Zee Most Beautifool Face!

The following was written by a student of Fr. George Florovsky:

Our seminary classes were just beginning as autumn was drawing nigh in Massachusetts. The students of the theological division were looking forward to their classes that year, especially because the eminent professor of theology, Father Georges Florovsky, would be teaching at our institution. Father John Romanides, another renowned instructor, was teaching there already, so there was a lot to look forward to.

Finally, the big day arrived, and Father Georges entered the lecture room. Out of reverence and in deference to him, the class stood as he walked through the door and came to the podium.

As we have mentioned on other occasions, Father Georges himself had never attended classes at any seminary or theological academy in his youth. As he often affirmed, he had gained all his theological knowledge by studying the service books of the Orthodox Church. Yet, in academic and church circles, he was one of the most famous voices and representatives of the Church, if not the most famous, throughout the whole world during the twentieth century.

As the lecture began, the students understood immediately that some adjustments and accommodations would have to be made, primarily because of Father Georges' accent in speaking English.

Anyone who tries to speak a foreign language knows that some sounds in that language are going to be tough, chiefly because that language may have sounds that ours does not. So often, what we come up with is an approximation.

For example, we know that the Chinese have no "r" in their language, so they will often replace it with an "l" sound when they are speaking English. Greek-speaking people, on their part, are completely bewildered with our innumerable English vowels and consonants, and so what they come up with is the subject of countless hilarious anecdotes in Greek-American homes, especially among the children, who, of course, grew up speaking English. Well, in the case of people who speak Russian, the "th" sound is the killer. For example, the Greek name "Theophilos" has become "Feofil" in Russian. "Theodore" has become "Fyodor" for the Russians.

With this in mind, let us return to our much anticipated, first lecture with Father Georges Florovsky.

As he was speaking, at one point he turned towards us and, with particular emphasis, declared: "I have zee most beautifool face in zee world."

Now, it must be said that Father Georges appeared to be, and, in fact, had the reputation for being, a very modest man. So, this astounding claim that had just escaped his lips seemed completely out of character.

Caught off guard by Father Georges' remark, I thought to myself, "Well, maybe his presbytera thinks so."

However, as the lecture continued, and we slowly became accustomed to his manner of speech, it finally dawned on us that Father Georges had not been bragging about his looks (which were sort of pleasant, to be sure). No, as a matter of fact, he was proclaiming his pride that he was an Orthodox Christian! It was his confession of faith in the depth and beauty of Orthodoxy.

What Father Georges had actually said to us, as it soon became abundantly clear, was:

"I have the most beautiful faith in the world!"

Phew! Thank God! Father George's modesty was still intact. And, by the way, so was his confession of faith.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On the Omniscient Knowledge of Jesus

Below is a supplement of patristic quotes to my post titled Was Jesus Ignorant of the Time of His Second Coming?.

- "If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema." — Pope Vigilius, Against Nestorians, May 14, 553

- "If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic." — Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382)

- “These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son ;'[Mark 13:32] for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, 'nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, 'This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, 'Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand….Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor [Romans 11:34]?' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant....” — St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 28

- "Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh . And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." - St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 43

- "No man save Him who for our salvation has designed to put on flesh has full knowledge and a complete grasp of the truth." - St Jerome, Letter to Pope Damacus in reply to Genesis 27:23

- "Their tenth objection is the objection, and the statement that of the last 'day and hour knows no man, not even the Son Himself, but the Father.'[Mark 13:32] And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything? ...How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle, as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not the beginning of night--where knowledge of the one neccessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see He knows as God, and knows not as man,--if one may separate visible from that which discerned by thought alone." - St Gregory Nazianzen, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 30:15

- “For He, as the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and the Word, both was and is omnipotent, and there is nothing that is not easy to Him.” — St Cyril of Jerusalem Homilies On Luke, 47

- "We can now understand why He said that He knew not the day. If we believe Him to have been really ignorant, we contradict the Apostle, who says, "In Whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" [Colossians 2:3]. There is knowledge which is hidden in Him, and because it has to be hidden, it must sometimes for this purpose be professed as ignorance, for once declared, it will no longer be secret. In order, therefore, that the knowledge may remain hidden, He declares that He does not know. But if He does not know, in order that the knowledge may remain hidden, this ignorance is not due to His nature, which is omniscient, for He is ignorant solely in order that it may be hidden. Nor is it hard to see why the knowledge of the day is hidden." — St Hilary of Poiters, On the Trinity Book IX Chapter 67

- “The Son is ignorant, then, of nothing which the Father knows, nor does it follow because the Father alone knows, that the Son does not know. Father and Son abide in unity of nature, and the ignorance of the Son belongs to the divine Plan of silence, seeing that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This the Lord Himself testified, when He answered the question of the Apostles concerning the times, “It is not yours to know times or moments, which the Father has set within His own authority” [Acts 1:7]. The knowledge is denied them, and not only that, but the anxiety to learn is forbidden, because it is not theirs to know these times. Yet now that He is risen, they ask again, though their question on the former occasion had been met with the reply, that not even the Son knew. They cannot possibly have understood literally that the Son did not know, for they ask Him again as though He did know. They perceived in the mystery of His ignorance a divine Plan of silence, and now, after His resurrection, they renew the question, thinking that the time has come to speak. And the Son no longer denies that He knows, but tells them that it is not theirs to know, because the Father has set it within His own authority. If then, the Apostles attributed it to the divine Plan, and not to weakness, that the Son did not know the day, shall we say that the Son knew not the day for the simple reason that He was not God? Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word 'times': can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father's authority.

We must not therefore think, because He said He did not know the day and the moment, that the Son did not know. As man He wept, and slept, and sorrowed, but God is incapable of tears, or fear, or sleep. According to the weakness of His flesh He shed tears, slept, hungered, thirsted, was weary, and feared, yet without impairing the reality of His Only-begotten nature; equally so must we refer to His human nature, the words that He knew not the day or the hour [Mark 13:32].” — St Hilary of Poiters, On the Trinity, Book IX Chapter 74

- "Those, then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. 'For in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures'" [Col 2:3]. — St John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III Chapter 21

- "Concerning that which has been written: That 'neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour' [cf. Mark 13:32, Matt 24:36], indeed, your holiness has perceived rightly, that since it most certainly should be referred not to the same Son according to that which is the head, but according to His body which we are.... He [Augustine] also says ... that this can be understood of the same Son, because the omnipotent God sometimes speaks in a human way, as he said to Abraham: 'Now I know that thou fearest God' [Gen. 22:12], not because God then knew that He was feared, but because at that time He caused Abraham to know that he feared God. For, just as we say a day is happy not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so the omnipotent Son says He does not know the day which He causes not to be known, not because He himself is ignorant of it, but because He does not permit it to be known at all. Thus also the Father alone is said to know, because the Son (being) consubstantial with Him, on account of His nature, by which He is above the angels, has knowledge of that, of which the angels are unaware. Thus, also, this can be the more precisely understood because the Only-begotten having been incarnate, and made perfect man for us, in His divine nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, He did not know from that very (nature), because God-made-man knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Godhead.... Thus, the knowledge which He did not have on account of the nature of His humanity, by reason of which, like the angels, He was a creature this He denied that He, like the angels, who are creatures, had. Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but on this account, because God is man. But the fact is certainly manifest that whoever is not a Nestorian, can in no wise be an Agnoeta. For with what purpose can he, who confesses that the Wisdom itself of God is incarnate say that there is anything which the Wisdom of God does not know? It is written: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... All things were made by Him' [John 1:1, 3]. If 'all', without doubt also the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so foolish as to presume to assert that the Word of the Father made that which He does not know? It is written also: 'Jesus knowing, that the Father gave Him all things into his hands' [John 13:3]. If all things, surely both the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so stupid as to say that the Son has received in His hands that of which He is unaware?" — St Gregory the Great, Letter to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Mobile Church of Optina Monastery

The Optina fathers utilize a mobile church for their needs which they have dedicated to the Life-Giving Spring.

Because Optina Monastery has fields that are far away where they grow their vegetables and cultivate their honey, and because they require frequent departures from the Monastery, a mobile church was built so the fathers do not neglect their liturgical duties.

Among the crops are potatoes, cabbage, beets, pumpkin, carrots, onions, garlic, cucumbers, tomatoes and even beans. In addition, the fields belonging to the monastery every year have a good harvest of wheat, barley, oats, and specially planted honey culture.

The mobile church was built in 2006 and was based on a platform of a mobile military caravan, to which was welded an iron frame, then sheathed with boards. A small wooden temple of light brown color with a small golden onion dome on the roof is on the field during agricultural work and is now a spiritual center for the working monks and for pilgrims. The church is small - 9.56 meters in length and 3.57 in width. Despite the small size of the church, it fits up to 30 worshipers. The altar can accommodate up to 4-5 clergy, including deacons.

The church received the name Life-Giving Spring primarily because the feast day, which is Bright Friday, usually coincides when field work begins. It also celebrates on October 15th, the end of the agricultural season, for the “Prosperess of Loaves” Mother of God. Thus the entire agricultural season begins and ends with feasts to the Mother of God.

Source

See more photos here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Historic Visit of Ecumenical Patriarch To Smyrna and Ephesus

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is to carry out a historic visit to the city of Smyrna between Friday and Sunday (May 27-29, 2011), during which he will lead a Vespers Service at the Church of the Entrance Into the Temple of the Theotokos in Alacati on Saturday.

This will mark the first time that a Patriarch leads a Service in Alacati in 90 years, since the disastrous outcome of the Asia Minor catastrophy in 1922 that resulted in the expulsion of the majority of the area's sizeable Greek community during the population exchanges of the Lausanne Treaty. In 1895 Alacati had a population of 13,845 Rum Orthodox and only 132 Muslims. After 1922 many of the Rum settled in Chios.

The church had been converted to a mosque in 1938 (the minaret built in 1953) but recently stopped being used for that purpose and was officially declared a historic monument of Turkey and quickly restored, revealing many secrets. It was originally built in 1821, though restored in 1833 to its present form after a fire. The architect and builder of the church, Stratos Kalonaris together with his son Manolis, has built many churches in the Cyclades, including the famous Church of the Panagia in Tinos. The church was built within one year in 1833. It used to celebrate its feast on November 21 by the locals before 1921, which included pilgrims from the nearby Aegean islands.

A Patriarchal Divine Liturgy will also take place on Saturday in the historic Church of Saint John the Theologian in Ephesus, built by Emperor Justinian in the sixth century over the tomb of St. John the Theologian.

On Sunday a Patriarchal Divine Liturgy will take place at the Church of Saint Photini in Ephesus.

Read also:

Στη Σμύρνη ο Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης κ. Βαρθολομαίος

Iστοσελίδα του Συλλόγου Αλατσατιανών

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Did Religion Create Civilization?

Brad Hirschfield
May 25, 2011
The Huffington Post

For years, historians, archeologists, anthropologists and pretty much all of the other "ologists" have agreed that agriculture created civilization, including religion, as we have known it for the past 12,000 to 15,000 years. The assumption was that settling down to lives of farming, people built cities, created art and made up organized religions to suit the new needs they faced in the transition from hunter-gathers to farmers. Or not.

New evidence suggests that it was not agriculture which created civilization, but religion. The June issue of National Geographic offers a brief and provocative story from a place in Turkey known as Göbekli Tepe, site of the world's oldest example of monumental architecture i.e. a temple. [Read article here]

While the interpretation of archeological remains is often as much art as it is science, there is plenty of reason to believe that in Gobekli Tepe people's need/desire to gather for worship is what created civilization, not the reverse, as was previously assumed. The Temple existed without a city.

As article author Charles C. Mann observes:

At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery; to those approaching the temple from below, its pillars must have loomed overhead like rigid giants, the animals on the stones shivering in the firelight -- emissaries from a spiritual world that the human mind may have only begun to envision.

That human minds, at least some of them, envision things ahead of what is physically possible and respond to impulses which are driven by more than physical needs is not only wonderful, it demonstrates that religion is more than what typical utilitarians suggest. It also does so without having to buy into theologies which many people reject.

The choice is not necessarily to view religion as a low level response to changed physical circumstances on the one hand, or as the gift of supernatural beings who live in the skies above or in the depths below on the other. That dichotomy, like most dichotomies, is false. At least that is the evidence suggested by the remains at Gobekli Tepe.

The evidence from Turkey suggests that the pilgrimage impulse, the collective worship impulse, the sacred space impulse, are all supra-natural, if not super-natural. There is something within us, not necessarily from outside us, which compels the building of Gobekli Tepe and places like it. That "something" is not simply accounted for by the usual explanations which seek to explain, or, too often, explain away, people's attachment to religious expression.

That conclusion, if correct, means that religion needs to be taken a whole lot more seriously by many of the people who read this section, especially those among them who constantly insult the religious impulse. It also means that those who assume that religion belongs to one group, one understanding of God or Gods or one particular scripture, would do well to practice more modesty about such claims.

The evidence from Gobekli Tepe suggests that religion is both more real, and more human, than is often admitted. The ultra-orthodox in both camps in the ongoing debate about what religion "really is," where it came from and what purposes it serves may find this difficult to accept.

Of course, the assumption that something cannot be both deeply religious and deeply rooted in human impulse and capacity, may be one of the idols which need to be smashed in this debate. Gobekli Tepe may be just the hammer for which we have been waiting.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: A Critique of Wellhausen's Source Theory

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme In Rome

The Basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Holy Cross in Jerusalem) is one of the seven pilgrimage churches in the Eternal City of Rome.

History

The Church of the Holy Cross is located on a Roman imperial estate and is built into part of the Sessorian Palace. Several sources, including an inscription in the church, verify that the Sessorian Palace was owned by the empress St. Helen (c.255-330), Constantine's mother.

As a place of worship it began as a hallway in St. Helen's home. She then had a proper chapel built, in part to house the many Christian relics that she brought back from the Holy Land, including thorns purportedly taken from Christ's crown, fragments of the cross on which he was crucified and a nail used in the crucifixion. The church owes its name to some soil that Helena brought back from Jerusalem and which originally covered the floor of the church.

From the end of the 4th century it was said that St. Helen had made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, during which she discovered the True Cross on which Christ was crucified and many other relics. It was also said that she wished to set up a shrine in Rome for pilgrims who could not travel to Jerusalem.

Historical evidence is scarce on this, as no early writers record a connection between Helen and the True Cross. Fragments of the cross, however, were circulating in the West by 348 AD. The earliest historical record of the church, dated to 501 AD, refers to it as "Hierusalem basilica Sessoriani palatii." Architecturally, it is notable that the 4th-century Chapel of St. Helen is quite similar in design to a martyrium that was erected by Constantine in Jerusalem to house a fragment of the True Cross.

The history of the church was first explicitly recorded in a 6th-century passage in the Liber Pontificalis, which states that Emperor Constantine (306-37) founded "a basilica in the Sessorian Palace" and that it received many donations. The church was not referred to as "Holy Cross" until the Middle Ages.

However, the church's connection with St. Helena remains firm. The Chapel of St. Helena, which is held to be the empress's private chapel in the Sessorian Palace, was decorated with mosaics by Emperor Valentinian III (425-455), his mother Galla Placidia and his sister Honoria.

Within a few centuries, the area around the chapel had become isolated from the rest of the city. It was maintained by the clergy of the Lateran but by the 8th century had fallen into quite a poor state. Restorations were made under Pope Gregory II (715-31) and again in 1145, as part of an ongoing papal effort to revive the Lateran area.


In the 12th century, the chapel was rebuilt as a Romanesque basilica (the Cosmatesque pavement and bell tower date from this period), which was referred to as Sanctae Crucis (the Latin equivalent of the Italian Santa Croce) - indicating a relic of the True Cross was enshrined there.

While the papacy was based in Avignon in the 14th century, the church was abandoned. But in 1370, shortly before the papacy returned to Rome, Pope Urban V handed it over to Carthusian monks, who restored the church.

In 1492, a dramatic discovery was made in the course of repairs to a mosaic: a brick inscribed with the words TITULUS CRUCIS (Title of the Cross). Sealed behind the brick was a fragment of an inscription in wood, with the word "Nazarene" written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. This Title is mentioned in all four Gospel accounts:

Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Christ was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. (John 19:19-20; also Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38)

It is not known how the relic came to the church or who placed it behind the brick, but one possibility is that it was hidden in the wall around 455, when the clergy needed to protect it from the attacking Visigoths.

Regardless of its history, the Title was a highly important discovery. Unlike the cross and the nails of the Crucifixion, there was no previous tradition of the existence of the Title of the Cross. The discovery gave the church renewed importance and resulted in increased building activity and restoration of the church. (On the relic's authenticity, see the listing of all the relics in "What to See," below.)

In 1561, Lombard Cistercian monks from the congregation of San Bernardo replaced the Carthusians as caretakers of Santa Croce. Cistericans still serve the church today. Between 1741 and 1744, Pope Benedict XIV had the Church of the Holy Cross rebuilt in the opulent Baroque style. The architects were Domenico Gregorini and Pietro Passalacqua. The long-planned roads linking Santa Maria Maggiore, San Giovanni in Laterano and Santa Croce in Gerusalemme were finally completed at this time.

In 1930, the relics enshrined in the Chapel of St. Helen were moved to a new chapel upstairs, the Chapel of the Holy Relics. The chapel is reached by a wide stairwell flanked by the Stations of the Cross, also dating from 1930. The stairway and its decoration has a definite Mussolini-era feel to it.


Relics

The relics enshrined at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in the Chapel of the Holy Relics are:

1. A large fragment of the Good Thief's cross;

2. The bone of an index finger, said to be the Incorruptible Finger of St. Thomas that he placed in the wounds of the Risen Christ.

3. A single reliquary containing small pieces of: the Scourging Pillar (to which Christ was tied as he was beaten); the Holy Sepulchre (Christ's tomb); and the crib of Jesus.

4. Two thorns from the Crown of Thorns. It is said that the plant from which these came cannot be identified.

5. Three fragments from the True Cross.

6. One nail used in the Crucifixion. Far more than the original three nails are venerated around the world; several popes openly cast copies that contained filings from those believed to be the originals.

7. The Title of the Cross, discovered in the church in 1492. The fragment shows the word "Nazarene" written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek.


The Title was long thought to be a medieval forgery, especially since there was no previous tradition of the existence of such a relic. But in the 19th century another important discovery was made: the travelogue of the Spanish pilgrim Egeria, who traveled to the Holy Land in the late 4th century. Egeria described the veneration of the Title relic at Jerusalem. Further indication that it is not a forgery is the fact that not only the Hebrew, but also the Latin and Greek script is written from right to left. This suggests the inscription was made by a Hebrew accustomed to writing in that direction, not a medieval Latin-speaker.

In a side room in the Chapel of the Holy Relics is another fascinating sight: a full-sized, exact replica of the Shroud of Turin. It is stretched out on the wall at eye level and well-lit, providing a rare opportunity to inspect the famous relic up close. In the corner of the room stands a gory statue of Jesus that was designed based on the portrait in the Shroud.


The largest relic in the Chapel of the Relics is this large piece of the cross of the Good Thief, to whom Christ said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

See more photos here.

Source

The monastery adjoining the church was occupied by Cistercian monks for nearly 500 years, until the recent scandal involving liturgical "irregularities", financial impropriety and "lifestyles not in keeping" with Church doctrine.

Read also: Pope Ousts 'Loose Living' Monks of Rome's Santa Croce Monastery

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Was Jesus Ignorant of the Time of His Second Coming?

Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 seem to indicate that not only are all men and angels ignorant of the time of the Second Coming of Christ, but that also Jesus is ignorant of the time of His imminent return. In fact, Jesus says that only the Father knows the day and the hour of the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, was Jesus indeed ignorant of the day and hour of His Second Coming?

Two Church Fathers, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, specifically addressed this issue. St. Basil's response can be read here, and St. John's response can be read here.

St. Basil's response can be read in his letter to Amphilochius of Iconium (Letter 236), where he adamantly states that Jesus was in fact not ignorant of His Second Coming. First, he states that the opinion that Jesus was ignorant of His Second Coming has its origins from the heretics, and that the tradition he received from his youth and by all Orthodox is that Jesus was in fact not ignorant. Second, he shows how to properly interpret these passages of Scripture. He puts forwards Mark 10:18 where Jesus says that "there is none good but one, that is, God." He explains that this does not exclude that Jesus is good, but rather indicates that God the Father is the first good. Also in Matthew 11:27, where Jesus says, "No one knoweth the Son but the Father", we are not to believe that the Holy Spirit is ignorant of the Son, but rather that to the Father naturally belongs the first knowledge. St. Basil also puts forward other passages of Scripture where Jesus talks about knowing when His Second Coming will be, such as Matthew 24:6. He further brings forward the fact that Jesus as man often spoke of Himself in human terms and weaknesses, but that as God He possessed the "wisdom and power of God" (1 Corinthian 1:24).

It should also be pointed out that most Byzantine texts of the Gospels do not contain the words "nor the Son" in Matthew 24:36. It seems that this was added to the text of the Gospel of Matthew based on the text that does contain it, in Mark 13:32. This is a debateable issue why this is so, but St. Basil refers to this fact when he shows that though Mark does seem to indicate an ignorance of the Son, Matthew does not. St. John Chrysostom, in a rare exception, adds "nor the Son" in Matthew. For Basil, this indicates that the words "but My Father only" are offered in contradistinction to the angels and men, but not the Son. Rather, Matthew more clearly shows that the Father has first knowledge by nature, whereas the Son has knowledge through the Father. Otherwise there would be a contradiction here with John 16:15, where Jesus says: "“All things that the Father hath are Mine." John 10:15 also states clearly: "As the Father knoweth Me even so know I the Father."

St. Basil clarifies Mark 13:32 when he says that it should be read in the following manner: "Of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father." Keeping in mind that the knowledge and divinity of the Son comes from the Father, this passage is much more clearly understood.

According to St. John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, the reason Jesus seems to indicate ignorance in this passage was so that the disciples may not even entertain the thought of inquiring into the matter. Though Jesus does know the time of His Second Coming, He is pointing out here a greater mystery, that the source of this knowledge comes from the Father and through the Father is given to the Son. But since the disciples do not yet understand this relationship between the Father and the Son, to them it is merely an indication to not further inquire into the matter. It appeared to them that the Son was ignorant so that they not feel scorned by Jesus or perplexed why they were not given knowledge He possessed. Thus, by Jesus saying "nor the Son", He was indicating to the disciples that He is indeed honoring them and has concealed nothing from them, but that knowledge of the Second Coming would be more harmful to them rather than beneficial. Meanwhile, St. John clearly indicates that the time of the Second Coming is perfectly known by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Trinity, Who created heaven and earth, created time as well. Mankind has no need to know neither the time of the judgment, nor how the Son will judge.

St. John Chrysostom puts the following words into the mouth of Jesus to explain this further: "For that indeed I am not ignorant of it [the Second Coming], I have shown by many things; having mentioned intervals, and all the things that are to occur, and how short from this present time until the day itself (for this did the parable of the fig tree indicate), and I lead thee to the very vestibule; and if I do not open unto thee the doors [of knowledge], this also I do for your good."

St. John even shows how Jesus speaks specifically of knowing the day and hour of His coming when He speaks of His coming suddenly and unexpectedly in the verses following Matthew 24:36.

We can thus conclude that according to the tradition of the Church, Jesus is not nor ever was ignorant of the time of His Second Coming.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Herman Tristram Engelhardt: How I Became Orthodox

Mr. Engelhardt was born in Texas to Roman Catholic parents, but became Orthodox in his mature years, taking the name Herman after St. Herman of Alaska. He studied philosophy and medicine and is now a professor at two Universities in Houston, Texas. His research has been done mainly in Bioethics and his most important contribution to Orthodox ethics is his book "The Foundations of Christian Bioethics".

At the Symposium for Intensive Care organized in Bucharest, Professor of Philosophy and Medicine Tristram Engelhardt presented a paper. During a discussion in Bucharest, a question was put forward on how he became Orthodox. His reply is published below.

Herman Tristram Engelhardt: How I Became Orthodox

How did I become Orthodox? The answer is: only through the love of God.

Once I went to Mount Athos and one monk told me: "Look around you at all these people. The repentance of each of these people is a miracle from God."

I had very devout Roman Catholic parents who sent me to a very good Roman Catholic school, and in the fifth grade when I was reading about the history of the Church, I realized that the Church of the first five centuries was something I had never seen before. So I asked a nun: "Why isn't the Roman Catholic Church like the early Church?" The sister looked at me like I was crazy. And because I was only in fifth grade, I stayed quiet.

Elementary school seemed very boring, but I liked the Mass. And I really liked being an altar boy. Because I was lazy, when I went to the sanctuary I did not have to be in class. I liked being an altar boy in church more than sitting in class.

In the eighth grade, in 1954, a Roman Catholic priest told me that a Uniate bishop would be coming from Palestine and that he was to perform the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I did not know what that was, so I had to read it to be the altar boy for the Liturgy. And I did this. But I did not know that there was Matins before Liturgy, and for one and a half hours I could not understand what was happening. After Liturgy, this old Bishop came to me and told me: "Come here, this is for you. All true Christianity will disappear from the West in the course of your life. True Christianity will come like a light from the East and this will be very important for you." I could not imagine what he meant, so I asked him, "What?" And he repeated, "All Christianity will disappear from the West during your life. True Christianity will come as a light from the East." I asked my father, "What could this mean?" My father said, "Don't worry, he's just some crazy Palestinian." Not understanding what was meant, I continued on with my life.

In 1984 a representative of the man who came second in the last election for Pope of Rome (when Benedict XVI was elected) called me. If one wishes to be a candidate for Pope, one must start early, like a presidential candidate of the USA, except that one does not know when the election will be held. A group of intellectuals was being put together to help him in his campaign, and I was asked to become one of them. The first invitation was to go to Milan in six weeks for a meeting. I told the person who called that I could not go in six weeks, because I was too busy. But then my second daughter, who is now the mother of five sons, asked, "Can I come with you to Milan?" And how could a father tell his fourteen-year-old daughter no? So I said, "OK". The person on the phone told me that he would pay for expenses. I worked a lot with this cardinal. And I understood for the first time in my life that the entire Christianity of the West was the creation of Germans who fashioned Roman Catholicism, as well as some French and Swiss who had made the Reformation.

In 1988 I was invited to spend a year as a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in West Berlin. Academically, my life was successful. But I felt like a whore, realizing that what I was doing was wrong. I prayed, "My God, if there is a true religion, show it to me and I will convert." For the first time in my life I had an experience that I had never felt before.

Within a week, we received invitations for a presentation of Orthodox music and went. We attended, but the people looked so strange and ethnic. We then went to Berlin for a year (1989-1990). We're from the South where it is very hot and we were afraid to stay in Berlin for Christmas where we would freeze. We wondered where to go so as not to freeze during the Christmas holiday. I arranged to give lectures at the University of Istanbul and at Marmara University. So on Christmas day my wife said: "Where can we go for Mass?" And I said: "Let's go to the Greeks." And we went to the Phanar. It was our first Orthodox Liturgy. Patriarch Demetrios was there. During the Liturgy, my second daughter touched me and said, "Papa, this is the true religion, is it not?" And I replied, 'I'm afraid you have a point, because it is very poor."

We went back to Texas and I began to ask if a Texan can become Orthodox. Someone who was a Baptist from east Texas told me, "If I can become Orthodox, so can you." And so with the patience of God my two daughters and I converted. My wife, who is Irish and was raised Roman Catholic, has authored two stories about her conversion: "Bless me, Saint Patrick, I am Coming Home" and "From Rome to Home".

I thank God for His mercy!

OrthodoxWiki: H. Tristram Engelhardt

Being Christian in a Post-Christian World: Herman Engelhardt

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.'s Faculty Page At Rice University

Orthodox Teachers: Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Finding of the Holy Icon of St. Demetrios In Syros

On the Greek island of Syros in the Cyclades, in the village of Vapori a little outside Hermoupolis, on 25 May 1936, the icon of the Holy Great-Martyr Demetrios the Myrrhgusher was discovered. It was found by a resident of Hermoupolis by the name of Manouso Pelekis after he was told of its whereabouts in a vision. On the spot of its discovery, Metropolitan Philaretos of Syros built a magnificent church to honor the miracle. This is the first church the visitor to the island sees when approaching Syros by sea. The discovery of the icon of St. Demetrios is celebrated on the last Sunday of May.







Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Third Finding of the Head of St. John the Forerunner

The Third Discovery of the Precious Head of the Holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John occurred around the year 850 (see the account of the First and Second Discoveries on February 24). The head of St John the Forerunner was found in the city of Emesa during a time of unrest at Constantinople connected with the exile of St John Chrysostom (November 13).

The head was transferred to Komana during the Saracen raids (about 820-820) and it was hidden in the ground during a period of iconoclastic persecution. When the veneration of icons was restored, Patriarch Ignatius (847-857) saw in a vision the place where the head of St John the Forerunner was hidden. The patriarch communicated this to the emperor, who sent a delegation to Komana. There the head was found a third time around the year 850.

Afterwards the head was again transferred to Constantinople, and here on May 25 it was placed in a church at the court. Part of the head is on Mt. Athos. The Third Discovery of the Head of John the Baptist is commemorated on May 25.

Source


Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
Christ God hath revealed to us thy truly ven'rable head as a divine treasure that had been concealed in the earth, O Prophet and Forerunner. Wherefore, as we gather on the feast of its finding, with our hymns inspired of God, we praise Christ the Saviour, Who by thy mighty prayers saveth us from every kind of harm.

Kontakion in the Second Tone
Since we have obtained thy head as a most sacred rose from out of the earth, O Forerunner of grace divine, we receive sure healing in every hour, O Prophet of God the Lord; for again, now as formerly, thou preachest repentance unto all the world.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

How Saints Responded To Apocalyptic Questions

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Some misguided men think more about the end of the world than the end of their lives even though it is obvious that for him to whom the end of his life comes the end of the world has come.

A brother standing before St. Seraphim of Sarov continually kept in his mind how he was going to ask the saint about the end of the world. St. Seraphim discerned his thought and said to him: "My joy! You think highly of the wretched Seraphim. How could I know when the end of the world will be and that great day when the Lord will judge the living and the dead and render to each one according to his deeds will be? No, no, this is impossible for me to know!"

And when the saints did not know how will the sinners know? Why should we know, that which the Savior Himself did not find beneficial to reveal to us? It is much better to think that our death will come sooner than the end of the world rather than the end of the world before our death.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Discovery of the Relics of a Saint At Neamt Monastery

The pavement at Neamt Monastery where the Saint was found.

By Hieromonk Ioanichie Balan

Suddenly on May 26, 1986 the paved path leading to the southwest entrance of the church of Neamt Monastery began slowly rising up to 30 cm. The pavement consists of large pieces of stone. The piece of stone that was rising was the length of a man and the width of a coffin, but they did not understand what it was. They thought the sewer broke down. But when there is a ground fault it goes down, not up. They dug a meter and found nothing. The stone and concrete, the dimension of the coffin, had been rubbed like flour: "What could possibly be here?" - "Come let us close it up." - No, let us dig a little more. What do we have to lose?" They dug a half meter more, and what did they find? Great miracle! The relics of a saint! Some say it's Saint Paisius Velichkovsky (who lived in this monastery from 1779 to 1794). This is what they did in the old days. When you wanted to hide something valuable you put it in a place where a lot of people passed by so that no one suspected anything.

Nobody knows which Saint it is. We pray to God to reveal his name.

It was a moment of great upheaval. People came to the monastery. They lit candles. The Securitate of Ceausescu came to the monastery. Unpleasant events occurred. Now I do not want to say. They stopped the people in Tirgu Neamt (being the last village before the monastery). They put obstacles for the bus to not pass. The fathers of the monastery, seeing that things were getting complicated and dangerous, put the relics in the coffin and hid them in a hiding place inside the wall of the monastery, which has a thickness of 2-3 meters.

The next day came the Securitate. There were queries and investigations. Two to three months passed by. More was coming. They asked us: "Where are those bones. Give them to us." They then said among themselves: "Go to the ossuary." - "Where is it?" - "Down there in the cemetery." They went there, and upon seeing so many skulls they came out scared. As if they had a hindrance of conscience. They left and did not bother anyone again. Today the relics of the unknown saint are located in the narthex of the Neamt Monastery in Romania.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: Fr. Ioanichie Balan On Orthodox Vigilance

Fr. Ioanichie (1930 - 2007) was a well-known author and preacher in Romania and a spiritual son of Elder Cleopa.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Commencement Address of Dr. Christos Yannaras

Below is the controversial commencement address of Dr. Christos Yannaras delivered at the commencement of Hellenic College/Holy Cross School of Theology on 21 May 2011. If one is not familiar with many of the writings of Dr. Yannaras, especially his book Orthodoxy and the West, it will be hard to understand what he is talking about specifically. These are very generalized comments of a deep topic that I have also addressed here at Mystagogy many times, especially the first half of the address. I don't fully agree with the presentation, but it is worthwhile to give some thought to it.

Your Eminences Archbishop Demetrios of America and Metropolitan Methodios of Boston,

Reverend President of Hellenic College and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology,

Dear Professors of the School, Dear Students, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Please accept my warmest thanks for the honor you are doing me today: the bestowal of an honorary doctorate by the Theological School of Holy Cross. And the honor of your presence at this ceremony.

Today's event has been preceded by a special favor shown to me by the School, for which I am also grateful: the publication by Holy Cross Orthodox Press of four of my books, with two more under production. The launch of a book on the American market is a precious gift to an author: it opens up greater possibilities for his participation in current debates to be judged and evaluated. I am happy to be writing in Greek, a language with striking powers of expression. But it is only by access to an English-speaking readership that I can entertain the hope that my work will be judged by the most demanding standards.

Academic custom demands that someone honored with a doctorate from an academic institution should set down, as a symbolic response, a brief account of his scholarly contribution, a kind of echo of Cavafy's poem "I Brought to Art." I shall attempt to do this, and try to show how fresh and relevant today is an old and much debated topic: the relationship between Orthodoxy and the West, between the Orthodox ecclesial tradition and modern Western life.

I was set this topic "Orthodoxy and the West" here at the Theological School of Holy Cross forty years ago (the first time I came to America) in 1970. I was then a postgraduate student in Paris, and I was invited to participate in a conference of the Orthodox Theological Society in America. Four decades later, what relevance does that same topic have and what is new about taking it up again?

A timely element is, I believe, the problem of neoconservatism and fundamentalism which currently afflicts the way life is led in most Orthodox churches. The "Zealots" of Orthodoxy, as our own fundamentalists are called, are as a rule ; fanatically anti-Western: they regard the Christian churches and confessions of the West as opponents of the Orthodox camp, as a real threat. They proclaim that the West is steeped in error and at the same time has evil designs on Orthodoxy. Thus for the Zealots any attempt at Orthodox "dialogue" with Western Christians, any participation in the "ecumenical movement" signifies a betrayal of Orthodoxy, a surrender to error, an abandoning of the conviction that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

But this Zealotry certainty does not constitute a defence of the decisions of the Councils; it does not derive from a conciliar expression of catholic ecclesial experience. It is an individual choice and conviction, based usually on the opinion of some geron, or elder, also chosen individually, who is lent "objective" authority by his hagiorite, or other, monastic affiliation. The defense of Orthodoxy by the "conservatives" is conducted on the basis of their individual choices and judgements, not on the basis of the Church's conciliar expression. It is therefore a defense thatmanifestly undermines the coherence of the ecclesial body. It invalidates the conciliar system; it denies the episcopal ministry.

Thus the individualistic character of Zealotry-Fundamentalism and the accompanying idolization of formalism - of "dogmas" and "canons" rendered independent of ecclesial experience - assimilate the "Orthodoxy" of conservative Christians to every other ideological "orthodoxy": to that of conservative Marxists, conservative Freudians, etc. All these "orthodoxies" have the same characteristics in common:

They attribute a quality of infallible authority to "sources": to the original formulations of an empirical testimony, or of a hermeneutic theory, or of a proposition concerning regulative principles (of a practical deontology). And they bitterly oppose any deviation from the original formulation because its objectified "truth" can be possessed and offer assurance to the individual, cladding the ego in certainties. The texts of Marx or Freud or the Fathers of the Church become the infallible measure that gauges the correctness of every opinion, view, or proposition - that judges which person individually possesses the truth and which is in error, which person will be saved and which will go to perdition. And the measure of this judqernent is applied authoritatively by the "zealot," the defender of original authenticity.

It is thus perfectly obvious that this understanding of "Orthodoxy" is to be identified with the specific product of the post-Roman West that we call "ideology." In defining ideology, I would say that it is the transformation of experiential knowledge into a certainty that is purely intellectual - or, more generally, the substitution of experiential assurance (which is always verified through the relations of sharing in the experience) by individual (intellectual-psychological) convictions. Ideology replaces the attaining of participation in a shared experience of truth simply with the individual understanding of the formulations of truth or with something inferior to that: blind insistence alone on the letter of the formulations.

The cultural paradigm generated by the post-Roman West, which has now attained global dimensions, is proudly acknowledged to be individualist - to be founded on the absolute priority of the potentialities and needs of the natural individual, on the protection of individual rights. On the basis of this fact one could say that one of the most western manifestations of the West today is the ideological anti-Westernism of the "Orthodox" opponents of the West, the individualism of the "Zealots" of Orthodoxy.

This paradox proves that the issue of relations between Orthodoxy and the West remains extremely topical, since in the extreme case of the fundamentalist "Zealots" the historical challenge that arose for the Church with the arrival of Modernity becomes abundantly clear. The West in Modernity is no longer the portion or party that at the time of the Schism cut itself off from the body of the One Catholic Church. Now the whole of Christendom is the West, since all of us who bear the name of Christian live integrally and self-evidently within a Western cultural context; we embody the Western mode of life. Our routines, our mental outlook, our reflexes, our prioritization of needs, the way our social institutions are formed and function are all absolutely obedient tothe Western-individualistic not the social-ecclesial model. We live, we think, and we act in the mode fashioned by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Descartes.

That is why on the level of Modernity, too, our opposition to the West, whatever our defence of ecclesial Orthodoxy, is inescapably fleshness, unrelated to the reality of our common life: an abstract piece of ideology. We recognize differences between Christians but we regard them as "confessional": as by definition ideological. They are discussed by scholarly committees of "specialists" - university professors and bishops (that is, the "professional cadres" of ideology). It has never occurred to us to bring people of experience into ecumenical dialogue, people such as authentic monks and gifted artists.

The incontrovertible fact of the Westernization of Christians in the Modern age leads us to understand that the ecclesial critique of the errors that led the West to break away from the body of the One Catholic Church cannot today (in the nature of things) be anything but self-criticism (that is, repentance - metanoia). There is no entity called the West "confronting" Orthodoxy; the West is "within us" and Orthodoxy is the common nostalgia of all who perceive the falling away of both East and West. The pioneers of self-criticism, the guides to metanoia, are not those who engage in "dialogue" about "primacy" and "infallibility," or about the puerile doctrine of the Filioque, but those who have boldly attempted to make a painful break with moral error: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, and closely related to them in the language of art, Baudelaire, Kafka, Bergman, and Fellini: All those who have proclaimed painfully that the alienating transformation of a relationship with God into ideology and legalism has led to the death of God - the God of individual "convictions" and crutch of egocentric Morality has died: "we are all his murderers" - Wir haben ihn ge late t, wir aile sind seine Marder!

An attempt to express a criticism of the West in the form of Christian self-criticism began with sincerity and with no little risk in the 1960s on two fundamental levels of interconnected topics: On the level of ontology, with a proposition for the formation of a new (and methodologically coherent) hermeneutic of the existential event on the basis of the reality of person and eros. And on the corresponding level of the reconnection of the ecclesial event with the chiefly existential problem, on the basis of the so-called eucharistic ecclesiology.

These two bold undertakings, which even today are still denigrated and ridiculed, are both based on the admission of a pair of propositions: that of the empiricism preserved by the apophaticism of the formulations of knowledge, and also that of the empirical realism of the distinctions between nature (or substance) and person, and between nature and nature's energies. Only by the admission of these propositions can the existential otherness of personal hypostasis be grasped as the empirical reality of freedom.

The ontology of the person and eucharistic ecclesiology implement criticism of the West as Christian self-criticism, because they were both born from a consistent grappling with the impasse to which the West (and now also the East) has been led by intellectualism and legalism - the rendering of Christian "religiosity" independent of the ecclesial event. The ontology of the person could not have emerged if it had not been for the need to confront Heidegger's nihilism - as an attempt to articulate as an experiential counter-proposition a (Christian) metanoia for the (Christian) errors which lead with the utmost consistency to Heidegger - to the plumbing of the depths of existence's absence of "meaning." And eucharistic ecclesiology could not have emerged except as an attempt to shed light on ecclesial catholicity, as the existential wholeness of the kath'ekasto, the uniqueness of each of us, in the face of the nightmarish manifestations of the totalitarianism of ideologies.

I am grateful to you for honoring this evening an attempt to give a self-critical account of the relationship between Orthodoxy and the West.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

After 32 Years, Crucifixion Icon Returns To Monemvasia

On Monday 23 May 2011 at 5:00PM the icon of the Crucifixion of Christ, which was stolen from the Church of the Chains of Christ (Elkomenou Christou) in Monemvasia in 1979, was finally returned after being held in the Byzantine Museum of Athens after it was rediscovered in 1980. It is now held in the Chapel of St. John within the Church of the Chains of Christ. Metropolitan Eustathios of Monemvasia was there to receive the icon. A Vespers Service was held followed by a Supplication Service to the Honorable Cross. On the morning of May 24th a Divine Liturgy was held to further celebrate the event.


The icon was stolen in November of 1979 by three looters who caused severe damage to the image, removing the canvas from the painting and chopping it up. By the time police arrested the perpetrators in 1980, the damage had been done. The best iconographers of our time helped restore the icon, who reassembled the dismembered parts and placed the canvas back onto the painting. To bring the icon back to Monemvasia safely cost 200,00 euro.


This 14th century icon of the Crucifixion is one of the largest and most beautiful of the Palaiologan Renaissance, and is therefore priceless. The Church of Christ of the Chains is the largest church of the Lower City of Monemvasia and dates to the 11th century. It takes its name from a 12th century image of Christ within where Christ is held in chains with His head tilted downwards.


Originally the Byzantine Museum of Athens rejected the return of the icon due to security issues. Eventually the Central Archaeological Council was in favor of the move. Metropolitan Eustathios of Monemvasia and Sparta also was in favor of the return of the icon. Plans have been underway for its return since 2006.

The Chapel of St. John, where the icon is now kept, has a 24-hour state-of-the-art security system.

To read more about the Church of the Chains of Christ in Monemvasia, see here.

The videos below show the return of the icon to Monemvasia:

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Rapeture": Apocalypse-Not-Now

10 Failed Doomsday Predictions

Woman Tries to Kill Children, Self to Avoid 'the Tribulation'

Teen Kills Herself Ahead of Foretold Rapture

Failed Doomsday Has Real Deadly Consequences

'Rapture' Apocalypse Prediction Sparks Atheist Reaction

Camping's $72 Million Business

When Doomsday Isn't, Believers Struggle to Cope

'Judgment Day' Believers Face Tough Questions After Unfulfilled Doomsday

Believers' Reactions Mixed to Unfulfilled Doomsday

Harold Camping 'Flabbergasted'; Rapture a No-show

‘Judgement Day’ Celebration Tragedy For US Boy

'Rapture' Real Aftermath: Beheadings, Shootings, Mass Graves

Harold Camping Calls May 21 An 'Invisible Judgment Day,' Says October 21 Is Real End-Of-World Date

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain

St. Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain (Feast Day - May 24)

Saint Symeon the "New Stylite" was born in the year 521 in Antioch, Syria of pious parents John and Martha. From her youth St Martha (July 4) prepared herself for a life of virginity and longed for monasticism, but her parents insisted that she marry John. After ardent prayer in a church dedicated to St John the Forerunner, the future nun was directed in a vision to submit to the will of her parents and enter into marriage.

As a married woman, St Martha strove to please God and her husband in everything. She often prayed for a baby and promised to dedicate him to the service of God. St John the Forerunner revealed to Martha that she would have a son who would serve God. When the infant was born, he was named Symeon and baptized at two years of age.

When Symeon was six years old, an earthquake occurred in the city of Antioch, in which his father perished. Symeon was in church at the time of the earthquake. Leaving the church, he became lost and spent seven days sheltered by a pious woman. St John the Baptist again appeared to St Martha, and indicated where to find the lost boy. The saint's mother found her lost son, and moved to the outskirts of Antioch after the earthquake. Already during his childhood the Lord Jesus Christ appeared several times to St Symeon, foretelling his future exploits and the reward for them.

The six-year-old child Symeon went into the wilderness, where he lived in complete isolation. During this time a light-bearing angel guarded and fed him. Finally, he arrived at a monastery, headed by the Abba John, who lived in asceticism upon a pillar. He accepted the boy with love.

After a time, St Symeon asked the Elder John to permit him also to struggle upon a pillar. A new pillar was raised by the brethren of the monastery with the blessing of the Elder John, near his pillar. Having completed the initiation of the seven-year-old boy into monasticism, Abba John placed him upon this pillar. The young ascetic, strengthened by the Lord, quickly grew spiritually, in his efforts surpassing even his experienced instructor. For his efforts, St Symeon received from God the gift of healing.

The fame of the young monk's deeds began to spread beyond the bounds of the monastery. Monks and laypeople began to come to him from various places, desiring to hear his counsel and receive healing from their infirmities. The humble ascetic continued to pursue asceticism with instructions from his spiritual mentor Abba John.

When he was eleven, Symeon decided to pursue asceticism upon a higher pillar, the top of which was forty feet from the ground. The bishops of Antioch and Seleukia came to the place of the monk's endeavors, and ordained him as a deacon. Then they permitted him to ascend the new pillar, on which St Symeon labored for eight years.

St Symeon prayed ardently for the Holy Spirit to descend upon him, and the holy prayer of the ascetic was heard. The Holy Spirit came upon him in the form of a blazing light, filling the ascetic with divine wisdom. Along with oral instructions, St Symeon wrote letters about repentance, monasticism, about the Incarnation of Christ, and about the future Judgment.

After the death of his Elder, St Symeon's life followed a certain pattern. From the rising of the sun until mid-afternoon he read books and copied Holy Scripture. Then he rose and prayed all night. When the new day began, he rested somewhat, then began his usual Rule of prayer.

St Symeon concluded his efforts on the second column, and by God's dispensation, settled upon the Wonderful Mountain, having become an experienced Elder to the monks in his monastery. The ascent to Wonderful Mountain was marked by a vision of the Lord, standing atop a column. St Symeon continued his efforts at this place where he saw the Lord, at first upon a stone, and then upon a pillar.

Future events were revealed to St Symeon, and so he foretold the death of Archbishop Ephraim of Antioch, and the illness of Bishop Domnus, which overtook him as punishment for his lack of pity. Finally, St Symeon predicted an earthquake for the city of Antioch and urged all the inhabitants to repent of their sins.

St Symeon established a monastery on Wonderful Mountain,where the sick people he healed built a church in gratitude for the mercy shown them. The saint prayed for a spring of water for the needs of the monastery, and once during a shortage of grain, the granaries of the monastery were filled with wheat by his prayers.

In the year 560 the holy ascetic was ordained to the priesthood by Dionysius, Bishop of Seleukia. At age seventy-five St Symeon was warned by the Lord of his impending end. He summoned the brethren of the monastery, instructed them in a farewell talk, and peacefully fell asleep in the Lord in the year 596, having toiled as a stylite for sixty-eight years.

After death, the saint worked miracles just as he had when alive. He healed the blind, the lame and the leprous, saving many from wild beasts, casting out devils and raising the dead.

Source

Five Prayers Against Shameless Thoughts By St. Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain

The skull of St. Symeon at Neamţ Monastery in Romania

Apolytikion in the First Tone
Thou becamest a pillar of patience and didst emulate the Forefathers, O righteous one: Job in his sufferings, Joseph in temptations, and the life of the bodiless while in the body, O Symeon, our righteous Father, intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.

Kontakion in the Second Tone
Desiring the heights, thou wast translated from the earth; thy pillar was made a second Heaven by thy toils; by it, thou didst shine with the splendour of great wonders, O righteous one. And thou ever prayest to Christ the God of all in behalf of all of us.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Five Prayers Against Shameless Thoughts

Written by Our Holy Father Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain (May 24)

A Prayer Against Evil and Unclean Thoughts

O Lord Jesus Christ our God, immortal Son and Word of the living God, Who puttest not to shame them that trust in Thee, Father Who lovest mankind and Lord of all consolation and tender mercies, Who, as before the ages, abidest in Thy Goodness now and unto the ages: Drive away from me, Thy servant, the evil thoughts that vex me. For Thou knowest, O Thou Who art cognizant of the heart, Who beholdest the secrets of my heart, of what sort they are. Forgive me, O Master, and let them not become for me an occasion of sin; but be Thou gracious unto me, send forth Thy Grace from the holy Throne of Thy Glory upon the soul of me, the hapless one, and overshadow me, Thy servant. Give me understanding, and I shall learn Thy commandments and live, O Physician of souls and bodies, O Lord Who alone art sinless and glorified. For Thou art blessed and lauded in all Thy Saints, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Another Prayer, Against the Burning of the Flesh

Thou, O Lord, Who searchest out the hearts and reins, knowest that I loathe impurity and passionate thoughts. But the evil persecutor and grievous tyrant forcibly draggeth me down to the pit of impurity, inflicting unbearable frenzy upon me, inflaming me with the fire of evil lust, setting me violently ablaze, and vehemently oppressing me, and doth not relax his grip in any wise. I am weak and wretched, engrossed in self-indulgence and indolence, having lost the vigor of my soul. Behold, therefore, and be aware of my distress, O my Master, Who art mighty and strivest on my behalf, and disdain not me, Thy servant, who am sorely agitated at this hour by the uprising and burning of this, my miserable flesh, and threatened with drowning amidst the waves. But send forth Thine invincible help, rebuke the spirit of uncleanness, subdue the sea of the passions, quell the tempest of pernicious arousal, calm the seething of sensuality, quench the flame of the flesh, dispel the onslaught of rabid burning, lull this most irksome and ferocious warfare, and deliver me from the hand of the tyrant. Drive away from me every unseemly fantasy and every filthy thought, and implant in my soul steadfast serenity and a peaceful disposition. Renew its strength that hath waxed old, bridle mine appetitive faculty with the cincture of chastity, and array me with spiritual armor, that I may remain impregnable to the assaults of voluptuousness; by the intercessions of the Saints who trampled underfoot the stings of this sin and vanquished the uprisings of nature. For Thou, Who art purity itself, dost rest among the pure, and unto Thee do we ascribe glory, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Another Prayer, on the Same Subject

O Master Lord Jesus Christ, eternal Word of God, Artificer and Governor of the greatest and least natures of the universe, Only-Begotten Son Who didst shine forth timelessly from God the Father, the Same Who camest forth incarnate from the Holy Virgin and art true man, without change or confusion, dwelling among us as Thou Thyself knowest, so as to deliver us, the useless servants whom Thou hadst fashioned; Light of dispassion, Expeller of the darkness of ignorance, Radiance of vigilant souls, universal Joy of the Orthodox, Delectation of Angels and blessed souls, Who art wholly insatiable Beauty, wholly Sweetness, wholly Desire and Longing, abundant Wealth of noetic succor for those who sincerely cleave unto Thee, Who art by nature good, compassionate, and merciful: Drive away from me, the beleaguered one, the base thoughts that vex me, the offspring of my sensual appetite. For Thou knowest, O Thou Who art cognizant of the heart, Who beholdest the secrets of my heart, that they are involuntary. Forgive me, O Master, and let these thoughts not become for me an occasion of sin, but be Thou gracious unto me and send forth Thy Grace from the holy Throne of Thy Glory upon me and let it overshadow the infirmity of me, Thine unprofitable servant. Give me understanding, and I shall learn Thy commandments and live; heal the chronic wounds of my soul; enlighten the eyes of mine intellect, that I may ever comprehend Thy providence towards me. What am I to say to Thee, the Foreknower, Who searchest the hearts and reins? Thou knowest that my heart thirsteth for Thee like a waterless land; I yearn and thirst for Thee, the Light of truth, the Bestower of salvation. Yea, send me the Grace of Thy mercy, and it shall suffice for me that it burn as a flame in my heart and consume its thorns and thistles, mine evil thoughts, and bedew and enliven the faculty therein that produceth pious thoughts, but which hath become useless and barren.

O Lord, Thou Liberator of the world, deliver my captive mind, snatch it from all these invisible foes that still hunt after it, and grant that I may pass the remaining time of my life unceasingly and peacefully in a chaste way of life, in a life well-pleasing unto Thee, in purity of heart, in serene patience, in constant meditation on Thy Divine and sacred laws, and in unwavering love for felicity in Thee. For Thou art the Life of those who truly live, O Lord, and in Thee is the eternal and blessed life of those foreordained for salvation. Yea, O Master Who art exceeding good, hearken unto my supplication, and let Thy Grace henceforth dwell in me, restraining mine intellect as with a bridle, that it may not, by going astray again, become darkened and be cast out from Thy light; by the intercessions of Thine All-Immaculate Mother and of all Thy Saints, for unto Thee are due all glory, honor, and worship, together with Thine unoriginate Father, and Thine All-Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Another Prayer, on the Same Subject

O Lord Jesus Christ my God, in Thee have I put my hope; save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me, lest at any time he seize my soul like a lion, while there is none to deliver or to save. O Lord my God, in Thee have I put my hope; protect my soul, O Master Christ, lest the Devil despoil me and lead me astray from Thy righteousness, and I become like them that go down into the pit. O Thou my God, save Thy servant that hopeth in Thee and despaireth not of attaining Thine incorruptible and eternal gifts. And grant me a natural state of mind, that I may remember Thy much-desired Name, call upon Thee when in need, and patiently endure whatsoever befalleth me; grant me a peaceful and sinless day, that I may also traverse the coming night, O Thou Peace that passeth all understanding. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, Against Shameful Thoughts

O All-Holy Lady Theotokos, drive away from me, thy sinful and unworthy servant, listlessness, forgetfulness, ignorance, negligence, and all evil thoughts, both shameful and blasphemous; expel them from my miserable and beleaguered heart, from my defiled soul, and from my darkened mind. Quench the flame of my passions, and have mercy on me and help me, for I am weak and distressed. Deliver me from the evil notions and preoccupations that beset me; and free me from all wicked deeds, both by night and by day. For most blessed art thou and glorified is thy holy name unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Source One and Two: Ioannes G. Thalassinos, Ὁ Πόλεμος τῶν Αἰσχρῶν Λογισμῶν: Ὁσίου Συμεὼν τοῦ Θαυμαστορείτου Ἱερὰ Ἀκολουθία ἐπὶ Ἐνοχλήσει Αἰσχρῶν καὶ Ρυπαρῶν Λογισμῶν (The Warfare of Shameful Thoughts: the Service by St. Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain For When One Is Vexed By Shameful and Filthy Thoughts) (Athens: Ekdoseis Nektarios D. Panagopoulos, 2007), pp. 55-59.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Nikita the Stylite and Wonderworker (+ 1186)

St. Nikita the Stylite (Feast Day - May 24)

Saint Nikita the Stylite, a saint of 12th century Russia, led a dissolute life in his youth. Later, as a tax collector, he was cruel and vicious. However, upon entering a church on a certain occasion he heard the words of the Prophet Isaiah (1:16) 'Wash yourselves (of your sins), make yourselves clean;' with this a profound conversion was effected in his soul.

Thus converted and with a seared conscience, Nikita left his wife and all he possessed and entered upon the ascetic life in a monastery near Pereyaslavl. His first obedience by the abbot was to stand at the gate of the monastery for three days and confessed to all his sins. When the obedience was over, the abbot shockingly found Nikita at the swamps shirtless, where he became covered with mosquito and gnat bites in an effort of repentance. Dressed then in a hair shirt, he entered the monastery and became a monk. His discipline led him, with the blessing of the abbot, to dig a well outside the monastery and cap it with a stone, and binding himself in chains he stood on there in vigil, thus the title 'stylite'. He became well known as a healer. He healed Michael, Prince of Chernigov, of palsy.

Nikita Stylites was killed 24 May 1186 during a robbery, the thieves having believed the hermit to have been bound by silver chains as they were shining one day while he was praying. They took the chains off him and carried them away. When they came to the Volga River, the robbers saw the chains were not silver but worthless metal; so they threw the chains in the river. The pious elder Simeon of the Yaroslavl Monastery of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, was revealed the chains in a dream when he saw three bright lights in the Volga River. He told the abbot of the monastery and many people gathered to go find the chains. When they arrived at the river they saw the chains "floating on the river like a tree." With reverence they were brought back to the monastery of St. Nikita and placed in his tomb. Between 1420 and 1425 the tomb of the Saint was opened and his relics were found to be incorrupt. They lie in the Annunciation Chapel today.

Venerable Nikita is commemorated 24 May by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Тропарь, глас 4
Православным смыслом юношская возжеления возненавидев / и доблественныя нравы восприим, врага победил еси, / и во благоразумии Богу угодил еси, / и свыше от Него прием дар чудес, / бесы прогоняти, недуги исцеляти, / Никито преславне, / моли Христа Бога, да спасет души наша.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr