The Ark of Salvation and the Pirate Ship of Zealotism

"... Sailing alongside the Ark of the Church are certain pirate ships. The largest one has the Pope as its captain, who has been trying to take over the Ark of Orthodoxy and become captain by expelling Christ. Next to it are other pirate ships and rafts. Among them there is a string of 5-10 small fishing boats (that is how many its larger groups are), then there is the rotten ship of Zealotism with its black flag that says "Orthodoxy or Death" on it. The Zealots' profession is fishing, which is why it has to take place in the dark and is therefore always nocturnal. The fish that they catch are those who slip out of the Ark of the canonical Church. They become dizzy from the tempests caused by the scandals of the Church; they lose their balance and fall into the water. Then the trawler that is tailing them fishes them out. It promises them that it will take them directly to Paradise and that it was a stroke of good fortune that they had fallen out of the Ark of the Church."

Excerpt from the book "The Crisis of the Church in Greece: The Trap of Zealotism", by Monk Michael.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Chronology of the Life of Saint Panagis Basias

1801 - Born in Lixouri, Kefallonia during the bishopric of Metropolitan Ioannikios Anninos (1783 - 1817).

1821 - Becomes a public school teacher.

1827 - Goes to the Holy Monastery of Dios to become a monk.

1828-9 - Returns to Lixouri.

1828-36 - Employed as a private teacher and ordained a Reader.

1836 - Ordained a Deacon and Presbyter by Archbishop Parthenios Makris.

1845 - Manifestation of sickness begins together with "foolishness for Christ".

1861 - His sister Maria dies.

1864 - Insurance is given for him to be taken care of for his illness.

1864 - Union of the Ionian islands with Greece takes place.

1867 - Catastrophic earthquake takes place. His home is destroyed.

1867 - Lives in the house of his cousin John Geroulanos.

1868 - Bishop Constantinos Iakovatos dies.

1884-89 - Archbishop Germanos Kalligas.

1888 - June 7 he falls asleep in the Lord.

1976 - June 6 his relics are translated.

1986 - February 4 he is proclaimed a Saint by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

1986 - September 7 his feast is proclaimed in Lixouri for June 7.

Read about the life, miracles and prophecies of St. Panagis here and here in English and here in Greek.







Απολυτίκιον Ήχος α΄ "Της ερήμου πολίτης"
Ληξουρίου τον γόνον, Ιερέων το καύχημα, της Κεφαλληνίας φωστήρα νεοφανώς ανατείλαντα, τιμήσωμεν εν ύμνοις Π Α Ν Α Γ Η Ν, τον μύστην της Τριάδος της σεπτής, εμφανώς κεκοσμημένον προφητικώ του Πνεύματος χαρίσματι. Διο τον δοξάσαντα αυτόν λαμπρώς αντιδοξάσωμεν, ινα ευρωμεν χάριν και πταισμάτων την συγχώρησιν.

Κοντάκιον Ήχος γ΄ "Η Παρθένος σήμερον"
Χαρμοσύνοις άσμασι, Κεφαλληνία η νήσος, συγκαλείται σήμερον των φιλεόρτων τα πλήθη, έρεισμα της Εκκλησίας ανευφημήσαι, σέμνωμα νεοφανέντα Ορθοδοξίας, Παναγήν τον Θεηγόρον, Χριστού τον μυστην και ταύτης αγλάϊσμα.

Μεγαλυνάριον
Τον του Ληξουρίου γόνον λαμπρόν, Ορθοδόξων κλέος Ιερέων υπογραμμόν, της Κεφαλληνίας αγλάϊσμα το νέον, τον Παναγήν τον Θείον ύμνοις τιμήσωμεν.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Icon of Christ Which Flowed Blood and Myrrh

A few hundred kilometers east of Moscow is the village Derjavino. On May 5, 1999 at the home of Antonina Ivanovna Efimova icons began to flow myrrh. Witnesses to the event were Antonina and her daughter Olga who is 33 years old. On Holy Wednesday in 2000 the right hand of Christ in an icon began to flow myrrh as from an open wound. Then on His head in the area which left scars from the thorns there appeared red spots. Slowly the blood and myrrh came together and formed a crust purple color.

The blood started to clot. In 19 separate icons of these two faithful people there ran myrrh and blood.

Archbishop Sergius of Samaria said: "At first I had doubts, until I saw the icon of Christ. A smell of blood was truly in the air. This indeed turned out after a chemical analysis." With the blessing of the Archbishop of Samaria the icon was venerated in different cities of Russia.

In Moscow, in the Church of the Nine Holy Martyrs of Cizic who are celebrated on December 14, tens of thousands of believers venerated the icon of Christ from Derjavino. Archpriest Ioan Bukotkin was shocked by what he saw with tears in his eyes and he prayed: "O Lord and my God! Not even the Scribes and Pharisees crucified You as much as we crucify You with our sins."

At that time the myrrh and the blood ran copiously.

The icons in the home of Antonina Efimova are not old, nor even painted. Most are paper. Those who venerate the icons feel a tacit pleasure in their soul and there have been many miracles.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Mystery of the Eucharist Is Not A Symbol

This is what Abba Daniel [June 7], the Pharanite, said: 'Our Father Abba Arsenius [May 8] told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith. Through his naivete he was deceived and said, "The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."

Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, "Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."

The old man said, "It is I who have said that."

Then the old men exhorted him saying, "Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood, and this in all truth, and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ."

The old man said to them, "As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced."

So they said, "Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us."

The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, "Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ."

The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed to God, saying, "Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward."

God heard both the prayers.

At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of bloody flesh.

Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, "Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood." Immediately the flesh, which he held in his hand, became bread, according to the mystery, and he took it, giving thanks to God.

Then the old men said to him, "God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith." Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labor. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.'

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Daniel of Scetis

St. Daniel of Scetis (Feast Day - June 7)

There are two saints that go by this name. The first was a disciple of St. Arsenios the Great [May 8] and became abbot of Scetis in Egypt upon the repose of his elder. He was present at Arsenios' death in 449. Daniel was left his tunic, hair shirt and sandals, saying, 'And I the unworthy wear them that I may receive a blessing."

Below are six sayings from this Holy Father:

1. It was said concerning Abba Daniel, that when the barbarians invaded Scetis and the Fathers fled away, the old man said, 'If God does not care for me, why still live?' Then he passed through the midst of the barbarians without being seen. He said to himself therefore, 'See how God has cared for me, since I am not dead. Now I will do that which is human and flee with the Fathers.'

2. A brother asked Abba Daniel, 'Give me a commandment and I will keep it.' He replied, 'Never put your hand in the dish with a woman, and never eat with her; thus you will escape a little the demon of fornication.'

3. Abba Daniel said, 'At Babylon the daughter of an important person was possessed by a devil. A monk for whom her father had a great affection said to him, "No-one can heal your daughter except some anchorites whom I know; but if you ask them to do so, they will not agree because of their humility. Let us therefore do this: when they come to the market, look as though you want to buy their goods and when they come to receive the price, we will ask them to say a prayer and I believe she will be healed." When they came to the market they found a disciple of the old men setting there selling their goods and they led him away with the baskets, so that he should receive the price of them. But when the monk reached the house, the woman possessed with the devil came and slapped him. But he only turned the other cheek, according to the Lord's Command. (Matt. 5.39) The devil, tortured by this, cried out, "What violence! The commandment of Jesus drives me out." Immediately the woman was cleansed. When the old men came, they told them what had happened and they glorified God saying, "This is how the pride of the devil is brought low, through the humility of the commandment of Christ."

4. Abba Daniel also said, 'The body prospers in the measure in which the soul is weakened, and the soul prospers in the measure in which the body is weakened.'

5. One day Abba Daniel and Abba Ammoes went on a journey together. Abba Ammoes said, 'When shall we, too, settle down, in a cell, Father?' Abba Daniel replied, 'Who shall separate us henceforth from God? God is in the cell, and, on the other hand, he is outside also.'

6. Abba Daniel said that when Abba Arsenius was at Scetis, there was a monk there who used to steal the possessions of the old men. Abba Arsenius took him into his cell in order to convert him and to give the old men some peace. He said to him, 'Everything you want I will get for you, only do not steal.' So he gave him gold, coins, clothes and everything he needed. But the brother began to steal again. So the old men, seeing that he had not stopped, drove him away saying, 'If there is a brother who commits a sin through weakness, one must bear it, but if he steals, drive him away, for it is hurtful to his soul and troubles all those who live in the neighbourhood.'

The second Daniel lived in the sixth century and lived in Scetis from childhood. On one occasion he was overtaken by certain Barbarians and captured for two years. He was bailed out by a certain pious Christian, but again he was captured and held for six months, though this time he was able to escape. When men were sent to bring him back, human instinct for survival came over him and with a rock Daniel killed a man to escape being captured a third time. That murder lay on his conscience like a lead weight. In perplexity as to what he should do, he went to Timothy, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and asked his advice. The Patriarch soothed him, and released him from all penance. But his conscience continued to gnaw at him, and he went to Rome, to the Pope. The Pope gave him the same reply as had the Patriarch. Still dissatisfied, Daniel visited the remaining patriarchs in turn; going to Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, even the Metropolitan of Ephesus, confessing to each of them and asking for advice. But he could find no peace. So he returned home to Alexandria and declared himself to the authorities as a murderer, and was flung into prison. At his trial before the governor, Daniel told how everything had come about, and pleaded that he might be killed too, that his soul might be saved from eternal fire. The governor was amazed at the whole thing, and said to him: 'Go your way, Father, and pray to God for me, even if you kill seven more!' Still dissatisfied with this, Daniel resolved to take a leper into his cell and care for him until he died, and then find another. He did as he had resolved, and in this way brought peace to his conscience.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Church of Panagia of Finikia and Lord Byron

Near the site of Lord Byron’s house in Messolonghi and the Garden of the Heroes, which is a memorial garden commemorating the Philhellene Europeans who fought in the Greek War of Independence, is the island Chapel of Panagia of Finikia (Panagia of the Palms). Lord Byron especially loved this place and would often come here to rest and enjoy an evening equestrian excursion. The church was built in 1804.

Regarding Lord Byron's view of Greek Orthodoxy, as a Christian himself who read a chapter of Scripture daily, he respected the fact the Greeks were Christians, and did not want any Christian dominated by the Muslim Turks. Furthermore he would argue against Christians from the West coming into Greece doing missionary work following their liberation, since his liberal opinion honored the free choice of people, and believed that the Greek priests should be given a chance to teach the people their inherited Faith.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Dionysios the Wise, Patriarch of Constantinople

St. Dionysios the Wise (Feast Day - November 23)

Dionysios was born in Dimitsana of Peloponnese. He became a monk in the Holy Magganon Monastery in Constantinople, where he progressed in goodness and piety under the supervision of his spiritual father, St Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, who ordained him into the Deaconate and Priesthood.

He was kept captive by the Turks in Adrianoupolis, but was freed by the noble Kyritzis, and was ordained Metropolitan of Philippoupolis by the Ecumenical Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios. In January 1467 he ascended onto the Ecumenical throne of Constantinople at the protection of the Christian step-mother of Sultan Mehmet II, Madam-Maro, and shepherded his flock until 1472.

He was maliciously accused that during his captivity in Adrianoupolis he renounced the faith and accepted circumcision. He proved that the accusation was false in front of a panel of hierachs and laity "by showing his flesh to all the people", and all saw "his innocence and virginity...," and he departed to the Monastery of Eikosifinissa in Drama, where he also stayed after his second patriarchy (1488-1490) until his death in 1492. He is considered the second founder of that Monastery.

The Church acknowledged him as a Saint under Patriarch Joachim I; his memory is kept on November 23rd. His relics were kept in the Monastery of Eikosifinissa, though a portion was given in 1881 to the Skete of Saint Andrew on Mount Athos and another was given in his birthplace of Dimitsana in 1955. A service and a canon to his honour have been written by his contemporary, the Great Rhetor of the Great Church, Manuel the Corinthian, and another canon has been composed by the chancellor Chrysanthos of Xanthe. The latter was completed by Hilarion the Sinaite by decree of Patriarch Gregory V.

On April 30, 2011 Metropolitan Paul of Drama, by request of Metropolitan Jeremiah of Gortyna, brought the relics of St. Dionysios back to Dimitsana after over 600 years since his birth. (Photos and video in this post are from this event.)

Μεγαλυνάριον
Χαίροις Δημητσάνα πόλη τερπνή, η υποδεχθείσα τον σον γόνον τον ιερόν, κλεείσαντα τον θρόνον πόλεως Κωνσταντίνου, τον μέγα Ιεράρχην τον Διονύσιον.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Luke the Surgeon: On Science and Religion

By St. Luke the Surgeon, Archbishop of Simferopol (1877-1961)

"When we examine contemporary science as developed by scientists such as Lamark and Darwin, we see the antithesis and I would say the complete disagreement that exists between science and religion, on topics that concern the more basic problems of existence and knowledge. For this, an enlightened mind cannot accept at the same time both one and the other and must choose between religion and science."

A well known German Zoologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who was a good follower of Darwin, wrote these words some 65 years ago, in his book, “The Riddle of the Universe” that was very successful and as it seemed, had proved that faith is absurd. So says Haeckel that every enlightened man must choose between science and religion and should follow either one or the other. He considered it necessary that such men should deny religion because a logical man cannot deny science.

Truly, is this necessary? No, not at all, for we know that many and great scientists were at the same time great believers. For example, such was the Polish astronomer Copernicus who laid the foundation of all contemporary astronomy. Copernicus was not only a believer but was also a cleric. Another great scientist, Newton, whenever he mentioned the word God, he removed his hat. He was a great believer. A great bacteriologist of our time and almost a contemporary, Pasteur, who laid the basis of contemporary bacteriology, he would start every scientific work with a prayer to God. Some ten years ago a great scientist passed away, who was our countryman, physiologist Pavlov, who was the creator of the new physiology of the brain. He too was a great believer. Would Haeckel therefore dare say that these men did not have enlightened minds because they believed in God?

So what happens now? Why even today there are some scientists, professors at Universities whom I personally know and are great believers. Why don’t all the scientists deny religion but only those who think the same as Haeckel? Because these people believe only in the material and deny the spiritual world, they do not believe in life after death, they do not accept the immortality of the soul and of course they do not accept the resurrection of the dead. They say that science is capable of everything, that there is no secret in nature that science cannot discover. What can we answer to these?

We shall respond to them this way. You are totally right. We cannot limit the human mind that searches nature. We know that today, science knows only a part of the things we have of nature. We also understand that the possibilities of science are great. In this they are right and we don’t doubt it. What then do we doubt? Why don’t we deny religion like them and consider it contrary to scientific knowledge?

Because we believe wholeheartedly that there is a spiritual world. We are certain that apart from the material world there is an infinite and incomparably superior spiritual world. We believe in the existence of spiritual beings that have higher intellects than us humans. We believe wholeheartedly that above this spiritual and material world there is the Great and Almighty God.

What we doubt is the right of science to research with its methods the spiritual world. Because the spiritual world cannot be researched with the methods used to research the material world. Such methods are totally inappropriate to research the spiritual world.

How do we know that there is a spiritual world? Who told us that it exists? If we are asked by people who do not believe in Divine Revelation, we shall answer them thus: “Our heart tells us." For there are two ways for one to know something, the first being that which is spoken by Haeckel, which is used by science to learn of the material world. There is however another way that is unknown to science, and does not wish to know it. It is the knowledge through the heart. Our heart is not only the central organ of the circulation system, it is an organ with which we know the other world and receive the highest knowledge. It is the organ that gives us the capability to communicate with God and the world above. Only in this we disagree with science.

Praising the great successes and achievements of science, we do not doubt at all its great importance and we do not confine scientific knowledge. We only tell the scientists: “You do not have the capability with your methods to research the spiritual world, we however can with our heart."

There are many unexplainable phenomena which concern the spiritual world that are real (as are some type of material phenomena). There are therefore phenomena that science will never be able to explain because it does not use the appropriate methods.

Let science explain how the prophecies appeared on the coming of the Messiah, which were all fulfilled. Could science tell us how the great prophet Isaiah, some 700 years before the birth of Christ, foretold the most important events in His life and for which he was named the evangelist of the Old Testament? Could it explain the prophetic grace possessed by the saints and tell us with which physical methods the saints inherited this grace and how they could understand the heart and read the thoughts of a person they had just met for the first time? They would see a person for the first time and they will call him by his name. Without waiting for the visitor to ask, they would answer in regards to what troubled him.

If they can, let them explain it to us. Let them explain with what method the saints foretold the great historical events which were accurately fulfilled as they were prophesied. Let them explain the visitation from the other world and the appearance of the dead to the living.

They shall never explain it to us because they are too far from the basis of religion - from faith. If you read the books of the scientists who try to reconstruct religion, you will see how superficially they look at things. They do not understand the essence of religion, yet they criticize it. Their criticism does not touch the essence of faith, since they are unable to understand the types and the expressions of religious feeling. The essence of religion they do not understand. Why not? Because the Lord Jesus Christ says: "No one can come to me unless My Father who sent Me draws him to Me" (John 6:44).

So it is necessary that we be drawn by the Heavenly Father, and it is necessary that the grace of the Holy Spirit enlighten our heart and our mind. To dwell in our heart and mind through this enlightenment, the Holy Spirit and the ones who were found worthy to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, those in whose heart lives Christ and His Father, know the essence of faith. The others, those outside the faith, cannot understand anything.

Let us hear the criticism against Haeckel from a French philosopher Emile Boutroux (1845-1921). So says Boutroux: “The criticisms of Haeckel concern much more the ways, than the essence, which he observes with such a materialistic and narrow view, that they cannot be accepted by religious people. Thus the criticism of religion by Haeckel is not referred to, not even in one of the principles that constitutes religion."

This is therefore our opinion regarding Haeckel’s book “The Riddle of the Universe” which up to day is considered the “Bible” for all those who criticize religion, which they deny and find it contrary to science. Do you see how poor and tasteless arguments they use? Don’t become scandalized when you hear what they say about religion, since they themselves cannot understand its essence. You people, who may not have much of a relationship with science and do not know much about philosophy, remember always the most basic beginning, which was well known by the early Christians. They considered poor the person who knew all the sciences yet he knew not God. On the other hand, they considered blessed the person who knew God, even if he knew absolutely nothing about worldly things.

Guard this truth like the best treasure of the heart, walk straight without looking right or left. Let us not bother with what we hear against religion, losing our bearings. Let us hold on to our faith which is the eternal indisputable truth. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Metropolis Is Robbed While A Metropolitan Slept Inside

Dimitris Zoitsoudis
June 6, 2011
Romfea.gr

Not even the building of the Metropolis of Ilia has escaped being robbed by unidentified burglars, in the central tower, where there is even an alarm and night security.

Metropolitan Germanos of Ilia slept in his room inside when strangers forced their way in through the back door in the garden.

The burglars were not afraid of the alarm systems and night-watchman and managed to get to the accounting area and taking the amount of EUR 6584.74.

The funds were in a folder and came from collecting rents.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

First Russian Church In Arabian Peninsula Goes Up

The first Russian church has been constructed in the United Arab Emirates to become the one and the only Orthodox shrine on the Arabian Peninsula.

Located in the city of Sharjah, the church was built by order of Sheikh Sultan Bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, the current ruler of the Sharjah emirate.


Apart from a five-dome church, the group of buildings also includes a three-storey cultural and educational center. In 2007, the foundations of the Russian spiritual complex in Sharjah were consecrated by Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, now the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

On Thursday 2 June 2011, the feast of the Ascension of Christ, the crosses on the dome of the Church of the Holy Apostle Philip were placed in Saria. This church was established with permission from the Patriarchate of Antioch. It is under the Antiochian jurisdiction. Currently a Russian priest is the parish priest.

Read also: Saudis Told They Can Build a Mosque in Moscow if Russians Get a Church in Saudi Arabia

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Five New Dioceses Created In Russia To Improve Church Administration

The Synod approves the reorganisation of the canonical territory, still based on the Soviet framework with parishes in the same dioceses at a distance of 1,000 kilometres.

Nina Achmatova
June 6, 2011
AsiaNews

The Russian Orthodox Church is expanding its pastoral work and setting up five new dioceses. The decision was taken on 31 May at a session of the Holy Synod, the Patriarchate’s highest administrative authority, chaired by Patriarch Kirill. According to some analysts, in addition to improving the Church’s local administration, the new framework will strengthen the Patriarch’s authority. Last year, the head of the Church had already began a more centralised reorganisation of the Church and its activities, including in the field of mission.
“We must make important decisions on how to reorganise some dioceses,” Kirill said opening the session. “We must think about steps to take so that the life of the Church, in a number of regions, can become more intense and coherent with the guidelines of the Council of Bishops”.

The restructuring of the canonical territory had already begun in the previous session of the synod in March, when new dioceses were established in the northern Caucasus (Pyatigorsk and Circassia, Vladikavkaz and Makhachkalinsk), which were previously part of the dioceses of Stavropol and Vladikavkaz and Baku and Prikaspiisk.

The most recent dioceses are those of Narva (which becomes the second diocese of the Estonian Orthodox Church), Krasnoslobodsk and Ardatov, Khanty-Mansiysk and Surgut, Salekhard and Novy Urengoy and finally that of Yeniseysk and Norilsk.

“In Greece, there is a bishop per city, whilst we have inherited a structure from soviet times, so that cities a thousand kilometres from one another are in the same diocese, and parishioners do not even know who their bishop is,” Vladimir Vigilianskii, director of the Moscow Patriarchate Press Office, told the daily Kommersant. “By reducing the size of dioceses, it will be easier to run them,” he added.

According to Roman Lunkin, director of the Institute of Religion and the Law, “reforming the Church administration will strengthen the authority of the Patriarch in the provinces, because the new bishops will be beholden to him.”

The Church Russian Orthodox has 164 dioceses, 217 bishops, 30,675 parishes, 29,324 priests and 3,850 deacons. It also has 805 monasteries, 398 for men and 407 for women.

Last year, Kirill took personal control of the Mission Department of the Central Bureau of the Patriarchate, ordering its expansion.

Some observers suggest the patriarch wants to apply to the religious field the vertical organisation of power imposed on the state by Vladimir Putin during his first presidential mandate.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: N.T. Wright On the Western Depiction of Hell

Elder Sophrony, when visiting the Sistine Chapel, made a similar observation to Anglican scholar N.T. Wright, which can be read in the following post:

The Icon In the East and In the West

Transcript of Video: "The word hell has had a checkered career in the history of the church. And it wasnt hugely important in the early days. It was important, but not nearly as important as it became in the Middle Ages. And in the Middle Ages, you get this polarization of heaven over here and hell over there, and you have to go to one place or the other eventually. So you have the Sistine Chapel, with that great thing behind the altar. This enormous great judgment seat, with the souls going off into these different directions.

Very interestingly, I was sitting in the Sistine chapel just a few weeks ago. I was sitting for a service, and I was sitting next to a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite who said to me, looking at the pictures of Jesus on one wall. He said, these I can understand. The pictures of Moses on the other wall, he said, those I can understand. Then he pointed at the end wall of judgment, and said, that I cannot understand. Thats how you in the West have talked about judgment and heaven and hell. He said, we have never done it that way before, because the Bible doesnt do it that way. I thought, whoops. I think hes right actually. And whether you're Catholic or Protestant, that scenario which is etched into the consciousness of Western Christianity really has to be shaken about a bit. Because heaven and earth are to join together.

Its not a matter of leaving earth and going to heaven. Its heaven and earth joined together. And hell is what happens when human beings say, the God in whose image they were made, we dont want to worship you. We dont want our human life to be shaped by you. We dont want, who we are as humans to be transformed by the love of Jesus dying and rising for us. We dont want any of that. We want to stay as we are and do our own thing. And if you do that, what youre saying is, you want to stop being image bearing human being within this good world that God has made. And you are colluding with your own progressive dehumanization. And that is such a shocking and horrible thing, that its not surprising that the biblical writers and others have used very vivid and terrifying language about it. But, people have picked that up and said, this is a literal description of reality. Somewhere down there, there is a lake of fire, and its got worms in it and its got serpents and demons and there coming to get you.

But I think actually, the reality is more sober and sad than that, which is this progressive shrinking of human life. And that happens during this life, but it seems to be that if someone resolutely says to God, Im not going to worship you...its not just I'll not come to church. Its a matter deep down somewhere, there is a rejection of the Good Creator God, then that it the choice humans make. In other words, I think the human choices in this life really matter. We're not just playing a game of chess, where tomorrow morning God will put the pieces back on the board and say, Ok that was just a game. Now were doing something different. The choices we make here really do matter. There's part of me that would love to be a universalist, and say, it'll be alright. Everyone will get there in the end. I actually...the choices you make in the present are more important than that."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Poisonous Songs of Arius

Many wonder today how it was possible for Arianism to spread so widely and become so popular in the fourth century, even after its condemnation by the First Ecumenical Synod. There are a few factors that may explain this, and one of these likely has to do with the wide-spread distribution of easily memorized songs composed by Arius, the compilation of which is known as Thalia (or Banquet). Philostorgius writes in his Epitome (Bk. 2, Ch. 2) the following concerning the songs of Arius:

"Arius, after his secession from the church, composed several songs to be sung by sailors, and by millers, and by travellers along the high road, and others of the same kind, which he adapted to certain tunes, as he thought suitable in each separate case, and thus by degrees seduced the minds of the unlearned by the attractiveness of his songs to the adoption of his own impiety."

It is not without reason that St. Athanasius begins his Orations Against the Arians (Oration 1, Chapter 1) with a critique of the songs of Arius. St. Athanasius writes that "Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thalia", of the ancient Greek poet Sotades, known for his lewdness. Further he writes that Arius in his Thalia, like the daughter of Herodias, "rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Savior". He also said that by singing the songs of Arius, Christians are "announcing a new heresy". Athanasius further writes of the character of those who sang such songs:

"... those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Savior, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres? That, while 'a man', as Wisdom says, 'is known from the utterance of his word', so from those numbers should be seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought."

At one point Athanasius asks: "And shall not all human kind at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author?" Interestingly it is said that when these songs were quoted at the First Ecumenical Synod, the fathers clapped their hands over their ears, and shut their eyes.

Below are a sample of the songs of Arius, which have been extracted from the writings of St. Athanasius:

"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar ('homoios'), and no one of the same glory. We call Him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise Him as without beginning, in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship Him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for Himself, by begetting him. He [the Son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being ('kat' hypostasis') For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being ('homoousios') as Him."

Also from the Thalia:

"At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then—are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part ('ek merous') his superior."

Thus, said Arius, God's first thought was the creation of Jesus Christ, therefore time started with the creation of the Logos or Word in Heaven.

In this portion of the Thalia, Arius endeavors to explain the ultimate incomprehensibility of the Father to the Son:

"In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For He is in himself what He is, that is, indescribable, So that the Son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by Himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence ('ousia'). For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father. What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning."

Here, Arius explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally:

"Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He [the Son] is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Sociologist: Every 5 Minutes a Christian Is Martyred

June 3, 2011
Zenit.org

A sociologist representing a European security organization says that the number of Christians killed each year for their faith is so high that it calculates to one martyr's life being taken every five minutes.

Massimo Introvigne of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reported this data at a conference on Christian-Jewish-Muslim interfaith dialogue, which concluded today in Hungary. The conference was sponsored by the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union, and included a variety of high-level representatives from the three monotheistic religions, as well as political and social leaders.

Introvigne reported that Christians killed every year for their faith number 105,000, and that number includes only those put to death simply because they are Christians. It does not count the victims of civil or international wars.

"If these numbers are not cried out to the world, if this slaughter is not stopped, if it is not acknowledged that the persecution of Christians is the first worldwide emergency in the matter of violence and religious discrimination, the dialogue between religions will only produce beautiful conferences but no concrete results," he stated.

Egyptian diplomat Aly Mahmoud said that in his country laws have been passed that will protect Christian minorities, for example, prosecuting those who give speeches that incite hatred and banning hostile crowds outside churches.

"However, the danger is that many Christian communities in the Middle East will die from emigration, because all Christians, feeling threatened, will flee," he said.

The diplomat suggested Europe prepare for "a new wave of emigration, this time from Christians fleeing the persecutions."

For his part, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, chairman for the Russian Orthodox patriarchate's Department of External Church Relations, reminded that "at least 1 million" Christian victims of persecutions are children.

Read also: Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod’s Statement on Growing Manifestations of Christianophibia in the World

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

One Man's Deprivation Is Another Man's Luxury

One of the apophthegmata of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers reads as follows:

There was once a monk who had lived in a vast mansion in Rome, but in Scete lived near the church with a servant to look after him. The presbyter of the church realised his weakness in that he had been used to all kinds of luxury, and shared with him all that the Lord sent him and all that was given to the church. After living for twenty-five years in Scete, he had become well known as a contemplative of discernment.

Hearing of his reputation, one of the foremost Egyptian monks came to see him, expecting to find that his way of life was physically fairly arduous. After their greetings they said the prayers and sat down together. The Egyptian was shocked to notice that his companion was clothed in fine raiment, that his bedding was of finely woven reeds over a layer of tanned leather, that he had a little scarf of soft material round his neck, and that he was wearing sandals on his clean feet. Such a way of living was not customary in that place; severe abstinence was rather the usual rule. Seeing that he had the gift of prayer and discernment, the old Roman realised that his companion was shocked and said to his servant, "Let's do things well today for the sake of this abba who has visited us."

And he cooked a few vegetables which he had, and sat down for the meal as soon as they were ready. They also drank some of the wine which he kept for his infirmity. And when Vespers was done they said the twelve psalms, went to bed and slept all night. When they got up in the morning the Egyptian said, "Pray for me" and departed, totally disillusioned in him.

He hadn't gone far before the Roman sent after him and called him back, because he wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. After welcoming him gladly he asked, "What nationality are you?"

"I am an Egyptian," he replied.

"And from what city?" he asked.

"I wasn't born in a city and have never lived in one," was the answer.

"Before you became a monk, what did you do? Where did you live?" he asked.

"I was a farm worker," he said.

"You had a bed to sleep in?" he asked.

"As a farm worker should I have been so lucky as to have a bed to sleep in?" he replied.

"Where did you sleep then?" he asked.

"On the bare ground," he replied.

"What did you eat in your field, and what sort of wine did you drink?" he asked.

"What sort of food and wine do you think you are likely to get as a farmworker?" he replied.

"Well, tell me how you lived," he said.

"I ate dry bread and perhaps a little salted fish if I could get it, and my only drink was water," he replied.

"A hard life" the old man said, and went on, "You had no bath to wash in?"

"No, I washed in the river when I could," he replied.

When the old man had learned from these replies everything about his former life and work he told him about his own previous life before becoming a monk, hoping to open his eyes a bit.

"This poor sinner that you see before you came from the mighty city of Rome," he said. "I had an important position under the Roman Emperor."

At these words the Egyptian was taken aback and began to listen carefully to what was being said.

"I left Rome and came here to solitude. I used to have an enormous house and plenty of money, but I counted them as nothing and came to live in this tiny cell. I used to have couches decorated with gold and covered with expensive drapes, in place of which the Lord has given me this bedding of reeds and leather. My clothing was of the highest and most expensive quality, instead of which I now wear this simple garment. I used to spend a great deal of money on food, instead of which God gives me a few vegetables and a small cup of wine. I used to have countless numbers of servants to look after me, and the Lord has spared me this one servant only to look after me. Instead of my bath I do wash my feet a little and wear sandals in my weakness. Instead of lyre and pipe and other kinds of music which I used to enjoy as I feasted I now say my twelve psalms by day and twelve by night. And for the sins which I formerly committed I now find peace in offering my poor and unworthy service to God. So you see, father, you need not be scandalised because of my weakness."

Having listened to all this, the Egyptian had a complete change of heart, and said, "Woe is me! For I came into the monastic way from a background of great deprivation and hard work, and I now possess such a lot of things which I did not possess before. You however chose to come from a life of great luxury into a life of deprivation, from great distinction and riches into humility and poverty." Greatly edified, he departed, but became a great friend of his and often came back because he found it so profitable. For he was indeed a man of discernment, filled with the life-giving breath of the Holy Spirit.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Elder Paisios: Ease of Life and Christianity Do Not Go Together

Despite appearances and the unworthiness of the monks and clergy, the Church is an endless source of miracles. It takes water and makes it Holy Water; it takes bread and wine and makes the Holy Eucharist; it takes man made of dirt and makes him a god! But many people do not see the miracles. Because if they saw them they would not despise or hate the Church of Christ, but they would love and honor Her and would not be talking about Her with contempt as they do.

Christians are destined to bear a heavy cross in their life. It's a difficult thing to say you believe in the Lord and also that you have ease of life in this life. Because, when you are having ease of life on earth, there is something wrong with yourself; you care about the gold of the land and not for the treasures of heaven. But when you think like this, you are far away from the will of God. Christian life and having ease in life do not go together; they are different things.

Once there came here a well-known doctor to talk. His wife was a doctor also, both religious people. He complained that his children were living worldly lives and not only did not follow the family traditions of the Church, but also saw them as ironic.

They characterized Christians as mentally deficient, close-minded, dishonest, hypocritical and rascals, because their life, they would say, was not consistent with their words and their deeds were not Christian.

Even at Holy Unction, which the parents would have done once a year in their home with their children, when they were young they participated, but now were reacting and not to be found.

The doctor seemed very tired and desperate for the spiritual regeneration of his children. And he thought that all efforts, his own and that of his wife, were wasted; they were not captured nor were the children touched.

At some point the doctor, putting his head within his two hands, as if to cover his face with shame, told me: "I am afraid that the big money has done us harm."

I asked him to tell me what he meant, and he very frankly admitted that they had strayed from their path and had acquired assets that were completely unnecessary. "We have three large houses," he said, "one for us and one for each child. Also, two cottages, four expensive cars, a boat, deposits, and many material things."

He continued: "The children became spoiled and now we are accused by them of causing this. Also, they tell us that we have married beautifully wealth with Christianity." He then asked me to tell him what to do to get back peace and unity in the family.

I told him to give all to the poor and keep only one house, a cottage and their salaries. Frightened, he changed color, got scared, and was disappointed by the reply I gave.

He left and never returned. He was tied to the here, not to the Above. That is why the children looked for other ways of life different from that which their parents had suggested.

When I hear that there is great poverty and misery, I hurt a lot and I can not pray.

I'm not saying when you have two tunics to give one. This is unusual and difficult for most. But if you want to be called Christian and have the good things of God, why sweat and fight for the above mentioned and not do charity and good works? They are building their foundation on sand, whoever has a lot of money and manages it selfishly, oblivious to the poverty and misery of his fellows. Did you ever see grave clothes with pockets? All stays here. Only good works go to heaven. You know why there are wars? For the money. Because the rich can not put a bridle on greed and the poor do not wish to acquire the necessary, but envy the riches and glory of the rich.

Your pockets should always be open to allow the money to leave towards philanthropies. It is scandalous that there are pockets full of money and for them to be stitched.

Source: "Four Hours With Father Paisios" by Tasos Mihalas. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Synaxarion For the Sunday of the Holy Fathers

By Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos

SUNDAY of THE Holy Fathers

On this day, the seventh Sunday of Pascha, we celebrate the First Ecumenical Synod, of the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers, which took place in Nicæa.

Verses

O ye light-bearing stars of the spiritual firmament,
Enlighten my mind with your rays.

Verses Against Arius

Calling the Son a stranger to the Father’s essence,
Arius proved to be a stranger to God’s glory.


Synaxarion

We celebrate the present Feast for the following reason. When our Lord Jesus Christ, Who wore our flesh, had ineffably accomplished His entire Economy, and had been restored to His Father’s Throne, the Saints, wishing to show that the Son of God became truly man and that God became perfect man, ascended, and sat at the right hand of the majesty on high, and that this Synod of the Holy Fathers thus proclaimed and confessed Him to be one in essence and honor with the Father, decreed for this reason that the present Feast should fall after the glorious Ascension, exalting this assembly of so many Fathers, as it were, for proclaiming that He Who ascended in the flesh was true God and perfect man in the flesh.

This Synod took place under St. Constantine the Great, in the twentieth year of his reign. For, after the persecution of Christians had come to an end, he first ruled in Rome; but subsequently, he founded the all-blessed city that was named after him, in the year 5838 from the creation of the world; it was then that the Arian controversy began. Arius, who hailed from Libya, went to Alexandria, where he was ordained a Deacon by the Holy Hieromartyr Peter of Alexandria. Thereafter, he began to blaspheme against the Son of God, proclaiming that He was a creature, who had come into being from non-existence and was far removed from the Divine dignity, and that He was called the Wisdom and Word of God by a misuse of language. Arius was, as he pretended, opposing the impious Sabellios, who said that the Godhead was one Person and one Hypostasis, being the Father at one time, the Son at another time, and the Holy Spirit at yet another time. When Arius uttered these blasphemies, the great Peter deposed him from the Priesthood, after beholding Christ as an infant on the Holy Table, clad in a torn garment and saying that Arius had rent it. Achillas, who succeeded Peter as Archbishop of Alexandria, reinstated Arius, in fulfillment of a promise; in addition, he ordained him a Presbyter and put him in charge of the School of Alexandria. After the repose of Achillas, Alexander become Archbishop. Finding that Arius was again uttering the same blasphemies and worse, he drove him from the Church, deposing him through a synod. As Theodoretos says, Arius taught that Christ’s nature was mutable, and he was the first to vomit forth the idea that the Lord assumed inanimate and soulless flesh. Arius, having brought many over to his impiety, he writes, coöpted Eusebios of Nicomedia, Paulinos of Tyre, Eusebios of Cæsarea, and others, and proceeded against Alexander. But Alexander, sending word of his blasphemies and his deposition throughout the world, raised up many to defend himself.


Since the Church was in confusion and there appeared no remedy for this dogmatic strife, St. Constantine the Great transported the Fathers in question from every region of the inhabited earth, at public expense, to Nicæa and arrived there himself. After all the Fathers had taken their seats, only when bidden did he sit down, and not on a royal throne, but on a seat that was lower than his dignity dictated. When the charges against Arius had been read out, both Arius and those of like mind with him were placed under anathema. The Holy Fathers declared the Word of God to be one in essence, one in honor, and co-unoriginate with the Father. They also set forth the Holy Symbol of the Faith, taking it as far as the clause: “And in the Holy Spirit.” The ensuing clauses were completed by the Second Ecumenical Synod. In addition to this, the First Synod determined when and how we should celebrate the Feast of Pascha, and not with the Jews, as had previously been the custom. They promulgated twenty Canons pertaining to ecclesiastical order. The Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great, after everyone else, signed the Holy Symbol of Faith in red letters.

Of these holy Fathers, two hundred and thirty-two were Hierarchs, while eighty-six were Priests, Deacons, or monks; altogether three hundred and eighteen Fathers were present. The most illustrious were the following: St. Sylvester, Pope of Rome and St. Metrophanes, Patriarch of Constantinople were both ill and were present through their representatives; St. Alexander of Alexandria, together with St. Athanasios the Great, who at that time was an Archdeacon; St. Evstathios of Antioch and Patriarch Macarios of Jerusalem; St. Hosius of Cordova; St. Paphnoutios the Confessor; St. Nicholas the Myrrh-Gusher and St. Spyridon of Trimythous, who baptized a philosopher that was there, after refuting his arguments and proving to him the threefold nature of the Godhead. Since two of the Fathers—both of them Hierarchs—had passed on to God during the course of the Synod, St. Constantine the Great, after placing copies of the definition of the Holy Synod in their respective coffins and enclosing them securely therein, found the documents confirmed and signed by them, through the ineffable command of God.


Upon the conclusion of the Synod, since the rebuilding of the Imperial City was now complete, St. Constantine summoned all of those holy men; they all came and, after praying for some time, confirmed that it was the Queen of cities and dedicated it to the Mother of the Word, by order of the Emperor. And thus each of the Saints returned home.

Since the Great Emperor Constantine had not yet departed to God, but was reigning together with his son, Constantios, Arius approached him, saying that he had abandoned all of his heresies and wished to be reunited to the Church of God. Having written down his blasphemies and hung them round his neck, pretending that he believed in the decrees of the Synod, and striking his own writings with his hand, he said that this was what he believed. At all events, the Emperor ordered the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive Arius into communion. The Patriarch at that time was Alexander, the successor of Metrophanes, who, knowing the evil of this man’s ways, hesitated and besought God to show him whether it was His will that he should commune with Arius. Since the time was approaching when he would have to liturgize with him, he became more fervent in his prayer. But when Arius came to the Church, somewhere near the Column of Porphyry he felt stabbing pains in his stomach and went into a public convenience; there he burst open, and disgorged all his entrails, undergoing the same fate as Judas for his betrayal of the Word. Having sundered the Son of God from the essence of the Father, he himself was torn asunder and was found dead; and thus was the Church of God delivered from his corruption.

By the intercessions of the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers, O Christ our God, have mercy on us. Amen.

Source


Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
Most glorified art Thou, O Christ our God, Who hast established our Fathers as luminous stars upon the earth, and through them didst guide us all to the true Faith. O Most Merciful One, glory be to Thee.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
The Preaching of the Apostles and the doctrines of the Fathers confirmed the one Faith in the Church. And wearing the garment of truth woven from the theology on high, she rightly divideth and glorifieth the great mystery of piety.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Is There A "Postpatristic" Theology?

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

The theology of the Orthodox Church is the prophetic, apostolic and patristic theology, and it therefore cannot be given other terms, such as postprophetic, postapostolic and postpatristic, and of course the term postorthodox. Usually other secular trends receive such terminology, such as in the difference between the modern and postmodern age.

The Fathers of the Church are the successors of the Apostles in theology and activity, and they share the same revelatory experience. Of course, the Fathers of the Church, in order to preserve their revelatory experience from the distortions of heretics and to guide Christians, used the terminology of their time to express the same tradition they had, without distorting it. Thus the dogmatic terminology was established by the Ecumenical Synods and became a part of the tradition, so that no "new Father" can overlook it nor circumvent it. For this reason we cannot speak of a postpatristic theology. It is a different issue when we deal with contemporary trends in Orthodox theology, which cannot be called "postpatristic" and is not about changes in doctrines.

The so-called postpatristic theology is associated with the theories of the Russian Alexis Khomiakov (1804-1860), who in his time played a significant role in Russian theological literature. We do not have adequate space to develop his views, but only to note that according to Khomiakov, the Fathers of the first millennium spoke for their time, and have value, but Scholastic theology (9th-13th century) exceeded Patristic theology, and the subsequent Russian theology surpassed the previous two (Patristic and Scholastic). Khomiakov's mistake is that Orthodoxy is closely linked to culture. But Orthodox theology produces culture, it is not culture.

However, the theory of Alexis Khomiakov affected to varying degrees theologians of the Russian diaspora in Paris, which is why now there is talk of a "postpatristic" theology. The Russian philosopher Kireyevsky, a friend of Khomiakov, said: "It is impossible to renew the philosophy of the Fathers in the form it had in their time. It answered the questions of the time and culture in which it developed." Father John Romanides writes that: "Khomiakov agrees with the observation of his friend on the need to develop a Russo-Christian philosophy, which responds to the social and religious responses of contemporary society."

Father George Florovsky, having in mind this theology, spoke of a "return to the Fathers", meaning "return to patristic sources and patristic foundations", and within this perspective spoke of the so-called Greek categories of thought which can not be overturned. He wrote: "The distancing from Christian Hellenism is not progress at all, but retrogression, a return to the impasse and embarrassment of the other Hellenism, that which had not transformed and from which there was no way out except through patristic fulfillment." If we do not see the views of Fr. George Florovsky through this perspective, that he does not agree with the views of the Russian émigré, then we do him an injustice.

This is recognized by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, which is why at the greeting of the famous conference at the Theological Academy of Volos, since he had reported that the theology of the Church cannot ignore modern culture, writes: "The future depends on an authentic "patristic" theology, beyond the neopatristic and postpatristic, but towards an ecclesiastical theology, which is enlivened by the intensity between the 'now' and 'not yet' of the Kingdom of God."

Orthodox theology is ecclesiastical, that is, it is the voice of the Church, and the Fathers spoke and speak this language. Which is why there can be no term "neopatristic" or "postpatristic" theology, since Orthodox theology is prophetic, apostolic and patristic, and certainly ecclesiastical.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Read also: Neopatristic, Postpatristic and Contextual "Theology"

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

An Ancient Christian Wedding In the Archdiocese of Ochrid

Theoni Paloglou
June 4, 2011
Amen.gr

On the Sunday of the Blind Man (05/29/2011) a marriage was celebrated for two faithful children of the Archdiocese of Ochrid, Angel and Mirian, according to an ancient Christian custom and typikon. The Holy Mystery was embedded within the celebration of the Divine Liturgy so that they occurred during the same time, where two Epistle and two Gospel readings took place (that of the Blind Man and that of the Wedding of Cana).

The wedding took place at the Holy Monastery of Saint Prochorus (11th cent.), five hundred meters outside of the borders of FYROM, southern Serbia. That it is outside of the Archdiocese of Ochrid, with its centuries old churches and monasteries, is held by those in error.

The newlyweds stood before the Holy Iconostasis, the groom in front of the icon of Christ and the bride in front of the Panagia, each holding their own candle. The crowns used were from the sacristy of the monastery, with the appearance of Royal crowns, but made of simple metal.

The Mystery was officiated by His Eminence the Bishop of Bregkalnitsas and Vicar of Bitola, Heraklion and all Pelagonia Mark, and the Assistant Bishop of the Archbishopric of Ochrid His Grace Stoviou, and the deputy of Stromonitsa and Dovirou David, together with hieromonks, priests and deacons of the Church of Serbia and Ochrid.

A group of Greek guests, we in Thessaloniki, had the pleasure and blessing to be there and watch with surprise and awe this sacred ancient ritual of worship of the pious Orthodox people, and to be renewed in our faith.

Those who attended the wedding, family, friends and guests of the groom of the same faith from Serbia, Ukraine and elsewhere, were all humble and modest in appearance, attentive to the event. Only we, the Greeks, stood out in suits and formal wear. Here people do not give "two cents", as our people say, to the unnecessary and redundant, but only to the substance of the thing. We did not seen jewelery or cosmetics, or decorations in the church and yard, nor cake nor champagne, nor favors and rice. Neither a bride dressing in the house, and such and such.

We only saw the reverence and respect for those people for whom they came to give love and extend their wishes, for these young kids starting their married lives.

After the dismissal there followed a hospitality treat in the Abbacy, something like the Love Feast of the first Christians, and then there was a dinner in a restaurant in the town of Kumanovo.

Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Metrophanes, First Archbishop of Constantinople

St. Mitrophanes, Archbishop of Constantinople (Feast Day - June 4)

Saint Metrophanes, Archbishop of Constantinople, was a contemporary of St Constantine the Great (306-337). His father, Dometius, was a brother of the Roman emperor Probus (276-282). Seeing the falseness of the pagan religion, Dometius came to believe in Christ. During a time of terrible persecution of Christians at Rome, St Dometius set off to Byzantium with two of his sons, Probus and Metrophanes. They were instructed in the law of the Lord by Bishop Titus, a man of holy life. Seeing the ardent desire of Dometius to labor for the Lord, St Titus ordained him presbyter. After the death of Titus first Dometius (272-303) was elevated to the bishop's throne, and thereafter his sons, Probus (303-315) and in 316 St Metrophanes.

The emperor Constantine once came to Byzantium, and was delighted by the beauty and comfortable setting of the city. And having seen the holiness of life and sagacity of St Metrophanes, the emperor took him back to Rome. Soon Constantine the Great transferred the capital from Rome to Byzantium and he brought St Metrophanes there. The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 to resolve the Arian heresy. Constantine the Great had the holy Fathers of the Council bestow upon St Metrophanes the title of Archbishop. Thus, the saint became the first Patriarch of Constantinople.

St Metrophanes was very old, and was not able to be present at the Council, and he sent in his place the chorepiscopos (vicar bishop) Alexander. At the close of the Council the emperor and the holy Fathers visited with the ailing Patriarch. At the request of the emperor, the saint named a worthy successor to himself, Bishop Alexander. He foretold that Paul (at that time a Reader) would succeed to the patriarchal throne after Alexander. He also revealed to Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria that his successor would be the archdeacon St Athanasius.

St Metrophanes reposed in the year 326, at age 117, and was buried by Saint James of Nisibis (celebrated Jan. 13), one of the Fathers present at the First Ecumenical Council. His relics rested at Constantinople in a church dedicated to him.

Source

Two Clarifications About St. Metrophanes

1. It should be noted that the Canons to the Holy Trinity in the Midnight Office in the Octoechos were not composed by this Metrophanes, but by Bishop Metrophanes of Smyrna, who lived in the middle of the ninth century.

2. St. Metrophanes was not the first Patriarch of Constantinople, as some sources confuse. Constantinople did not become a Patriarchal See until the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 A.D. However, St. Metrophanes was the first Bishop of Constantinople, since it was during his bishopric that the city of Byzantium came to be known as Constantinople, renamed by St. Constantine the Great. Before this time the bishop was known as the Bishop of Byzantium and, according to tradition, a successor of the Apostle Andrew. Furthermore, according to tradition, since we do not possess the actual minutes of the First Ecumenical Synod, though history seems to confirm this, it was during this Synod that it was decided the Bishop of Constantinople be elevated to an archbishopric. Thus St. Metrophanes was the first Archbishop of Constantinople.

Apolytikion in the First Tone
Proclaiming the great myst'ry, the Godhead in Three Persons, thou didst make most clear unto all men Christ's saving dispensation. A shepherd to sheep endowed with speech, thou dravest off the spiritual wolves, and didst save from their destruction and savagery the lambs of Christ God, who cried out: Glory to Him that hath given thee strength. Glory to Him that hath crowned thee. Glory to Him that confirmed the pure Orthodox Faith through thee.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
Thou clearly didst teach the dogmas of the Faith of Christ; and keeping it well, thou didst increase thy faithful flock to a mighty multitude indeed. Wherefore now, O Metrophanes, with the Angels dost thou rejoice, while ceaselessly praying Christ God for us all.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr