovered the relics, Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov is on the far left. Photo by Finance Ministry

Professor Kazimir Popkonstantinov (left), who found the relics of St. John, together with Finance Minister Simeon Djankov (right), explaining why the origin of the relics is absolutely certain. Photo by BNT

The uninhabited St. Ivan Island (upper left corner) in the Black Sea off the coast of the resort town of Sozopol is the place where the relics of St. John the Baptist were discovered by a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov. Photo by 4coolpics.com

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Vow of Jephthah and Human Sacrifice

by Archbishop Lazar Puholo

QUESTION: There is an incident in the Old Testament that bothers me and I actually get upset whenever it comes to mind. In Judges, chapter 11, we read about Jephthah who vowed that if he won a certain battle, he would make a burnt offering to God of whatever he met first as he approached the door of his house. His only daughter came rushing out to meet him when he came home and, according to Scripture, he offered her as a sacrifice. How could that be? God did not allow human sacrifices. Surely, Jephthah would have been stoned by other Jews if he had tried to offer his daughter as a sacrifice. This seems so horrible, yet from the Scripture, it almost seems as if God accepted a human burnt offering. Please answer this, as it is causing me a great deal of confusion.

ANSWER: Perhaps the first thing to do in order to understand this story better is to read Romans 12:1: "...offer yourselves as living sacrifices, holy and well-pleasing, to God; this is your reasonable offering".

There are some very definite and clear statements in the narrative about Jephthah's daughter that let us know what actually happened. First of all, when the daughter heard of her father's vow, and realized that it was her who must be offered, she asked to be allowed to lament for two months because she would never be married: not because she would be killed, but that she would never marry. Secondly, in Judges 11:39, we read, "And he did to her as he had vowed. AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN". It is quite clear then, that she was not literally offered as a burnt sacrifice, but was offered to the temple as a consecrated virgin (what we now call "nuns") to serve in the House of God. We know from many references that virgins served in the temple. It is not at all possible that Jephthah offered his daughter as a slain sacrifice, because God had already absolutely forbidden such a thing and established the strictest punishment for anyone who should attempt to offer a human sacrifice (see, for example, Lev.18:21; 20:2-5; Deut.12:31; 18:10) - especially one of his sons or daughters (Deut.l8:10-12) - but to have offered her to the service of God in the temple was not an uncommon practice. However, in this case, since she was his only child, it was a great sacrifice, for it meant that his family line would die with him, since she would have to remain ever-virgin.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Should We Always Confess Before Communion?

by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

QUESTION: Must Confession and Communion always be tied together?

AMSWER: No. There is no canonical or patristic justification for tying the two together. Some people believe that you can only have Confession if you are preparing for Holy Communion. Sadly, this attitude tends to make Confession a mechanical act, often void of any deep, heartfelt repentance. One should have Confession regularly, whether or not you are going to receive Holy Communion. Confession is a medicine for the soul and mind, a cleansing and healing process which must be accompanied by contemplation and heartfelt repentance. We do not Confess "as part of preparation for Holy Communion," but to unburden our souls and spirits and seek prayerful help in resolving of spiritual problems. Many priests will confirm that such a Confession made as a required act before Communion is often mechanical and meaningless. Frequently, such a mechanically required Confession might consist in a rote, "I don't really have any sins to confess" or "Just all my daily sins."

Confession is not prescribed in preparation for Holy Communion by any canon of the Church, and I am not personally aware of any patristic injunction making it so. Requiring Confession before every Holy Communion presupposes that you will be communing infrequently -- perhaps no more than four times a year. It must be seen as a custom where it is locally required. Fasting, on the other hand, is clearly required before Holy Communion, and this is something deeply ingrained in the conscience and Tradition of the Church.

Ultimately, though, you will have to observe the requirements set by your own local bishops.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On Prayer For Those Who Commit Suicide and For the Departed Non-Orthodox

The Optina Elder Leonid told of one of his disciples whose father committed suicide. In his overwhelming grief the son turned to the Elder for consolation. The Elder replied, "Entrust both yourself and the lot of your father to the all-wise, omnipotent will of the Lord. Do not seek miracles of the Most High. Strive by humble-mindedness to strengthen yourself within the bounds of tempered sorrow. Pray to the Most-good Creator, thus fulfilling the duty of love and the obligation of a son. You ought not to sorrow beyond measure. God loved and loves him incomparably more than you. And so it remains for you to entrust the eternal lot of your father to the goodness and compassion of God, Who if He is well-pleased to show mercy, then who can oppose Him?"

The following is a model of a private prayer which might be said for a non-Orthodox person as suggested by the Elder Leonid, one who was experienced in the spiritual life:

Have mercy, O Lord, if it is possible, on the soul of Thy servant (name), departed to eternal life in separation from Thy Holy Orthodox Church! Unsearchable are Thy judgments. Account not this my prayer as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Inexplicable Stillness In Vinnitsa

Many remarkable miracles occurred within the Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times. Fr. Haralambos D. Vasilopoulos describes a series of such incidents in his book Contemporary Miracles of Russia (Sinhrona Thaumata Sti Rossia). Below is an example:

On the 14th of August 1925, the inhabitants of the city of Vinnitsa, Ukraine collected all the icons they had in their homes and then went out to form an improvised religious procession through the streets. Thousands of the faithful walked quietly with their icons in their hands.

Then something inexplicable happened. The noise of the city suddenly ceased for some unknown reason. Trolley cars stopped. No chatter of birds in the sky. Even the animals in the zoo became mute and stood motionless. Children did not yell or cry. In factories and workshops the machines were silent. This went on until nine o' clock in the evening.

Everyone came to the conclusion that this was happening because Christ and His saints were passing through the city and the neighboring villages. The next day also was the feast day in honor of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Seven Holy Youths of Ephesus

The Seven Holy Youths of Ephesus (Feast Day - August 4 and October 22); icon from the Monastery of St. Nicholas Philanthropinon in Ioannina (16th cent.)

The Seven Youths hid themselves in a certain cave near Ephesus in the year 250, to escape the persecution of Decius. By divine grace, a sleep came upon them and they slept for 184 years, until the reign of Saint Theodosius the Younger, when the doctrine of the resurrection was being assailed by heretics. They then awoke, that is, were resurrected, confirming in the sight of all the bodily resurrection; and again after a short time, by divine command, they reposed in the Lord in the year 434.

For a historical account of these Saints, read: The Historicity of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus


Contemporary Veneration of the Seven Holy Sleepers Among Orthodox

Pious devotion to the Seven Holy Sleepers of Ephesus is more common in the private devotions of Orthodox Christians than in public. Though one finds remnants of churches and monasteries dedicated to them in the first thousand years of Christianity, it is not popular these days. One would be hard-pressed to find a church dedicated to them today or even find an icon of them in churches. Typically icons of the Holy Seven Youths are found in homes, and in Greece especially, they are placed in homes when one suffers from sleeplessness. In fact, in the Euchologion (Book of Needs) there is a prayer for those suffering from insomnia titled "Prayer For the Sick and Those Who Cannot Sleep, Known As That of the Seven Holy Youths". This prayer is not very old, as it mentions St. Athanasios of Athos (c. 950).


The Cave of the Seven Sleepers In Paphos, Cyprus?

In Cyprus the location of the cave of the Seven Sleepers remains doubtful even if it is often reported that it is found in Kato Paphos. Many mistakenly suppose that it is the catacomb of Saint Solomoni, confusing the Seven Sleepers with also the Seven Maccabee children who were martyred together with their mother, Solomoni. The cave of the Seven Sleepers is obviously an ancient cave found near this area but is not the catacomb of Saint Solomoni.

In 1590, the French traveler Andre Thevet, impressed by the religious retrospections that the ground of Paphos offered, also reported about the story of the Seven Sleepers. He writes the following about the grave of the Bishop of Paphos Sarprikios: "His grave was shown to me and is close to the castle of Kato Paphos, inside a deep cave at the place of worship which the people of Cyprus call the cave of the Seven Sleepers."

The English traveler F. Moryson who visited Cyprus one year later, in 1591, also writes about the same topic: "One mile from the city of Paphos, towards the seashore, a very deep cave is situated where it is said that Seven saints slept for over 300 years without waking up. The Cypriot people believe that they are still alive".

The Cypriot intellectual Neophytos Rhodinos (1580-1659) writes that in this cave there are many Saint relics, but these relics belong to the Seven New Martyrs who are local Saints and not those of Ephesus.

The legend of the Seven Sleepers was very widespread in Cyprus in older times. Today it is not well known by the Cypriots. Badly damaged wall paintings in the right part of the cave date from the 9th-12th. The attention of visitors is also attracted by kerchiefs and pieces of cloth tied to the tree at the entrance to the catacombs. It is said that anyone who fastens a piece of his or her clothing to the branches of the tree is cured of chronic illness. See more here.

Saint Edward the Confessor and the Seven Holy Youths

The account can be read here.


HYMN OF PRAISE: THE SEVEN HOLY YOUTHS OF EPHESUS

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

When the last rays of the sun turned the west bloody red,
Seven Youths, to God prayed,
That, on the morrow again find themselves alive and healthy,
Before Emperor Decius, brought forth to torture.
And lay down to sleep a long dream, a deep dream,
Time walked by a wide step.

One morning, from the east, the sun dawned
And the Seven from their deep sleep awakened.
And Jamblichus the youngest, to Ephesus hurried
To see, to hear, about everything he inquired,
Does Decius, even them, seek to slaughter,
And bread to buy for the Seven of them.

But behold, what kind of miracle: this is not the gate!
And even the town is totally different!
Everywhere, beautiful churches, domes, crosses,
Jamblichus asks himself: are those not dreams?
Nowhere a familiar face, nowhere kinsmen,
There are no persecutions; there are no martyrs.

"Tell me brethren, the name of this town,
And tell me the name of the emperor, who now reigns?"
Thus Jamblichus inquires. The people, at him, look,
And about him, everyone judges differently.

"This town is Ephesus, now and before,
In Christ, reigns Emperor Theodosius."
This Antipater [The Consul] heard and [Martin] the graying bishop,
The entire town was perplexed,
Everyone, to the cave hurries.
And saw the miracle, glorified God,
And the resurrected servants of Christ the Resurrected One.

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
Thy Martyrs, O Lord, in their courageous contest for Thee received as the prize the crowns of incorruption and life from Thee, our immortal God. For since they possessed Thy strength, they cast down the tyrants and wholly destroyed the demons' strengthless presumption. O Christ God, by their prayers, save our souls, since Thou art merciful.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
They that scorned all things in the world as corrupted and found the gifts that nothing ever corrupteth, behold, they died, and yet corruption touched them not. Wherefore after many years once again they all rose up, burying all unbelief of malicious revilers. Ye faithful, let us laud the seven youths with hymns of praise on this day, while extolling Christ.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The New Spirituality

by Vic Stenger
August 3, 2010
Huffington Post

A Pew Forum survey from December, 2009 reports that many Americans are mixing their traditional Christian beliefs with some more closely associated with Eastern religions. They seem to be attracted to the holistic spiritualism that was first championed by physicist Fritjof Capra in his 1975 bestseller The Tao of Physics and dubbed the "New Age."

Capra claimed to see a close connection between Eastern mysticism and modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory of atomic and subatomic phenomena that was developed in the early twentieth century. He declared that the reductionism of classical physics was passé and the world was approaching a holistic utopia in which everything was one, as taught by Buddha, Lao Tzu, and other ancient sages.

In the mid-1970s, the Indian guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who had a physics background, introduced the idea of a "grand unified field" of cosmic consciousness into which our minds can tune (for a price) by Transcendental Meditation. Separating from the TM movement in the 1980s, physician Deepak Chopra began promoting a mixture of Eastern and Western self-help healing philosophies that has come to be called "quantum healing." The notion is that we can make our own reality, solve all our problems, and heal all our ills by just thinking about them. In recent years, this idea was picked up (and treated as newly discovered) in two highly successful films, What the Bleep Do We Know? and The Secret. In all cases, the proponents claim quantum mechanics shows that human thought can change reality by an act of will.

We can trace this new spirituality back to the early days of quantum mechanics when it seemed that fundamental phenomena such as light and electricity had two independent natures: wave and particle. In the eighteenth century light had been successfully described as an electromagnetic wave. But then in the early twentieth century light was also found to be composed of particles called photons. In the meantime, objects such as electrons that were generally particle-like were seen to also behave as waves. This became known as the wave-particle duality.

Furthermore, it seemed that whether an object is a particle or a wave depends on what you consciously decide to measure. If you try to measure a particle property, such as its position at a given time, then the object is a particle. If, on the other hand, you try to measure a wave property such as frequency or wavelength, then the object is a wave. The implication, then, is that your conscious mind is controlling the very nature of reality. As Chopra has put it, "The physical world is a creation of the observer."

Do you really believe that? Don't. Your mind can't control anything but your own body, here and now. The situation with respect to waves and particles is no different from one familiar to any engineer. Suppose an engineer is studying an electromagnetic signal from some distant source. She might move detectors around to determine its path. Then she is measuring the particle-like properties of the signal. Or she can send it into a spectrum analyzer and measure the signal's wave-like properties. In either case she is not deciding the nature of the signal, just using one of two complementary ways for analyzing it. In the university she learned how to mathematically move from one description to the other by means of what is called a Fourier transform. Quantum theory used Fourier transforms to move between the wave and particle pictures.

In short, a physical object isn't either a particle or a wave. These are just two alternative descriptions of the same object. You do not have to measure one property or the other exclusively. Observing a beam of light with appropriate apparatus, you find that localized photons are always present. The wave-like property of the light beam is found only in the statistical distribution the large number of photons it contains.

In the meantime, reductionism in physics has never been more firmly established. By the time The Tao of Physics was published in 1975, the standard model of elementary particles and forces had reduced all of familiar matter to three types of particles: the electron and two types of quarks. That model has agreed with all observations for over three decades.

However, you need not be a quantum physicist or an engineer to convince yourself that we cannot control reality just by thinking we can. We can see that with our own two eyes. It simply doesn't work. No one has ever become beautiful or rich just by visualizing it.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Tensions Over Relics of Saint John the Baptist

Recent Archaeology Find of Alleged Remains of Saint John the Baptist Causes Controversy

4 August 2010
BalkanTravellers.com

The recent find near Sozopol is very nice and pleasant, but the results from the examination should be seen first, Bulgaria’s Minister of Culture Vezhdi Rashidov said yesterday, regarding the recent archaeological discovery of remains that were almost immediately announced to have belonged to Saint John the Baptist.

In addition, the hurried announcement has caused tension in Bulgaria’s archaeological circles.

The relics, consisting of parts of bones from the arm and leg, as well as a tooth and a facial bone, were discovered last week in a sealed relic urn by the archaeological team of Professor Kazimir Popkonstantinov. As BalkanTravellers.com reported recently, the relics were found by a team of archaeologists during excavations on the St. Ivan (St. John) island off the coast of the town of Sozopol on Bulgaria’s southern Black Sea coast.

On the day of their discovery, before having seen them, the Bulgarian minister without portfolio, former head of the National History Museum and Sozopol-native, Bozhidar Dimitrov, declared publicly that the remains are authentic and that they belonged to Saint John the Baptist, the Dnevnik newspaper reported.

On Sunday, Dimitrov was present at the ceremonial opening of the urn, when he also confirmed that it contained the saint’s authentic bones.

According to Rashidov, cited by Dnevnik, emotional statements are nice, but one should be careful. “For example, when I found out that we have 25,000 square metres available for a museum, I said – here we go, we will have a Bulgarian Louvre.

Dimitrov explained his claim that they did indeed belong to the saint with the fact that the monastery was one of the largest medieval monasteries and, depending on Sozopol’s belonging to Bulgaria or Byzantium, it had either royal or imperial status. “It is likely that in antiquity someone from the Patriarchate of Constantinople donated part of the holy relics, which were kept in Constantinople, to the Saint John monastery," Dimitrov explained.

According to him, Sozopol is now becoming a second Jerusalem. The Saint George church in the town, which will receive the remains, currently owns parts of the Holy Cross, donated by Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, and remains of Saint Andrew.

Meanwhile, anonymous Bulgarian archaeologists, cited by Dnevnik, have said that the conclusions around the find were hurried in search of sensational news.

While the experts aren’t questioning Popkonstantinov’s professionalism, they say conclusions should only be made after all the necessary examinations have been carried out. Even after further analysis, the find could be dated, but there would be no proof that the remains did in fact belong to one of the founders of Christianity, they added.

The archaeologists explain this, as well as other announcements of sensational finds from recent years, with the fact that it is much easier to find additional finances if you discover something unique and big. As the debates were going on, Dnevnik reported that Popkonstantinov’s team announced that a part of the saint’s heel was discovered in the remains.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarian government announced today that it has decided to allocate additional funds for the renovation of the St. George Church will host the recently discovered relics. To the already allocated 150,000 leva (around 75,000 euro), it will add another 420,000 leva (around 210,000 euro) for repairs and additional infrastructure.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

ICA Reveals A PASOK Plot Against Vatopaidi

A Document By the Institute of Chartered Accountants Reveals the Plot Set Up By PASOK Around the So-called “Vatopaidi Scandal”

They will be getting rid of one, fifty will come after him.

The PASOK government is in power for almost ten months and no one is yet able to tell us objectively how the state was hurt by the land exchanges with the Great and Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi. Is this a coincidence? I do not think so, since the only body accredited worldwide for its objective property valuations is the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICA). That is the reason why in cases of discrepancy between the valuations of a citizen and the state, the law gives the former the right to apply to the ICA, because its valuation is binding on the Inland Revenue!

Yesterday, it was revealed that not one, not two, but four valuations have been carried out by the ICA which indicate the same thing: The state did not undervalue the land to be exchanged so that the monastery would benefit! The only case where excessive value may have been achieved concerns the few pieces of exchanged land which underwent a change of use from forest land to a building plot. But this is another matter.

Since PASOK did not like the ICA valuations, the Ministry of Finance, under the instructions of Papakonstantinou, sent a letter to the ICA trying to negate their conclusions because they show nothing reprehensible. The ICA’s reply was a catapult!

The state instructed ICA to carry out two valuations before March 2009. They showed nothing inappropriate. As soon as the ‘scandal’ was in full swing, the ICA at its own initiative requested a foreign, rival Institution to carry out its own valuation: The result was the same. Nothing reprehensible.

At the same time the monastery instructed the biggest foreign institution worldwide to value the land. The result was exactly the same: Nothing inappropriate!

Therefore, even though four objective valuations exist from the proper authorities, PASOK continues to ignore them. In order to blow up the value of the exchanged pieces, it takes into account the valuations of DOY (Deparment of Financial Services), which according to the ICA only take into account the ‘objective’ as opposed to the ‘real value’ of the land. It is well known that the two values are not comparable especially in relation to forest land, whose ‘objective’ value is up to six times the ‘real’!

Here is the reply given by ICA to the last PASOK attempt to nullify its conclusions:

Notice that in the correspondence between the Ministry of Finance and the ICA, the Ministry talks about the Vatopedi scandal, while the ICA, which is not ‘everyone’s coffee shop’, uses inverted commas around the word ‘scandal’!

One wonders what is the real purpose behind the investigation when the Ministry ( i.e. the state) agrees with PASOK and calls the case a ‘scandal’? Whom are they kidding?

Source: DEXI EXTREM/ OLYMPIA

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Mysterious Events In Kiev in August of 1923

Many remarkable miracles occurred within the Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times. Fr. Haralambos D. Vasilopoulos describes a series of such incidents in his book Contemporary Miracles of Russia (Sinhrona Thaumata Sti Rossia). Below are a few examples:

The Light of the Provider of Consolation

On the great street, Zhitomirskaya, in Kiev, adjacent to the office of a charitable organization, there is a small chapel. It is dedicated to the honor and glory of the "Provider of Consolation", the Virgin Mary.

One night, at two o' clock, a man from the neighborhood went out in his garden after having seen a strong light, like the glow from a fire, coming from the chapel. The man, who owned a bakery nearby, became frightened and notified the authorities that the chapel was on fire. Gradually, a crowd of terrified people gathered there. There was no smoke, just a blinding, fluttering light.

After a while someone ran and got the keys to the chapel and called the commissars. They opened the door, but recoiled in fear and terror: the blinding light was coming from the icon of the Virgin Mary. The commissar had the little chapel's priests placed under arrest and checked to ascertain whether there might be a hidden electrical wire. They removed the icon and placed it on a small table, where it continued to glow. The entire population of Kiev gathered there, and many fell to their knees and prayed.

This happened on August 15, 1923 - the Feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.


Mysterious Restoration of Icons and Cupolas in Kiev

A few days later a new miracle took place in Kiev, this time in Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) Cathedral. The icons of Saint Nicholas of Myra and Saint George the Trophybearer, which were walled in above the entrance to the church, suddenly appeared to be completely new - newly painted! On the following days similar incidents occurred in almost every church in Kiev.

On the same street, Zhitomirskaya, there is a large church with five cupolas. One day the middle cupola, whose color was completely faded, began to shine in a curious way. People gathered around the church. When the glow eventually subsided, everybody could see that the cupola had been completely restored and gilded.

The Soviet authorities ordered two technicians to take samples of the metal covering the cupolas. The samples were given to two chemists for analysis. The result came in a message from the executive committee of the district, and read as follows: "There appears to be a new, unknown element in the composition of the sunlight, which causes a reaction in metals when they are heated."

In other words: "You won't convince me, even if you succeed in doing so!"

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Anthony the Roman of Novgorod

St. Anthony the Roman (Feast Day - January 17 and August 3)

St. Anthony was born in Rome in 1067, soon after the Church of Rome had separated itself from the Universal Church. His parents remained faithful to the Orthodox teachings of the Eastern Churches, and raised their son in a spirit of Orthodox piety. St. Anthony was given a good education, and was able to read the Holy Scriptures in both Latin and Greek.

His parents died when he was seventeen, and he had already determined to dedicate his life to serving God. He took no interest in his material inheritance and, distributing it among the poor, left the noisy city with its many distractions in search of solitude. In a remote area of the country the youth joined a small community of monks who had likewise preserved their Orthodox faith. He spent twenty years there in ascetic labors, until the community was discovered by the Latins who demanded that the monks submit to the authority of the Papal Church. The persecuted monks were forced to disperse.

St. Anthony settled on a large rock at the very edge of the sea. There he labored for more than a year in solitary prayer, nourishing himself with wild grasses and roots. On September 5, 1105 a violent storm arose. An enormous wave lifted the rock on which the Saint was standing and miraculously transported it--as if it were a light boat-- across the sea, north to the river Neva, across Lake Ladoga, then upstream along the river Volkhov, until it arrived, by God's will, at Great Novgorod. On the Feast of the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos, the stone halted 3 versts from Novgorod on the banks of the River Volkhov near the village of Volkhov. This event is testified to in the Novgorod Chronicles.

The Saint was overjoyed to learn from a Greek merchant that he was among Orthodox people. He gradually learned the language and was warmly received by the ruling bishop, St. Nikita the Hermit (January 31 and May 14). The bishop, hearing of St. Anthony's miraculous voyage, marveled and looked upon him as an angel of God. "The Lord has granted you great gifts, like unto those bestowed upon the ancient God-pleasers. God transported Elijah in a fiery chariot, the holy apostles flew through the air on clouds, and you have come to us across the waters on a rock. Through you the Lord has visited and blessed these newly-converted peoples."

There on the shore where the Saint had landed the bishop blessed him to build a church. In 1117, the saint built a stone church in honor of the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos (in memory of the feast on which he miraculously arrived there). The church, built during the lifetime of St Anthony in the years 1117-1119 by the renowned Novgorod architect Peter, and adorned with frescoes in the year 1125, has been preserved to the present time.

St. Nikita's successor, the bishop St. Niphon, persuaded St. Anthony to become a priest and elevated him to the rank of abbot in 1131. St. Anthony wisely guided the monks in his care, without relaxing his ascetic labors. His cell and cell-chapel were so small that his spiritual struggle could be compared to that of the stylite saints.

In another year, fishermen recovered the barrel containing St Anthony's inheritance, cast into the sea many years before. The saint recognized his barrel, but the fishermen did not want to give it to him. Before a judge, St Anthony described the contents of the barrel, and it was returned to him. The saint used the money to buy land for the monastery. Spiritual asceticism was combined at the monastery with intense physical labor.

In his humility, St. Anthony had begged Bishop Nikita never to reveal the story of his miraculous voyage, but, nearing the end of his life, the Saint related the story to one of his monks, Andrew, and after his repose, on August 3, 1147, the miracle was made known to the glory of God and the edification of the faithful.

The monastery preserved St. Anthony's cenobitic rule, the rock on which he had been miraculously transported to Novgorod, a reed which he had held during his voyage, his vestments, and six icons dating from the Saint's lifetime.

St. Anthony's relics lay incorrupt in an open reliquary in the cathedral. His glorification in 1597 was promoted by Archimandrite Cyril of Trinity - St. Sergius Lavra, who received healing after praying before the Saint’s relics.

His memory is also celebrated (uncovering of his relics) on the first Friday after the Feast of the Foremost Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29), and on January 17, on the same day that St Anthony the Great is commemorated. The first Life of St Anthony the Roman was written soon after his death by his disciple and successor as igumen, the hieromonk Andrew. A Life, with an account of the uncovering of the relics, was written by a novice of the Antoniev monastery, the monk Niphon, in the year 1598.

St. Anthony the Roman is considered the father of monasticism in the Novgorod region.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Protodeacon Kurayev Is Not Against Marches of Sexual Minorities

August 3, 2010
Interfax

A Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Protodeacon Andrei Kurayev, believes public actions of sexual minorities are acceptable, but only of a certain kind.

"Thanks be to God, Moscow authorities stick to a sound position and ban gay pride parades, but by the way, I'm not against such actions. Let gays come out on the streets, but let it be 'gay shame' rather than 'gay pride'," Fr. Andrei said in his TV program.

According to him, if gays hold "a procession with a cross in order to repent before God, before people, please, let them do it, especially on the streets, in public.

"But to boast in public that you ignore Biblical commandments and pervert ways of natural life and to go along the city with these slogans pretending to be winners (as only those who win a victory hold a parade), it will be strange," Protodeacon Kurayev believes.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

How A 'Gay Rights' Leader Became Straight (2)

Read Part One here.

By Michael Glatze

I used to be gay, or so I thought.

When I was about 13, I decided I must be gay because I was unable to handle my own masculinity. It scared me too much. My father had already given me a lot to be afraid of: He'd cheated on my mother and left her crying, alone and selflessly attempting to salvage a dead relationship.

When I was faced with the prospect of either being a "man" or being "me" – who I saw as "better than that" and "not someone who would do such awful things as men do" – I chose "me." Then, because "me" was not "a man," "me" became gay.

I'm not saying this is how homosexuality develops for everybody. It's just my story.

For me, however, it became all-encompassing because I've always been driven to strive and achieve in everything I do. So I became an activist.

I started activism when I was 20 at Dartmouth College where I went to school. I continued as a protester at the Republican National Convention in San Diego in 1996. We chalked outlines of ourselves on the sidewalk and ran around shouting slogans and such.

When I was 22, I started work at XY Magazine, the first-ever magazine targeted at gay youth. Then, when I was about 25, I edited "The XY Survival Guide: Everything You Need to Know About Being Young & Gay," the first-ever "guidebook" for being young and gay. Then when I was 26, I left XY to start Young Gay America, which was a non-profit, media-based outreach project that drove around North America, conducting interviews with gay and lesbian youth and uploading their interviews and stories to the Internet in a community-based website.

Young Gay America became Young Gay America Magazine in 2004. During the time between starting Young Gay America in 2001 and starting YGA Magazine, I was in over 50 magazines and newspapers, television and radio shows.

I was asked to speak on prestigious panels all over the world, at universities and conferences, as an expert on gay youth. In 2004, I sat on the first-ever gay youth in America panel discussion at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

I met world leaders as part of Young Gay America. I met the mayor of Berlin and the prime minister of Canada. Young Gay America received a National Role Model Award, and a film that Young Gay America helped make was screened at 50 international film festivals, won awards and even screened for a special bipartisan gathering of the U.S. Congress.

As you can see, Young Gay America, at least for me, was a big success.

YGA Magazine was loved by many and accepted instantly into several North American high schools' libraries. Parents groups loved it. We had all 5-star reviews on Amazon.com; it was loved.

I, however, was not loved – not loved by myself, that is.

I was in a relationship that was challenging, because it had aspects to it that I didn't enjoy. I didn't know until later that those aspects were not unique to my situation at all. But at the same time, I didn't understand what was really bothering me.

It turned out, after I left YGA and my relationship, what was really bothering me was homosexuality itself.

It's not popular to say that, especially when you're a gay rights "pioneer" (or so some people called me; I never tried to see myself as such, though I didn't exactly turn down the accolades). It's not a popular thing at all. It's more popular to say you've committed a crime than to say – as a gay person – that you might have a problem with homosexuality.

That gets labeled "internal homophobia."

Well, I knew all about internal homophobia, having read up, studied, volunteered for Gay & Lesbian National Hotline counseling sessions with random people, having interviewed and "empowered" over 1,000 young people in 38 states and four Canadian provinces, and even Zagreb, Croatia, about the importance of overcoming internal homophobia. It was not news to me at all.

Then again, it wasn't internal homophobia that caused my so-called "hatred" of my own homosexuality.

It was God.

God – I know – is a buzzword. God scares people. I know this. I'm sorry that's the case.

However, this is my story. And, my story includes me having a nervous breakdown, feeling like I was hurting tons of people with my actions, and turning to the Bible, praying and understanding that what was in the Bible was not nearly as scary as what people had made it out to be.

In my story, I became acquainted with a very personal God whom I spoke to and who told me that I was beautiful, and that everyone else was – and is – too. In my story, I had a good relationship with God that got richer as I spent more time with Him. In my story, God is my best friend.

I continued to develop a deeper understanding of who and what I really am, thanks to God and thanks to what He showed me. I followed His guidance and found books that revealed all sorts of "deep, dark" secrets about things like "socialism," Concerned Women for America, "abstinence-only education" and the National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. All these things I found truly opened my eyes.

For me, it was both a blessing and a profound curse – a challenge and a heartache – that God showed me all of this information. I knew what it meant: that I was going to have to forsake all of my life up until that point. Jesus, in the Bible, asks us to give up our lives for his sake. In a sense, I was ready and willing to do that.

In a sense, that's exactly what I did. And I became a Christian. And I started to heal – and I stand today a healed man.

And so, my story becomes a story of healing from homosexuality, which I write in order to "set the record straight" about the notion that people can't heal from homosexuality. That is not true. People can heal. I did it.

How did it happened? Well, a lot of that is private. A lot of that has to do with figuring out deep things about my mind, about the nature of where "desire" comes from, about what we think "desire" is and what it really is, about all sorts of things like that.

I can – and easily would – describe it if asked.

But for the sake of brevity here, I'm focusing on the fact that it did occur. And I did get cured.

I'm not looking for an award or recognition. I'm not looking for anybody even to be happy for me – I know a lot of people are probably really upset to hear me say this.

I know that's the case, because I know that if I had heard somebody say these things a few years ago, I probably would've made them Public Enemy No. 1 on my list.

In my humble story, however, I'm happy this way.

That's it.

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

That's not it, though, on second thought. Because on second thought, if I think about it, I was under the impression, right from the beginning, that homosexuality was an intrinsic part of me that I couldn't get rid of. People scared me into thinking that. And people do that today. I did that to people! I led a media company that focused on doing that.

So, no, it's not the end of the story at all – my story, that is. It's not at all my end. Because, from my perspective, homosexuality is not just something I was healed from, but it's something that is flat-out wrong, because it can be healed, even though people say it can't.

And not only can it be healed, I've seen the difference between gay and straight in my very mind!

I've seen it go from one … to the other – NEVER to return.

I wouldn't want it to return, because now I can't even imagine it. It's like thinking about doing the weirdest, grossest thing that just makes you feel sick inside.

This, again, is my story. And in my story, it makes me repulsed to think about homosexuality.

And when I step back a little bit, I know why! Because people are supposed to feel like homosexuality is gross, because such a feeling prevents them from wanting to do it. And people are supposed to not want to do it, because doing it is something that prevents them from having babies, and having babies is something that we – naturally – are supposed to want to do, for human beings to survive. And, so, it's obvious why people should feel gross about homosexuality.

It's not "wrong" for people to think it's gross. It makes sense!

If anything, it's not thinking homosexuality is gross that's weird. What if we stopped thinking that all harmful behaviors – all things that prevent us from doing what we're supposed to do and being what we're supposed to be – were gross? What then? Would we have no natural sense of who we are, why we're here, what we're supposed to do with our lives?

I understand this notion of "homophobia" – only it's not a phobia at all. It's common sense.

My story is that now I know the Truth about homosexuality. And my story is that now I'm going to do what I can to fight it.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

How A 'Gay Rights' Leader Became Straight (1)

By Michael Glatze

Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak.

My mom died when I was 19. My father had died when I was 13. At an early age, I was already confused about who I was and how I felt about others.

My confusion about "desire" and the fact that I noticed I was "attracted" to guys made me put myself into the "gay" category at age 14. At age 20, I came out as gay to everybody else around me.

At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.

Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine I'd worked for had created – namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.

Gay people responded happily to Young Gay America. It received awards, recognition, respectability and great honors, including the National Role Model Award from major gay organization Equality Forum – which was given to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien a year later – and a whole host of appearances in the media, from PBS to the Seattle Times, from MSNBC to the cover story in Time magazine.

I produced, with the help of PBS-affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to tackle gay teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards.

Young Gay America created a photo exhibit, full of photographs and stories of gay youth all across the North American continent, which toured Europe, Canada and parts of the United States.

Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say "pretend" because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more "respected."

It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly "virtuous." It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.

Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

YGA Magazine sold out of its first issue in several North American cities. There was extreme support, by all sides, for YGA Magazine; schools, parent groups, libraries, governmental associations, everyone seemed to want it. It tapped right into the zeitgeist of "accepting and promoting" homosexuality, and I was considered a leader. I was asked to speak on the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2005.

It was, after viewing my words on a videotape of that "performance," that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence.

Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in.

Soon, I began to understand things I'd never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption – which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not.

I came to the conclusions on my own.

It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.

We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.

In denial of this fact, I'd fought to erase such truth at all costs, and participated in the various popular ways of taking responsibility out of human hands for challenging the temptations of lust and other behaviors. I was sure – thanks to culture and world leaders – that I was doing the right thing.

Driven to look for truth, because nothing felt right, I looked within. Jesus Christ repeatedly advises us not to trust anybody other than Him. I did what He said, knowing that the Kingdom of God does reside in the heart and mind of every man.

What I discovered – what I learned – about homosexuality was amazing. How I'd first "discovered" homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should – or risk hurting more people – is that I paid attention to myself.

Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the "outside" world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

Homosexuality, for me, began at age 13 and ended – once I "cut myself off" from outside influences and intensely focused on inner truth – when I discovered the depths of my God-given self at age 30.

God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."

Healing from the wounds caused by homosexuality is not easy – there's little obvious support. What support remains is shamed, ridiculed, silenced by rhetoric or made illegal by twisting of laws. I had to sift through my own embarrassment and the disapproving "voices" of all I'd ever known to find it. Part of the homosexual agenda is getting people to stop considering that conversion is even a viable question to be asked, let alone whether or not it works.

In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life.

Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.

God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind.

I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess.

Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity.

Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions.

Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. In European countries, homosexuality is considered so normal that grade-school children are being provided "gay" children's books as required reading in public schools.

Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda. In response, the European Union has called the prime minister of Poland "repulsive."

I was repulsive for quite some time; I am still dealing with all of my guilt.

As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.

God gave us truth for a reason. It exists so we could be ourselves. It exists so we could share that perfect self with the world, to make the perfect world. These are not fanciful schemes or strange ideals – these are the Truth.

Healing from the sins of the world will not happen in an instant; but, it will happen – if we don't pridefully block it. God wins in the end, in case you didn't know.

Source

Read Part Two here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Holy Souls and Holy Scripture

by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Holy souls read Holy Scripture with great diligence concentrating on every word and placing themselves before the mirror of the word of God as before the Dread Judgment.

Their diligence was so great in this that some of the ascetics undertook distant journeys in order to come to a spiritual sage who would interpret for them a word or a saying from Holy Scripture. Whenever it was possible, this was accomplished through correspondence. It is from this that a complete collection of the letters of the saints remained [survived] such as those of Saints Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus of Sinai and many others.

One day St. Cosmas the Eunuch (Aug. 3) pondered on the words of the Lord Christ when He, in the Garden of Gethsemane, asked His disciples whether they had a sword. When His disciples said to Him: "Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them, it is enough" (St. Luke 22:38). Being unable to explain these words himself, St. Cosmas decided to cross over the wilderness to the distant Lavra called Pirga to the illustrious Abba Theophilus to inquire of him. With great difficulty did St. Cosmas succeed to reach his goal. Theophilus explained to him: "The two swords signify the two-fold order of a god-pleasing life: deeds and visions, i.e., labor and awakening of the mind to godly thoughts and prayer. Whoever has both of these, he is perfect."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Protestant Myths About the Deuterocanonical Old Testament Books

Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books which appear in the Septuagint (LXX). The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has Paul quoting Isaiah as saying, “He who believes in him [Messiah] will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:33). The footnote in the New Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV refers the reader to Isaiah 28:16, which reads only, “One who trusts will not panic.”

Just as the Protestant acceptance of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament had little to do with theology, the Protestant omission of the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament has very little to do with theology, although in the past hundred years or so it has taken on theological significance among many Protestant groups.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself.

The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics.

In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I call these explanations "myths" because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture. Let's explore the five most common of these myths and see how to respond to them.

Myth 1

The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.

The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1564-1565) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there."

This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on.

The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

Myth 3

The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired Scripture.

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it.

First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors" happen.

Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

Myth 4

The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book important and that, "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages." Likewise, the editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."

That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all ten books and not just these two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture." Several things can be said in response to this argument.

First, is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say that St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born abnormally" or as being the "chief of sinners" (he mentions this in the present, not past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless.

Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't remember whom he baptized. Using the "It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)?

1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament, simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.

Why not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as "direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't remember whom he had baptized.

To tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can tell the truth about themselves - that they think writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they are not sure they've done a terrific job - without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what they wrote. This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.

Myth 5

The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.

First, no Church Father is infallible. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Preface to James' Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.

The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been.

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth. That's history.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr