Archbishop Jovan Sentenced To Two and a Half Years in Prison

Press Release

The Archbishop Jovan Fund USA

Very Reverend Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes, President

Beloved in our Risen Lord,

Christos Anesti!

May the joy of the Holy Resurrection of our Lord be with you!

Archbishop Jovan the Archbishop of Ohrid & the Metropolitan of Skpoje was sentenced to two and half years to prison today 5/11/2012.

Secondly during the hearing of Archbishop Jovan several individuals clergy and monastics under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop tried to attend the public trial today. In particular Bishop David (Vicar Bishop to Archbishop Jovan) and Hieromonk (Prietsmonk) Irenje where pushed by the police in front of the court doors, and Bishop David was almost pushed to the floor but not injured thanks to God. See the attached photo of Bishop David being pushed away and almost fell to the floor. Both Bishop David and Father Irenje where refused to enter the public hearing.

One can only but thank God that both Bishop David and Father Irenje where not seriously injured.

The next approach would be that we must continue to send appeals and offer our support for Archbishop Jovan release.

Let us together offer prayers and piously pray for the mercy of our Lord to watch over the Archbishop and his beloved Archdiocese. I am sure it was a great disappointment for the Archbishop today, but knowing the Archbishop he will pursue his imprisonment with prayer and living up to the Orthodox faith he loves.

Pray with me and please share the above information with others.

May our Lord God grant continued blessings upon Archbishop Jovan and preserve him.

Peace to your soul!

Humbly with the joy of the Holy Resurrection of our Lord,

+Very Reverend Archimandrite Nektarios Serfess

Presidend of The Archbishop Jovan Fund USA

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Well Known Photo of Elder Paisios Unedited

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Did the Church Ever Bless Same-Sex Marriages?

John Boswell (1947 – 1994) was a prominent historian and a professor at Yale University, who focused his studies on the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. In 1994 his book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe was published, arguing that the adelphopoiia liturgy was evidence that the attitude of the Christian church towards homosexuality has changed over time, and that early Christians did on occasion accept same-sex relationships. Boswell died of AIDS-related complications in 1994 at the age of 47.

Rites of so-called "same-sex union" (Boswell's proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a "spiritual" and not a "carnal" one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell's text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or "blood brothers". Boswell pointed out such evidence as an icon of two saints, Saints Sergius and Bacchus (at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai), and drawings, such as one he interprets as depicting the wedding feast of Emperor Basil I to his "partner", John. Boswell sees Jesus as fulfilling the role of the "pronubus" or in modern parallel, best man.

Many reviews have been written rightly criticizing this revisionist history of John Boswell. Below are a few links to some of these reviews:

Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda

Gay Marriage: Reimaging Church History

Sergius, Bacchus, and the Growing Myth of “Early Christian Gay Marriage”

In the Case of John Boswell

A Groom of One's Own?

Do you take this man...

Shortly after the release of Boswell's book, the following review was published by New Oxford Book Reviews titled "Failed Attempt to Rewrite History" by Patrick Viscuso. Patrick Viscuso is a priest and canonist of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. He has written numerous articles in the area of Byzantine marriage theology and canon law in scholarly journals. He is cited three times in Boswell's book. Below is the review:

<< Writing the history of a religious institution involves understanding concepts and language within their historical and cultural context. Yale professor John Boswell's book purports to find precedents for homosexual marriage, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy during the late Byzantine period. His main contention is that the Byzantines regarded the rite of adelphopoiesis, a Greek term translated as "same-sex union" by Boswell, as a form of marriage contracted between two males and blessed by the Church.

It is beyond dispute that there are rites for adelphopoiesis contained in Byzantine manuscripts dating from the ninth to the 15th century. The ceremony was conducted by a priest for two males in church, and contained symbols common to Byzantine marriage rites including holding candles, joining hands, receiving Communion, and processing three times around a table used in the celebration. Prayers used for the sacerdotal blessing referred to God establishing "spiritual broth­ers" (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most no­tably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friend­ship. The order of the service var­ied, but appeared to possess a simple structure, usually includ­ing petitions followed by the cen­tral prayer(s) of benediction and a dismissal.

In order to evaluate whether this service was equivalent to a marriage ceremony, it is necessary to understand how marital unions were formed in late Byzantium, and then to compare the rites. Our concern in this analysis will not be to examine the content of the prayers involved in the rites, as has already been accomplished in sev­eral reviews of Boswell's work, but to focus on the context in which the rites were used and described in late Byzantine society.

In late Byzantium, marital union was established through a process involving several stages: engagement, marriage contract, betrothal, and crowning.

Simple engagements were civil contracts. They were a prom­ise of future union by the heads of households acting for their pre­adolescent children. They were not regarded as having any ecclesiasti­cal significance and could be dis­solved merely with the civil penal­ties related to breaking a legal agreement.

Marriage contracts also were a civil arrangement, most probably the "cross bonds" discussed by the 15th-century St. Symeon of Thessalonica. These consisted of agreements made before a repre­sentative of the state prior to the church ceremonies. During these arrangements, the spouses each agreed to a written marriage con­tract by signing a cross. The con­sent of the families to the union was expressed when the fathers of the future spouses touched the pens used by their children during the signing. The contracts signi­fied the agreement of the couple and their families to the union, as well as the transfer of property into the marital community — e.g., the dowry of the bride and the ante-nuptial gift of the bridegroom. The contract signing was a purely civil form of marriage.

In contrast, formal betrothal involved a priestly blessing de­scribed in Byzantine sources as a "benediction." The main purpose of this blessing was the invocation of God in order that the betrothal might be confirmed and made in­dissoluble. However, if betrothals were broken, a Church divorce procedure was undertaken on the basis of stipulated grounds. After betrothal, the spouses were re­quired to exhibit fidelity, but could not enjoy the positive rights of marriage, such as nuptial relations. The effects of betrothal on rela­tions of kinship were similar to those of complete marriage.

The distinction of betrothal from complete marriage, which was established by the final rite of crowning, may be understood if the grounds for their dissolution are compared. While the grounds for divorce of a completed mar­riage concentrated on the disrup­tion of marital union and dealt with adultery or situations that concerned actual or suspected sexual immorality, the causes for dissolving betrothals had a differ­ent focus, namely, finances, char­acter, position in life, and events surrounding the contracting of the marriage. The difference indicated that while divorce in the case of a completed marriage was con­cerned with the loss of union, the sundering of betrothal dealt with the loss of the foundation for the union. Betrothal is a step in the completion of matrimony, nearly equivalent to marriage, but it is not the same as the completed union.

Crowning, the final stage of the formation of marriage, was named after the central rite of benediction during which crowns were placed on the heads of the bride and groom by the priest. As in the case of betrothal, a solemn invocation of divine blessing was made to establish the marital union. The marital union resulted in a number of kinships by mar­riage, known as relationships by affinity. Complex rules or canons governed whether such family members were allowed to inter­marry. Once established, this type of kinship even survived the death of either or both of the spouses. These relationships were more ex­tensive than those formed through any other Sacrament or mystery, including Baptism, which also re­sulted in certain prohibitions on marriage between the sponsor's family and the baptized.

If Byzantine marriage is com­pared with the rite for adel­phopoiesis (what Boswell calls "same-sex union"), several differ­ences are apparent. The first is that marriage occurs through a pro­cess, not a single rite. The most immediate reason for this appears to be that marital unity in Byzan­tine society involved both the spouses and their families, rather than simply individuals. The con­sent of the families was required at almost every stage of marriage for­mation. This is not to say that con­sent of the spouses was not re­quired. The civil ceremony was the vehicle where matrimonial con­sent was manifested. This consent was also implied by the couple's mutual participation in the rites of betrothal and crowning, where the sacerdotal blessing established the union, and the priest was regarded as the minister of the Sacrament. In contrast, adelphopoiesis was not established by a process of gradual union between spouses and families, but rather was a union of two individuals. The re­sulting family kinships and marriage impediments were limited. Boswell cites the 11th-century ju­rist Eustathios Rhomaios, as stating: "same-sex unions are of per­sons, and they [the persons joined through the unions] alone incur impediments to marriage, but not the other members of their fami­lies." If "same-sex unions" were a form of matrimony, why would marriage impediments be an issue for those already united? It doesn't make sense. Even if it were allowed that such impediments were appli­cable when "same-sex unions" dissolved, such limited kinships and impediments are completely in­consistent with marriage as practiced within the context of late Byzantine society. Moreover, there appear to be no provisions in the Church, where Boswell claims ho­mosexual marriages were blessed, for grounds of divorce. Certainly, if two men were married by the Church, would not there have been provisions for their separa­tion, as was the case for all other forms of matrimony?

Adelphopoiesis established a different type of union from mar­riage, one perhaps closer to adop­tion. This view is supported by the fact that discussion of adel­phopoiesis occurs in late Byzan­tine sources in connection with kinships established by adoption, contrary to the assertions of Boswell. In the context of these sources, the more literal transla­tion of adelphopoiesis, "adopting a brother" or "brother adoption," appears to be more consistent with the ideas being expressed in the texts. For example, the 14th-cen­tury monk Matthew Blastares in The Alphabetical Collection, an encyclopedia of canon law, dis­cusses adelphopoiesis in the con­text of adoption, which in turn he relates to the general subject of kinship, not marriage. Boswell misses the context.

In his treatment of the 10th-century Typikon of John Tzimiskes, Boswell makes this translation: "it is not permitted to any of the brothers to leave the mountain to form relationships or unions [sunteknias e adel­phopoiesis] with laypersons, and if any should happen to have done something like this...they may not go to their homes or breakfast with them...." The word sunteknia expressed the spiritual relationship established between the sponsor and godchild at Bap­tism. However, by translating the word as "relationship," Boswell changes the context for adel­phopoiesis. A more proper transla­tion might be "spiritual parent­hood." Consequently, the parallel to this prohibition appears to be related to Baptism, another type of union establishing kinship ties, not to those rules "against monks marrying women," as Boswell as­serts.

A similar problem occurs when the statement is made, "Harmenopoulos, a 14th-century jurist, in his commentary on a rul­ing by the seventh-century council in Trullo...quoted Peter, the chartophylax...as adding the comment that monks must not select boys at baptism and make same-sex unions with them." Nev­ertheless, when carefully exam­ined, the passage in question is not dealing with the selection of boys, implying carnal relations, but rather with the prohibition of three types of relationships. The text of Harmenopoulos reads as follows, "It is unacceptable, he [Pe­ter] states, for monks to receive children from holy baptism, to hold crowns of marriage, and to make brother adoptions." Two of these are clearly spiritual, sponsor­ship at Baptism and weddings, im­plying perhaps that the third, adel­phopoiesis, shares a similar na­ture. In this context, the words, "receive children from holy bap­tism," refer to the role of the spon­sor at the Baptism rite, who liter­ally received the newly baptized child from the hands of the priest after the infant's threefold immer­sion in the font.

These problems of interpreta­tion are not uncommon in Boswell's work and serve to distort the meaning of adelphopoiesis, which appears, from the passages cited, more related to adoption and the spiritual relationship asso­ciated with Baptism than with marriage, and which does not im­ply any sexual dimension.

Writing the history of a reli­gious institution involves under­standing concepts and language within their historical and cultural context. Otherwise, the risk is taken that history will be rewritten to suit current preoccupations. Boswell's attempt to prove that the Byzantines regarded adelphopoie­sis as a form of marriage fails be­cause his research presents histori­cal facts and events out of context. From Boswell's viewpoint, it would appear that matrimony is being cel­ebrated when two individuals are united by a priestly blessing in a ser­vice using symbols held in com­mon with marriage ceremonies. However, Byzantine marriage was celebrated as a process that united families as well as spouses in a se­ries of rituals, not in one rite that mainly affected its participants. Simply put, adelphopoiesis was certainly a kind of union between two individuals, but to make this institution equivalent to matri­mony necessitates a perspective and context foreign to the late Byz­antine Church. >>

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

From Catholic To Orthodox

Thom Nickels

May 09, 2012

Weekly Press

The word ‘orthodoxy’ can conjure up foul associations. There’s Bertrand Russell’s famous quote, "Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence," which covers any sort of rigid or right thinking at the expense of creative thought.

Orthodoxy (lower case) implies a strict adherence to tradition against which Modernism doesn’t stand a chance. In Judaism, Orthodoxy is seen as that religion’s supreme, most traditional expression, its un-reformed essence. In Christianity, Orthodoxy which has never had a Second Vatican Council or anything approaching a Novus Ordo - Divine Liturgy with lay ministers and Protestant-style hymns - is a window into the ancient Church. In fact, you could search the world for a modern young Orthodox priest with a guitar and a penchant for humming "On Eagles Wings," but chances are you wouldn’t find one. Priests like that never get a chance to bloom in Orthodoxy; or, if one was discovered in seminary, he’d be sent packing or be told to switch hit to the local Catholic Franciscans.

In the Orthodox Church there are no activist organizations of lay women clamoring to be priests (although Metropolitan Kallestos Ware admits that at some point in time the Church may have to consider the question). To date Orthodox women, however feminist their inclinations, haven’t splintered off and gotten themselves "ordained" by renegade bishops.

There are no Orthodox lay liturgists trying to reinvent or modernize the Divine Liturgy, either. In the eyes of the world, Orthodox Christianity has always been relegated to second tier status, taking a back seat to Catholicism’s power, even in this era of clergy sex abuse. As a box to be checked on applications and questionnaires, where religious affiliation means Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or other , Orthodoxy barely exists at all.

My first glimpse of Orthodoxy was at the 1964-1965 New York Worlds Fair. I’d gone to the Fair with my family primarily to visit the Vatican Pavilion, a modernist white building that had a futuristic look and that effectively mirrored the reformatting of Catholicism taking place in Rome at the Second Vatican Council. Inside the Pavilion was Michelangelo’s treasure, The Pieta, a major Fair exhibit that attracted people of all faiths. Inside the Pavilion there was also the modernist Chapel of the Good Shepard with its minimalist altar table, glass stained windows but not much else.

The chapel’s over-wrought simplicity made an impression on me. Not only did this new Catholic structure have a decidedly Presbyterian style, all the signature Catholic elements were missing except a crucifix. The intent seemed to be the creation of an interdenominational chapel where everybody would be made to feel at home. This was a Catholic chapel that didn’t want to offend Protestants by looking "too Catholic."

At the time, I sensed that the chapel design hinted at coming changes in Catholic Church architecture.I was right. Most visitors, distracted by the media hoopla surrounding The Pieta (the Vatican Pavilion was the second most popular exhibit at the Fair, attracting some 27,020,857 guests) probably didn’t dwell on this fact that much. My sense is that many Catholics then excused minimalist, Protestant looking church interiors if there was enough stained glass to take the mind off what had been eliminated.

Not far from the Pavilion was a small log cabin church with a three-bar cross on top. I knew the cross to be Russian Orthodox. The chapel was a replica of the first Orthodox chapel in America built in the 1800s at Fort Hood, California. While the rustic exterior put one in mind of Lincoln Logs or Lewis and Clark expeditions, the interior - we had to peer through the windows because the chapel was locked - revealed something startling: a small chandelier illuminating a colorful iconostasis in the center of which were circles of electric candles and a replica of the framed (miraculous) icon of Our Lady of Kazan.

The beauty of that small log cabin church far surpassed anything in the great white Pavilion monolith with its cold and empty Chapel of the Good Shepard.

It was then that I asked myself: What is this thing called Orthodoxy? Growing up, I was taught by the nuns that only Catholics had the true sacrament, the actual Body and Blood of Christ or the Real Presence; Catholics were the only ones with saints, the Mass, priests, and churches that looked like real holy places.

Orthodoxy, I found, also had the Mass (the Divine Liturgy), canonized saints, monks, nuns, priests, vestments, miters—everything in fact that Catholicism had, even miracle stories, bleeding and myrrh streaming images, as well as visions of the Virgin Mary.

This was confusing stuff for a committed, 12-year old Catholic. If there is only one true Church, why would the Virgin Mary make alleged appearances over the dome of a Coptic Orthodox church in Zeitoun, Egypt in front of hundreds of thousands of people? These series of apparitions, lasting from 1968 to 1971, spontaneously healed many people who witnessed the lady in light move around the dome of the church. Why would the bodies of some Orthodox saints remain incorrupt in the same manner as Saint Catherine Laboure’s body in Paris? For every Catholic saint or miracle story there is an Orthodox counterpart.

Is the Orthodox Church the true "other" lung of the whole Church, and not the schismatic renegades they’re made out to be by some Catholic traditionalists? In the eyes of God, where the divide and conquer nature of human politics does not exist - to the chagrin of strict doctrinaire prelates, both East and West, steeped in charges of heresy or schism - are both Churches already really one and united "under the skin" despite the lack of an official agreement?

As the abbot of St. Tikhon’s monastery near Scranton told me last year: "It was the Western, or Catholic Church, that began changing everything." These changes not only included the Flioque clause in the Nicene Creed but the way Christians crossed themselves. The original method of crossing oneself was the Orthodox way, right to left, but Rome changed it from left to right in the 8th century.

A change like this seems a small thing but it can also be indicative of something deeper, like a tendency to re-invent and denude until centuries later you get something like the Second Vatican Council, where the changes were so drastic that if a Catholic from 1947 could come back he wouldn’t even recognize today’s Catholic Mass as being Catholic.

When former Byzantine Catholic Hieromonk and theologian Fr. Gabriel Bunge converted to the Orthodox Church, it generated a lot of press. (Conversions work both ways and can be a lot like musical chairs: In 2009, Orthodox theologian and writer John Mack converted to Eastern Catholicism although shortly after this he divorced his wife and left the priesthood).

On his conversion to Orthodoxy, Fr. Bunge said:

"…Many people thought that the two Churches were moving towards each other and would eventually meet at one point. But as I was growing older and learning some things deeper, I stopped believing in the possibility of the reconciliation of two Churches in terms of the divine services and institutional unity. What was I to do? I could only go on searching for this unity on my own, individually, restoring it in one separate soul, mine. I could not do more. I just followed my conscience, and came to Orthodoxy."

I see the wisdom in this statement, especially since my conversion to Orthodoxy on April 8th of this year. Prior to my first communion at an Orthodox parish in Northern Liberties, I had many conversations with members of the congregation in which more than several freely admitted that they often attend Catholic churches when they are away on vacation and when they cannot find an Orthodox church.

Not only do they attend Catholic churches but they receive communion in these churches, a fact which may be frowned upon by their pastor or bishop but a fact nevertheless. The Orthodox people I spoke with felt they could relate to Catholics because Catholics believe in the Real Presence. "It’s all about the Eucharist," as one Orthodox lady told me. "This is why I come to church, to receive the Eucharist. The Eucharist is not a symbol or a memorial, it is real."

Comments like these bypass the usual East-West schism rhetoric having to do with the Filioque, or questions related to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It’s not that many or most Orthodox don’t think that these questions are important; many do. But for the ordinary people in the pews, ie. people who are not theologians, priests or monks, it is the Eucharist that stands out as the centerpiece of spiritual life. So yes, a certain strange unity of the heart between the two churches has already taken place.

I came to Orthodoxy from Catholicism partially because of its unchanged liturgy; because the Orthodox Church, in its wisdom, never embarked on a path of liturgical self-destruction. It was not enough for me to attend the Traditional Catholic Latin Mass once a month when the bulk of the Catholic Church remains in the Novus Ordo camp. Even while attending the TLM at beautiful Saint Paul’s church in South Philadelphia, one could not escape the reality that this Mass was a minority Mass, primarily a footnote to the Novus Ordo.

It pained me to realize that the TLM was seen more as a specialized event and not part of the regular lists of masses in most Catholic churches.

In the Orthodox Church there is always the traditional liturgy; the rubrics never wax or wane depending on the latest liturgical fashion. There’s no need for committees to advertise or promote tradition.Tradition is already there, and it’s not going anywhere. It is, as they say, the Church.

Since becoming Orthodox, gone are the endless personal narratives that would run in my head whenever I’d attend either a TLM or the Novus Ordo. Those narratives concentrated on what had been lost or thrown away.

In the Orthodox Church, tradition is not shuffled in and shuffled out, like a road show trekking onto Buffalo.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Documentary: "Archimandrite"

Archimandrite Gabriel -- an Orthodox monk from the Podlasie province in Poland -- is the founder and sole inhabitant of the Kudak grove hermitage by river Narew. During his first few years there, he lived and prayed in a wagon house, without electricity, running water, or contact with the outside world. After five years, thanks to the help of people of Orthodox faith from local villages, the grove saw the rise of a wooden church, a dormitory for monks, and outbuildings.

Pilgrims are drawn to the place by archimandrite Gabriel's personality: he can find common ground with anyone, he grants spiritual advice, heals with herbs, and keeps bees. When necessary, he rolls up his sleeves and works on building the hermitage right alongside everyone else.

The archimandrite's biggest concern is finding a successor. Prospective monks don't last long in the hermitage, however. They can't stand the lack of access to civilization, common comforts, and contact with their peers.

Biełsat TV 2012

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Patriarch Kirill Criticizes Modern Literature

May 10, 2012

Interfax

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is concerned with the spreading of low standard literature in Russia.

"Today a consumer attitude has penetrated into almost all spheres of life, and literature is not an exception. If we look at bestsellers, it becomes clear that, at least in the sphere of fiction, these are books based on suspenseful plot, quick change of events and peripeteia in the life of heroes," the Patriarch said at a session of guardians of the Patriarch's Prize in Literature.

According to him, such works, instead of thoughts, reflections, tragedy, and true drama reflecting difficult perepeteia of human life, "offer us 'action' that accustom people to emotional doping instead of sober understanding of life."

The Patriarch stressed that such literature teaches a person a superficial evaluation of events, that "doesn't give him exact moral guidelines" and as a result "spiritually impersonalizes the reader, merges him with the crowd, making him an atom of world culture."

According to him, here lies "the danger for the whole society."

"Art that doesn't accept guidelines of the moral and beautiful becomes anti-art, and culture, anti-culture," the Church Primate said.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Scientific Evidence Proves Why Healers See the 'Aura' of People

May 4, 2012

Medical Express

Researchers in Spain have found that many of the individuals claiming to see the aura of people –traditionally called "healers" or "quacks"– actually present the neuropsychological phenomenon known as "synesthesia" (specifically, "emotional synesthesia"). This might be a scientific explanation of their alleged "virtue". In synesthetes, the brain regions responsible for the processing of each type of sensory stimuli are intensely interconnected. This way, synesthetes can see or taste a sound, feel a taste, or associate people with a particular color.

The study was conducted by the University of Granada Department of Experimental Psychology Óscar Iborra, Luis Pastor and Emilio Gómez Milán, and has been published in the prestigious journal Consciousness and Cognition. This is the first time that a scientific explanation is provided on the esoteric phenomenon of the aura, a supposed energy field of luminous radiation surrounding a person as a halo, which is imperceptible to most human beings.

In neurological terms, synesthesia is due to cross-wiring in the brain of some people (synesthetes); in other words, synesthetes present more synaptic connections than "normal" people. "These extra connections cause them to automatically establish associations between brain areas that are not normally interconnected", professor Gómez Milán explains. Many healers claiming to see the aura of people might have this condition.

The case of the "Santón de Baza"

The University of Granada researchers remark that "not all healers are synesthetes, but there is a higher prevalence of this phenomenon among them. The same occurs among painters and artists, for example". To carry out this study, the researchers interviewed some synesthetes as the healer from Granada "Esteban Sánchez Casas", known as "El Santón de Baza".

Many people attribute "paranormal powers" to El Santón, such as his ability to see the aura of people "but, in fact, it is a clear case of synesthesia", the researchers explain. El Santón presents face-color synesthesia (the brain region responsible for face recognition is associated with the color-processing region); touch-mirror synesthesia (when the synesthete observes a person who is being touched or is experiencing pain, s/he experiences the same); high empathy (the ability to feel what other person is feeling), and schizotypy (certain personality traits in healthy people involving slight paranoia and delusions). "These capacities make synesthetes have the ability to make people feel understood, and provide them with special emotion and pain reading skills", the researchers explain.

In the light of the results obtained, the researchers remark the significant "placebo effect" that healers have on people, "though some healers really have the ability to see people's auras and feel the pain in others due to synesthesia". Some healers "have abilities and attitudes that make them believe in their ability to heal other people, but it is actually a case of self-deception, as synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and 'adorned' perception of reality", the researchers state.

More information: doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.11.010

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Herman of Alaska On Love For God

Once the Elder was invited on board a frigate that had come from St. Petersburg. The captain of the frigate was a man quite learned, highly educated; he had been sent to America by Imperial command to inspect all the colonies. With the captain were some 25 officers, likewise educated men. In this company there sat a desert-dwelling monk of small stature, in an old garment, who by his wise conversation brought all his listeners to such a state that they did not know how to answer him. The captain himself related: "We were speechless fools before him!"

Father Herman gave them all one common question: "What do you, gentlemen, love above all, and what would each of you wish for his happiness?" Diverse answers followed. One desired wealth, one glory, one a beautiful wife, one a fine ship which he should command, and so on in this fashion. "Is it not true," said Father Herman at this, "that all your various desires can be reduced to one - that each of you desires that which, in his understanding, he considers best and most worthy of love?" "Yes, it is so," they all replied. "Well, then, tell me," he continued, "can there be anything better, higher above everything, more surpassing everything and in general more worthy of love, than our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who created us, perfectly adorned us, gave life to all, supports all, nourishes and loves all, who Himself is love and more excellent than all men? Should not a person then love God high above all and desire and seek Him more than all else?" All began to say: "Well, yes! That is understood! That speaks for itself!"

"And do you love God?" the Elder then asked. All replied: "Of course, we love God. How can one not love God?" "And I, sinful one, for more than forty years have been striving to love God, and cannot say that I perfectly love Him," answered Father Herman; then he began to show how a person should love God. "If we love someone," he said, "we always think of him, strive to please him, day and night our heart is occupied with this subject. Is it thus that you, gentlemen, love God? Do you often turn to Him, do you always think of Him, do you always pray to Him, and fulfill His holy commandments?" It had to be acknowledged that they did not! "For our good, for our happiness," concluded the Elder, "at least let us make a promise to ourselves, that from this day, from this hour, from this very moment we shall strive to love God above all, and fulfill His holy will!"

Behold what an intelligent, superb conversation Father Herman conducted in society; without doubt this conversation must have imprinted itself on the hearts of his listeners for their whole life!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Elder Philotheos: "It Is Not With Ease That the Saints Went to Paradise"

By Elder Philotheos Zervakos

It is not with ease that the saints went to Paradise, but they worked and struggled against the three enemies - the flesh, the world, and the devil. To be willing and great, however, they overcame the devil and the desires of the world and the flesh. We need prayer and vigilance.

All the saints were sanctified by humility, because humility generates love and all the virtues. The humble person is the dwelling place of God and the bearer of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If all the virtues are present and humility is absent, then they are empty, unprofitable, and harmful.

Divine Chrysostom when asked, "when will the end be?", responded, "when shame will be absent from women". And an unspoken prophecy says that the end will come when men will become women and women men. In our days we see these fulfilled.

Be careful, my beloved children, to not have in your mind the earthly, the perishable, and the vain of this world, but raise it to the country above, to heaven. May you remember always the Kingdom of God and quickly you will gain it.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Enduring Ridicule Because of the Words of the Lord

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"The word of the Lord has brought me derision and reproach all the day" (Jeremiah 20:8).

Who are they who reproach the prophet of God, the bearer of God's word and the bearer of the power and wisdom of God? His people reproach him and say to him: you preach to us a steep path; even if it is from God, we cannot walk upon it because for us, it is too steep.

Who are they who reproach the trumpeter of the voice of the Lord when he sounds the alarm because of fire which smokes in the distance and draws closer to the city? The elders of the people reproach him and say to him: why do you not keep your mouth closed; for you it would be warmer and for us a clearer sky. That which seems to you is not a fire but it is fog from the mountain dew!

Who are they who still deride the man of God when he comes from God and proclaims the will of God? He is reproached by his wife and is derided by his brethren. They say to him: you abandon your work which feeds you and you follow after someone else's work which humiliates you.

"The word of the Lord has brought me derision and reproach all the day." Thus the prophet could have said, so could the apostle, so the martyr, so every zealot of the word of the Lord and of the law of the Lord. Not one of them was frightened by reproach nor by derision, nor turned away from witnessing nor led from the road to wayward paths. The entire outside world reproached them and were sarcastic to them. But the Lord strengthened and made them inwardly joyful. The Lord overcame the world, and the saints of God overcame those who reproached and derided them.

O Lord All-good, strengthen us internally in our hearts so that the reproaches do not disturb nor the derisions hinder us for the sake of Your Name. To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. John the Almsgiver and the Conversion of Homosexuals

It was not only for those in bodily need that he showed care but he took special forethought for the salvation of those suffering from spiritual hunger. For instance, there was a lake in Alexandria, called Maria, in which a great quantity of papyrus grew, and the inhabitants of that district had been in the habit of cutting it down and using it as fuel instead of wood. And the boys, whose work it was to cut down the papyrus together with the men dwelling there, practiced the vice of sodomy unrestrainedly; and they had no house of prayer, no priest at all, they never heard the Scriptures nor partook of the Divine Mysteries. When the inspired Patriarch heard of these illegal doings and of this pollution, he ordered the boys to be brought away from that place and he built houses of prayer for its inhabitants and set apart certain priests whom he appointed to minister to them and to teach them.

From The Life of John the Almsgiver, by Saint Leontius of Neapolis (Ch. 8)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Kevin DeYoung

May 10, 2012

Christian Post

Yesterday, to no one's surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some "evolution" he has "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don't you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: "It's no use staying in this battle," we think to ourselves. "We don't have to change our personal position. We'll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It's a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we've already lost. Time to throw in the towel." I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the "peace of the city." It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you're bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a" comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act-by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children." This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that "gay marriage" is really marriage. What's more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it's true that politics is downstream from culture, it's also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I've been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I'm not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some "marriages" to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity's great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil's bargains, the good will doesn't last nearly so long as the law.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Justinian's Miracle Quarry Possibly Discovered In Jerusalem

Israeli archeologists says site may be quarry described by Byzantine historian where 'God revealed a natural supply of stone perfectly suited to this purpose in the nearby hills.'

Nir Hasson

May 9, 2012

Haaretz

An Israeli archaeologist says he has found the site of a Sixth Century miracle documented by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea.

In his book The Buildings of Justinian in which the historian recounts the many building projects erected during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian the Great, in the mid-Sixth Century. Describing the construction of Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos, a church near Jerusalem, Procopius says that God miraculously provided giant red stones near the construction site.

"God revealed a natural supply of stone perfectly suited to this purpose in the nearby hills, one which had either lain there in concealment previously, or was created at that moment…So the church is supported on all sides by a number of huge columns from that place, which in color resemble flames of fire… Two of these columns stand before the door of the church, exceptionally large and probably second to no column in the whole world," He wrote.

Recent construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood Rehavia, may have revealed the site of this miraculous quarry. Under the foundations of an old building demolished to make room for new construction a large stone chiseled in the shape of a column.

Upon discovery of the column, the Israel Antiquities Authority halted the construction project and began studying the find, which is 20 ft (6 m) tall and 30 in (80 cm) wide. These proportions correspond to building practices of the period.

The site had no other finds that could be used to time the column but Evgeny Kagan of the Antiquities Authority, believes that it is from the Byzantine period based of the stone type and the methods used by the stonemasons. The stone bares the Arabic name "Mizi Achmar," meaning red stone, which could correspond to the "flames of fire" described by Procopius.

This kind of stone is considered very difficult to work with. According to Prof. Yoram Zafrir it was hardly used until the introduction of explosives in the 19th Century, except during the Byzantine era. The builders of the Jerusalem Temple for example used a softer stone.

Evidently, the stonemasons in the site also had a hard time working with the stone, since the column that was discovered was apparently left connected to the stone from which it was chiseled because it cracked and the they feared that it would fall apart on its way to the construction site.

Nearby signs of columns chiseled from the stone were found. Prof. Zafifr believes they were used in the construction of a impressive church, though not necessarily the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos described by Procopius.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Receive the 2012 Freedom Award

On May 12, 2012 His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, primus inter pares of the entire Orthodox Church, is going to receive the prestigious 'Freedom Award'. The Four Freedoms Medals are presented to men and women whose achievements have demonstrated a commitment to those principles which President Roosevelt proclaimed in his historic speech to Congress on January 6, 1941, as essential to democracy: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear.

In order to keep the legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt alive, the Roosevelt Institute honors outstanding citizens who have demonstrated a lifelong commitment to these ideals every year. The impressive ceremonies that mark the awarding of the Four Freedoms medals are held alternately in Hyde Park, New York and Middelburg, the Netherlands, where the Roosevelt Stichting, a private foundation, is responsible for organising the ceremony in the even-numbered years.

Roosevelt's great-grandfather, James Roosevelt, was of Dutch ancestry, from the area of Middelburg, near the Belgian border.

Her Majesty Queen Beatrix and Prime-minister Mark Rutte intend to be present at the Four Freedoms Awards ceremony on May 12, 2012, 11.00 a.m. in the Nieuwe Kerk in Middelburg.

The following are brief descriptions of the accomplishments of each laureate; complete biographies for each are attached.

Freedom of Worship Medal

His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I is nominated for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of religious freedom and his dedication to a dialogue of reconciliation among Christians, Muslims and Jews, which he started together with His All Holiness Pope John Paul II. Bartholomew's lifetime commitment to secure basic religious freedom, not only for the people in his native Turkey, but also for the peoples of central and Eastern Europe, has identified him as one of the outstanding figures on the international scene who is truly dedicated to the meaning and accomplishment of the Four Freedoms. Patriarch Bartholomew I, also known as the "green Patriarch" gained worldwide respect for his efforts for the environment. See: www.patriarchate.org

International Four Freedoms Award

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Union representative and President of Brazil from 2003-2010, is honored for his extraordinary work on behalf of the people of Brazil. Lula has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to social and economic justice and worked to help foster a climate of peace and reconciliation among the nations of the world. Lula's rise from abject poverty to the Presidency of Brazil, and his determination to rid Brazil of the extreme poverty and social injustice that for too long has plagued the less fortunate of his countrymen, has been an inspiration to the world community.

Freedom of Speech and Expression Medal

Al Jazeera receives the award for its steadfast commitment to freedom of the press and its longstanding efforts to provide independent, impartial news for an international audience and to offer a voice to a diversity of perspectives from under-reported regions. Al Jazeera's dedication to this most fundamental human right--the right to the free expression and reportage of issues and ideas--exemplifies the meaning and accomplishment of the Four Freedoms.

Al Jazeera Satellite Channel started on November 1, 1996 after the BBC closed down its Arabian television station. Al Jazeera English started broadcasting in 2006. Throughout its 15-year existence Al Jazeera's reporters have met resistance; not intimidated by vehement opposition, legal trials, or death threats, they continue reporting the world news with integrity. H.E. Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim bin Mohamed al-Thani will accept the award on behalf of Al Jazeera.

Freedom from Want Medal

Ela Ramesh Bhatt is nominated for her extraordinary efforts on behalf of some of the poorest and most oppressed women in India. Bhatt's sheer determination and lifetime commitment to secure that most basic of human rights --freedom from want-- which led her, the "gentle revolutionary," to found the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA) and the Cooperative Bank of SEWA. SEWA has placed Bhatt at the forefront of those working to help women in India lift themselves out of poverty by creating chances for women to be self-employed, work under justifiable circumstances and therefore enjoy financial independance and self-respect.

Freedom from Fear Medal

This year's Freedom from Fear medal is awarded to Hussain al-Shahristani, Deputy Prime Minister of Energy in the Iraqi government, for his lifelong commitment to democratic values, and his extraordinary efforts to help transform his beloved nation of Iraq into a free, prosperous and stable democracy. After 11 years imprisonment in Abu Ghraib, for his refusal to cooperate in building nuclear weapons and his involvement in "religious activities", al-Shahristani escaped via Iran to Canada. Al-Shahristani's commitment to secure basic political and religious freedoms for all Iraqis under the rule of law, has not only endeared him to his fellow countrymen, but has also earned him the respect of the international community.

Thanks to his steadfast adherence to these fundamental values he gained widespread recognition.

HIS ALL-HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW

His All-Holiness BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch is the 270th successor of the 2,000 year-old Christian Church founded by St. Andrew the Apostle, which he serves since 1991, and the spiritual leader of over 250 million faithful worldwide. As a citizen of Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew's personal experience provides him a unique perspective on the continuing dialogue among the Christian, Islamic and Jewish worlds. He has worked to advance reconciliation among Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox communities in former Yugoslavia and has been supportive of peace-building measures to diffuse global conflict in the Balkans and the Middle East.

His All-Holiness has worked to advance reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and other confessions through theological dialogue, while also serving on the Executive and Central Committees and Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. He also presided over the historic restoration of the Autocephalous Church of Albania and the Autonomous Church of Estonia, while providing spiritual support to many traditional Orthodox countries emerging from decades of wide-scale religious persecution behind the Iron Curtain. He has co-sponsored international peace conferences, as well as meetings on racism and fundamentalism, bringing together Christians, Muslims and Jews for the purpose of generating greater cooperation and mutual understanding.

As the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew occupies the First Throne of the Orthodox Christian Church, presiding in a fraternal spirit among Orthodox Primates. The Ecumenical Patriarch has the historical and theological responsibility of initiating and coordinating activities among the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, the Czech Land and Slovakia, Finland, Estonia, and numerous archdioceses in the old and new worlds.

This includes the convening of councils or meetings, facilitating inter-church and inter-faith dialogues and serving as the primary facilitator and spokesman of Orthodox Church unity. As Ecumenical Patriarch he transcends every national and ethnic group on a global level and has on five occasions convened the leaders of all self-governing Orthodox Churches around the globe, challenging them vigorously to pursue solutions to the challenges of the new millennium, for example, by categorically condemning nationalism and fanaticism.

From 1994-1998, he organized five ecological summer seminars at Halki on Religious Education (1994), Ethics (1995), Communications (1996), Justice (1997), and Poverty (1998). From 1995-2009, he convened eight international, inter-disciplinary, and inter-religious symposia, bringing together scientists, environmentalists, policy-makers and religious leaders and drawing world attention to the degradation of the Aegean Sea, Black Sea, Danube River, Adriatic Sea, Baltic Sea, Amazon River, Arctic Ocean, and Mississippi River, thereby earning title "Green Patriarch" and receiving such environmental awards as the Scenic Hudson Visionary Award (2000) and the international Sophie Prize (2002).

His efforts to promote religious freedom and human rights, his initiatives to advance religious tolerance among the world's religions, together with his work toward international peace and environmental protection have justly placed him at the forefront of global visionaries as an apostle of love, peace and reconciliation. In 1997, he was awarded the Gold Medal of the United States Congress. His English-language publications include:

Encountering the Mystery, Doubleday 2008

In the World, Yet Not of the World, Fordham 2009

Speaking the Truth in Love, Fordham 2010

On Earth as in Heaven, Fordham 2011

[Source: Press Office of the Orthodox Archdiocese of Belgium]

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Myths About Saint Christopher

Saint Christopher (May 9) was at first named Reprobus. Seeing the Christians persecuted, he rebuked the tyrants for their cruelty. Soldiers were sent to bring him to appear before the ruler; but he converted them to Christ, and with them was baptized, receiving the name Christopher. After he appeared before the ruler, he was imprisoned and two harlots were sent to seduce him, but he converted them also, and encouraged them in their martyrdom. He was subjected to torments and finally beheaded in the days of Decius.

Many fantastic and mythical things are said about Saint Christopher out of ignorance and superstition, one of which is that it is impossible for one to die suddenly from some unexpected cause on the day on which one looks at the Saint's icon. This is the origin of that proverb that is quoted in various quarters: "If on Christopher thou shouldst gaze, thou shalt safely wend life's ways." The etymology of his name, which means "Christ-bearer," has undoubtedly moved iconographers to depict him carrying the infant Jesus on his shoulders; it is completely erroneous, however, to depict him, as some uninformed iconographers do, having the head of a dog, because of a statement in his life that he was dog-faced, by which is meant only that his countenance was exceedingly frightful to look upon.

Many of these myths of St. Christopher originated with the German bishop and poet Walter of Speyer (967–1027) who portrayed St. Christopher as a giant of a cynocephalic species in the land of the Chananeans (the "canines" of Canaan in the New Testament) who ate human flesh and barked. Eventually, Christopher met the Christ child at a river, regretted his former behavior, and received baptism. He, too, was rewarded with a human appearance, whereupon he devoted his life to Christian service and became an athlete of God, one of the soldier-saints.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Discovery of the Relics of St. Nicholas the New of Vounenis

The holy relics of St. Nicholas the New were discovered by Duke Efimianos of Thessaloniki. Efimianos one day got sick from the terrible disease of leprosy. He sought treatment from every physician, but in vain.

Then he began to invoke various saints and did various charitable works hoping in the mercy of God. He gave money to widows, orphans and the poor. He prayed to God to have mercy on him and give him his health. He especially prayed to Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki and Larissa's patron saint Achillius, of whom he had heard a lot about their miracles. But while he was in Larissa and prayed in front of the relics of St. Achillius, he was advised in a vision to go to the mountains of Vounena. The vision told him to find the sacred relics of Nicholas the Holy Martyr, to bathe in a well close to the place of the holy relics, and to believe that after he would find the cure. Happy by this promising message, Efimianos went to Vounena, where he found the holy relics of St. Nicholas as well as his healing.

Full of joy and gratitude for the treatment he received from the Holy Martyr of Christ, he built a small church and buried there the sacred relic.

Saint Nicholas the New of Vounenis is celebrated on May 9.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Mid-Pentecost Celebration of St. Gerasimos the New

The female Holy Monastery of Saint Gerasimos in Makrinitsa, located about 800 meters from the beach of Volos in the charming village of Makrinitsa, has been blessed to keep the Honorable Skull of St. Gerasimos the New (+ 1740), founder of the Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Survia, which was and is until today a source of many miracles.

Every year on the eve of Mid-Pentecost the skull of St. Gerasimos the New is transferred from the Monastery in Makrinitsa to a village church in Fytoko on foot, accompanied by hundreds of believers, along a three hour mountain trail. Upon arrival the Great Vespers of Mid-Pentecost is celebrated, followed by an all-night vigil and the Divine Liturgy in the morning.

The primary feast of St. Gerasimos is on September 15th, though he reposed on September 14, 1740. It was transferred because September 14th is a major Orthodox feast dedicated to the Elevation of the Holy Cross.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The New Martyrs of Novo Selo Holy Trinity Monastery in Apriltsi (+ 1876)

During the April Uprising against Turkish rule in 1876, the Novo Selo Republic existed no less than nine days, after which it was ruthlessly suppressed. Almost the entire area of the present-day town of Apriltsi (then the villages of Vidima, Ostrets, Novo Selo and Zla Reka) as well as the Novo Selo Holy Trinity Monastery were burnt to ashes by the Turkish troops. Most of the nuns, together with priest Georgi Hristov, who led the defence of the monastery, were slaughtered, while the church was plundered and set on fire. After Bulgaria’s liberation from Turkish rule, the monastery and the chapel were restored with the help of volunteers’ labour and donations by people from nearby villages. The chapel behind the church was transformed into a small museum that still keeps the bones of those killed.

On March 3, 2011 the Bulgarian Orthodox Church canonized the martyrs from Batak and Novo Selo, massacred by the bashi-bazouk troops led by Ahmed Agha after the failed April Uprising of 1876 against the Turkish oppressors. The people slaughtered in Batak are honored by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on May 17 and the day is called Convocation of the Batak martyrs. The newly canonized martyrs from of the Novo Selo Holy Trinity Monastery in Apriltsi are honoured on May 9. Between 4,000 and 5,000 Bulgarians from Batak and about 700 from the uprising in Novo Selo, Batoshevo and Kravenik have been canonized.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Theophan the Recluse on Mid-Pentecost

By St. Theophan the Recluse

On Mid-Pentecost we hear the call of the Lord: "Whosoever thirsteth, let him come to Me and drink" (John 7:37). If this is so, then let us all run to Him. Whatever you thirst for - so long as it is not contrary to the spirit of the Lord - you will find relief in Him. If you thirst for knowledge, run to the Lord, for He is the one and only light, enlightening every man. If you thirst for cleansing from sin and quenching of the flames of your conscience, run to the Lord, for He tore asunder the handwriting of our sins upon the Cross. If you thirst for peace in your heart, run to the Lord, for He is the treasury of all good, Whose abundance will teach you to forget all deprivations and despise all earthly good, so as to be filled with Him alone. If you need strength, He is almighty. If you need glory, His glory surpasses the world. If you desire freedom, He gives true freedom. He will resolve all of our doubts, loose the bonds of our passions, dispel all our troubles and difficulties, will enable us to overcome all obstacles, temptations and intrigues of the enemy, and will make smooth the path of our spiritual life. Let us all run to the Lord!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Simple Holy Elder Who Was Deceived About the Eucharist

This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius 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 elders 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 elder said, "It is I who have said that."

Then the elders 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 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 elder 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 to God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us."

The elder 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 elders returned to their cells and they also prayed to God, saying, "Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the elder, 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 elder 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 elder 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 elders 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 elder, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labour. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.'

From The Sayings of the Desert Fathers

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Miracle of Panagia of Kassopitra in Corfu

The town of Kassiopi, situated 37 km north of Kerkyra, was founded by Pyros, who transferred Epirotians here from Kassiopia, in order to solve the problem of the scarce population on the island. According to another tradition, the town was founded by the Epirotians after the destruction of Epirus by the Romans. It is said that in the current location of the Monastery of Panagia Kassopitra, during the Roman years, stood the Temple of Cassius Zeus after whom the town was named. The Emperor Nero visited Kassiopi singing a song for Jupiter in the Temple of Zeus.

The Monastery of Panagia Kassopitra was built before 1706, and in 1850 we have testimony as to its builder - Elias X. Hieromonk Gennadios from Epirus purchased the Monastery and installed three nuns to serve there. From that time it became a female convent. In 1991 it became a male monastery. The feast of the Monastery is celebrated on May 8 to commemorate the healing of the blind Stephen, which took place here in 1530.

In 1530 a young peasant named Stephen went to the city of Kerkyra for certain business that he had there. There he met other young men from the countryside whom he knew, and they decided to return home together. On the way they met other young people who were bringing flour from the mill to their homes. The companions of Stephen decided to forcibly take this flour, and urged Stephen to participate in the theft. Stephen not only refused to participate in this evil act, but urged the others to abandon their plan as well. Despite this the theft took place and the one who was punished was the innocent Stephen. This was because the victims lodged a complaint to the authorities, and the perpetrators went into hiding while Stephen did not hide, having not committed the crime. For this reason he walked freely back to the city one day and they arrested him. He was brought before Symeon Leone who ordered that either his hand be cut off or his eyes removed for the crime, leaving to innocent Stephen the choice; he chose the second. Now blind, Stephen was led by his mother to the Church of Saint Lazarus to beg for mercy. Yet in the city Stephen encountered derision, so they decided to go away from the city and arrived in Kassiopi. Arriving at the Monastery of the Theotokos, there they asked the guardian monk for hospitality. The monk allowed them to stay the night in the church. During the night, while Stephen was numb from the pain, he felt someone pushing his eyes hard, and he awoke screaming. He then saw a woman bright beyond measure, who then disappeared immediately. He then woke up his mother to tell her of his vision, and revealed to her that he could now see. Hearing the cries of Stephen, the monk ran to the church. Amazed, the monk went to the city and proclaimed the miracle. Symeon Leone himself went to the Monastery to see the miracle, and upon seeing Stephen begged for forgiveness for his unjust punishment. It should also be noted that before the miracle the eyes of Stephen were brown, but after they became blue.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

After 95 Years, Iveron Icon Returns To Moscow Convent

Milena Faustova

May 6, 2012

The Voice of Russia

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin, who will become Russia’s president on Monday, together with the head of the Russian Church Patriarch Kirill, took part in a religious procession in Moscow.

The procession was held on the occasion of handling an old and very venerated icon of the Mother of God over to the Church from a museum.

The icon belonged to the Moscow Novodevichy convent until the convent was closed by the atheistic Bolshevik regime in 1922. After that, the icon was kept in the Moscow Historic Museum.

Now, a decision has been taken to return the icon to the Church.

Historian of religion Alexey Yudin believes that this is a very significant event for the Russian Church.

“This icon, known as the Iveron icon of the Mother of God, is a copy of a much older icon,” he says. “This copy was made for the Russian Tsar Alexey Romanov at the Iveron Monastery on Mount Athos in Greece in 1648.”

“Mount Athos is a place known for centuries-old traditions of monasticism.”

“In fact, three copies from this icon were brought to Russia during the reign of Mikhail Romanov,” the historian continues, “but this particular copy was the first one brought to Russia. When it arrived, the tsar himself, surrounded by a crowd of believers, came out to meet it.”

“The Iveron icon of the Mother of God has always been especially venerated in Russia.”

An old chronicle says that when the Athos monks were painting this copy, they observed a very strict fasting and performed day and night church services twice in a week.

An autograph of the copyist has remained on the icon. It says in Greek: “Iamblichus Romanov, a monk from Iveron, painted this icon with great diligence in the year 7156.” (Which corresponds with the year 1648 according to the new chronology.)

Initially, the icon was placed in the Assumption cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. However, in 1654, the Russian army, which was holding a campaign against Poles, took the icon with itself to protect the army. One may believe in miracles or not, but the campaign ended with the victory of Russians.

When the icon returned to Moscow, Tsar Alexey Romanov decoded to hand it over to the Novodevichy convent. He believed that it was the Mother of God who brought the victory to the Russian army.

The Novodevichy convent is believed to be one of the most beautiful architectural ensembles of Moscow. It is situated in a picturesque place near the Moskva River.

The convent was founded in 1524. It has several times saved Moscow from enemies. When Crimean Khan Kazi-Girei attempted to besiege Moscow in 1591, Russian soldiers, who hid behind the powerful walls of the convent, opened fire on the khan’s army and prevented it from entering the city.

When French Emperor Napoleon retreated from Moscow in 1812, he attempted to blow up the Novodevichy convent. However, one of the convent’s nuns managed to put out a fired cord, which led to a cell with gunpowder, several minutes before the explosion.

In 2004, the Moscow Novodevichy convent was included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List as a unique historic and architectural site.

In an interview with the Voice of Russia, the convent’s prioress Mother Margarita Feoktistova said:

“Since the Iver icon was handed over to our convent by Tsar Alexey Romanov, the only time that it left the convent was in 1913, when 300 years of the reign of the Romanov dynasty were celebrated.”

“In 1922, the Bolshevik regime closed the convent and made it a branch of the Moscow Historic Museum. The icon remained in the convent but was kept in a reserve depot.”

“In 2010, a decision was taken to return the convent to the Russian Orthodox Church. The museum left the territory, but it took the Iver icon with itself.”

“We were very sorry to part with the icon,” Mother Margarita says, “but we couldn’t do anything about it because, officially, the icon still belonged to the museum."

“Now we are very glad that the old and much-venerated icon has returned to us.”

At the solemn ceremony on Sunday, Russia’s soon-to-be president Vladimir Putin handed the icon over to Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna. They carried the icon from the convent’s gates to the Smolensk cathedral, where it hung before 1922 and where it will hang now.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr