The Castle of the Panagia in Leros

On the hill Apityki (or Pityki) and at a height of 200 m. above sea level, almost in the center of the island of Leros, stands the medieval Castle of the Panagia, which took its name from the church of the Theotokos, which treasures the "Holy Palladium of Lerians" - the icon of the Panagia Odigitria, or Panagia of Kastro, which miraculously arrived on the island of Leros during the era of iconoclasm. In a bull of Emperor Alexios Komnenos (1056 - 1118) the Castle was founded with the name Panteli Castle and built upon the foundations of an ancient Acropolis, and in its current form it was later altered by the Knights of Saint John (who occupied it from 1309 - 1522, followed by the Turks). Emperor Alexios gave this Castle to Saint Christodoulos together with the Castle of Patmos.

The church of the Panagia was built in the 11th century, and the golden iconostasis is from 1745 as well as the episcopal throne and the pulpit. In the area of ​​the Castle there is still the Church of the Holy Trinity with fragments of frescoes from the 9th century, the Church of Saint Nicholas, and an early Christian church which was dedicated to the Unknown Christian Martyr. This latter church was discovered recently by a shepherd searching for his lost sheep. Also in the Castle is an ecclesiastical museum with many treasures.


The miraculous icon of the Panagia, dressed in silver and bearing the date 728 AD, is believed by some to be the work of the Evangelist Luke. It arrived at the island in a miraculous manner on a small boat by itself with two lit lamps. This was in the 9th century during the days of iconclasm.

In the Castle the Lerian Monk Damascene operated a school from 1726, elevating the education of the island, and it ceased operation in the mid-19th century.

The Castle of Panteli is the most important medieval monument of Leros, which, according to tradition, during the time of the iconoclasts in the 9th century the sacred icon of the Theotokos came in a miraculous manner. It was for this reason that the Castle bears the name of the Mother of God till this day and celebrates annually on the feast of her Dormition on August 15th and the Apodosis on August 23rd. At one time this Castle was more famous than the shrine of the Panagia in Tinos, when Christians would come here from all over Greece and Asia Miinor for the feast.

Among the traditions of the people for the August 15th feast is for mother's who have dedicated their children to the Panagia of Kastro to dress their children all in black on August 14th, they make prosphoro for the Divine Liturgy, they walk up to the Castle by way of 499 stairs, and after the Great Vespers Service they remove the black clothing and offer them to the Theotokos.

The tomb of Eldress Gavrilia (1897 - 1992) is within the Castle also.



An Eye-Witness Account of a Miracle of the Theotokos

It was a spring night passed midnight. The full moon was shining with its rays, the valley was sleeping carefree, having as its guardian the tall mountain with the white mills and the Venitian castle. The Monastery of the Virgin Mary the Megalochari, the Lady of the island, was built in there, with icons full of gold and silver gifts that the islanders brought for her grace. Nothing could be heard in that dead silence except only the creepy voice of an owl or the screem of a shepherd dog from time to time.

Suddenly a door from a hut was openned and a woman came out holding a big bag. She stood for a moment, throwing searching glances around, and making three times the sign of Cross. She put the bag on her shoulder and took the road which leads to the wind mills.

As she was walking, she heard foot steps and in a little while she saw two shadows falling hastily downhill. She got scared and made her Cross. Before she had time to even to pull herself together, she saw in the light of the moon two men carring something on their shoulder, running and out of breath towards the valley.

In the morning, before the sun had gilded the mountain tops with its rays, the church bell of the Castle almost broke from being rung so much. When the only nun of the Monastery went early in the morning inside the church to incence the icons, she found them barren from their rich gold and silver offerings. She started to ring the bell in a nervous manner and the whole island started to suspect that something had happened.

Men, women and children gathered to the church to see what had happened. They would go inside the church, and when they saw the icons bare, they would go out to the church yard to find the others to talk about it and curse the thief. Sadness could be seen in everbody's faces. The priests who where also present during this calling, took the icon of the Virgin out to the yard and everybody kneeled down begging the Virgin to make her miracle.

Suddenly, an unusual sound was heard. The people who where up to that time concentrated in the litany, turned to see what had happened and they saw Nicholas, the dumb shepherd whom they called "crazy", come running and making some incomprehensible noise. Two or three men went to meet him, he however with signs as always, showed them that they should follow him.

Some men finally understood what was asked of them and allowed him to lead them. They followed him down the slope and at the turning-point of the road, the dumb man stood in front of a hidden cave and made them understand that they should go inside it. With hesitation, but also with couriosity, the men entered they cave, and what did they see? Two men were laid down on the ground, tied, and without being able to move themselves, and in between them there were two big bags with the treasures of the Megalochari. The Virgin Mary had made her miracle. As the dumb shepherd was walking about by the old wind mills in the light of moon as if he was some kind of fairy, he passed outside of the cave, and he saw the men and brought the news to the Monastery.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Chapel of Panagia Kavouradaina in Leros

Panagia Kavouradaina is a picturesque chapel of Leros in Xirokampos, considered one of the island’s most beautiful. It is a whitewashed, domed chapel, somewhat difficult to reach, although there are stairs leading there, built inside a rock’s crack next to the coast. Further down, we find the location where, according to tradition, a fisherman was looking for crabs (“kavouri”) and found inside a crack (or inside a crab’s shell, according to a different version) a tiny, miraculous icon of the Theotokos. This accounts for the chapel’s name.

We have drawn information on how it was built from tradition.

1. One version is the following:

While a fisherman was collecting sea shells among the rocks, he was bitten by a crab. At that precise moment he saw the icon of the Virgin Mary on the rocks. He immediately prayed and soon the wound healed. Witnessing this miracle he picked up the icon and devoutly took it to the village church, telling his compatriots about the event. That same night he had a dream of a woman in black who said to him: “You must put me back in exactly the same spot where you found me”. The next morning after searching, the icon was once again found on the same part of the rocks as it had been the previous day. After this it was decided that a small church be built on the same spot as where the icon had been found.


2. A second version of how the church was built is the following:

Many years ago two fishermen from Kalymnos set out one day to go fishing. The bad weather however did not allow them to fish for long. When the wind started blowing and the weather got worse they decided to moor at Diapori. So that they would not waste a night’s fishing they decided to fish near the beach with a harpoon to catch an octopus or anything they found by the light of their fishing lamp. As they looked down to the seabed they discerned a big group of crabs. When they filled their fishing baskets with crabs, and they had prepared to leave, a miracle happened: A piece of wood rose to the surface at the exact spot where they were fishing, although the currents were pushing it behind their boat. They stopped, full of curiosity, and took it out of the water. When they cleaned it, they saw that it was the icon of the Panagia. They kissed the icon and crossed themselves.

In the morning, when they arrived in Kalymnos, they both went home. One taking the basket with the crabs and the other the icon of the Panagia. He hung it in a corner of his house and left a small olive oil lamp alight next to it. On the third night while the fisherman was sleeping, he saw the Panagia in his sleep and she said to him: “Take me to Leros and build me a little church, where you found me. Don’t forget to do it!” When he woke up, the fisherman told his friend and they set off for Leros.

They arrived at the rocks of Diapori. They tied up their boat and they went to find Lerian builders to build a church. When it was built they placed the icon of the Panagia on the wooden iconostasis. A few days later, they returned to Kalymnos satisfied that they had realized the Panagia’s wish. However, three days later the fisherman saw the Panagia in his sleep, whose eyes were full of pain and with an angry look on her face, saying to him: “My child, you set me up well in my corner. Go back again and build me the church where you found me. I’m waiting for you”. The Kalymnian was at a loss when he arrived in Leros and saw the church demolished. He tried to find the icon of the Panagia, unsuccessfully. Disappointed he took the road to Xirokampos. To his great surprise he saw the icon against the rocks a little further away from the demolished church. The fisherman thought that as the Panagia wanted that spot to be where her church was, there it must be built. This is how it happened and is still located there, up until today.

A feast for the icon is celebrated every year on the 8th of September and 15th of August.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Oldest Hymn To the Theotokos

The oldest prayer we know of dedicated to the Virgin Mary is known as "Beneath thy compassion" (Greek: Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν; Latin: Sub tuum praesidium). The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Coptic Christmas liturgy of the third century. It is written in Greek and dates to approximately 250 A.D. It is used in the Coptic liturgy to this day, as well as in the Orthodox, Ambrosian, and Latin liturgies.

For Orthodox, the hymn is sung as the last dismissal hymn of daily Vespers during Great Lent.

The entire hymn in Greek reads:

Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν,
καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε.
Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας,
μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς,
μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη.

In English:

Beneath thy compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure one, only blessed one.

Read more about this hymn here.

At the three minute mark of the video below, the hymn is chanted in the context of a Vespers Service for Great Lent.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On Astrology, Fortune-Tellers and Mediums

By Archimandrite Vasilios Bakoyiannis

ASTROLOGY

This can be divided into two categories: a) The Zodiac: this has to do with the month in which we are born and b) Horoscopes: these are our everyday almanacs that depend on the position of the stars.

The Zodiac

Description: There are twelve signs (one for each month). They are called Libra, Scorpio, Aries and so on. People who concern themselves with these believe that: depending on the month in which you were born, you will belong to a certain zodiac sign. And depending on the sign you belong to, you’ll have the particular character that goes with it. In other words, what you are doesn’t depend on you but on your zodiac sign. The influence of each sign begins on the 21st of each month and runs through to the 20th of the following month. Scorpio, for example, belongs to November. Its “reign” begins on October 21st and ends on November 20th. So if you were born during that period (even at one minute past twelve on the morning of October 21st), then you’ll have the character associated with Scorpio, the main feature of which is treachery! Naturally, it’s hardly your fault that you’re like this. You’re the victim! Your sign is to blame, the moment of your birth. If only your mother had gone into labour a bit earlier and you would have been born at one minute before 12 on October 20th, and you would have been a Libra. Then you would have been different as a person and had a different character. You would have been straightforward and kind, all because of your good zodiac sign.

If a friend of yours has the same sign, then he or she will have the same character as you. If there are any differences, they will be due to the fact that you were born on different days and different times (horoscope comes from the Greek and means “to look at the hour”).

Questions: What about twins, who have the same zodiac sign and the same horoscope but are nonetheless different? One might be patient, the other rash; one might be devious, the other straightforward, and so on. What does that make of the claims of the zodiac and the horoscope?

On the other hand, some people have quite different zodiac signs, yet display very similar characteristics. How can that be explained in terms of the zodiac?

Let’s say there are identical twins with the same zodiac sign and the same horoscope and the same characters. The one is just as grasping and impious as the other. Then one of them “sees the light” and becomes a generous, believing Christian, even a monk or nun. Yet the other one remains just as he or she always was. How can that be explained?

If, for example, you’re a Scorpio and you want to rid yourself of the supposed treachery associated with this sign, do people really believe that the zodiac sign itself could prevent you from doing so?

In brief: Our personality is not formed by outside agencies, but internal factors such as our way of thinking and our will power. Woe betide us if we were controlled robots dependent on inanimate objects (zodiac signs and horoscopes)!

Horoscopes

Those who deal in astrology believe that your horoscope determines the everyday events in your life, and even your future! In other words, that whatever might happen to you in the course of your life is written in your horoscope. So there’s no point in worrying about or striving for a better future. Astrologers who delve into your horoscope can tell you your fortune. There was one in Greece who used to advertise: “Through your horoscope, I can foretell the course of your life.” Hogwash!

Now be careful. Would you, a logical, reasonable person, entrust your future to an inanimate thing like a horoscope, and NOT to God’s Providence? If the horoscope brings you something bad, you wouldn't quibble and you wouldn’t reject it. But if God brings you something “bad”, you grumble and complain. You might even reject God! But not your horoscope…

How about that for a shining example of faith! How about that for an admirable example of rationality! It’s people who are neither faith-filled nor rational like that who believe in horoscopes.

Is It Possible?: Stars are inanimate. And that’s not all. They’re millions of light years away. If they had eyes, they would see the enormous earth as a tiny speck, if at all. Imagine how they would see you, who live on this tiny speck. They would see you as minute: Are we really being asked to believe that INANIMATE, dead stars could be bothered with the future of something so minute?

Furthermore, here’s practical proof:

At the end of 1987, astrologers told the “fortunes” of some prominent people for 1988.

- For the then all-powered Mikhail Gorbachov they said: “In 1998, he will divorce his wife, Raisa.” Well, it didn’t happen. They were still a devoted couple when Mrs Gorbachov passed away in 1999.

- For Christina Onassis they foretold: “In 1988, she’ll remarry.” In 1988, Christina Onassis died!

- Girolamo Cardano (1501–1576) was an eminent mathematician, physician and please note, an astrologer. He cast horoscopes for many famous people and then for himself. Having predicted that he would live 75 years, and being still in robust health when the time came, he saved his reputation by the simple expedient of committing suicide!

Although it was common in Cardano’s time for scientists to believe in astrology, it is not so today. One hundred ninety-two leading scientists from all over the world, including nineteen who have been awarded Nobel Prizes have come out against astrology, describing it as “mythology.” Yet some poor souls still think it’s “wisdom.”

FORTUNE-TELLERS & SEERS

The “Seers”

Mediums and people who tell the future from cards, tea-leaves or coffee-grounds all declare that they have the “gift” of tracing a certain person, or that a particular family has been cursed and they can find out who cursed them. In truth, though, aren’t they really just making fools of ordinary people?

The late Archimandrite Haralambos Vasilopoulos was confessor to a great many such tricksters who had repented, and he asked them:

“Why did you get involved in the devil’s work?”

“For the money”, they replied.

“When your clients asked you something, what did you tell them?”

“We just made monkeys out of them.”

They confessed, in all sincerity, that they had deceived people. “Behind mediums (and so on) you will find deceit and greed,” as the late priest notes from his experience as a confessor.

These dabblers in the occult also proclaim that they can find a certain person or object for you. Really?! Since they are so clever at finding people, why don’t they use their powers to help the police locate people who are a menace to society? There are plenty of rewards for finding people who are on the run. This could be a very lucrative business for them!

No doubt they would like to, but they can’t. All they can do is make people look like fools.

In 1969 there was a man in Athens who was smitten in love for a married woman. He was absolutely set on marrying her, but she wouldn’t hear of it. One day he tricked her into getting into his car. He took her up onto Mount Parnassos. No doubt, he tried everything he could think of to get her to change her mind, but it appears she remained adamant. The upshot was that at some point he wrenched the steering-wheel over and drove off a cliff, sending them to their deaths on the rocks in a ravine 700 metres below.

At home, the family awaited the woman’s return. One day went by, then another. There was no sign of her.

Her mother had recourse to a medium. She paid handsomely. All she wanted was to find out where her daughter was. The answer was: “Your daughter’s alive and well. At this very moment she’s walking along a street near Piraeus.” When you visit these “seers”, it costs you. They make a fool out of you and, on top of that, you pay them. You give them a lot of money and it doesn’t seem unreasonable. You think nothing of it. But if a priest comes and reads a service for you, you give him “something” tiny and then never stop complaining about having to pay him.

“Fortune-Tellers”

People who read tea leaves, coffee-grounds or cards and so on, say that they can tell your future. As if it were possible that your secrets and your future could be contained in a cup or a pack of cards (a pack of lies, more like it)!

They can’t even find out what’s happened in the past, so how on earth are they supposed to tell the future?

Remember: if you visit them you pay. So they want money. What for? Why don’t they use their powers to “foretell” the winning number in a lottery, or to bet on the surprise outcome of a football game or horse race? If they did that, they wouldn’t need to ask for money from their clients.

They’d love to, of course, but they can’t. All they can do is to be on the watch for simpletons.

St John Chrysostom says to those who believe in such nonsense: "Bring me one of these fortune-tellers and have him tell me what’s going to happen tomorrow."

What Happened to One Medium:

As Fr Haralambos said above, “Behind mediums (and so on) you’ll find first deceit and greed”. That’s the first point. But there are other points as well.

Victor H. Ernest, a well known former medium, at a spiritual séance asked a wicked spirit whether it believed that Christ was the Son of God; that He was the Savior of the World; that He had died on the Cross; and that He shed His blood for our sins. All at once, one of the other mediums, who was in a deep trance, sprang up from his chair. But that wasn’t all. He then collapsed in a heap on the floor groaning loudly as though he were suffering unbearable pain. Ernest goes on to reveal that he was given first aid and managed to come round.

Why was this medium (the devil in him) so upset? Why did he have a panic attack? Why did he faint? Why did he suffer so much?

It was because the others were talking about his enemy, namely Jesus Christ and the Cross.

After this, Ernest had nothing more to do with “spiritualist séances”. What’s more, he repented and returned to Christ.

Conclusion: Behind mediums and the like, first and foremost there’s Satan. In other words, all these fortune-tellers and seers are at work for the devil. They blindly do his bidding.

From the book Confronting the Devil, Magic & the Occult, Orthodox Book Centre, Athens 2003

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Documentary on Vatopaidi Monastery (Greek)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Why Didn't God Make A Perfect World?

Though Orthodox patristic sources aren't cited here, this question, which is often brought up these days by skeptics, is adaquetly analyzed here both theologically and philosophically and offers a humbling answer to critics concerning the purpose behind God's design.

By VJ Torley

It’s a common enough complaint. Why don’t we live in a perfect world? After all, wouldn’t we expect God to make one, supposing He existed?

Does the demand for perfection limit God’s creative freedom?

One response to this question is that God is not obliged to make a perfect world, simply because He is perfect. After all, God is a free agent, and if He wants to make a world that is less than perfect, who are we to argue? After all, it’s still (for the most part) a good world, and whatever existence we have we owe entirely to Him, so we should be grateful for what we’ve been given.

That’s a good answer, so far as it goes, but it still fails to address the question: if God is capable of making a perfect world, then why didn’t He? Surely that would be the default expectation we’d have for an Infinite Being. In the ordinary course of events, the more perfect an agent is, the better his/her products are. Certainly a master potter can make pots of average quality, but we’d normally expect him/her to make pots of the finest quality. So why shouldn’t we expect the Creator of the universe to make a perfect universe?

One response to this question is that the demand for perfection would be an unreasonable constraint on God’s creative freedom: it only gives God one option, which is very limiting for a free agent. But that’s an unsatisfactory reply. There are many possible ways – perhaps countless ways – of making a perfect world. Even if God could only make a perfect world, God would still have lots of options.

Is it logically impossible for God to make a perfect world?

Another response is that it’s logically impossible for God to make a perfect world, so we shouldn’t blame Him for not making one. Only God is an Infinite Being. Every finite being is necessarily imperfect, as it necessarily lacks some perfection that an Infinite Being possesses. Thus no creature can be altogether free from defects. What’s more, for any world God makes, we can always imagine a better one, that contains something extra. So there can be no such thing as a perfect world.

This is a very tempting response to make, but I believe it’s wrong, as it overlooks the distinction between “finite” and “defective.” A limitation is not a flaw, and “perfect” does not mean “unsurpassable.”

A finite thing may not possess a certain perfection, but that does not mean that it lacks it. We say that a thing lacks something if it does not possess something which it should possess. Since a thing is only defective (or imperfect) if it lacks something, then the fact that a thing is finite does not imply that it is imperfect or defective. We do not call a pig defective because it has no wings. A bird without wings, on the other hand, would be defective.

What is perfection?

The perfection of a thing can be defined in terms of what God, its Maker, intends it to do. I would, however, add that if the thing in question is a living thing, our finite human minds can generally discern what it is meant to do, simply by investigating the conditions under which it thrives. Living things, unlike pots, have built-in ends, which require no intimate knowledge of their Maker’s plans in order for us to identify them.

If a thing does exactly what it’s meant to do, given the kind of thing it is, then it’s a perfect individual of that kind, even if it’s finite. For instance, a pig may be a perfect specimen of its kind if it can do whatever a pig is meant to do – i.e. if it fulfils its telos or built-in end. And if one individual of a certain kind can be perfect, then there is no reason in principle why all individuals of that kind cannot be. And if all individuals belonging to each and every natural kind are perfect, then we have a perfect world. A perfect world is not an unsurpassable one; it’s just a world free from flaws, that’s all.

The argument in the foregoing paragraph assumes that natural kinds are real categories – and in a perfect world, they would have to be. This requirement would not preclude these categories from changing very slowly over millions of years, however, in response to environmental changes. A perfect world need not be a static one.

A perfect world need not be an ageless one, either. A thing’s perfection does not entail that it has to last forever. If an organism such as a tree is designed by God to only last for a finite time, and if does what it’s meant to do during that time, then its programmed death is not an imperfection but a design feature.

Finally, even the extinction of a species could conceivably be a design feature. For each and every creature can be said to manifest its perfection in three different ways: first, in its achievement of its own proper end; second, in the assistance which it provides to other creatures; and third, in the way in which it contributes to the perfection of the universe as a whole. Even if a species of creature flourishes for a relatively short period, it is still capable of attaining its own biological ends during that time; hence it is perfect in the first sense. As regards the second and third senses, even if some kinds of creatures created by God die out, they can still serve a useful ecological role in their environment, by assisting species which go on to survive. If these surviving species later develop into new species, then we can say that the extinct species were at least indirectly useful to these new species, by assisting their ancestors to survive. Hence, even extinct creatures can indirectly contribute to the perfection of the universe as a whole and to the development of new life forms.

A Platonist objection relating to archetypes

A Platonist would probably object to the telos-centered definition of perfection proposed above, and argue that a thing is not perfect unless it is identical to its archetype. I would disagree, for three reasons. First, an archetype is always incompletely specified. For instance, how tall is a perfect horse? I don’t know, although I’d be willing to say 50 centimeters is too short and 2.5 meters is too tall. Second, even if the archetype were completely specified in all its traits, there would still remain one thing about it that was not specified: its location in space and time. Where does a perfect horse live? Is it any better if it lives in Paris rather than in New York? Finally, I would point out that an archetype is just a universal form, whereas individual horses are composed of matter as well as form. Hence there can be many of them, and all of them could (in principle) be perfect.

Members of a species are distributed across space and time, which raises another issue in relation to perfection. A system which might appear sub-optimal (and hence imperfect) now may have been ideal for past conditions or may turn out to be optimal in future circumstances, and therefore may represent an “overall best” design over time and space. On this view, living things can be regarded as closed loop control systems, which are designed in order to respond flexibly to changing environmental inputs.

Are poorly designed biological structures evidence against God’s perfection?

The medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas freely acknowledged that “an imperfect effect proves imperfection in the agent” (Summa Theologica I, q. 66, art. 1). Although this argument is put forward in an objection (“On the contrary…”) which Aquinas subsequently answers, he does not question the principle itself in his response. Therefore when anti-religious evolutionists like Dr. Richard Dawkins criticize the design of the vertebrate eye, they are at least making a relevant criticism – for if they were right, it would constitute powerful evidence against the belief that Nature was made by an perfect and infinite God, although it would in no way weaken the scientific conclusion (argued for by ID proponents) that Nature was designed by an Intelligence of some sort.

Skeptics have often faulted God for His poor design of various biological structures, including the vertebrate eye, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe and the male prostrate gland, among others. There are detailed answers for these objections – see here, here and here for instance. I could say a lot more about the litany of “imperfect” designs and allegedly “vestigial” organs which Darwinian evolutionists constantly drag up, but the key point I wish to make is an epistemological one: without a complete understanding of how a creature’s genes code for its embryonic development and produce its bodily organs, we are in no position to criticize God’s designs. In particular, before we can confidently declare a bodily organ in a creature to be totally useless (as some vestigial organs are alleged to be), we first need to identify the gene that codes for it, and ascertain whether it also codes for any other useful organs or vital biological functions. If it does, then we will then have to find a way of mutating that gene to make the “vestigial” organ disappear, while keeping the creature’s other organs and biological functions intact. Only then can we truly declare an organ to be totally useless. The “vestigial” eyes of moles, which are hidden under their skin, serve no function; but if the genes that code for them cannot be modified to make the eyes disappear without rendering moles less biologically fit, then we cannot say that the eyes of moles are completely useless.

Thus I would say that it is certainly possible for God to make a perfect world, and the allegedly poor designs we see in Nature only serve to demonstrate our ignorance rather than God’s ineptitude. God cannot however make a world which is infinite in all respects, like He is.

Why didn’t God create intelligent beings in a perfect world – i.e. Heaven?

Interestingly, most religious believers would accept that God has already made a perfect world. It’s called Heaven. So the atheist’s complaint boils down to this: why didn’t God put us all in Heaven from the get-go? Why are we stuck in this world?

Of course, young-earth creationists maintain that this world was originally created perfect. Since I believe in an old earth, I cannot adopt this solution. More importantly, I would like to point out that absence of flaws does not suffice to make a world perfect. A truly perfect world is one that is guaranteed to remain free from flaws. On this definition, the Paradise of Genesis 2 was not perfect; at best, it was a way-station to a perfect world. Only Heaven can truly be called a perfect world.

Another (seldom invoked) response to the question of why we were placed in an imperfect world is that our very identity as individuals is necessarily tied to the world in which we were originally created. If we’d been created in some other world, we wouldn’t be who we are. To wish that you’d been created in Heaven is to wish yourself out of existence. But an atheist might attempt to rephrase his/her argument as follows: “If God were to create a race of intelligent beings, then He should put them in a perfect world. And if this requirement entails my non-existence, then so be it.” So the question now becomes: why didn’t God create intelligent beings in a perfect world?

However, the most satisfactory answer I can give to the atheist’s question (drawing from the Judeo-Christian tradition) is that a perfect world is only suitable for perfect moral agents. When I say “perfect moral agents”, I don’t just mean agents who haven’t done anything wrong. I mean agents who can be guaranteed not to do anything wrong in the future. The first human beings were not perfect in this sense, as they had libertarian freedom and were capable of sinning. (The Biblical account of Adam and Eve before the Fall highlights this very point.) Hence it was not fitting that the first human beings should be placed in a world that was guaranteed to remain free from all imperfections (i.e. Heaven). Instead, it was more appropriate that they should be placed in a world in which decay and death were real possibilities. And being placed in such a flawed world is even more appropriate for us today: not only are we capable of sinning, but we often do sin. So the answer I’d give the atheist is: prove to me that you can do no wrong, and I’ll acknowledge the merit of your complaint against God. Prove to me that God could have created a race of intelligent beings lacking libertarian freedom, and I’ll acknowledge that the imperfection of our world constitutes a real theological problem.

A theological problem: bugs that were intentionally designed to cause human and animal suffering

But we are not done yet. So far we have assumed that the only morally significant individuals are intelligent beings. But surely sentient animals are morally significant beings too: they can experience some level of joy and distress, even if (lacking intelligence) they fail to qualify as moral agents, who are capable of doing good or evil. In a perfect world, we would surely expect that distress would be absent. Animal death, if it occurred, would be unaccompanied by distress. The theological problem confronting believers is that the world was imperfect long before people entered it. What’s more, it seems to have been intentionally designed to cause distress to animals and human beings. As Intelligent Design proponent Professor Michael Behe puts it in The Edge of Evolution (2008, Free Press):

"Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts…

What sort of designer is that? What sort of “fine-tuning” leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? Or who relishes cries of pain?" (p. 237)

Behe goes on to argue that regardless of whether one believes the designer of life was “a dope, a demon, or a deity”, there can be no getting around the fact that life was designed. And that includes the malaria parasite and other nasty bugs.

What we continually need to remind ourselves is that we don’t know all the facts about the original condition of these seemingly malevolent organisms, as well as their subsequent development. Until we do, we are in no position to sit in judgment on God.

For instance, according to a recent press release by the National Science Foundation, modern malaria parasites began to spread to various mammals, birds and reptiles about 16 million years ago. Malaria parasites may jump to new, unrelated hosts at any time, decoupling their evolution from that of their hosts. The ancestors of humans acquired the parasite 2.5 million years ago. However, according to Dr. Robert Ricklefs, one of the biologists who conducted the recent research into the origin of the malaria parasite, “Malaria parasites undoubtedly were relatively benign for most of that history, becoming a major disease only after the origins of agriculture and dense human populations.”

Another theological conundrum: aberrant behavior patterns in animals

In addition to the intentionally designed suffering we find in the human and animal world, we also find abundant evidence of animals with built-in (i.e. designed) tendencies to engage in disorderly behaviors such as cannibalism, infanticide, rape, unnatural sex and killing for sport. To rationalize these behaviors as serving some useful biological purpose is morally obscene; it should be self-evident that an omni-benevolent Being would not design a world like that.

Aquinas: death, injury and birth defects are part and parcel of an animal’s contingent perfection

Not all theologians regard the occurrence of animal suffering as a difficulty for theism. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas ascribed natural evils to God’s free decision to create a universe containing multiple grades of perfection. Certain grades of perfection are 100% reliable, while other grades of perfection are contingent, and liable to fail from time to time. According to Aquinas, that doesn’t make the contingent grades imperfect; rather, part of their perfection is to occasionally fail.

Animals belong in the category of contingent grades of perfection. According to Aquinas, animals are inherently prone to death, injury and birth defects, for three reasons. First, animals naturally generate themselves, and the flip-side of generation is corruption. The only way for God to make a world without death would be to make a world without plants and animals. Secondly, the very perfections which characterize animals are produced by causes whose modus operandi is probabilistic and thus inherently prone to failure. This means that the perfections we observe in living creatures are liable to be not realized on some occasions, leading to birth defects in some individuals. Finally, the diversity and complexity of the parts which make up animals’ bodies guarantees that sooner or later, they will interfere with each other’s operation, leading to bodily degeneration. Hence all animals are doomed to die.

Aquinas even taught that there was just the right amount of natural evil in the biological world. As Richard Regan and Brian Davies put it in their introduction to The De Malo of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Critics of belief in God have sometimes argued that there is too much evil suffered in God’s world (the implication being that God is either bad or nonexistent). According to Aquinas, however, in the case of evil suffered, there can never be more evil than there need be. He thinks that any evil suffered that is more than there need be would be lacking a natural cause. It would be scientifically inexplicable. He therefore suggests that the evil suffered is neither more nor less than what we can expect in a material world in which scientific explanations can be given for what happens." (2001, Oxford University Press, p. 22.)

One major difference between Aquinas and modern writers is that Aquinas’ questions about natural evil are framed from a third-person perspective. They do not address the experience of suffering as such. Because St. Thomas considered natural evil in the animal kingdom from a third-person perspective, he is not troubled by the modern question, “How could a just God permit animals to suffer as much as they do? Indeed, why are they allowed to suffer at all?”

Another major difference between Aquinas and many modern theologians concerns the issue of whether the Creator has any duties towards His sentient creatures, simply by virtue of having created them. There seems to be a great divide between the medieval and the modern mind-set on this issue, which is why some modern Christian apologists such as C. S. Lewis have even proposed that animals may be granted some kind of immortality, though not, of course, the Beatific Vision. Aquinas would have dismissed such speculation as nonsense. He argued that although animals can have sensory knowledge particular objects, they are unable to form universal concepts, because they cannot grasp the underlying rule that defines them as belonging to the same natural kind. As a result, abstract thinking is beyond them. Hence they are incapable of enjoying immortality, as they have no natural desire for it. Their desires are limited to the here and now, which is all that their bodily senses enable them to apprehend (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, chapter 82, paragraphs 2, 4 and 12).

I have previously written about Aquinas’ theodicy here and offered my own critique of Aquinas’ treatment of animal suffering here, before putting forward a very tentative proposal as to how some sort of animal immortality might be possible.

A very different approach to the problem of animal suffering: C. S. Lewis

The Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, who was a former atheist himself, was acutely aware of the theological challenge posed by the occurrence of animal suffering. His approach was strikingly different in content and in tone from that of Aquinas. The solution he proposed in chapter 9 of his book, The Problem of Pain, was that some malevolent intelligence had interfered with God’s original plan for Nature:

"It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him. This hypothesis is not introduced as a general ‘explanation of evil’: it only gives a wider application to the principle that evil comes from the abuse of free will. If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared."

Thus the extensive evidence of mal-design in the natural world (e.g. parasitism), combined with the high incidence of pain, distress, and disorderly behaviors (cannibalism, infanticide, rape, unnatural sex and killing for sport) in the animal kingdom should lead us to conclude that God’s original handiwork has been tampered with by malevolent agents.

Professor William Dembski: Animal suffering is due to the retroactive Fall of man

Lewis was well aware that earlier generations of Christians had linked animal suffering to the Fall of man. Lewis set aside this view, on the grounds that animals existed long before the first people appeared. However, in his recent book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (B & H Academic, Nashville, Tennessee, 2009), Professor William Dembski makes a powerful attempt to justify the traditional Christian view.

Dembski makes the bold proposal that the animals who suffered millions of years before the Fall of the first human beings, suffered because of a sin that God knew they were going to commit. Because God is outside time, He was able to ensure that the full consequences of the first human beings’ sin would be visited upon His creation, both before and after the Fall of man. While the suffering of animals before the Fall of man was actually inflicted by malevolent intelligences (demonic agents), God permitted these malevolent agents to wreak havoc on Nature only because He foreknew that the first human beings (who were entrusted with the stewardship of God’s earthly creation) would reject His offer of eternal life. If these human beings had not fallen, malevolent intelligences would never have been permitted by God to inflict suffering on creatures in the natural world, before humans appeared on Earth. Thus in a very real way, the sin of the first human beings is the (retroactive) cause of all the suffering found in Nature – past, present and future.

I find Professor Dembski’s proposal an intriguing one, which has considerable merit. I have previously written about his theodicy here and offered my own comments on his proposal here (for what they’re worth). One thing that needs to be kept in mind throughout this discussion is that Dembski’s theodicy is independent of his views on Intelligent Design. Professor Dembski makes this abundantly clear in the Introduction to his book, where he writes:

"Much of my past work has been on intelligent design and the controversy over evolution. Nothing in his book, however, takes sides in that debate. In arguing that the Fall marks the entry of all evil into the world (both personal and natural evil), I make no assumptions about the age of the Earth, the extent of evolution, or the prevalence of design" (Dembski, 2009, pages 9-10).

Thus one can consistently accept Dembski’s theodicy while rejecting his views on Intelligent Design – and vice versa.

So in response to the question, “Why didn’t God make a perfect world?” I would answer that a perfect world is for perfect moral agents, and God knew we would instead turn out to be a race of fallen beings. God gave us libertarian freedom. Human and animal deaths from parasites are not an original design feature, but a symptom of creation run amok, due to the fact that we live in a fallen world. Finally, we should remember that there are other intelligent beings that live in this world, and it would be naïve to regard them all as benevolent. We should therefore be prepared to entertain the very real possibility that God’s original design has been tampered with, in both humans and other animals. The fact that some creatures show evidence of malevolent interference should not weaken our philosophical conclusion that their Ultimate and Original Designer is an infinitely wise and benevolent Being.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Klaus Kenneth Interviewed By Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaias

The Incredible Tale of Klaus Kenneth

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

My Niece Singing Her Favorite Hymn

My seven year old niece Christiana has a new favorite hymn she wanted to share with me today that she learned during her first summer at the Metropolis of Boston Orthodox Camp. It's called "Lord of the Powers".

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Fotou the Cypriot

Saint Foutou of Cyprus (Feast Day - August 2)

In the village of Agios Andronikos of Yialousa in the Karpas peninsula, there is the cave where Saint Photini the Cypriot, who in Cyprus is known as Saint Fotou, lived an ascetic life and who is one of the most beloved saints of the region. When the residents of the village discovered the cave, they declared Saint Fotou as patron saint of the village and built a church in her honor under Archbishop Chrysanthos (1767-1810), during the 18th century.

Every year on the eve of the feast of Saint Fotou, which is on August 2nd, thousands of faithful from across the Karpas but also from other parts of Cyprus filled the village of Agios Andronikos were they made temporary huts and began one of the biggest festivals of the island, with plenty of songs, dances, food and drink. The village of Saint Andronikos was until 1964 a mixed village and thus the Turkish Cypriot residents also participated and celebrated at the festival together with the Greek Cypriots.

Despite the love that people from the Karpas have for Saint Fotou, there is no information about her life, her origin, and the time she lived. What is known about her is based on tradition and the historian Leontios Machairas.

Local tradition from the Karpas says that Saint Fotou came from the village of Rizokarpaso and was of humble parents. From a young age she rejected secular life and marriage, and left to live an ascetic life in a cave which she carved out herself. There, Saint Fotou lived a holy life, with prayer, fasting, abstinence, virginity, and a life fully devoted to God.

Tradition says also that Saint Fotou performed miracles even when she was alive. When she died, she was buried by faithful and devout Christians. In her tomb which was discovered by divine revelation, the following words were written: "Photini, Virgin Bride of Christ.

This divine revelation took place during the 15th century as the historian Leontios Macheras states. He writes in his "Chronikon" the following:

"By the Karpas peninsula at the village of Saint Andronikos, there was found a little while ago by God's revelation, the tomb of Saint Fotini, and her cave is below the earth. It has a Holy Altar and a place of worship and has Holy Water which runs very deep in depth, and with each new moon the top of the water turns into ice and afterwards people lift it off and it starts melting into small particles as thin as dust. The blind take these small particles and rub them on their eyes and the blind get well and can see."

Saint Fotou in particular is believed to cure diseases of the eyes. Her tomb is underground and is carved with 23 steps and the holy water is deep in the cave. After becoming refugees, the residents of Agios Andronikos carried the bones of Saint Fotou to the free areas of Cyprus and placed them in the newly built church of the Apostle Andrew at the Kolossi refugee settlement in Limassol. The well with the holy water is said to have dried up since the Turkish settlement of Northern Cyprus in 1974.

From 1974 until 2003, the Church of Saint Fotou at the village of Saint Andronikos which you can see in the pictures, was used by the Turks as a stable for sheep after first being desecrated and pillaged.

Source

Ἀπολυτίκιον Ἦχος α’.
Καρηασέων τὸ κλέος καὶ Κυπρίων ἀγλάισμα καὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων ἡ ρώσις, τῶν πεπηρωμένων ἀνάβλεψις, τῶν πρὸς σὲ πιστῶς προστρεχόντων ἐν τῷ θείῳ ναῶ σου, πανένδοξε, τᾶς ἰάσεις παράσχου τοὶς δούλοις σου πάντοτε, ἶνα εὐχαρίστως κράζωμεν, Φωτεινὴ Ὁσία νύμφη Χριστοῦ καλλιπάρθενε. Δόξα τῷ σὲ δοξάσαντι, δόξα τῷ σὲ στεφανώσαντι, δόξα τῷ ἐνεργούντι διὰ σοῦ πασιν Ἰάματα.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Litany of Panagia of Tripolitsa in Tripoli

Every year in the evening of August 1st, to honor the first Paraklesis (Supplication) Service of the Dormition Fast, the people of Tripoli process the Sacred and Miraculous Icon of Panagia of Tripolitsa which is safe-guarded at the Metropolitan Church of Saint Basil.

The icon itself was painted during the difficult years of the Greek Revolution in 1823. It began to be painted by Mihailos Komnenidos of Poros, but before he finished he died of some sickness. It was completed in 1826 by the iconographer George Athanasiades from Cydonia, Crete. He gave the icon to Anastasios Gyzani of Poros who made the original order for it. For many years the icon remained within this family, and it was eventually given to the Church of Saint Basil in Tripoli.

Over the years, this icon of Panagia of Tripolitsa became much-beloved by the locals. Twice it was saved from fire in a miraculous way, first when it was in possession of the Gyzani family and the second time when the Church of Saint Basil caught fire.

Today the icon is enthroned in a marble proskynitarion, which was donated by faithful parishioners. The procession with the icon is a major event for the city every year on August 1st.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: Divine Liturgy With Elder Porphyrios

This Divine Liturgy with Elder Porphyrios was recorded on 27 May 1977 at the Holy Church of Saint Nicholas in Kallision. It was recorded by Maria Liva and found among her belongings following her passing. It was given to the Hesychasterion of Elder Porphyrios in Milesi by a relative of hers. The entire recording begins with the Praises of Orthros and ends with the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy. The chanter is Elder Porphyrios' sister Hariklia, who later became the nun Porphyria, the first abbess of the Hermitage of the Transfiguration of Christ.

This recording offers the listener the opportunity to hear the voice of a Saint celebrating mystagogically the Divine Liturgy. The above recording is taken from the Small Entrance.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On Dreams, Superstitions and the Evil Eye

By Archimandrite Vasilios Bakoyiannis

A Greek proverb says “The devil has lots of legs.” He can walk many paths, some of them very torturous. So he is perfectly capable of trapping you at any time.

Mediums, the occult, astrology and so on, are paths that the devil treads. Just how and why, we will have a look at now.

DREAMS

Should we believe in dreams? If you have a dream that suggests something bad is going to happen to you, should you take it seriously or not pay any attention to it? There are human, diabolical and God-sent dreams. The only ones that are valid are those sent by God.

Human Dreams

“The poor man dreams of crumbs,” says a Greek proverb. Now what does that mean? Well, it means that what the poor man has on his mind (food, in this case), is what he sees in his dreams. In other words, whatever we’ve got on our minds, whatever is bothering us in our subconscious, might come out as a dream. As Karen Horney, the internationally famous psychiatrist, says in her book Self-Analysis, dreams are the voice of our aspirations.

Diabolical Dreams

The devil sows all sorts of thoughts in our brains. The Evil One doesn’t confine himself to this task only when we’re awake, but continues when we’re asleep. So it’s perfectly possible for us to see things in our dreams that actually come from our enemy.

And naturally, through our dreams, our enemy will try to do us harm, to terrify us, to threaten us and so on. This is why we ask the Lord every evening to “preserve us from every Satanic fantasy.”

Divine Dreams

God, too, can speak to people through dreams. There are plenty of examples of this in the Scriptures, such as the dreams of the Pharaoh that Joseph interpreted (Gen. 41).

How To Tell Them Apart

Saint John of the Ladder advises and urges us: “Believe ONLY those dreams that have to do with Hell and the Judgment, though if they make you despair then they, too, are from the devil.”

Therefore: Diabolical dreams terrify us and make us despair. Divine dreams (the only ones which are valid) show us Hell and the Judgment. We awake from them concerned, positively concerned, about the salvation of our souls. Human dreams neither terrify us, nor cause us to despair, nor bring us to repentance and the salvation of our souls.

SUPERSTITIONS

In the old days superstitions were rife, especially in country districts. Now that life in general has changed so much, many of these superstitions are dying out. Some are still going the rounds, though, and it’s with them that we’ll deal now.

New Year

Everybody hopes that the New Year will get off to a good start and continue in the same vein. Indeed, we pray for this. Some people, however, take a superstitious view and resort to “charms”.

They bring in the New Year by eating, drinking and having a good time. They’d think it bad luck not to welcome the New Year with feasting and revelry. They’d be worried that the whole year would be spoiled.

They play cards or gamble for the same reason: if they’re lucky at New Year, the whole year will be lucky. They go to church on New Year’s day for luck (not out of due piety). They even take communion for luck (not “for the remission of sins and life everlasting”).

However, a New Year enters our lives every moment. Every minute that we live is also a new year. So what happens at New Year also happens every minute of the day. Every moment is New Year’s day.

If you want the New Year to go well, then use this everyday continuous New Year to the best advantage. Do good “here and now.”

Unlucky Encounters

If you’re on your way to work first thing in the morning and you happen to meet a cripple, a blind person - or, in Greece, a priest! - you take it as a bad sign.

In fact, the “bad sign” isn’t the meeting at all. It’s your own faith and superstitiousness. It is a sure sign that you’re deeply deluded.

St John Chrysostom says that the way your day goes doesn’t depend on whom you meet first thing in the morning. Your day goes badly when you live in sin. So when you leave your house, beware of an encounter with sin.

At Weddings

When the superstitious are about to marry, the first thing they make sure of is that the wedding does not take place on an “unlucky” day, such as Friday 13th. This, according to St John Chrysostom, is not only stupid thinking, it’s actually diabolical. Happiness for them depends on dates and not on their personal struggle. A Greek proverb says “Every day is God’s” and this is the way to look at it. Some people ask: “Is it all right for two siblings to get married at the same time?”

What matters here is what the Church says, and the Church doesn’t forbid it. “Is it all right” they ask, “for the same family to have a memorial service and a wedding in the same month (or six months)?” The same thing applies here: the Church doesn’t forbid it.

After Childbirth

There are all sorts of superstitions regarding women after childbirth. For example: a) it doesn’t do for new mothers to travel before the fortieth day, b) It doesn’t do for new mothers to go out at night, and so on.

The only thing the Church lays down is that the woman is not permitted to enter a church, nor, of course, to take communion, before the service on the fortieth day.

At Funerals

Some of the superstitions associated with funerals are: a) Some people thinks it is a bad sign to look back when a dead person is being brought out of a house, b) Some will break an object, often a plate, to drive away bad luck (as if death would be afraid of the odd broken plate!), c) Others will cut themselves off from the Church for a year! - again, as if cutting yourself off from the Church for a year is going to avert evil.

And that’s how evil does, in fact, come. Evil brings evil. St Nikodemos the Hagiorite says: “What are you doing, you thoughtless person? Don’t you know that by not going to Church, you’re making an enemy of God and His saints. You’re in conflict with them because one of your relations has died? And who are you to war against God, Who does everything for our good, both in our life and in our death?”

THE EVIL (JEALOUS) EYE: Action of the Devil

When an envious person sees something good about another, he or she will suffer. The same is true for the cunning devil. The devil and the envious are jealous of other people doing well. That’s the trait they have in common. The devil exploits this. He uses it to pass on his wickedness to people. In other words, an envious (jealous) look becomes a conduit or a conductor through which the devil’s poison is distributed. “The evil eye” says St Basil the Great, “is an action of the devil which is committed by envious people” ... “dispel every action of the devil, every satanic onslaught.”

This means that the evil eye is NOT, for example, an ordinary headache, an ordinary dizzy spell or whatever. It’s definitely something EXTRAORDINARY, something dreadful, something unbearable, something SATANIC. Eyewitnesses report that a villager had a fine horse. Some envious person looking at it, said, “What a fine horse,” and the animal dropped dead on the spot. That’s obviously an action of the devil.

Which People Have “the Eye”?

The story above reveals that the evil eye belongs to those who have evil within them: “Dispel every poison of corrupt and envious people.” (From the Prayer Against the Evil Eye). In older times, it was common for people to spit if they admired, for example, a beautiful child. In this way, they would symbolically get rid of the “poison”, i.e., any trace of envy that might do the child harm.

Whom does the “Eye” affect?

Obviously, since the evil eye is an action of the devil, it can affect anyone who’s not equipped with the weapons to combat the devil and his machinations, which are prayer, fasting, confession and Holy Communion. This is why: a) Saints aren’t affected, b) Priests aren’t affected either (because of the priesthood), c) Neither are those affected who take part in the sacramental life of the Church.

Dispelling the “Eye” - THE PRAYER

Given that the evil eye is an action of the devil, a special prayer is required to exorcise him. The Orthodox Church has adopted a special prayer against the evil eye which exorcises the devil. This prayer is to be read only by a priest.

Sinful Attempts at Exorcism

Suppose you’ve had the evil eye put on you, and instead of going to a priest you go to a woman who “specializes” in such cases. If you do this both you and the woman are committing a sin.

You are sinning because you are scorning God’s appointed servant (the priest) and going knocking at the door of a stranger, and the woman is usurping the position of the priest.

To be more precise: Lay persons, because they aren’t ordained, don’t have the right to make the sign of the Cross over other people in a sacramental way. Why don’t you just make the sign of the Cross over yourself? What’s so holy about these people’s hands?

Since they’re not priests, they obviously can’t perform a sacrament, such as, for example, Holy Unction. Yet these women dare to do just that. They “sanctify” a bit of oil themselves and then make the sign of the Cross with it! Have you ever wondered why they don’t use oil from an icon-lamp?

In their rituals, they mix up words from the Church and from elsewhere (i.e. the devil). Do the prayers of the Church really need fortifying by those of the devil? In the end, which words will be effective, those of the Church or those of the devil? It is likely that the Lord will pay any heed to defiled prayers?

And don’t say: “But just as soon as the woman exorcised me, I felt well again” because it could be psychological or it might have been the devil who has made you well.

An Instructive Event

On 2/3/1998, a certain gentleman from Patras, Greece, told me about something that had happened to him about 15 years earlier.

In brief: From the age of 14, his family would take him along to be “exorcised” every so often. But this was just the handle the devil wanted. He himself began to have the power of the eye. Something bad happened to anyone he admired. He might, for example, look at a woman walking down the street and at once she’d stumble or twist her ankle.

On Great Thursday, 1983, he attended the evening Passion Service at the Church of St Spyridon, in Aigaleo. Suddenly, at the most holy point of the service, he felt unwell. His mind went completely fuzzy. The congregation began reeling before his eyes. At the same time, he broke out in a cold sweat. Unable to stand it, he went outside. Hard on his heels came a woman he knew, who had often “exorcised” him. She went up to him and asked what was wrong. She began to “exorcise” him again, saying some strange “prayers”, which were invocations of demons. At that very moment, this gentleman noticed something which shocked him deeply. The face of the woman was transformed. She had become really horrible to look at. At the same time, her face took on a weird grimace. Her mouth looked more like the muzzle of a wild beast. She pulled from the folds of her dress a “good luck charm.” “Take this,” she told him. “Wear it and you’ll come to no harm.”

And with her satanic invocations (i.e., the help of the devil) he “recovered…”

After this unforgettable experience, the man lost no time in going straight to confession. He regained his peace of soul, and what’s more, he stopped putting the evil eye on people.

From the book Confronting the Devil, Magic & the Occult, Orthodox Book Centre, Athens 2003

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The History of the Small Paraklesis (Supplication) Canon to the Theotokos

There are two forms of the Paraklesis Canon to the Theotokos: the Small Paraklesis which was composed by Theosteriktos the Monk in the 9th century (or some say Theophanes), and the Great Paraklesis. During the majority of the year, only the Small Paraklesis to the Theotokos is chanted. However, during the Dormition Fast (August 1—14), the Typikon prescribes that the Small and Great Paraklesis be chanted on alternate evenings, according to the following regulations:

- If August 1st falls on a Monday through Friday, the cycle begins with the Small Paraklesis. If August 1st falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the cycle begins with the Great Paraklesis.

- On the eves of Sundays (i.e., Saturday nights) and on the eve of the Transfiguration (the night of August 5) the Paraklesis is omitted.

- On Sunday nights, the Great Paraklesis is always used unless it is the eve of Transfiguration.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, the equivalent of a Paraklesis is the Moleben, which is similar in structure, except that the canon is omitted, retaining only the refrains and Irmoi of the third, sixth and ninth odes. When the full service itself is performed, it is called the "Supplicatory Canon" (Molebnyj Kanon).

The reason these services are called "Paraklesis" (Supplication) is because the faithful gather to supplicate the Theotokos to intercede on their behalf to her Son and our God for our salvation and for the relief of anything that burdens and ails us. They are the prayers of suffering and hurting children addressed to their compassionate Mother, who is their only hope, protectress, and surety in time of need.

According to liturgical Professor John Fountoulis, even though the two Canons to the Theotokos are differentiated with the title "Small" and "Great", in fact they have the same number of Troparia, both having thirty-two with four in each Ode. However the Great Canon is more extensive, though this does not justify the epithet. The real reason seems to be that the Great Canon is chanted in a more festive tone during the Dormition Fast than the Small Canon, as shown in the Dismissal Hymns which begin: "O you Apostles from afar, being now gathered together here in the village of Gethsemane, lay my body in burial; and You, my Son and my God, receive my spirit."

Little research has been done on the historical circumstances that led to the poetry of the two Canons and the final morphology of the two Supplications.

Regarding the Great Supplication Service, we have sufficient testimony to its authorship. The poet was Theodore II Doukas Laskaris, Emperor of Nicaea. He was an emperor in exile who reigned from 1254 to 1258 AD following the fall of Constantinople to the Frankish Crusaders in 1204. Regarding this history, see The History of the Great Paraklesis (Supplication) Canon to the Theotokos.


The Authorship and Origins of the Small Paraklesis Canon

The Small Supplication Service is older than the Great Supplication Service and its authorship is attributed by some to Theosteriktos the Monk, who lived in the ninth century. Others speculate it to be the work of Metropolitan Theophanes the Confessor of Nicaea who lived in the same century. Some even put forward St. John the Damascene as the composer.

In the liturgical book Horologion it simply states as the author: "A poem of Theosteriktos the Monk. Others support Theophanes." Some say that these two names actually belonged to the same person; Theophanes was the name of Theosteriktos before he became a monk.

Recent research on the authorship of the Small Paraklesis state that it was authored by Saint Theosteriktos the Confessor. He used the previously authored Canon to the Theotokos by Theophanos the Branded and other liturgical and ecclesiastical sources to compose the Small Paraklesis. The Canon of Theophanes the Branded was used as the first canon of Matins on the feasts of major saints. In turn, Theophanes the Branded used previously existent verses from the Canon of St. John the Damascene which he wrote for the feast of the Raising of Lazarus to write his hymns. Specifically he borrowed the following eirmos: 1, 3, 6, and 7 Odes. The rest he either composed himself or borrowed from other liturgical sources. In this way, the Small Paraklesis Canon took a similar form and shape as that of the Great Paraklesis Canon.

Saint Theosteriktos the Confessor and His Struggle For the Holy Icons

Theosteriktos the Confessor, abbot of Pelekete Monastery near Prusa, suffered for the Holy Icons under the impious emperor Constantine Copronymos (741-775). His feast day is February 29th in the Slavic Churches and March 17th in the Greek Churches.

Theosteriktos was born in Triglia of Bithynia and became a monk at a young age at the Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, known also as Pelekete Monastery, where he later became abbot. During the persecution of Emperor Constantine V Copronymos, his general in Asia Minor Michael Lachanodrakon began a fierce persecution especially against the monastics who venerated the Holy Icons.

On the night of Holy and Great Thursday in 763 the General came to Pelekete Monastery during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Abbot Theosteriktos was celebrating the Divine Liturgy together with 780 monks under him, 70 of which were hieromonks. Suddenly loud knocks at the Gate of the Monastery interrupted the solemn atmosphere, and 2,000 soldiers of the General were outside yelling, causing chills and tremors.

The soldiers broke the Gate with axes and the mob entered the courtyard. General Michael Lachanodrakon rushed into the church with his army and approached the Abbot. Violently the General took the Holy Chalice and smashed it on the ground, and punched the Abbot in the face. This resulted in a fight between the monks and the soldiers.

Seeing this, the Abbot commanded his children to retreat, and the General handed him a paper, saying angrily:

"Take this and sign immediately against the idols which you call icons, otherwise we will slaughter all of you. It is a decree of the Pious King Constantine V."

"You should rather say Copronymos", said Abbot Theosteriktos. "We will never sign against the Sacred Icons, which we honorably venerate."

Upon the Holy Abbot saying this, the General angrily commanded the slaughter to begin. Within a few minutes, four hundred monks had fallen dead.

Following this the General gave another order: to tie the rest with chains and take them out to the courtyard. He then ordered a fire ignited at every corner of the Monastery for everything to be reduced to ashes. Thus the beautiful Monastery was reduced by the flames of fire.

The captured monks were then led to Emperor Copronymos and appeared before him.

Copronymos asked General Michael: "How many are there?"

The General answered: "40 Hieromonks, 342 Monks and the Abbot."

In a rage Copronymos addressed the monks: "Worthless Monks! Recalcitrant and reactionary in my kingdom, come before me! I am Constantine the Fifth and I do not banter."

One monk with a smile on his face approached the Emperor, Sinesios by name, and he said: "Copronymos! We are children of Theosteriktos and learned from our Elder to trample upon the head of the Devil and the Iconoclasts."

By saying this, the Monk Sinesios sealed his fate. The Emperor ordered his immediate beheading.

After this the Emperor questioned the monks one by one, and had each of those who abided by the Orthodox Faith to be beheaded at that moment. As the heart of Copronymos rejoiced, the blood of dozens of holy monks ran like a river.

Following the slaughter, the Emperor ordered Theosteriktos to approach him. The Saint approached with joy for the opportunity to confess his Faith, yet with sadness and tears also for such a horror displayed.

In a loud rage the Emperor yelled:

"Murderer! Executioner! You killed 780 of your children on a whim, in order to not throw away your idols which you call icons. Murderer, you will be known in the history books as committing infanticide."

The Abbot didn't say anything. He walked over to the wall where a painting of the Emperor hung, and he threw it down and trampled on it. He then said:

"Such dishonor is worthy of you Copronymos. I am a venerator of the Venerable Icons and I thirst for this death. In fact, I'm in a rush to catch up with my golden and blessed children, my crown and praise."

Seeing the slaughter ensue, many soldiers and officials decided to rise up against the Emperor at that moment, and the Emperor cringed in fear. He then called for his chief officer to save him.

The chief officer raised his sword ready to cut off some heads, when suddenly the soldier Aimilios Teravinos grabbed his sword, made the sign of the Cross, and took out of his breast an Icon of Christ. He then yelled loudly:

"Cursed Copronymos Heretic, I am a venerator of the Venerable Icons. Slay me."

The head of Aimilios fell, and the Emperor retired for the night.

The next day the Emperor called forth again the Abbot, and receiving from him the same answers, it was ordered that his nose, ears and fingers be cut off. Then with pliers strips of skin were pulled from his body, and in a bloody state he was thrown into a dark prison where he was not to be given neither food or water, in order to die there.

Yet Abbot Theosteriktos survived in this prison for nine years, thanks to the generosity of certain soldiers who sneaked in bread and water.

In the year Copronymos died, Leo IV, his son, succeeded him to the throne. Though frail in body, he had a merciful soul. Leo freed all prisoners who venerated the Sacred Icons. Abbot Theosteriktos was released also and brought back to his Monastery, which now lay in ruin.

Theosteriktos received offers from nearby monasteries to take him in, but he refused, preferring rather to live in his own Monastery, where he had lived with his children and lived happily. In the corner of the ruins he built himself a wooden hut and decided to live there for the rest of his life alone. It was there, among the ruins of his Monastery and after the experience of so much suffering, that he at some point composed the Small Paraklesis Canon to the Theotokos.

He began:

With continuous temptations surrounding me,
Searching for salvation,
I have hastened unto you;
O Mother of the Word, and Virgin,
From all distresses and dangers deliver me.

After three years in seclusion, new monastics came to this holy Elder, who had no fingers, nose or ears, and asked him to be their abbot. Daring not to go against the will of God, Theosteriktos took them under his supervision, and within months 800 monks gathered in the Monastery.

Abbot Theosteriktos lived another 25 years with his Brotherhood, and the Pelekete Monastery was revived. On the 17th of March in 807, the soul of Theosteriktos met his martyred children, and the last words of Saints Theosteriktos are said to have been:

"Your precious Icon we venerate, O Good One, pleading forgiveness for our transgressions, Christ God..."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Miraculous Panagia of Jerusalem Icon

It is said that Elder Paisios the Athonite, who had seen in vision the Theotokos, once said of her appearance:

"The Panagia looks a lot like the icon of the Panagia of Jerusalem. She is exactly the same. I have seen her many times and I don't know of any other icon resembling her so much."

This should not be surprising, since the Panagia of Jerusalem icon has the reputation of being an icon "made-without-hands".

Here is the story of the icon:

According to tradition, the miraculous Icon of Panagia of Jerusalem was painted miraculously in the 19th century in 1870 and has the following story.

There was once an iconographer nun by the name of Tatiani of the Holy Russian Monastery of the Myrrh-Bearer Saint Mary Magdelene, which lies opposite the foot of the Mount of Olives, in Jerusalem. Tatiani saw, while sleeping, the following vision: She saw an unknown nun come and visit her in her cell, and say:

“Sister Tatiani, I came for you to draw me.”

Tatiani answered: “Bless, sister, but I am an iconographer, not an artist.”

Her visitor then said to her: “In that case, paint an icon of me.”

Tatiani, taken aback by the boldness of this unknown person/foreigner replied: “I don’t have a board [wood to paint the icon on] to paint you on.”

Her visitor then gave her a board for iconography and said to her: “Paint!”

But as Tatiani painted the nun, she saw her habit [vestments] become gold, her face shine brightly and she heard her say: “O blessed Tatiani, after the Apostle and Evangelist Luke, you will paint an icon of me again.”

Tatiani was surprised that she was painting an icon of the Panagia! She was fearful and woke.

She immediately hurried to her Abbess and narrated to her the vision. The Abbess was distrusting and told her to go and sleep and tomorrow to paint an icon of Panagia.

As she returned, she could see light coming from her cell and she could smell a beautiful fragrance! She then notified her Abbess and together they entered the bright and fragrant cell, where they saw the most astonishing miracle. The Icon from the vision was before them in reality, a holy Icon of the Panagia, made without hands!

After these events, the Panagia presented Herself again to the nun and said to her:

“Take me down to my house in Gethsemane,” which was carried out.

Since then, the Holy Icon Made-without-hands of Panagia of Jerusalem can be found at the Holy Pilgrimage site of the Tomb of the Mother of God of Gethsemane, where it continues to work miracles. Since, according to tradition, the body of the Mother of God was taken up to heaven three days after her death, the icon of Panagia of Jerusalem is there to replace it and to work miracles. It is even said, for example, that when the Holy Church of Gethsemene flooded on three occasions, the icon left its marble throne where it is normally located, and stood by the ventilation system without any support. The miracles are innumerable.

Note: There is an older icon of the Theotokos of Jerusalem icon which has been lost and can be read about here, and should not be confused with the icon spoken of above.


Ἀπολυτίκιον Ήχος α΄. Της ερήμου πολίτης.
Την σεπτήν σου εικόνα ως της δόξης σου σκήνωμα, Ιεροσολυμίτισσα Παρθένε, προσκυνούμεν Πανάχραντε. Εκ ταύτης γαρ πηγάζεις μυστικώς θαυμάτων ποταμούς τας δωρεάς· και αρδεύεις τας καρδίας και τας ψυχάς των πίστει κραυγαζόντων σοι· Δόξα τω Θείω Τόκω σου, Αγνή, δόξα τη παρθενία σου, δόξα τη προς ημάς σου ανεκφράστω προνοία, Άχραντε.

For the Paraklesis Service to the Panagia of Jerusalem, listen here and see the text here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr