Iconographic Depictions of the Life of St. Seraphim of Sarov

The following images at the Holy Monastery of Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Seraphim of Sarov in the village of Trikorfo of Central Greece depict the life of St. Seraphim of Sarov from his youth till his old age.

St. Seraphim was one of the greatest Russian ascetics, discerners and miracle-workers. He was born in 1759 A.D and died on 2 January 1833. Seraphim was distinguished by great humility. When the entire world praised him, he referred to himself as "the wretched Seraphim."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Donation of Constantine

By Fr. John Romanides

The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals

The sixth and seventh centuries witnessed a continuing controversy in Francia over the place of the Frankish king in the election of bishops. One party insisted that the king had no part in the elections. A second group would allow that the king simply approve the elections. A third group would give the king veto power over elections. A fourth group supported the right of the kings to appoint the bishops. Gregory of Tours and most members of the senatorial class belonged to this fourth group. However, while supporting the king's right to appoint bishops, Gregory of Tours protested against the royal practice of selling bishoprics to the highest bidder.

From the time of St. Gregory the Great, the popes of Old Rome tried to convince the Frankish kings to allow the election of bishops according to canon law by the clergy and people. Of course, the Frankish kings knew very well that what the popes wanted was the election of bishops by the overwhelming Roman majority. However, once the Franks replaced the Roman bishops and reduced the populus Romanorum to serfdom as villeins, there was no longer any reason why the canons should not apply. Thus Charlemagne issued his capitulary of 803, which restored the free election of bishops by the clergy and people secunda statuta canonum. Charlemagne restored the letter of the law, but both its purpose and that of the popes were frustrated. The church in Francia remained in the grip of a tyrannical Teutonic minority.

It is within such a context that one can appreciate the appearance of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a large collection of forged documents, mixed with and fused into authentic ones compiled and in use by 850.

Incorporated into this collection was the forgery known as the Donation of Constantine whose purpose was to prevent the Franks from establishing their capital in Rome. This is strongly indicated by the fact that Otto III (983-1002), whose mother was an East Roman, declared this document a forgery as part of his reason for establishing Old Rome as his capital. Constantine the Great allegedly gave his imperial throne to the pope and his successors because "it is not right that an earthly emperor would have power in a place where the government of priests and the head of the Christian religion has been established by the heavenly Emperor." For this reason he moved his "empire and power" to Constantinople. And it was hoped that the Franks would fall for the ruse and leave Rome to the Romans.

Translated into feudal context, the Decretals supported the idea that bishops, metropolitans or archbishops, patriarchs and popes are related to each other as vassals and lords in a series of pyramidal relations, similar to Frankish feudalism, except that the pope is not bound by the hierarchical stages and procedures and can intervene directly at any point in the pyramid. He is at the same time the pinnacle, and directly involved by special juridical procedure in all levels. Clergy are subject only to the church tribunals. All bishops have the right of appeal directly to the pope who alone is the final judge. All appeals to lower level church courts are to be reported to the pope. Even when no appeal is made, the pope has the right to bring cases before his tribunal.

The throne of Saint Peter was transferred to Rome from Antioch. Constantine the Great gave his throne to Pope Silvester I and his successors in Rome. Thus the pope sat simultaneously on the thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine. What more powerful rallying point could there be for that part of the Roman nation subjugated to Teutonic oppression?

The Decretals were strongly resisted by powerful members of the Frankish hierarchy. However, they very quickly had wide distribution and became popular with the oppressed. At times the Frankish kings supported the Decretals against their own bishops as their interests dictated. They were also supported by pious Frankish clergy and laymen, and even by Frankish bishops who appealed to the pope in order to nullify decisions taken against them by their metropolitans.

The forged parts of these Decretals were written in Frankish Latin, an indication that the actual work was done in Francia by local Romans. The fact that the Franks accepted the Decretals as authentic, although not in the interests of their feudal establishment, means clearly that they were not a party to the forgery. The Franks never suspected the forgery until centuries later.

Both Old and New Rome knew that these Decretals were forgeries.[20] Roman procedure for verification of official texts can leave no doubt about this. Therefore, it is very possible that agents of Constantinople, and certainly, agents of Old Rome, had a hand in the compilation.

The strongest argument that Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims (845-882) could conjure up against the application of these Decretals in Francia was that they applied only to Papal Romania. He made a sharp distinction between canons of Ecumenical Synods, which are immutable and applicable to the whole Church because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and laws which are limited in their application to a certain era and to only a part of the Church.[21] One can see why Hincmar's contemporary, Pope John VIII (872-882), expressed to Patriarch Photios his hope, that he, John, might be able to persuade the Franks to omit the Filioque from the Creed. What Pope John did not fully grasp was the determination with which the Franks decided that the East Romans be only 'Greeks' and heretics, as is clear from the Frankish tradition now inaugurated to write works against the errors of the 'Greeks'.[22]

The Decretals were an attack on the very heart of the Frankish feudal system, since they uprooted its most important administrative officials, i.e., the bishops, and put them directly under the control, of all things, of a Roman head of state.

The astute Franks understood the danger very well. Behind their arguments against the application of the Decretals in Francia, one finds lurking two Frankish concerns. On the one hand, they contended with a Roman pope, but on the other hand, they had to take this pope very seriously because the villeins could become dangerous to the feudal establishment if incited by their ethnarch in Rome.

Pope Hadrian II (867-872), John VIII's predecessor, threatened personally to restore Emperor Louis II (855-875) to his rightful possession in Lotharingia, taken by Charles the Bald (840-875), who had been crowned by Hincmar of Rheims (845-882).[23] Hincmar answered this threat in a letter to the pope. He warned Hadrian not to try "to make slaves of us Franks", since the pope's "predecessors laid no such yoke on our predecessors, and we could not bear it...so we must fight to the death for our freedom and birthright."[24]

Hincmar was not so much concerned with bishops becoming slaves of the pope, but that a Roman should "make slaves of us Franks."[25]

In 990, King Hugh Capet (987-996) of West Francia (Gaul or Gallia) and his bishops applied to Pope John XV (985-996) for the suspension of Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims as required by the Decretals. Arnulf had been appointed by Hugh Capet, but subsequently betrayed his benefactor, in favor of the Carolingian Duke Charles of Lotharingia who was his uncle.

Impatient with the pope's eighteen month delay in making a decision, Hugh Capet convened a council at Verzy near Rheims in 990. Arnulf pleaded guilty and begged for mercy. Nonetheless, a group of abbots challenged the proceedings as illegal because they were not consistent with the Decretals.[26] The Council deposed Arnulf. Hugh Capet caused Gerbert de Aurillac, the future Pope Silvester II, to be appointed in his place.[27]

Pope John, however, rejected this council as illegal and unauthorized. He sent a Roman abbot named Leo to depose Gerbert, restore Arnulf, and pronounce suspension on all the bishops who had taken part in the council. The pope's legate announced the pope's decision at the Council of Mouson in 995.[28]

Gerbert vigorously defended himself.[29] He rejected the papal decision in the presence of the papal legate Leo and refused the advice of colleagues to desist from his duties until the matter could be brought before the next Council of Rheims. The bishop of Triers finally persuaded him not to celebrate mass until the final decision on his case was reached.[30]

Thus Gerbert was completely abandoned by both the ecclesiastical and lay Frankish nobles who felt obliged to display, at least publicly, their support for the pope's decision. They even avoided every kind of contact with Gerbert. But Abbot Leo had aroused the faithful in support of the pope who sat on the thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine the Great. Out of prudence, Gerbert went into seclusion.

At the next Council of Rheims in 996, Gerbert was deposed and Arnulf was restored.[31]The Frankish ecclesiastical nobility could not afford to oppose popular support for the pope.

It seems that it was not popular superstition and piety alone that was the foundation of the people's fervor for the pope, but also the common Romanism the majority shared with the pope. It is this Romanism which constituted the power basis for the papal thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine the Great.

That the underlying problem was a clash between Romans and Franks is clearly stated by Gerbert in a letter to Wilderod, bishop of Strassburg. He writes: "The whole Church of the West Franks lies under the oppression of tyranny. Yet remedy is not sought from the West Franks, but from these (Romans)."[32] It is easy to understand the enthusiasm with which the subject populus Romanorum welcomed the Roman pope's interventions, punishing and humiliating Frankish nobles guilty of injustice. That the legate Leo could reverse the decisions of Hugh Capet and his bishops, and drive the nobility into conformity and Gerbert into seclusion by means of the faithful indicates that the makings of a revolution were present.

The Frankish Counterattack

The Frankish establishment, however, had the power to react, and it did so on two fronts. It stepped up its propaganda against alleged papal "corruption" and, of all things, "illiteracy," and made the decisive move to replace Roman popes with alleged "pious" and "literate" Germanic popes.

The alleged corrupt Roman popes could have been replaced by pious Roman popes. At the time there were at least some 200 monasteries and 50,000 Roman monks south of Rome.[33] But this was exactly the danger that had to be avoided. The Decretals in the hands of the pious Roman popes were even more dangerous than when in the hands of corrupt ones. The purpose of this smear campaign was to shatter the people's confidence in the Roman Papacy and justify the need to cleanse it with "virtuous" and "literate" Lombards, and East and West Franks.

Otto II (973-983) had appointed a Lombard, Peter of Pavia to the papacy in 983. He became the first non-Roman pope as John XIV (983-984), and thus provoked a revolution of the Roman populace aided by Constantinople. However, it took another forty years for the noble vassals of King Robert the Pious (996-1031) to get up enough Christian courage to take an oath that they would no longer violate "noble women." They were careful not to include villeins and serf women in the oath.

The concern of the Frankish bishops for the morality of Roman popes is quite interesting, as they did not seem concerned with their own morality when passing the death sentence in their episcopal courts. Charlemagne's many wives and fifteen illegitimate children were taken in stride, together with the fact that he forbade the marriage of his daughters. But Charlemagne did not mind their having children, although he castigated such practices in his capitularies.

At the Council of Rheims in 991, already mentioned, Arnuld, the bishop of Orleans, lists and violently attacks the alleged "corrupt" popes and, of course, praises Peter of Pavia, i.e., Pope John XIV, the Lombard already mentioned. It is, perhaps, not by accident that the allegedly corrupt popes were attached to Constantinople and the pious one was a Lombard.

In this same speech, Arnulf remarks: "But as at this time in Rome (as is publicly known) there is hardly anyone acquainted with letters - without (as it is written) one may hardly be a doorkeeper in the house of God-with what face may he who has himself learnt nothing set himself up as a teacher of others? Of course, in comparison with the Roman pontiff, ignorance is tolerable in other priests, but in the Roman (pope), in him to whom it is given to pass in review the faith, the morals, the discipline of the priesthood, indeed, of the universal church, ignorance is in no way to be tolerated." [34]

This deliberate fabrication should raise the question of the veracity of such Frankish sources concerning the corruption and illiteracy of Roman popes. Certainly many of them were neither saints nor scholars, but it is likely that Frankish propaganda exaggerates their weaknesses and it is certain that it does not stop short of fabrication.

In this same speech Arnulf lists among the papal "monsters" Pope John XII (955-964), who was put on trial in 963 by Otto I (936-973) and condemned in absentia. The report of Liutprand, the Lombard bishop of Cremona, that no proof was necessary at the trial because the pope's alleged crimes were publicly known may be indicative of the need to reexamine such cases.

Perhaps the most important incentive for replacing Roman popes with Franks and Lombards is that revealed by this same Liutprand, a chief adviser to Otto I. He writes: "We...Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil."[35]

Perhaps the real reason that Pope John XII became the monster of Frankish propaganda was that he dared restore the older tradition of dating papal documents by the years of the reign of the Roman emperor in Constantinople. In any case, Liutprand's tirade against the Romans, just quoted, reveals the fact that he knew very well that East and West Romans were one nation, and that the emperor in Constantinople was the real emperor of the Romans.

This tirade also reveals the fact that Liutprand was not aware of the prevailing theory among modern European historians that the Germanic nations became one nation with the Romans in Western Europe. As is clear from Liutprand, the Germanic peoples of his time would have been insulted by such claims.

Otto III (983-1002) solved the main problem of Frankdom in 996 by appointing to the papacy Bruno of Carinthia, an East Frank, who, as Gregory V (996-999), demanded the reinstatement of Arnulf as archbishop of Rheims. Thus Gerbert de Aurillac gave up trying to be restored to Rheims. He was compensated, however, by his fellow Frank, now on the papal throne, with confirmation of his appointment as archbishop of Ravenna (998-999).

Upon the death of Bruno, Gerbert was appointed to the papacy by Otto III and ruled Papal Romania as Silvester II (993-1003). For European and American historians, this Silvester II is one of the great popes in the history of the papacy. But for Romans, he was the head of the Frankish army of occupation, and the pope who introduced the feudal system of suppression into Papal Romania and enslaved the Romans to the Frankish nobility. There was no other way the people of Old Rome would accept Germanic popes.

In defending himself against the decision of the Roman pope, John XV, the future Frankish Pope Gerbert d'Aurillac, staunchly and eloquently supported the positions of Hincmar against the universal application of the Decretals. When d'Aurillic became Pope Silvester II, he found their universal application useful. The Decretals in the hands of the Frankish Papacy, sealed the tomb of the West Romans very firmly for many centuries.

Between the years 973-1003, and especially between 1003-1009, the Romans of Papal Romania made valiant efforts to preserve their freedom and independence from Frankish feudalism by having or attempting to have their own popes; once, at least, with the assistance of the East Roman army which had reached Rome and entered the city. The German emperors, however, devised an interim method of keeping the Romans somewhat pacified, by confirming the election of Roman popes from the Roman Tusculan family, which secured the papacy for itself, in exchange for the betrayal of Constantinople and her Orthodoxy represented by the Crescenti family. However, this temporary facade was abolished at the Council of Sutri in 1046. Thenceforth, Germanic popes were once again appointed by the German emperors, until the Normans became the deciding factor in allowing the reformer Franks to wrest the papacy from the imperial Germans. Even Italian popes like Gregory VII are descended from the Frankish army of occupation, established in Italy since the time of Charlemagne. It is no wonder that Beatrice and Matilda, wife and daughter of Boniface II, marquess of Tuscany, should become the great supporters of the reformed Papacy, since this is also a Frankish family established there since the ninth century.

Conclusions

The conclusions, I believe, seem clear. The underlying forces which clashed on the battlefield were not the Decretals, canon law, and the Filioque, but Romans and Franks. The Franks used church structure and dogma in order to maintain their birthright, to hold the Roman nation in "just subjection." The Romans also used church structure and dogma to fight back for their own freedom from oppression and for their independence.

Both sides used the most convenient weapons at hand. Thus, the same canonical and decretal arguments are to be found now on one side, now on the other, according to the current offensive and defensive needs of each nation. The Filioque, however, became a permanent feature of conflict between East Romans and Franks with the West Romans attempting to side with the East Romans.

From all that has been pointed out, it should be evident that there are strong indication that Roman historical terms are much closer to the reality of the schism than is Frankish terminology. The first is consistent with its own past, whereas the second is a deliberate provocation of a break with the past.

To speak of the schism as a conflict between Franks and Romans, to which theology was subjected as an offensive weapon on the Frankish side, and as a defensive and counter-offensive weapon on the Roman side, would seem close to taking a picture of history with a movie camera. On the other hand, to speak of a conflict between so-called "Latin" and "Greek" Christianities is tantamount to commissioning Charlemagne and his descendants to prophesy the future, and see to it that the prophecy is fulfilled.

There is strong evidence that the higher and lower nobility of European feudalism were mostly descendants of Germanic and Norman conquerors, and that the serfs were mostly descendants of the conquered Romans and Romanized Celts and Saxons. This explains why the name Frank meant both noble and free in contrast to the serfs. This usage was strong enough to get into the English language by way of the Normans. Thus, even the African-American was described as receiving his franchise when set free.

The implications are quite tantalizing when applied to the task of understanding the framework of Frankish or Latin Christianity and theology in relation to Roman Christianity and theology. Feudalism, the Inquisition, and Scholastic theology were clearly the work of the Franks, Germans, Lombards, Normans, and Goths, who took over the Church and her property, and used the religion of the Romans to keep the conquered Romans in a servile state. In contrast to this, the Romans who were conquered by Arab and Turkish Muslims, had their own Roman bishops. Thus in the one case, the institutional aspects of Christianity became a tool of suppression, and in the other, the means of national survival.

Because it is impossible to believe that four Roman Patriarchates broke away from a Frankish Papacy, the Franks were forced to forge the somewhat more believable myth that four "Greek" Patriarchates broke away from a so-called Roman but, in reality, Frankish Papacy. European and American historians continue to teach and support this.

The schism began when Charlemagne ignored both Popes Hadrian I and Leo III on doctrinal questions and decided that the East Romans were neither Orthodox nor Roman. Officially, this Frankish challenge was answered at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879 by all five Roman Patriarchates, including that of Old Rome.

There was no schism between the Romans of Old and New Rome during the two and a half centuries of Frankish and German control over Papal Romania.[36]

The so-called split between East and West was, in reality, the importation into Old Rome of the schism provoked by Charlemagne and carried there by the Franks and Germans who took over the papacy.

The atmosphere for dialogue between Old and New Rome may be cleared by the realization that the so-called "French" Revolution was essentially not much different from the so-called "Greek' Revolution. One was a revolt of Romans against their Frankish conquerors, and the other, a revolt of Romans against their Turkish conquerors.

It would seem that there is a much stronger unity among the Romans extending from the Atlantic to the Middle East than there can ever exist among those working for a union based on only a Charlemagnian Europe.

Perhaps the best path to the political reunion of Europe is to first realize that the already existing Roman Republics should, and can, unite into a Federation of Roman Republics. In other words, the so-called "French" and "Greek" Revolutions must be completed by becoming a Roman Revolution.

However, the path to the reunion of Christianity is not at all political or ethnic in nature. The Church's involvement in politics, and state structures for the preservation or the suppression of Roman society produced an interplay between church and society, but not necessarily between dogma and society.

The Medieval papacy incorporated the feudal structure into her fabric of administration and elevated it to the level of dogma.

The Orthodox Churches have also been adapting themselves to changing circumstances which affect their administrative fabric also, but have left this at the level of canon law.

The Protestant churches have rejected not only the dogmatic aspects of the Medieval papal administrative structure, but, on the whole, they have rejected the Orthodox development also, and have attempted to go back to what they understand to be Biblical or Apostolic Christianity.

Thus, Roman Orthodox and so-called "Roman Catholics" find themselves heirs to differences due to historical circumstances, and Protestants see themselves as a series of third alternatives.

Notes:

[20] It is no accident that Otto III declared the Donation of Constantine to be a forgery, as already mentioned, a fact he probably learned from his East Roman mother and tutors. However, he evidently never suspected that the rest of the decretals had been tampered with.

[21] Hincmar's copious arguments are contained in his writings about his nephew's illegal appeal to the pope, Opuscula et Epistolae quae spectant ad causam Hincmari Laudunensis, Migne, PL 126:279-648.

[22] Of these, the following three survive: 1) Responsio De Fide S. Trinitatis Contra Graecorum Haeresim, Migne, PL 110:111-112; 2) Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita, Migne, PL 121:225-346; 3) Aeneas of Paris, Liber Adversus Graecos, Migne, PL 121:685-762.

[23] Mansi 16.555-60.

[24] "...nos Francos non jubeat servire, quia istud jugam sui antecessores nostris antecessoribus non imposuerunt, et nos illud portare non possumus, qui scriptum esse in sanctis libris audimus, ut pro libertate et haereditate nostra usque ad mortem certare debeamus." Migne, PL 126:181.

[25] Mansi 19.97-100.

[26] It is interesting to carefully note that Richerus (Historiae 68), a student of Gerbert, reports that the abbotts were answered by the claim that it was impossible to notify the Roman pontiff about the matter because of obstacles caused by enemies and the bad conditions of the roads.

[27] Mansi 19.103-08. For Gerbert's own spontaneous version of the proceedings, see his report to Wilderod, bishop of Strassbourg. Mansi 19.107-68. It is clear that Richerus s attempting to cast the factual material in such a way as to cover up the clash that was in process between the West Frankish establishment and the Roman papacy. This is nowhere so much in evidence as in the fact that he carefully avoids mentioning that Gerbert and the bishops who ordained him were deposed by Pope John XV, a fact which Gerbert himself complains about in his letter to Empress Adelaide. Mansi 19.176-78.

[28] Mansi 19.193-96. This evidence should be used in the light of Gerbert's letter to Empress Adelaide, already mentioned in the previous footnote. Richerus makes a feeble attempt to present pope John as having sent Leo to simply investigate the matter at the Council of Mouzon (Historiae 4.95) and for this reason the text of the Papal decision had to be omitted from his acts of the Council. One can understand why this text has also disappeared from the Papal archives most probably when Bruno of Carinthia or Gerbert himself took over the Papacy.

[29] Richerus, Historiae 4.101-05. Mansi 19.193-96.

[30] Mansi 19.196. Richerus gives us an important key to these deliberations. Gerbert finally promised to abstain from the celebration of mass in order to avoid the appearance of an open revolt against the pope. Historiae 4.106. In other words, there was a general agreement among the lay and church nobles (i.e., the Franks) that the pope and the Gallo-Roman (Walloon) multitude are to be out-flanked, and for this reason, a final decision was at all costs avoided. That a Frankish candidate for the Papacy was being prepared for the succession of John XV was perhaps already decided upon and known by key Frankish leaders. In order to govern the predominantly Roman multitude effectively, the Franks had to always give the impression that they were faithful and obedient to the Roman pope.

[31] Mansi 19.197-200. Richerus mentions this council, but is silent about its decisions. Historiae 4.108. As already mentioned, he carefully avoids giving out the information that Gerbert was suspended by John XV. By not mentioning the death of this pope, Richerus gives us the impression that Gerbert twice visited the same papacy, which also recognized his appointment to the Archbishopric of Ravenna.

[32] "Pressa jacet tyrannide omnis Ecclesia Gallorum; atqui non a Gallis, sed ab his sperabatur salus," Mansi 19.166. Gallia, Germania, and Italia were parts of the Frankish Empire ruled in the past by members of the Carolingian families. Within this context, Ecclesia Gallorum signifies the Church of the West Franks and certainly not the French, who at this time were predominantly the Gallo-Roman serfs and villeins under Frankish rule. This is clear from the use of the title Rex Francorum by the Capetian Kings. See, e.g., Mansi, 19.93-94, 97, 105, 107-08, 113, 129, 171-72, 173-74.

[33] F. Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, 3 (London, 1936), p. 439; J. Gay, L'Italie Meridionale et L'Empire Byzantine (867-1071) (Paris, 1904), p. 285.

[34] Mansi 19.132-33.

[35] Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12. Migne, PL 136. 815

[36] In his letter to Emperor Michael I (811-813), Charlemagne refers to the restoration of the unity of the Churches within the context of the establishment of peace between the Western and Eastern Empires, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 4, p. 556ff. Charlemagne is here thinking in terms of the Frankish West and the Roman or Greek East and not of Old and New Rome. Pope Leo III had never accepted Charlemagne's doctrinal adventures about icons and the Filioque, and the East Roman Patriarchs desisted from reacting against them, evidently in support of the delicate and dangerous position of the West Romans under Frankish occupation. In any event, Charlemagne's remarks are his own admission that he himself had provoked a schism which existed only in his own mind, since all five Roman Patriarchs avoided being provoked, and seemed not to take the Franks doctrinally serious at that time. For an English translation of this letter, see Robert Folz, The Coronation of Charlemagne (London, 1974), pp. 242-43.


Source: FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Sylvester, Pope of Rome

St. Sylvester I, Pope of Rome (Feast Day - January 2)

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Sylvester was born in Rome and from his early youth was learned in worldly wisdom and in the Faith of Christ. He always conducted his life according to the Gospel commandments. He benefited much from the instruction of Timothy the priest whose death for the Faith Sylvester himself witnessed and, observing the example of the heroic sacrifice of his teacher, was imbued with such a spirit throughout his entire life. At age thirty, he became the Bishop of Rome. He amended the customs of Christians. For example, he dispensed the fast on Saturdays, which was practiced by many Christians up to that time, and ordered that fasting be observed only on Holy and Great Saturday as well as on those Saturdays that fall within the fasting seasons. By his prayers and miracles Sylvester assisted in bringing Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena into the True Faith. They were later baptized. He participated with the Empress Helena in finding the Honorable Cross. He governed the Church of God for twenty years. His earthly life ended honorably and he was translated into the heavenly Kingdom.

A Reflection From His Life

God permits humiliation and ruin to befall a proud man when he thinks that his strength is secured forever. When the pernicious Roman Eparch [Governor] Tarquinius beheaded Blessed Timothy, he summoned St. Sylvester and threatened him with death if he did not reveal Timothy's inheritance and in addition immediately offer sacrifice to the idols. Without fear and trembling, this discerning saint responded to the eparch with the Evangelical words: "You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you" (Luke 12:20), "and that with which you boast that you will bring to me (i.e. death) will occur to you." The proud eparch shackled Sylvester in chains and threw him into a dungeon intending to kill him shortly. Having done this, the eparch sat down to eat lunch, but a fish bone caught in his throat. From noon to midnight, the physicians struggled to save his life but all was in vain. At midnight, Tarquinius gave up his proud soul in greatest torments. And so the prophecy of St. Sylvester was fulfilled, as also were the Biblical words: "Pride goes before disaster" (Proverbs 16:18).

HYMN OF PRAISE: SAINT SYLVESTER

O Lord, most wonderful, wonderful in Your saints, You are,
Mighty and Merciful, through Your saints, You appear.
As the sun through the stars, You shine through Your saints,
To the humble You give strength; To Paradise You raise them.
To the simple You impart wisdom; through them the wise, You shame,
To the unfortunate; you comfort with kindness; with heaven, You nourish the hungry.
Saints of every type, You have,
Among the saints, from every age, You receive
From every age and from every stock,
Without caste, without mark: the last or the first.
Pure from sin and, in good, fruitful,
Noble souls, kindred to Your Christ,
You call them saints. Everyone You call
To be a saint. Those who respond, You cleanse,
Wash them from sins that white as wool they become,
In such as these, all heaven rejoices with You,
Sylvester was such a one; In him You rejoice, and
Because of him, blessing You impart to us.

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
The truth of things hath revealed thee to thy flock as a rule of faith, an icon of meekness, and a teacher of temperance; for this cause, thou hast achieved the heights by humility, riches by poverty. O Father and Hierarch Sylvester, intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
As a companion of the holy ascetics, thou O God-bearer, hast been worthily shown forth as a true priest of priests before our King and God. Wherefore, thou rejoicest now with the choirs of the Angels, filled with gladness and delight in the Heavens, O Father. Renowned Sylvester, famed shepherd of Rome, save them that honour with love thy memorial.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Doomsday Duds - 8 Armageddon Predictions Proven Wrong

Countless people have predicted countless end-of-the-world scenarios -- and the planet's still here, fortunately. We look back at some of the wackiest forecasts.

January 1, 2011
Fox News

1. God Will Be Televised

Hon-Ming Chen founded this new religious movement -- a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, and UFOlogy -- and brought it to the U.S. in the early 90s, registering the group under the name God's Salvation Church. 160 members strong, the group set up shop in Garland, Texas in 1997, and predicted that at 12:01 a.m. on March 31, 1998, God would show himself on a single TV channel across North America and save his followers from the doomed planet Earth.

When the predicted appearance didn't happen, the group quickly became confused. Chen reportedly offered himself to be stoned or crucified as a concession but no one obliged him. The group fell apart soon afterward with many of the members returning to Taiwan.

2. The World Will Cease to Exist

Known as "The Amazing Criswell," Charles Criswell King was a flamboyant radio and TV broadcaster who decided to become a psychic. In March 1963, he correctly announced that John F Kennedy wouldn't run for re-election in 1964 because "something was going to happen to him."

According to Criswell in 1968, the world would to cease to exist from August 18, 1999. But here we are. Go figure.

3. The Rapture Cometh -- in the 80's

Former NASA engineer and bible student Edgar C. Whisenant predicted that the Rapture, the return of Christ and the end of the world, would occur in 1988. He went on to sell four and a half million copies of his book, "88 Reasons Why The Rapture Could Be In 1988".

Televangelists were so taken by Whisenant that many started airing tips on how to prepare for the Rapture as they neared 1988. After 1988 passed without incident, Whisenant went on to recalculate his prediction to 1989, 1993, and even 1994, writing books for each year. Sales were weak.

4. The UFO Will Save Us

Heaven's Gate was an UFO-centered cult based in San Diego, led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group believed that the Earth was about to be "recycled," and the only chance for human survival was to escape on a UFO trailing the Haley-Bopp Comet.

On March 26, 1997, in a period when Hale-Bopp was at its brightest, the bodies of 39 members of the group were discovered by police, after committing suicide. At this point, the Earth has yet to be "recycled."

5. Computer Bugs Will Doom Us

The year 2000 was perfect symbolic fodder for would-be prophets -- but one prediction of millennial disaster was rooted not in mysticism but rather a confounding computer bug.

The Y2K problem resulted from the practice of abbreviating four-digit years to two digits meaning that when the "...97, 98, 99, 00..." ascending numbers suddenly became invalid, worldwide computer failures would ensue. Very little actually happened, but whether this was the result of preparation or because the problem was less severe than predicted may never be known.

6. The End Is Near -- Just Not in 1844

William Miller was a prosperous Baptist farmer who became infatuated with prophetic symbolism eventually leading him to boldly predict the second coming of Christ -- and the beginning of the end. Initially ambiguous over the exact date, he started to focus on 1844 and soon gained a large following of believers known as Millerites.

What occurred instead in 1844 was known as the "Great Disappointment." With no appearance from Christ, Millerites were left disenchanted and confused.

7. The Sun Will Explode -- Not

In 1919, meteorologist Albert Porta predicted that the alignment of six planets would generate such a significant magnetic current that the sun would explode and subsequently engulf the Earth on December 17 of that year. Miraculously, mankind avoided this doomsday destiny.

8. Did He See the End?

Legendary French seer Nostradamus was noted for allegedly predicting such events as the rise of Hitler, the Great Fire of London, the death of Princess Diana and even the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Nostradamus also wrote that in "1999 and seven months . . . from the sky will come the great king of terror."

Perhaps it rained that day. But the end didn't come as predicted.

9. ...But Maybe THIS One Is Right

Adored by conspiracy theorists, the Mayan calendar abruptly ends December 2012, at which point some predict a series of cataclysmic or transformative events will occur, many of these apocalyptic. It's been a popular date in media and entertainment, stories and movies that illustrate massive solar storms, magnetic pole reversals, earthquakes, supervolcanoes and other drastic natural events.

For all we know, this one could be true. But it's probably not .... right?

Related articles:

2012: Six End-of-the-World Myths Debunked

World Won't End in 2012, Mayans Insist

A French Village Invaded By New Age Fanatics

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Greek Seamen Die in the Bermuda Triangle

December 31, 2010
Kathimerini

The Greek captain and first mate of a cargo vessel died yesterday after their ship entered the area of the Atlantic known as the Bermuda Triangle amid high winds.

According to sources, the 47-year-old captain of the Aegean Angel and his 33-year-old first mate had emerged onto the deck of the vessel to see what damage it had incurred during an earlier storm when they were hit by a large wave. A 34-year-old Cypriot navy lieutenant who also had been aboard the vessel suffered serious injuries.

The ship, en route to the port of Houston in Texas from the Estonian capital of Tallinn, had been 800 nautical miles off Bermuda when it was hit by a storm and winds of up to 8 on the Beaufort scale. The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil’s Triangle, is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic where several aircraft and vessels are said to have disappeared mysteriously.

Read more here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Big Procession With A BIG Icon

A Procession with the icon of the All Merciful Savior in Tutaev on 1 August 2010. The route of the procession was over 5 kilometres (3 miles).

The Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (1652-1678) is considered to be one of the finest specimens of old Russian architecture. It is a real gem in the crown of excellent masterpieces of the best Russian architects. The unique miracle-working icon "The Image of the Savior the Merciful" is kept there. According to tradition, the icon was drawn in the beginning of 15th century by Dionisy Glushitsky.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Clarifications Concerning the Circumcision of Christ

The Great Synaxaristes in Greek contains a note under its January 1st entry concerning some important clarifications regarding the circumcision of Christ. It mentions that Ephraim the Syrian and Meletios of Athens (Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1) say that the Lord was circumcised by Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, in the cave. Epiphanios of Salamis comments concerning this that neither the evangelists have written anything, nor is it necessary that they should, since it has nothing to do with our salvation. Furthermore, Anastasios the Sinaite and other easterners claim that the Theotokos preserved the circumcised foreskin of Christ as a sacred treasure. It remained incorrupt until the Lord's resurrection, when He took it to Himself again. In vain do some westerners claim to possess the circumcised flesh. One account maintained that it was kept at Cavillino, a city of Lower Burgundy (Fr. Bourgogne), in a certain church. The bishop of that place, one named Gaston, opened the reliquary supposedly containing the relic on the 19th day of April, in the year 1707, but he found nothing more than a little grain of sand and a tiny piece of gravel. In addition to this, Rome claimed to have the relic in the Church of Saint John the Lateran, as footnoted by Calmette (Luke, ch. 2).

For more on the superstition of the Holy Perpuce (Foreskin), see here and here.

Source: The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church (January), translated by Holy Apostles Convent, p. 3.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Dual Feast of St. Basil the Great and the Circumcision of Christ

St. Basil the Great and the Circumcision of Christ (Feast Day - January 1)

On the eighth day after His Nativity, our Lord Jesus Christ was circumcised in accordance with the Old Testament Law. All male infants underwent circumcision as a sign of God's Covenant with the holy Forefather Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 17:10-14, Lev. 12:3).

After this ritual the Divine Infant was given the name Jesus, as the Archangel Gabriel declared on the day of the Annunciation to the Most Holy Theotokos (Luke 1:31-33, 2:21). The Fathers of the Church explain that the Lord, the Creator of the Law, underwent circumcision in order to give people an example of how faithfully the divine ordinances ought to be fulfilled. The Lord was circumcised so that later no one would doubt that He had truly assumed human flesh, and that His Incarnation was not merely an illusion, as certain heretics (Docetists) taught.

In the New Testament, the ritual of circumcision gave way to the Mystery of Baptism, which it prefigured (Col. 2:11-12). Accounts of the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord continue in the Eastern Church right up through the fourth century. The Canon of the Feast was written by St Stephen of the St Sava Monastery (October 28 and July 13).

In addition to circumcision, which the Lord accepted as a sign of God's Covenant with mankind, He also received the Name Jesus (Savior) on the eighth day after His Nativity as an indication of His service, the work of the salvation of the world (Mt.1:21; Mark 9:38-39, 16:17; Luke 10:17; Acts 3:6, 16; Phil 2:9-10). These two events, the Lord's Circumcision and Naming, remind Christians that they have entered into a New Covenant with God and "are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11). The very name "Christian" is a sign of mankind's entrance into a New Covenant with God.

Source

Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, "belongs not to the Church of Caesarea alone, nor merely to his own time, nor was he of benefit only to his own kinsmen, but rather to all lands and cities worldwide, and to all people he brought and still brings benefit, and for Christians he always was and will be a most salvific teacher." Thus spoke St Basil's contemporary, St Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.

St Basil was born in the year 330 at Caesarea, the administrative center of Cappadocia. He was of illustrious lineage, famed for its eminence and wealth, and zealous for the Christian Faith. The saint's grandfather and grandmother on his father's side had to hide in the forests of Pontus for seven years during the persecution under Diocletian.

St Basil's mother St Emilia was the daughter of a martyr. On the Greek calendar, she is commemorated on May 30. St Basil's father was also named Basil. He was a lawyer and renowned rhetorician, and lived at Caesarea.

Ten children were born to the elder Basil and Emilia: five sons and five daughters. Five of them were later numbered among the saints: Basil the Great; Macrina (July 19) was an exemplar of ascetic life, and exerted strong influence on the life and character of St Basil the Great; Gregory, afterwards Bishop of Nyssa (January 10); Peter, Bishop of Sebaste (January 9); and Theosebia, a deaconess (January 10).

St Basil spent the first years of his life on an estate belonging to his parents at the River Iris, where he was raised under the supervision of his mother Emilia and grandmother Macrina. They were women of great refinement, who remembered an earlier bishop of Cappadocia, St Gregory the Wonderworker (November 17). Basil received his initial education under the supervision of his father, and then he studied under the finest teachers in Caesarea of Cappadocia, and it was here that he made the acquaintance of St Gregory the Theologian (January 25 and January 30). Later, Basil transferred to a school at Constantinople, where he listened to eminent orators and philosophers. To complete his education St Basil went to Athens, the center of classical enlightenment.

After a four or five year stay at Athens, Basil had mastered all the available disciplines. "He studied everything thoroughly, more than others are wont to study a single subject. He studied each science in its very totality, as though he would study nothing else." Philosopher, philologist, orator, jurist, naturalist, possessing profound knowledge in astronomy, mathematics and medicine, "he was a ship fully laden with learning, to the extent permitted by human nature."

At Athens a close friendship developed between Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), which continued throughout their life. In fact, they regarded themselves as one soul in two bodies. Later on, in his eulogy for Basil the Great, St Gregory the Theologian speaks with delight about this period: "Various hopes guided us, and indeed inevitably, in learning... Two paths opened up before us: the one to our sacred temples and the teachers therein; the other towards preceptors of disciplines beyond."

About the year 357, St Basil returned to Caesarea, where for a while he devoted himself to rhetoric. But soon, refusing offers from Caesarea's citizens who wanted to entrust him with the education of their offspring, St Basil entered upon the path of ascetic life.

After the death of her husband, Basil's mother, her eldest daughter Macrina, and several female servants withdrew to the family estate at Iris and there began to lead an ascetic life. Basil was baptized by Dianios, the Bishop of Caesarea, and was tonsured a Reader (On the Holy Spirit, 29). He first read the Holy Scriptures to the people, then explained them.

Later on, "wishing to acquire a guide to the knowledge of truth", the saint undertook a journey into Egypt, Syria and Palestine, to meet the great Christian ascetics dwelling there. On returning to Cappadocia, he decided to do as they did. He distributed his wealth to the needy, then settled on the opposite side of the river not far from his mother Emilia and sister Macrina, gathering around him monks living a cenobitic life.

By his letters, Basil drew his good friend Gregory the Theologian to the monastery. Sts Basil and Gregory labored in strict abstinence in their dwelling place, which had no roof or fireplace, and the food was very humble. They themselves cleared away the stones, planted and watered the trees, and carried heavy loads. Their hands were constantly calloused from the hard work. For clothing Basil had only a tunic and monastic mantle. He wore a hairshirt, but only at night, so that it would not be obvious.

In their solitude, Sts Basil and Gregory occupied themselves in an intense study of Holy Scripture. They were guided by the writings of the Fathers and commentators of the past, especially the good writings of Origen. From all these works they compiled an anthology called Philokalia. Also at this time, at the request of the monks, St Basil wrote down a collection of rules for virtuous life. By his preaching and by his example St Basil assisted in the spiritual perfection of Christians in Cappadocia and Pontus; and many indeed turned to him. Monasteries were organized for men and for women, in which places Basil sought to combine the cenobitic (koine bios, or common) lifestyle with that of the solitary hermit.

During the reign of Constantius (337-361) the heretical teachings of Arius were spreading, and the Church summoned both its saints into service. St Basil returned to Caesarea. In the year 362 he was ordained deacon by Bishop Meletius of Antioch. In 364 he was ordained to the holy priesthood by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. "But seeing," as Gregory the Theologian relates, "that everyone exceedingly praised and honored Basil for his wisdom and reverence, Eusebius, through human weakness, succumbed to jealousy of him, and began to show dislike for him." The monks rose up in defense of St Basil. To avoid causing Church discord, Basil withdrew to his own monastery and concerned himself with the organization of monasteries.

With the coming to power of the emperor Valens (364-378), who was a resolute adherent of Arianism, a time of troubles began for Orthodoxy, the onset of a great struggle. St Basil hastily returned to Caesarea at the request of Bishop Eusebius. In the words of Gregory the Theologian, he was for Bishop Eusebius "a good advisor, a righteous representative, an expounder of the Word of God, a staff for the aged, a faithful support in internal matters, and an activist in external matters."

From this time church governance passed over to Basil, though he was subordinate to the hierarch. He preached daily, and often twice, in the morning and in the evening. During this time St Basil composed his Liturgy. He wrote a work "On the Six Days of Creation" (Hexaemeron) and another on the Prophet Isaiah in sixteen chapters, yet another on the Psalms, and also a second compilation of monastic rules. St Basil wrote also three books "Against Eunomius," an Arian teacher who, with the help of Aristotelian concepts, had presented the Arian dogma in philosophic form, converting Christian teaching into a logical scheme of rational concepts.

St Gregory the Theologian, speaking about the activity of Basil the Great during this period, points to "the caring for the destitute and the taking in of strangers, the supervision of virgins, written and unwritten monastic rules for monks, the arrangement of prayers [Liturgy], the felicitous arrangement of altars and other things." Upon the death of Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, St Basil was chosen to succed him in the year 370. As Bishop of Caesarea, St Basil the Great was the newest of fifty bishops in eleven provinces. St Athanasius the Great (May 2), with joy and with thanks to God welcomed the appointment to Cappadocia of such a bishop as Basil, famed for his reverence, deep knowledge of Holy Scripture, great learning, and his efforts for the welfare of Church peace and unity.

Under Valens, the external government belonged to the Arians, who held various opinions regarding the divinity of the Son of God, and were divided into several factions. These dogmatic disputes were concerned with questions about the Holy Spirit. In his books Against Eunomios, St Basil the Great taught the divinity of the Holy Spirit and His equality with the Father and the Son. Subsequently, in order to provide a full explanation of Orthodox teaching on this question, St Basil wrote his book On the Holy Spirit at the request of St Amphilochius, the Bishop of Iconium.

St Basil's difficulties were made worse by various circumstances: Cappadocia was divided in two under the rearrangement of provincial districts. Then at Antioch a schism occurred, occasioned by the consecration of a second bishop. There was the negative and haughty attitude of Western bishops to the attempts to draw them into the struggle with the Arians. And there was also the departure of Eustathius of Sebaste over to the Arian side. Basil had been connected to him by ties of close friendship. Amidst the constant perils St Basil gave encouragement to the Orthodox, confirmed them in the Faith, summoning them to bravery and endurance. The holy bishop wrote numerous letters to the churches, to bishops, to clergy and to individuals. Overcoming the heretics "by the weapon of his mouth, and by the arrows of his letters," as an untiring champion of Orthodoxy, St Basil challenged the hostility and intrigues of the Arian heretics all his life. He has been compared to a bee, stinging the Church's enemies, yet nourishing his flock with the sweet honey of his teaching.

The emperor Valens, mercilessly sending into exile any bishop who displeased him, and having implanted Arianism into other Asia Minor provinces, suddenly appeared in Cappadocia for this same purpose. He sent the prefect Modestus to St Basil. He began to threaten the saint with the confiscation of his property, banishment, beatings, and even death.

St Basil said, "If you take away my possessions, you will not enrich yourself, nor will you make me a pauper. You have no need of my old worn-out clothing, nor of my few books, of which the entirety of my wealth is comprised. Exile means nothing to me, since I am bound to no particular place. This place in which I now dwell is not mine, and any place you send me shall be mine. Better to say: every place is God's. Where would I be neither a stranger and sojourner (Ps. 38/39:13)? Who can torture me? I am so weak, that the very first blow would render me insensible. Death would be a kindness to me, for it will bring me all the sooner to God, for Whom I live and labor, and to Whom I hasten."

The official was stunned by his answer. "No one has ever spoken so audaciously to me," he said.

"Perhaps," the saint remarked, " that is because you've never spoken to a bishop before. In all else we are meek, the most humble of all. But when it concerns God, and people rise up against Him, then we, counting everything else as naught, look to Him alone. Then fire, sword, wild beasts and iron rods that rend the body, serve to fill us with joy, rather than fear."

Reporting to Valens that St Basil was not to be intimidated, Modestus said, "Emperor, we stand defeated by a leader of the Church." Basil the Great again showed firmness before the emperor and his retinue and made such a strong impression on Valens that the emperor dared not give in to the Arians demanding Basil's exile. "On the day of Theophany, amidst an innumerable multitude of the people, Valens entered the church and mixed in with the throng, in order to give the appearance of being in unity with the Church. When the singing of Psalms began in the church, it was like thunder to his hearing. The emperor beheld a sea of people, and in the altar and all around was splendor; in front of all was Basil, who acknowledged neither by gesture nor by glance, that anything else was going on in church." Everything was focused only on God and the altar-table, and the clergy serving there in awe and reverence.

St Basil celebrated the church services almost every day. He was particularly concerned about the strict fulfilling of the Canons of the Church, and took care that only worthy individuals should enter into the clergy. He incessantly made the rounds of his own church, lest anywhere there be an infraction of Church discipline, and setting aright any unseemliness. At Caesarea, St Basil built two monasteries, a men's and a women's, with a church in honor of the Forty Martyrs (March 9) whose relics were buried there. Following the example of monks, the saint's clergy, even deacons and priests, lived in remarkable poverty, to toil and lead chaste and virtuous lives. For his clergy St Basil obtained an exemption from taxation. He used all his personal wealth and the income from his church for the benefit of the destitute; in every center of his diocese he built a poor-house; and at Caesarea, a home for wanderers and the homeless.

Sickly since youth, the toil of teaching, his life of abstinence, and the concerns and sorrows of pastoral service took their toll on him. St Basil died on January 1, 379 at age 49. Shortly before his death, the saint blessed St Gregory the Theologian to accept the See of Constantinople.

Upon the repose of St Basil, the Church immediately began to celebrate his memory. St Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium (November 23), in his eulogy to St Basil the Great, said: "It is neither without a reason nor by chance that holy Basil has taken leave from the body and had repose from the world unto God on the day of the Circumcision of Jesus, celebrated between the day of the Nativity and the day of the Baptism of Christ. Therefore, this most blessed one, preaching and praising the Nativity and Baptism of Christ, extolling spiritual circumcision, himself forsaking the flesh, now ascends to Christ on the sacred day of remembrance of the Circumcision of Christ. Therefore, let it also be established on this present day annually to honor the memory of Basil the Great festively and with solemnity."

St Basil is also called "the revealer of heavenly mysteries" (Ouranophantor), a "renowned and bright star," and "the glory and beauty of the Church." His honorable head is in the Great Lavra on Mount Athos.

In some countries it is customary to sing special carols today in honor of St Basil. He is believed to visit the homes of the faithful, and a place is set for him at the table. People visit the homes of friends and relatives, and the mistress of the house gives a small gift to the children. A special bread (Vasilopita) is blessed and distributed after the Liturgy. A silver coin is baked into the bread, and whoever receives the slice with the coin is said to receive the blessing of St Basil for the coming year.

Source



- A New Year's Eve Story by Photios Kontoglou

- Basil the Great and Disfigured Christianity

- On the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ

HYMN OF PRAISE: THE CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST & SAINT BASIL THE GREAT

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

You, Who, gave the Law to the world and to man,
You, the Law-giver, placed Yourself under the Law,
Others, you enjoined by impostition - Yourself, voluntarily.
That is why on the eighth day, in the flesh, You were circumcised.
In fulfilling the Law, with a new one You replaced it:
Circumcision of the flesh, was replaced with a spiritual one.
That impure passions we cut off from ourselves
And with a spirit pure, to gaze upon You.
That, with the spirit, the will of the body to cut and to constrict,
Your will, O Savior, by the spirit we fulfill it -
To this circumcision, the saints learned,
Their fiery example, to us, they left.
Wonderful Basil, to a glowing ray, similar,
To such circumcision, generations, he teaches.
To Basil, be glory, Your servant,
Great, because of You, humble and constrained He became.
That is why he became great,
Great He remained.

Apolytikion in the First Tone
Our human form hast Thou taken on Thyself without change, O greatly-compassionate Master, though being God by nature; fulfilling the Law, Thou willingly receivest circumcision in the flesh, that Thou mightest end the shadow and roll away the veil of our sinful passions. Glory be to Thy goodness unto us. Glory be to Thy compassion. Glory, O Word, to Thine inexpressible condescension.

Apolytikion in the First Tone
Enthroned on high with the Eternal Father and Your divine Spirit, O Jesus, You willed to be born on earth of the unwedded handmaid, your Mother. Therefore You were circumcised as an eight-day old Child. Glory to Your most gracious counsel; glory to Your dispensation; glory to Your condescension, O only Lover of mankind.

Kontakion in the Third Tone
Now the Lord of all that is doth undergo circumcision, in His goodness cutting off the sins and failings of mortals. He this day doth give salvation unto the whole world; and the hierarch and bright daystar of the Creator now rejoiceth in the highest, Basil the wise and divine initiate of Christ.

Apolytikion in the First Tone
Your voice resounded throughout the world that received your word by which, in godly manner, you taught dogma, clarified the nature of beings, and set in order the character of people. Venerable father, Royal Priesthood, intercede to Christ God to grant us great mercy.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
For the Church art thou in truth a firm foundation, granting an inviolate lordship unto all mortal men and sealing it with what thou hast taught, O righteous Basil, revealer of heavenly things.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Priest-Monk Nestor the New Martyr of Zharky (+1993)

In 1960, Nestor Savchuk was born in the province of Crimea in southern Russia. He was never close to his family but was always distant from them. As he grew into a young man, he began to channel all his energy into wrestling, boxing, and the martial arts. He possessed a keen awareness and stood out above his peers.

In his early twenties, Nestor travelled to Odessa to work as an apprentice painting religious murals. In Odessa he became friends with the older artists, who began to inspire him with stories of righteous men and women who glorified God through their courageous labors in the monasteries of Russia over the last 1,000 years. It was the early 1980's, Russia was Communist, and the ancient Orthodox Christian faith had been all but forgotten by the Russian people. Suddenly a spark was kindled in Nestor;s heart. He began to burn with a desire to flee the vanity of the world and tap into his ancient Christian roots.

Making the resolve to give his life wholly to God, Nestor left Odessa for the ancient 13th-century Pochaev Monastery. Here Nestor began laboring in dedication of heart as a monk. As providence would have it, Nestor discovered that he had two long-lost great-uncles who served at the monastery. One was a married priest who lived with his family in the town, and the other was a greatly revered old monk who had been known for his righteous life.

At that time, the monasteries in communist Russia were regulated by the government. All the monks were required to be registered with the state which was atheist. Nestor, being against atheism never registered. in the mid-1980's the government began to persecute the monastery - some monks were taken to prison-camps, while others simply "disappeared". Because he was not registered with the state, Nestor knew he would be put in prison or killed if he were found by the government officials. And so Nestor continued on struggling in the war-like conditions, living in hiding as an "illegal" monk. Nestor, having a strong and brave soul was soon ordained a priest-monk at an extremely young age.

Eventually the conditions at Pochaev Monastery became so severe that most of the monks had either left, been taken away to prison-camps, or killed. Not knowing what to do, Nestor turned to his spiritual father, the elder John Kristiankin, who told him to go to the isolated village of Zharky. Following his advice as divine guidance, Nestor headed out across the great expanse of Russia's countryside.

After a long journey Nestor arrived in the little village of Zharky. Because it was surrounded by vast wilderness and the roads were flooded in winter, Zharky was accessible only during the summer months. Few believers remained in the village. Upon arriving at this desolate village in the Russian wilderness, Nestor went straight to the church where he would be serving. It was old and run-down, but had many ancient icons. Nestor's original inspiration had come from religious images and later he died for these ancient images (icons) of Christ and the saints. Ever since he became a monk his heart burned for Christ and the other world they represented. Nestor looked at icons and images of Christ in a unique way. He didn't see wood and paint, but rather his heart was transformed and he felt the eternal Kingdom of God within himself. To understand the image (icon) of Christ is to understand the incarnation of God.


At one time, two righteous fools-for-Christ's sake had been martyred at this church. Before they were murdered they prophesied saying that, "The priest who shall serve here until the end will be saved." Not aware of the prophecy but sensing a mystical air about the old church, Nestor immediately said he loved the place with all his heart and wanted to stay there the rest of his life.

As is the lot of those who pursue righteousness, suffering awaited Nestor. The police warned him of an icon-stealing ring run by the Russian Mafia - gangsters from Odessa who would steal icons from rural churches and sell them on the black market for big money. Nearly all the churches in the area had been burglarized.

Other difficulties came from local hooligans who hassled him because he was a priest. One day, Nestor tucked in his long hair and beard as was his custom, so as to keep a low profile, and headed out for the bus stop with some important documents. At the bus stop, three drunken youths approached him and began to harass him. "Show me your cross," they taunted him, and began grabbing under his jacket to get at his cross. So as not to allow them to defile his cross, Nestor was forced to deflect their hands. Not knowing that Nestor was skilled in martial arts, the youths tried to attack him. But he dodged their punches, making the fight look more like a dance. Suddenly, remembering that his documents were unguarded, Nestor hesitated; at that moment he was hit by a blow in the eye. Soon the police arrived, but Nestor told them to let the youths go. He hadn't forgotten that he too had once been a rebellious youth. A month later the youth who had punched Nestor in the eye came to his house to say he was sorry. After talking with him for a while the young Andrew decided to join forces with him, moved into his house, and began to follow his strict way of life.

With his youthful zeal he had brought life to the desolate village of Zharky. Nestor also travelled to several other churches in the surrounding region, helping all in need, Christian or non-Christian. To the Russian people, the young Nestor was a reminder of their ancient Christian roots.

In addition to his selfless work for others, Nestor maintained an austere life of prayer. After traveling to visit his spiritual children in other villages, Nestor would walk home at night. He didn't like to travel in cars; these late-night walks were the only time he had to himself. Even through the winter snow, he would walk as far as twelve-miles to get home. This was his time to be alone with God; he would immerse himself in prayer, losing track of time. Nestor would return home to complete his rigorous prayer rule, which consisted of hours of singing ancient chant, and kneeling in prayer with tears.

In time, Nestor travelled to the war zone of Abkhazia, Georgia (a small country bordering souther Russia, formerly part of the Soviet Union) in order to help the suffering people there and to spread the light and truth of Christ. He began to thrive in the warlike conditions, and the ultimate sacrifice a Christian can give was born in him - the desire to be martyred for faith in Christ. Knowing that death was imminent in the hostile land of Abkhazia, Nestor felt drawn to stay. His spiritual father back in Russia, however, guided him back to the village of Zharky by saying to him, "Would a mother abandon her own children to raise another's children?" Nestor realized that he had to return to his own spiritual children.

Upon returning to Russia, Nestor met with more hardship and even persecution. The church was robbed several times, caught fire once, and Nestor even suffered a backlash of envy and strife from his own people. He once told a friend that it was the ones he gave the most to, who troubled him the most.


In 1993 three monks were murdered at the famous Optina Monastery in central Russia. In the 19th century, Optina was the spiritual capital of Orthodox Russia, renowned for its lineage of Eldership which had come down from Saint Paisius Velichkovsky. Crowds of people, including the authors Dostoeyevsky, Tolstoy, and others had flocked to Optina Monastery for spiritual guidance from the great Elders. The three monks were stabbed to death on Easter night, during the celebration of Christ's Resurrection. A blood-stained dagger was found on the monastery grounds with the numbers 666 inscribed on the blade. Later, a man confessed to the murders and admitted the killings were a ritual of a satanic cult and that he had deliberately killed the three best monks in the monastery.

Nestor often spoke of the Optina martyrs with great reverence, and it became evident that he longed to follow them. He longed for a martyr's crown himself. Once a friend tried to counsel him that it was better to be longsuffering and endure the tedious trials of life. To this Nestor replied, "You know, my friend, I have such a fiery desire to receive a martyr's crown because I lead a loose life as a youth and lived only for myself. How can I repay God for what He has given me?" The friend pleaded with him, "It's too daring to desire martyrdom; you must suffer for a long time." Nestor again replied, "Yes, I understand that, but maybe if I will pray for martyrdom - perhaps I will be able to pray it out."

Truly Nestor was now ablaze with that fire of faith that burns for the other world. He saw death not as an end of life but as a beginning. His faith was deep - to the extent that he had begun to pray for suffering and even death not as an escape from this world, but in order to be mystically crucified with Christ.

Again the church was robbed. This time Nestor had had enough - his poor church was being extorted.He had to do something. Quickly, he spotted a tire track in the snow leading to a dirt road in the woods, and began to follow it. In the distance was a parked car. To conceal the fact that he was a monk, Nestor took off his monk's cap, pulled up his robe, and approached the car staggering and yelling as if he were a drunk. Inside the car sat a gangster who immediately jumped out of the car and attacked him. Once again Nestor's experience in the martial arts came to his aid, as he was able to deflect the gangster's punches and so buy enough time to get the license plate number of the vehicle. The police eventually caught the gangsters and returned the icons to the church. Word came to Nestor that if he pressed charges, the Mafia would hunt him down. His closest friends pleaded with him not to do it. Nestor met with the gangster who had attacked him, and asked him why he had done it. The gangster replied: "Money". And Nestor asked him if he regretted stealing from the church. But he answered without a drop of remorse, "I have no regret whatsoever". Nestor knew he had to make a stand. If he let the Mafia intimidate him his poor church would suffer. To one who tried to talk him out of it, Nestor explained, "If these were my personal enemies, I could forgive them; but these me are enemies of the simple believers and God. They have no remorse for the evil they have done. I cannot let them go."


Then began several attempts on Nestor's life which he narrowly escaped. The robberies of icons had been widespread - every church in the region had been burglarized at least once. Nestor began to guard the church at night. The Mafia was not just after the icons anymore - they wanted Nestor's life.

On one occasion Nestor heard a knock at the door. When he opened the door he was held at gunpoint. Not backing down, Nestor fearlessly looked straight into the eyes of the hoods, turned around, walked into his house, and locked the door. The hoods came after him, breaking in the window.Grabbing a flare gun, Nestor fired some shots to scare them off. But, knowing he was a monk and priest and so would not shoot them, they barged through the window. Nestor then ran into his room and locked the door, and as he was climbing out of the window he cut his arm and began to bleed.Quickly he bandaged his arm and then escaped. As he fled, blood dripped on the ground - the very ground on which he would shed his life's blood.

Knowing that each day could be his last, Nestor began to double his missionary work. A close friend of his recalls, "To each he would give his all; they would flock to him. At times it was difficult. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room for two or three days to fast and pray. In this way he received strength to go on. In the last year I knew him, he became so deep...a simple depth that came from trust in God. He was not afraid of anything. He was an unusual man who gave himself to the will of God. He was fearless."

Nestor had broken through the wall that separated God and man, and God had become a living force in him. A close friend remembers one of his last conversations with Priest-Monk Nestor: "We talked about the enemies of the church. He said to me, 'Why should we be afraid?' I said, 'But those wicked thieves are everywhere!' He spoke calmly, 'To all is God's will. To suffer for Christ - this is a great joy.' He talked about spiritual war going on in the world today... He was already prepared for death."

On December 31, 1993, Priest-Monk Nestor was found dead outside the window of his house, with his throat slit and with multiple stab wounds. The people believe that it was not a simple case of revenge, but was a strategic move in a spiritual war that is taking place today throughout the world. As the forces of darkness increase, the light becomes more visible. The life and death of Preist-Monk Nestor do not represent defeat, but the triumph of God's righteousness. It is the height of the human experience - martyrdom for the truth. Hieromonk Nestor passed from this life at the age of thirty-three - the same age at which Jesus Christ was crucified.

Source: Marler, J. and Wermuth, A., Youth of the Apocalypse, 1194, St Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, CA.


The rector of the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos in the village of Zharki, Yurievets district, Hieromonk Nestor (secular name, Nikolai Ivanovich Savchuk) was atrociously murdered on the night of December 30-31, 1993, in a cell of the rector's home. Hieromonk Nestor was found lying face down in a pool of blood, spread below the cross of Jesus Christ and showing no signs of life. His body was totally exsanguinated. After the murder, a large sum of money was found missing from the priest's briefcase, donated to him that day by businessmen for construction and repair work on the church. The district court of Yurievets sentenced the murder convict to four years of imprisonment. The court decided that the murderer was not entirely competent.

Source: Murders and Assaults on Priests in Russia in 1990-2010: A Reference

See also: Иеромонах Нестор (Савчук) (1960-1993гг)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Preface to the Four Gospels by Saint Theophylact

Those divine men who lived before the law were not taught by writings and books, but they had a pure mind and so were enlightened by the radiance of the Holy Spirit. Thus they knew the will of God, and He Himself conversed with them mouth to mouth. Such were Noah, Abraham, Job, and Moses. But when men grew weak and became unworthy to be enlightened and instructed by the Holy Spirit, God Who loves mankind gave the Scriptures, so that at least by these means they might be made mindful of the will of God.

Christ also conversed in person with the apostles, and He sent the grace of the Spirit to be their teacher. But later, heresies would arise and our morals would be corrupted. Therefore it was His good pleasure that the Gospels be written down in order to teach us the truth, so that we would not be drawn away by the falsehood of these heresies, and our morals altogether corrupted. He gave us four Gospels, perhaps because we learn from them the four universal virtues: courage, prudence, righteousness, and self-control. We learn courage when the Lord says, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Mt 10:28); we learn prudence when He exhorts, "Be ye wise therefore as serpents" (Mt 10:16); we learn righteousness when He teaches, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Mt 7:12); and we learn self-control when He declares, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mt 5:28).

For another reason are there four Gospels: they are pillars of the world. As the world is divided into four parts — east, west, north, and south — it was right that there also be four pillars. And for yet another reason are the Gospels four in number: they contain four elements — teachings, commandments, warnings, and promises. To those who believe the teachings and observe the commandments, God promises the good things that are to come. But those who do not believe the teachings and do not keep the commandments, He threatens with the punishments that are to come.

It is called “Gospel” because it announces to us things that are good: namely, remission of sins, being counted as righteous, ascent into the heavens, and adoption as sons by God. It also announces that we can receive these things easily. For we ourselves have not labored to obtain these good things, nor have we received them as a result of our own accomplishments. We have been deemed worthy of such good things by God’s grace and love for man.

Preface to the Gospel of Matthew

There are four Evangelists; two of them, Matthew and John, were of the company of the twelve, and two, Mark and Luke, were of the seventy. Mark was a follower and disciple of Peter; and Luke, of Paul. Matthew, then, first wrote the Gospel, in the Hebrew language for the Jews who believed, eight years after Christ’s Ascension. Some say that John translated it from the Hebrew language into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after the Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty two years after the Ascension.

It is said that after the death of the first three Evangelists, the three Gospels were brought to John while he yet lived that he might see them and judge if they had been composed according to the truth. When John read them he fully accepted the grace of the truth in them. and whatever the other Evangelists had omitted, he completed in his Gospel, and whatever they had touched on briefly, he elaborated. This was the beginning of theology. Since the other Evangelists had not mentioned the existence of God the Word from before the ages, John himself spoke the word of God—theology—concerning this, so that no one would think that God the Word was a mere man without divinity. For Matthew speaks only of the existence of Christ in the flesh, as he was writing for the Jews for whom it sufficed to learn that Christ was begotten from Abraham and David. A believing Jew is content to know that Christ is from David.

You might ask, “Was not one Evangelist enough?” Listen, then: one was enough, but four were allowed to write so that the truth might be revealed more clearly. When you see these four Evangelists, not sitting down together in one place, but each one by himself at a different time and place writing about the same things as if with one voice, do you not marvel at the truth of the Gospel and conclude that they spoke by the Holy Spirit? Do not tell me that they are not in agreement in all points. Consider where exactly they do not agree. Does one Evangelist say that Christ was born, and another, that He was not? Or one, that He rose, and another, that He did not? Indeed not! In what is essential, they speak with one voice. Therefore, if they do not diverge in the essential points, why do you marvel if they appear to vary in minor details? It is precisely because their accounts do not agree in every detail that we can see that they present the truth. If they had agreed on every point, it would cause one to suspect that they sat down and deliberated together in writing the Gospels. Instead, what one Evangelist has omitted, another has recorded, and for this reason that they seem to be at variance on certain points.

Preface to the Gospel of Mark

The Gospel According to St. Mark was written ten years after the Ascension of Christ. This Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom Peter calls his son, that is, his spiritual son. He was also called John (Acts 12:12), and the nephew of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), and the companion of Paul (Philemon 24). But eventually he accompanied Peter the most, and was with him in Rome. The believers in Rome begged Mark not only to preach orally, but also to give them a written account of Christ’s life. He agreed, and composed it immediately. God revealed to Peter that Mark had written this Gospel, and when he saw it, Peter confirmed its truth, and sent Mark as bishop to Egypt. There Mark preached and established the Church in Alexandria, enlightening all those in that sunny land to the south. The character of this Gospel, therefore, is unclouded and clear, containing nothing that is hidden.

Mark’s Gospel agrees with Matthew’s in every respect, except that Matthew goes into greater detail. And while Matthew begins with the Nativity of the Lord according to the flesh, Mark begins with the prophet and forerunner John. Therefore, though it may appear incomprehensible, some have given this understanding of the four Evangelists: God, Who sits upon the four-faced Cherubim, as Scripture says (see Ezekiel 1:10, 10:14; also Rev. 4:7) gave us the Gospel which likewise appears in four forms, but is held together by one Spirit. Just as one of the Cherubim had the face of a lion, and another the face of a man, and another the face of an eagle, and another the face of a bullock, so it is with the preaching of the Gospel.

The Gospel of John has the face of a lion, for the lion is royal and princely; and John began his Gospel with the royal and lordly dignity of the divine Word, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God". But the Gospel of Matthew is in the likeness of a man, for it begins with the Nativity according to the flesh and the incarnation of the Word. The Gospel of Mark is likened to an eagle, for it begins with the prophet and forerunner John. And the prophetic gift, by which one can foresee and keenly perceive things that are a great way off, is like an eagle. For it is said that the eagle is the most keen sighted of all the animals, and can even gaze at the sun without shutting its eyes. The Gospel of Luke is like the bullock, because it begins with the priestly service of Zacharias, in the course of which he made sacrifice for the sins of the people, sacrificing a bullock.

Preface to the Gospel of Luke

The divine Luke, an Antiochian and a physician, had a great knowledge of natural philosophy; but he was also much practiced in Hebrew learning. He lived in Jerusalem at the time when our Lord was teaching, so that some say that he himself became one of the seventy apostles, and together with Cleopas, met the Lord after He rose from the dead. After the Lord ascended, and Paul believed, Luke became a close companion and follower of Paul. He wrote his Gospel with great accuracy, as his preface makes clear. He wrote the Gospel fifteen years after the Lord’s Ascension. He writes it to a certain Theophilus, a senator and perhaps a magistrate as well, calling him "most excellent". Magistrates and governors are addressed in this fashion, as when Paul said to the governor Festus, "O most excellent Festus".1 Everyone who loves God and exercises dominion over his passions is a "Theophilus" and "most excellent", and it is he who is truly worthy to hear the Gospel.

Preface to the Gospel of John

The strength of the Holy Spirit "is made perfect in weakness" (II Cor. 12:9): so it is written and so we believe. It is made perfect in weakness of the body, and especially in feebleness of understanding (logos) and of speech. This has been proven time and again, but nowhere so clearly as in the life of John, the great theologian and brother of Christ by grace. John was a fisherman and the son of a fisherman, not just ignorant of higher Greek and Judaic learning, but completely illiterate, as the divine Luke says in the book of Acts (4:3). His native town, Bethsaida, was lowly and obscure: a “place of fishing,” not of learning. Behold how a man like this—unlettered, unknown, and insignificant—acquired such spiritual power that he thundered forth doctrines taught by none of the other Evangelists. Their Gospels dealt with the life of Christ in the flesh and made no clear declaration of His existence before the ages. From this arose the danger that certain contemptible men, with minds fixed on the physical world and unable to comprehend anything exalted, would imagine that Christ first came into existence when He was born of Mary, and that He was not begotten of the Father before all ages. Paul of Samosata fell to exactly that temptation. Realizing this, the great John clearly set forth the spiritual begetting of Christ, without neglecting to record that "the Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14). Some maintain that the Orthodox—the rightly believing Christians—asked John to write about Christ’s eternal generation in order to refute certain heretics who had already begun to teach that the Saviour was merely a man. It is also said that when the saint read the books of the other Evangelists, he marveled at the accuracy of their narratives on every point, and judged them to be sound and unbiased towards any of the apostles. But what the other Evangelists had not stated clearly, or had omitted, John clarified, developed, or added to his own Gospel, which he wrote thirty-two years after the Ascension of Christ, while living in exile on the island of Patmos. The Lord loved John more than any of the disciples, because of his simplicity, meekness and goodness, and especially because he was a virgin and pure of heart. It was on account of his purity in particular that John was entrusted with the gift of theology. "Blessed are the pure in heart," the Lord says, "for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8); and, indeed, John delighted in mysteries which most men do not perceive.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John’s uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the “father of the Lord”—she was considered to be the Lord’s sister; and her son, John, the Lord’s nephew. Salome means “peaceful“; John means “the grace of her.” May every soul understand that Christ’s peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

1 Acts 26:25. The single Greek word kratiste, translated in Acts 26:25 by the KJV as O most noble, is the same word used in Luke 1:3 to address Theophilus, but rendered in this case by the KJV as O most excellent. It is the superlative form of an adjective derived from the noun kratos, meaning might or dominion. In the next line Blessed Theophylact makes a play on the meaning of this word, and on the meaning of the name Theophilus, he who loves God.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr