(1) Orthodoxy's Worship: Christian Worship

By Protopresbyter George Metallinos

1. Christian Worship

Ever since its founding on the Day of the Pentecost, Christianity (as the Church of Christ), was expressed not only as a teaching but also as worship, which held a centremost place in its life. Worship proved to be not only the means by which the Church expressed Her most profound self, but also the par excellence means that shaped the faith and Her life overall. Without being limited to worship alone, the life of the Church is transformed overall into a worship of the Triune God, Who is Her absolute centre and Ηead.

Ecclesiastic worship is comprehended in Christ only, in Whom God is made known (John 1:18). Faith in Christ as our God and Saviour precedes worship of Him. Christ is the One Who differentiates the Christian faith from every other worship. The Christ-centred character of ecclesiastical worship differentiated it radically, not only from the Gentile faith, but also from the Jewish one (see Hebrews 9). Whatever Gentile or Jewish ritualistic elements the Church may have assumed, are only secondary in importance and peripheral, and they do not affect Her worship.

An essential element of Christian worship is the esoteric one, i.e., the thanksgiving and glorification of God for His gifts, from the heart. That is why Christian worship was founded on what God did for Man and not what Man can do to please God and placate Him. It is not intended as a religious ritual; it is through worship that we have the manifestation of the Church as the “Body of Christ”. The sole, true officiator of the Church is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:2), Who, through His Person, introduced into history a different kind of priesthood. The terms “priest”, “sacrifice”, “priesthood” in the Epistle to the Hebrews – the first liturgical text of the Church – are linked exclusively to Christ, the only authentic High Priest, Who offered and still offers the perfect sacrifice – Himself. His sacrifice in the worship of the Church is bloodless and spiritual, and Christ is, after all, the “offerer and the offered and the recipient” of the sacrifice. It is not the priests of the Church who perform the sacrifice (as is the case in the various religions of the world); priests merely “lend” their hands to Christ, so that He may perform everything (Chrysostom). All of the faithful – with their Baptism and their Chrism – partake of Christ’s priesthood, inasmuch as they “present their bodies as a living sacrifice – a holy one, which is pleasing to God” (Romans 12:1).

The Worship of the Church constitutes a revelation of the triple mystery of life: the mystery of God, the mystery of Man and the mystery of Creation, as well as the association between the three. In Orthodox Worship, one experiences the “new Era” that “invaded” history with the Incarnation of the Logos of God, and one is now also equipped with the potential for victory over sin, over deterioration and death. Human existence overall places itself under Christ’s authority and it glorifies the Triadic God, the way He is glorified by the angelic Powers in the heavens (Isaiah 6:1).

In Christian worship, a two-fold movement takes place: Man’s towards God (Who receives our thanksgiving and glorification) and God’s towards Man (who is sanctified by Divine Grace). This is a dialogue between the Creator and His creation; a meeting between Man and “the True One” (1 John 5:20); an offering by an existence to its source, according to the words of the Liturgy: «Ourselves and each other and all of our life let us submit unto Christ the Lord”. The faithful offers thanks to God for his salvation and for God’s continuous gifts, which are “more bounteous than what we asked for”. Man offers God “bread and wine” and he receives the “Body and Blood of Christ” in return; he offers up incense, and receives uncreated Grace. The Church’s worship is not offered to God because He is in need of it; this worship is actually a necessity for Man, who receives far more (and far more important things) than whatever he may have to offer.

Worship is ecclesiastical, when it preserves its supernatural and spiritual character and when it liberates Man, thence leading him into the perfect knowledge (“cognition”) of God (Ephesians 4:13; Revelation 4:10, 5:6, etc.); however, its purpose is not to bring heaven down to earth, but to elevate Man and the world, towards the heavens. It gives Man (and Creation overall) the potential to become “baptized” (to die and be resurrected) within Divine Grace.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Efi Sarri - The Greek Singer Transformed By A Monastery

The following interview with Efi Sarri was recently conducted by "Down Town Cyprus" in the newspaper O Phileleutheros. Efi Sarri is one of the most popular singers in Greece who went through very difficult times over the past few years, that led her to search deep within herself and rediscover her faith.

What led you to monasticism, Efi?

To start from the beginning: From my childhood my uncle was an integral part of my life. I often went to church with my parents until my teens, I fasted, I prayed, and I went to a priest who was my spiritual father - he was also the one under whom I studied the divine writings in catechism class - and I often confessed. Then, because of my involvement with music, things changed somewhat. But only apparently. Though I did not so often go to church because of my work, always in my dressing room was an icon of the Panagia - that somehow I think protected me from the pitfalls, so I felt that someone, somewhere up there, was watching and looking out for me.

What do you mean? While you were singing "in foreign beds you will dream of me" at the same time you were lighting candles?

Why? What is so strange? The sinless casts the first stone. Who will judge me? The one I did for a living and the other for my soul. Of course I was very careful with these things, because I did not want everyone in the venues where I sang to taunt me about my faith.

To go from believing in God and the Saints to enclosing yourself in a monastery is a very great distance.

I agree. But in a particularly difficult period for me, I came upon the writings of Nun Gavrilia through a trusted colleague of mine - a very famous singer with hits through Phoebus to her credit, but I will not publicly reveal her name - I felt that her words and her "ascetic love" was the hope I was looking for and was surprised to discover that it was only truly found in virtuous people.

When did this happen, Efi?

About four years ago, when Lakis Lazopoulos started mocking me through his show, doing outrageous things against me, raping my soul. It was at this moment that I called by myself one night a female monastery, in the eastern suburbs of Athens. I spoke with the Abbess, I told her who I was, and naturally she recognized me, and she told me that "the way of God is open to the whole world". And from her voice alone over the telephone, I calmed down.

And then you finally went to a monastery?

For about four weeks I went almost every evening to this monastery and prayed. I spoke with some nuns there - one of these actually once did vocals on a CD I put out with Karvelas; her voice was very distinctive in "You want to leave me? Impossible!" - and slowly, day by day, I began to feel the monastery was my second home. I remember in those days I would go daily to the psychologist - I had various psychosomatic issues because of the mud thrown at me by Lazopoulos - and the space of the monastery became my refuge. It was as if I was in my natural field. So I felt.

When did you embrace monasticism?

Two months later since I grew in despair with the worldly, and I told myself: "Efi, now is a time to make a giant step in your life, to take a leap and overcome." For a little while I looked at the beautiful dresses I had in my closet, I took a look at my gold discs, and I remembered a conversation I had with a nun that made me ashamed when she said to me "the 'Naked in Greece' you shouldn't have said". I smiled sweetly thinking of all the small sins I committed in my life, the people who unwittingly wronged me, and I thought that now I may be being punished for all my innocent mistakes, and so I made the great decision. I called the Abbess and announced my deepest desire, and she referred me to another nun who was running a new monastery, several kilometers away from Athens. I locked my house, grabbing only a small suitcase with some necessities, and I called a friend who took me straight there.

As a novice?

Exactly. All the nuns who were there - around twenty - received me and took care of me, giving me passages from the Holy Bible to read with reference to particular passages. Though I remember the Abbess, a holy woman without guile, put me to learn by heart the Second Letter to the Corinthians of the Apostle Paul, saying that these words must become my guide in life. Indeed, because she was an intelligent woman and had a high sense of humor, I remember she said to me characteristically: "In the same way you memorize your songs, so you will learn this as well."

And from that day you participated regularly in the monastic life?

With the utmost regularity! The very next morning I got up at 5:00 to go to Orthros. I took a break during the Liturgy. I sat behind a stall, and I opened a book with the service of the day and I participated with my sisters in the chants. Ultimately nothing is wasted. My voice stood out from all the rest. They all gave me their congratulations. Then I went with a sister, who was somehow responsible for me in the monastery until I became a proper nun, to a large field, which, as the sister told me, belonged to the monastery for many years, and there we gathered olives. I will not hide that this was a little challenging for me, because never in my life had I done anything like this. But, I felt the salvation by thinking of the sharp teeth of my television oppressor, and it was nothing compared.

Did you have difficulties with the cassock?

Plenty. Mainly because it was summer, the month of June, and I was sweating a lot, and until then I was accustomed to getting around wearing a mini and my legs would get air. Despite these things, I endured because this was part of my test.

And could you wake up every day at 5, even though for many years that was the time you would go to sleep?

Most certainly! We would eat dinner around 8 - usually bread, olives, herbs - and right after we would say our prayers and sleep in our cells. Another world!

What did the other nuns say to you? Did they know you?

Everyone recognized me! From the first moment. I will not hide the fact that some were skeptical towards me, and I heard some say "artists do not fit in the House of God", but the vast majority accepted me with great love.

And why didn't you stay in the monastery?

In a conversation I had with the Abbess, she told me that I should struggle and dialogue with the world, that the monastery was always there for me, but that I had to find my way through that which troubled me among people and to solve it; that the monastery was a consolation for me as long as I lived there, but it couldn't become a solution for my life. I was already there for 20 days, and then I gathered my things from my small cell which I shared with another novice and I returned to my home in Alimos.

You want to tell me that you lived all this because of a satirical show?

This particular man trampled my soul with his "humor". The monastery was my resurrection.

In the end, was your stay in the monastery good for you?

Very much. I think I am another Efi now. My contact with the divine helped me to separate myself from many things within me, to pick out people and to categorize, and what I try to do is to forgive them. Even those who hurt me deeply.

Was the monastery perhaps a momentary last resort and nothing deeper?

Is there a way to measure faith and I don't know it? Christ Himself says: "Whoever wants to follow Me, come." And: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst."

Which of the two were you?

I thirsted for understanding; for a serene listener to the difficulties I encountered during that period. And I found this in the Sister Nuns. In my next CD I will refer to this amazing experience of mine.

In other words, you will interpret chants?

It is a combination of ecclesiastical hymns with my old sensational hits. I cannot say more about it.

Why did you decide to record now after all that you lived?

Because of all that Greece is going through now, but also because of the days of Pascha, and I also wanted to give an example to the world: that love and faith save. I who have never been in want of anything in my life tell you this. Because I had many loves, young men and old would fall at my feet begging for a fleeting touch, for money, for publicity, for unfathomable success, and yet, I only needed the evil words of one man to deregulate me and tell me that all I had won throughout the years and becoming one of the top singers in Greek folk songs, were all things of the wind. Without faith I was a nothing. I now know. I am not the Efi which you recognized. My life has separated now from pre-monastery to post-monastery. And believe me, this second season is clearly happier than the first.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Q&A: Chorazin in the First Century

Question: How do you address the skeptic who argues that Chorazin did not exist in Jesus’ day? –J.H.

Answer: Two of the Gospels record that Jesus condemned Chorazin for its lack of faith (Matt 11:21; Luke 10:13). Scholars have identified Chorazin as Khirbet Karazeh, a site located two miles north of Capernaum, but excavations have not revealed remains earlier than the 2nd century AD. You’re asking if this contradicts the New Testament.

First, the incidental reference to Chorazin would hardly have been invented by a Gospel writer. One could potentially use the reference to argue that the Gospels were written only much later in the second century, but there is abundant evidence dating Matthew and Luke to the first century.

Second, in some cases the name of a site is preserved in the area but not at the specific location. Names did move in antiquity as well as today (e.g., Beth Zur, Socoh), and this possibility cannot be ruled out.

Third, another ancient text, the Talmud, refers to the existence of Chorazin in the first century. Rabbi Yose said that they would have brought the wheat from Chorazin to the temple for the Omer offering if it had been closer to Jerusalem (b. Men. 85a).

Fourth, in an unpublished report written in 1926, J. Ory described an earlier synagogue 650 feet (200 m) west of the second-century synagogue: “A square colonnaded building of small dimensions, of a disposition similar to the interior arrangement of the synagogue, 7 columns, 3 on each side...with sitting benches in 5 courses” (cited by Foerster on page 26 of Ancient Synagogues Revealed). This building has not been re-located, but it is possible that this is the synagogue of Jesus’ time.

Finally, we must recognize that archaeology has recovered so little of the ancient world. First-century synagogues in Galilee are a great example, as textual sources indicate the existence of dozens and yet archaeology has found only a handful (e.g., Magdala, Gamla). The fact that these are not known today hardly means that they did not once exist. Perhaps the architecture was different than what archaeologists have been looking for, perhaps the Roman destruction was severe in some cases, or perhaps it is just a case of not having sufficient resources to excavate the hundreds of archaeological sites in Galilee.

A telling example of just how limited archaeology is during this time period is the apparent complete disappearance of the nearby city of Bethsaida-Julias. Archaeologists excavating et-Tell so much want it to be the glorious first-century city constructed by Herod Philip but they have not found it (despite their claims to the contrary). The problem is not with the ancient sources but with the preserved remains and archaeologists’ ability to find them.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Eldress Agatha: Mother of Elder Cleopa Ilie

Eldress Agatha Ilie (1876 - 1968), formerly known as Maria before being tonsured a nun, was the mother according to the flesh of one of the greatest hesychasts of modern Romania - Elder Cleopa Ilie.

She was from Soulitsa in the district of Botosani. Her husband was named Alexander, who was a cow merchant for a living. God blessed them with ten children. From a young age this pious couple taught their children to love the ecclesiastical services, to pray, and to flee temptations in their personal lives. Nearby their village was the Kozantsea-Botosani Skete, where Fr. Paisios Olarou struggled, who became the spiritual father of Elder Cleopa as well as the entire family. This is where the children of this large family would go to pray and to listen to the teachings of Elder Paisios, as well as help graze the animals of the Skete.

But God, Who alone is All-Good, and Whose ways are beyond comprehension, allowed this large pious family to suffer many bitter trials. One by one each child was taken from this life, much like the children of Job. This occurred between 1915 and 1935, by the will of God. John died at the age of 16. After a year his sister Porphyria died at the age of 18. After two years the 26 year old Maria died. Their mother Maria was in deep sorrow constantly for the loss of her children. She would go to the Skete and Elder Paisios would console her saying that she was sending angels to heaven. Her sorrow would continue after a few years when Basil and George left to become monks at Sihastria Monastery, and in 1931 she was informed that Basil had died as well. George, who had taken the name Gerasimos, would die two years later. One year later another terrible loss came upon Maria, when her daughter Katherine died; she was only 20 years old and was a novice at Agapia Monastery. Eight children had died at this point, and two were left for her consolation. Every time a child was taken from her, Fr. Paisios would say: "Your children are chanting to God like angels, Maria. There you will meet again." In 1949 Maria went to inform Fr. Paisios that her ninth child died, named Michael. He told her: "Your nine children have gone to the Lord and received nine martyric crowns." Shortly after this her husband, Alexander, died. Her last surviving child, Constantine, had already gone to become a novice at Sihastria Monastery in 1936, and came to be known as Cleopas upon his tonsure. Cleopa was urging his mother at this point to become a nun, and Fr. Paisios informed her: "Go Maria, you also become a monastic and pray for the living and the dead."

In the winter of 1946 Maria went to join a convent, at the age of 70, after first visiting Sihastria Monastery to venerate the tombs of her two sons. From there she went by carriage to the Monastery of Old Agapia, where she stayed for good. There she took the name Agatha and lived for another 22 years. All her life she was illiterate and could not read books or the Divine Services. What characterized her was her goodness and innocence of soul. Her soul was child-like, without evil, without pride, without bad thoughts in her mind. Whatever somebody told her, she believed, and whatever she was asked to do, she did with obedience, because she loved everybody and had no discrimination. She spoke with everyone, and cried for the misfortune and pain of all people.

When she was asked what obedience she had at the Monastery, she would respond: "I cut wood with the saw, I take care of the flowers, and I help with the cooking." Another job she had was to go into the woods all day to gather sticks for the kitchen, the whole time praying while she worked, and she would return before sunset.

One year before her repose, she ceased altogether speaking of her children. If a nun happened to ask Sister Agatha about her children, she would groan a little bit, but then be happy as a child, saying: "How good are these sisters. They care for me like a mother. Behold, here I am alone. Abbess Olympia also reposed. I have remained alone."

Her only consolation now was the Church and the Sisters who took care of her in her cell. She lived the 22 years of her monastic life with humility, prayer, silence, love, quietude, and spiritual prayer.

Old Agapia Monastery was a haven for Eldress Agatha. Though she sent all but one of her children to heaven before her own repose, through prayer she was ever near them together with all the saints through the grace of the Holy Spirit. In the Monastery she found comfort and peace of soul. In the summer of 1968 Eldress Agatha began to feel weak. She only had the strength to walk to the balcony of her cell to catch some warmth from the rays of the sun. For a few days she was bedridden. "Eldress Agatha, won't you eat some food? Here are a few apples," said the nuns who took care of her. To this she responded: "Apples I will eat in Paradise, where I am going soon." On 15 September 1968, at the age of 92, her soul went to Paradise, after saying farewell to the entire Sisterhood of the Monastery.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Letter of Saint Valeriu Gafencu To His Mother

7 March 1946

My beloved mom, I saw you in the heart of Norika [his sister], when she visited. You were good, gentle, very understanding. I remained silent and looked within myself. There I found love ... Today I'm so happy! I look calmly at my life and life around the world and see God's intervention in everything. I look at our lives and see the miracle of God.

My dear mom, I feel you so much! Tell me mom that you feel my love! Tell me mom that you always feel me by your side! Tell me mom you're happy! I have so much to tell you, mom! At night I wake up from sleep and pray. I send my thoughts to my mom and then there is so much peace within me! And I feel my dad, I feel the endless love. And I often think of the love you had for my father. What a beautiful family you have created! And what beautiful love!

Mom, remember the summer days when I was a student in high school and we were walking together in our garden, among the trees. I remember what thoughts you had and you told me about my future.

My primary thoughts then were that I would become a man of great value. I meant by this to become a man who played a great role in history and bring many good things to the nation. I wanted to do much good in the world, but man plans and God decides. Life has followed its rapid and imposing journey. I arrived by myself to the University in Iasi. There I saw that truly there is opened for me a great future. I lived a normal life, I was one of the most gifted students, a friend of all, with an unusual thirst for the ideals of a new world, in which govern love and justice, the perfect harmony.

Well, I arrived in prison. I knew that my prison life would bring, through suffering and isolation from the world, many problems. I do believe that I suffer for the truth. This circumstance has brought to my soul a deep peace. I was satisfactorily fulfilling the course of my ideal.

And, my beloved mother, I want you to know that I have suffered much. The first winter I would wake up at night from my sleep, and the loneliness of my incarceration, cold and hungry, I would look into the darkness and whispering low, so that I only heard myself, but loud enough for God to hear: "Mom, I'm cold, hungry!"

At first it was very difficult. But God was always with me. He did not forsake me even a moment. I began to confront my bodily sufferings, and slowly began to savor new joys. I saw that I am a sinful man. I am appalled by my sins and my weaknesses. I realized then that I, who wished with all my heart for an ideal world, was a sinner. Therefore, I first had to become a pure new man. And so I began to war with the evil that was inside me.

Slowly there descended upon me the light of truth. I began to live the happiness in pain. And the hole in my heart was overfilled by Christ, my great love. And I realized then that truly great is he who has this great love, though he seems small. Today I am happy. Through Christ I love everyone. It is a difficult journey for these things to be accepted and known by the people! But I am very convinced that it is the only path that leads to happiness.

Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: The Woman At the Well

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Epiphanios of Salamis' Preface to the "Panarion"

Greetings in the Lord from Epiphanios to his highly esteemed brothers and fellow presbyters, Masters Acacius and Paul!

By drawing up a preface, or set of remarks, as a sort of title, ancient authors would give a glimpse of the whole work following through their riddle. Hence, beloved, since I am the same sort, I am writing you a preface to give the gist of my treatise against sects. Since I shall be telling you the names of the sects and exposing their unlawful deeds like poisons and toxic substances, matching the antidotes with them at the same time - cures for those who are already bitten, and preventatives for those who will have this experience - I am drafting this Preface here for the scholarly, to explain the "Panarion", or chest of remedies for the victims of wild beasts' bites. It is a work in three volumes and contains eighty sects which stand symbolically for wild animals or snakes.

But "one after the eighty" is at once the foundation of the truth, the teaching and the saving treatment of it, and Christ's "holy bride", the Church. The Church has always been, but was revealed in due course by Christ's incarnation, during the period of these sects. I mention it in connection with the preaching of Christ. And again, after all the iniquities of these sects, I give a concise, clear account of it in accordance with the apostles' teaching, to refresh those who have read through all the laborious work on the sects.

Please, all you scholarly readers of the Preface, the Sects that follow it, and the Defense of the Truth, Exposition of the Truth, and Faith of the Holy Catholic Church, I am only human, and am trying my best to defend true religion, with hard work and zeal from God. I beg your pardon if I attempt too much in my desire to make the best defense I can in the all-holy, all-august Name itself. For God allows me this, though I am investigating matters too difficult for me, since my discussion is for truth's sake, and my work is for the sake of piety.

And further, if you should find - it is surely not my way to mock people or make fun of them. But please pardon me if, from anger over the sects and for the reader's protection, I should speak under provocation, or call certain persons "frauds", or "scum" or "pathetic". It is the very necessity for the words of the debate that puts me in such a sweat - to protect the reader and show that their practices, mysteries and teachings are the furthest thing from my mind. Also to prove my independence of them by those words and the intensity of my opposition, and wean some people away from them, precisely by the words that appear too harsh.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Rocky Relationship Between John Chrysostom and Epiphanios of Salamis

When St. John Chrysostom was Patriarch of Constantinople he became involved in the Origenistic controversies. The object in dispute was the orthodoxy of the great Origen, which long after his death was violently defended and as violently assailed.

Theophilus of Alexandria, an able and vigorous but domineering, contentious and unscrupulous prelate, was at first an admirer of Origen, but afterwards in consequence of a personal quarrel joined the opponents, condemned his memory and banished the Origenistic monks from Egypt. Some fifty of them, including the four “Tall Brethren,” so-called on account of their extraordinary stature, fled to Constantinople and were hospitably received by Chrysostom (401). He had no sympathy with the philosophical speculations of Origen, but appreciated his great merits, and felt that injustice was done to the persecuted monks. He interceded in their behalf with Theophilus, who replied with indignant remonstrance against protecting heretics and interfering in another diocese.

Theophilus, long desirous of overthrowing Chrysostom, whom he had reluctantly consecrated, set every instrument in motion to take revenge. He sent the octogenarian bishop Epiphanios of Salamis, a well-meaning and learned zealot for orthodoxy, to Constantinople, as a tool of his hierarchical plans (402). Socrates Scholasticus, the historian and a defender of Origen, admits that it was due to Epiphanios' simple mindedness that he became a tool of Theophilus. The historian Sozomen further tells us: "Epiphanios had long regarded the writings of Origen with peculiar aversion, and was therefore easily led to attach credit to ... Theophilus."

While in Constantinople Epiphanios ordained a deacon, without the permission of Chrysostom and contrary to canon law. He also refused Chrysostom's hospitality to remain at the episcopal palace. According to Socrates: "He [Epiphanios], however, replied that he would neither stay nor pray with him, unless he would expel Dioscorus and his brethren from the city, and with his own hand subscribe the condemnation of Origen's books." John's position was that "nothing ought to be done rashly before investigation by a general council". This led Epiphanios to condemn Chrysostom's behavior towards the Origenists, and prompted Chrysostom to write the following letter to Epiphanios:

You do many things contrary to the canons, Epiphanios. In the first place you have made an ordination in the churches under my jurisdiction: then without my appointment, you have on your own authority officiated in them. Moreover, when heretofore I invited you hither, you refused to come, and now you take that liberty yourself. Beware therefore, lest a tumult being excited among the people, you yourself should also incur danger therefrom.

Socrates then informs us of the following shocking details, which took place in 403:

Epiphanios becoming alarmed on hearing these admonitions, left the church; and after accusing John of many things, he set out on his return to Cyprus. Some say that when he was about to depart, he said to John, "I hope that you will not die a bishop": to which John replied, "Expect not to arrive at your own country." I cannot be sure that those who reported these things to me spoke the truth; but nevertheless the event was in the case of both as prophesied above. For Epiphanios did not reach Cyprus, having died on board the ship during his voyage; and John a short time afterwards was driven from his see, as we shall show in proceeding.

However, Sozomen reports further details that show a certain repentance on the part of Epiphanios. He says that Epiphanios met with the Tall Brothers, who asked Epiphanios why he considers them heretics and if he had ever read their books on the disputed subject. Epiphanios replied that he had not. The Tall Brothers then went on to speak of their admiration for Epiphanios and his writings, which they read and defended, and asked for a fair appraisal of their writings as well. This led Epiphanios to have a change of heart and Sozomen tells us that it was for this reason he decided to abandon hs plans in Constantinople and leave again for Cyprus.

Sozomen then tells us:

Soon after he [Epiphanios] embarked for Cyprus, either because he recognized the futility of his journey to Constantinople, or because, as there is reason to believe, God had revealed to him his approaching death; for he died while on his voyage back to Cyprus. It is reported that he said to the bishops who had accompanied him to the place of embarkation, "I leave you the city, the palace, and the stage, for I shall shortly depart." I have been informed by several persons that John predicted that Epiphanios would die at sea, and that this latter predicted the deposition of John. For it appears that when the dispute between them was at its height, Epiphanios said to John, "I hope you will not die a bishop", and that John replied, "I hope you will never return to your bishopric".

Whether these last words recorded by both Socrates and Sozomen are true or not is debateable, since they are based on hearsay. But we are sure of the conflict between these two great saints of the Church, who it seems died unreconciled on this issue of conflict, but are still recognized by the Church throughout history, even by their contemporaries, as holy men of God who defended the Faith with the right intentions. Perhaps they both were right on certain issues, and both were wrong in areas as well. Of course, Epiphanios was an extremist, whose anti-Origenism went so far as to condemn icons in churches. Perhaps Chrysostom was also an extremist for not condemning certain works of Origen which indeed showed heresy. Many profitable lessons can be learned from this dispute, and the avoidance of extremes may be the most clear one.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Monastery of Saint Marina Atop Mt. Langa in Albania

Atop Mt. Langa in Albania overlooking Lake Ochrid, there is a monastery dedicated to St. Marina with a portion of her miraculous relics. Countless miracles have occurred and still occur in this monastery, whose witnesses are not only Christians but many Muslims as well. So much did the Turks have respect for this holy place that they never dared disturb either this holy place or the property of this monastery. At one time a Turk was the guardian of the monastery.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Documentary: Saint Epiphanios, Bishop of Cyprus (Greek)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Sea Gives Up Its Dead

The Monastery of Perivoli is situated on the banks of the Voulgaris River, nearby the village of Antissa on the island of Lesvos. The Monastery is dedicated to the Entrance of the Theotokos Into the Temple. The church of the Monastery is a small basilica, covered with a wooden roof. The interior of the church is decorated with beautiful 16th-century frescoes. Among the many beautiful frescoes is that of the above depicting the sea giving up its dead, that is, it shows the final resurrection when all those who had died at sea will be called to rise from the dead. The Gorgon is a representation of the sea, who responds to the angelic trumpet call to give up its dead inhabitants.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

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