Was Constantine the Great Baptized An Arian?

A common myth circulated by critics of Constantine the Great to discredit his character and the good he did for the Church is the accusation that he was baptized into the Arian heresy by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Arian, in May of 337, a few days prior to his death.

Of course this is not a recent issue, as it was addressed about 150 years ago by the historian Constantine Paparrigopoulos (1815-1891), who criticized western historians for circulating such misconceptions, which he called "insults and slanders". He writes of these historians: "They have even gone to the point of erasing his orthodoxy because he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia" (History of the Greek Nation, vol. 2; p. 150).

The whole misconception about Constantine the Great being baptized an Arian originated from an incident of the First Ecumenical Council, during which Eusebius of Nicomedia was presented as a leader of the Arians. This is the only connection critics have associating Constantine with being an Arian, having accepted baptism from a supposed heretic.

However, critics have not taken into account the entire historical data available to establish the truth of the matter, relying instead on speculation and conspiracy theories that are unfounded to push their own agenda. Without taking into account the fact that the Church faced these issues, they inevitably lead to the wrong conclusions. Because according to Ecclesiastical Tradition, which is crystallized in its Canon Law, one is not considered a heretic if he professes falsehood until he is invited to revoke and renounce his cacodoxy (false teaching).

The fact that one cannot be considered a heretic until one is invited to revoke and renounce his cacodoxy is a key element in arriving towards the truth of this issue regarding Constantine the Great. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the characterization of a man as a heretic cannot be determined by one person or by a set of opinions, but must be determined by competent ecclesiastical organs, since it is not possible for every Christian to determine by himself who should be determined a christian and who should be determined a heretic.

Regarding Eusebius of Nicomedia's confession of faith prior to the baptism of Constantine and during the First Ecumenical Council of 325, John Karmiris writes: "All the Fathers of the Synod accepted unanimously the Holy Creed, including those who professed Arianism, other than the above two, after around the six day dogmatic deliberations, and they signed on the 19th of June in the year 325" (The Dogmatic and Symbolic Writings of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. 1; p. 118).

This makes clear that the 318 Fathers who attended the Council unanimously professed Orthodoxy. As for the phrase "other than the above two", Professor Karmiris noted a few paragraphs earlier that Theonas and Secundus were the only ones who confessed Arian teachings and did not accept the Nicene Creed. Eusebius of Nicomedia, though he did struggle to defend Arian doctrines, in the end he did sign in favor of the Nicene Creed, but together with Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon refused to excommunicate Arius. For this refusal and disloyalty, Constantine had not only Arius, Theonas and Secundus exiled, but also Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon. Not long after however they were reinstated by the Church, according to the historian Sozomen, who writes:

Not long after, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, regained possession of their churches after expelling Amphion and Chrestos who had been ordained in their stead. They owed their restoration to a document which they had presented to the bishops, containing a retraction: "Although we have been condemned without a trial by your piety, we deemed it right to remain silent concerning the judgment passed by your piety. But as it would be absurd to remain longer silent, when silence is regarded as a proof of the truth of the calumniators, we now declare to you that we too agree in this faith, and after a diligent examination of the thought in the word 'consubstantial,' we are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and that we never pursued any heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the churches such argument as occurred to us, and having been fully convinced, and fully convincing those who ought to have been persuaded by us, we undersigned the creed; but we did not subscribe to the anathema, not because we impugned the creed, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us; the letters we had received from him, and the arguments he had delivered in our presence, fully satisfying us that he was not such an one. Would that the holy Synod were convinced that we are not bent on opposing, but are accordant with the points accurately defined by you, and by this document, we do attest our assent thereto: and this is not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy; for if you will condescend to admit us now into your presence, you will find us in all points of the same sentiments as yourselves, and obedient to your decisions, and then it shall seem good to your piety to be merciful to him who was accused on these points and to have him recalled. If the party amenable to justice has been recalled and has defended himself from the charge made, it would be absurd, were we by our silence to confirm the reports that calumny had spread against us. We beseech you then, as befits your piety, dear to Christ, that you memorialize our emperor, most beloved of God, and that you hand over our petition, and that you counsel quickly, what is agreeable to you concerning us." It was by these means that Eusebius and Theognis, after their change of sentiment, were reinstated in their churches. (Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 16)

This letter given to us through Sozomen is significant, because it states that Eusebius of Nicomedia accepted the Orthodox Faith and sought communion with the Catholic Church and renounced the heresy of Arius. It also reveals why Eusebius was sent into exile originally - because he refused to excommunicate Arius.

Certainly in the years following the First Ecumenical Council in 325 Arian disputes continued to arise and gained resurgence, and Constantine did sometimes show favor to Arian bishops, but he did this sparingly in order to keep the peace of the Empire and the unity of the Church. For Constantine, as long as you showed loyalty to the undivided Church, he did not over-question personal intentions and thus disturb the peace. And if anyone did disturb the peace, be they Orthodox or not, they were sent into exile, as was the case with St. Athanasius of Alexandria. But as far as Constantine knew, Eusebius repented of his error in his letter and he was restored to his See and gained the favor of Constantine precisely because he was Orthodox. And it was from this canonical bishop of the Orthodox Church, Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Constantine received Holy Baptism, fully in canonical communion with the Church. Consequently, there is no hesitation on the part of the Orthodox Church, which takes the entire historical data into account, that Constantine the Great was baptized as an Orthodox Christian by an Orthodox bishop.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Miracle of Saint Constantine in 1947

By Emmanuel Lagouvardos of Moscow

In 1947 I was seven years old and living with my parents in Tirnavos. Christmas eve we went to my grandmothers from Tirnavos to her village in Grevena Town, where we waited for my grandfather. In Elassona we visited my aunt, to stay a few hours until the military vehicle came out that was a minesweeper, because the road had mines.

Playing with my cousin of the same age at my aunt's house, the warmer stumbled and charcoal fell onto the carpet. Saddened by the mess I escaped, disappearing from my aunt's house and I went to the river Titarisiou that crosses Elassona. I returned home when it started getting dark. The military vehicle was gone and we stayed the night at my aunt's house.

At night my grandmother saw in her sleep her patron St. Constantine, who told her not to go to Deskati but to return to Tirnavos because her daughter's life was in danger.

In the morning we returned to Tirnavos where my mother was in danger of dying from bleeding (she was giving birth to my sister Vasiliki) and doctors were not found anywhere. This was the state of guerrilla warfare. My father was looking to find a doctor in Larissa. Finally we found a military doctor who was like a guardian angel and stayed several days with us to be constantly on the side of my mother, until he escaped the danger.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Forty-Two Martyrs of Momisici Canonized

COMMUNIQUE FROM THE HOLY ASSEMBLY OF BISHOPS OF THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, FROM MAY 17, 2012

The Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, during today's session rendered the decision to enter two priest martyrs and forty students-martyrs of Momisici and that their celebration (formal declaration of sainthood; canonization) be at the Holy Hierarchical Divine Liturgy at the St. Sava Memorial-Church on Vracar on Saturday, May 19, 2012, led by His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia at which their long and prayerful respect among the faithful of the Serbian Orthodox Church will be confirmed.

History of the Martyrs of Momisici

Two priests, serving as religious education teachers, and their forty students, children from the parish mostly from the brotherhood of Popovic were burned alive in 1688 at the St. George Church in the modern day Podgorica suburb of Momisici, at the hand of the Sulejman-Pasha army of Skadar, as a sign of retaliation which the Osmanlija Turks suffered from the hill tribes the previous months, particularly from Kucha.

Their relics were gathered and buried beneath the holy altar table of the St. George Church. During the entire time of Turkish rule, the relics remained in this church until 1936 when, with great honor and the litiya-procession of the people the relics were transferred to the renovated St. George Church in Momisici and placed beneath the holy altar table there. In 2006 the relics were taken out for the faithful to venerate on the feastday of the Holy 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, known commonly among the people as Holy Youths Day, after which Metropolitan Amphilohije, together with the clergy, washed them with wine and anointed them with rose oil according to the ancient Orthodox custom. Since then they can be found in a reliquary on the left hand side of the iconostasis of the Momisici church of St. George, which, since then, has also been dedicated to their holy memory. In commemoration of the last finding of their relics, for some years now in the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Coastlands their liturgical commemoration is celebrated on the feast of the Holy Martyrs of Sebaste [March 9].

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

11 New Martyrs of Estonia Canonized

It was with great emotion in Estonia that the decision of 22 February 2012 by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the canonization of eleven clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church of Estonia was accepted.

His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in a letter to the Metropolitan of Tallinn and All Estonia Stephanos, accepted the recommendation for recognition "of those who died in prison as martyrs" among the Estonian Orthodox, and are numbered with the saints and the martyrs of the Church. These seven priests, a presvytera and three laymen who confessed Christ before the Soviet prosecutors who ruled Estonia and were martyred in prison and exile, suffered martyrdom for the Orthodox faith between the period 1940-41.

This is the second decision of canonization for the Orthodox Church of Estonia by the Patriarchal Synod, which decision is really grounded in the blood of the new martyrs. By the same decision their memory will be honored and celebrated by the faithful on June 14th annually "with hymns of praise".

The Estonian Orthodox Church prepares to celebrate the festive canonization of the new martyrs on Thursday, June 14th with a Synodal Divine Liturgy in the Metropolitan Church of Saints Symeon and Anna.

The Church of Estonia

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

It should be further told that an Estonian priest, Fr. Andreas Põld, is credited with discovering these new martyrs after researching their life stories in the archives of old newspapers and from the memories of those who knew them, which lasted for years. Unfortunately the published material is not clear about the fate of all eleven new martyrs; some were executed, some died in prison, while others were deported, but there is not sufficient clarity.

The names of the new martyrs are as follows:

Priests - Vassili Ristkok, Johannes Kraav, Joann Sergejev, Arteemi Vapper and Nikolai Leisman;

Deacons - Vassili Astanin and Peeter Koslov;

Presvytera - Marta Leisman;

Laypeople - Joann Lagovski, Theodor Petai and Anna Petai.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Manuscript of Great Historic Importance Found in Istanbul

Marianna Tsatsou

May 16, 2012

Greek Reporter

An important manuscript was discovered in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Topkapi was the residence of the Ottoman sultans for almost 400 years. The manuscript found is of significant meaning, because it consists of information regarding the years before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, but it also describes the early years after Constantinople was turned into Istanbul and became capital of Turkey.

The document belongs to Michael Critovoulos, a Greek politician, scholar and historian, who lived between 1410 and 1470. His birth-name was Kritopoulos, but he changed it to sound more ancient Greek-like.

He experienced the Siege and Fall of Constantinople and wrote about Mehmed II the Conqueror.

The discovery sheds light on issues, such as taxation during the Fall, relationships between Greeks and Ottomans, the contention between Venetians and Genoese.

Critovoulos refers also to the construction of the Rumeli Hisari fortress, which was the knockout blow for the Byzantine Istanbul. The chronicle of destruction and looting of the city by the Ottomans, in order to make it their capital, is also mentioned.

His book, according to the Turkish website Hubermonitor.com, was printed with the contribution of the Pavlos and Alexandra Kanellopoulos Foundation. This will be a bilingual issue, having the original manuscript and the Turkish translation by Aris Tsokonas on the one page and the colourful photocopy of the text on the other.

The book will be presented at Pera Museum, located in Istanbul, on May 21.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Faith & Logic Can Co-exist, UBC Study Contends

Douglas Todd

May 19, 2012

The Victoria Times Colonist

"The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbours." - Sam Harris, celebrity atheist

Some atheists are delighting in a groundbreaking University of B.C. psychology report that suggests analytical thinking can be harmful to religious faith.

Published in the journal Science, the study of 650 North Americans has gained worldwide attention for revealing religious belief drops after subjects perform analytical tasks or are exposed to Rodin's sculpture, The Thinker.

The ABC News headline on their story, for instance, reads: "Religious faithfuls lack logic, study implies." Nature News went with: "Is rationality the enemy of religion?" Many atheist and science blogs boast that the UBC study proves religion is unadulterated fantasy. They denounce religion with the same passion as celebrity atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

But psychologist Ara Norenzayan, co-author of the UBC study, said this week he has spent most of his time telling global journalists what he and Will Gervais were not trying to say in their report, titled "Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief."

Even though the two psychologists found religious belief went down, temporarily, after subjects performed mathematical computations and other mental challenges, the duo's report makes clear "analytic" thinking is just one way humans understand reality.

Another way is "intuitive" thinking. The UBC duo's innovative study opens the door to what could be an enlightening cultural discussion of the many different ways humans think and feel -- and how they influence our convictions about life, love, truth and spirituality.

For instance, many religious people would probably accuse me of being too "analytic." Even though I affirm the spiritual impulse, I try not to accept too much on what some call "blind faith."

That's why I'm drawn to philosophy and systematic theology, which is often rigorously rational.

Given this, neuro-psychologists might suspect I am predominantly a "left-brain" thinker, since rationality is associated with the brain's left hemisphere.

At the same time, I'm more than open to what can be learned about reality through intuition, or socalled "right-brain" thinking.

Intuition governs much of what we do and experience - in our relationships, habits, imaginations, values and approach to the arts.

To be clear, I don't have much problem with some of Dawkins' and Harris's denunciations of religious fundamentalism. There is a lot of authoritarian, thoughtless extremism in the world, though it's hardly confined to the religious.

I have been disturbed, however, by the fact they have made small publishing fortunes arguing atheism alone is rational, while religion is nothing more than silly magic.

A common misunderstanding about religion comes from the way people define the word "rational."

Dawkins and Harris are hardly alone in assuming any kind of thinking that is not analytical, or rational, is thereby "irrational." Indeed, Harris argues that faith is "belief without evidence." His crusade is to eradicate faith so that reason can prevail.

However, it's incorrect to assume anything that is not "rational" is therefore nonsensical, illogical, absurd and ridiculous. Instead, there is an entire realm of human, animal and ecological experience that is best described as "non-rational."

Such "non-rational" realities - including intuitions, emotions, the unconscious and creativity itself - are just as real, if not more so, than many things understood through rationality alone.

Many great thinkers have been aware of this distinction. Albert Einstein was one of them.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge," Einstein said. "For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

Still, many continue to have a difficult time overcoming today's conventional wisdom, which claims rationality is always superior.

Prof. Dan Ryan, a sociologist at Mills College in California, struggles to educate people about the limits of rationality.

"If rationality is all it's cracked up to be," Ryan says, there should be more convergence in society. Instead, "rational experts often disagree."

The Yale-educated sociologist says many human functions are not strictly rational.

Sigmund Freud, an atheist, pointed to one: the power of the unconscious mind, which harbours hidden fears and desires. Karl Marx, another atheist, taught that people don't realize many of their values are based on their economic class.

In addition, the California professor says people who stress rationality might argue it's often smarter to be selfish - by cheating or free-riding.

But most people try to act morally, because of an unspoken social contract. Indeed, Ryan is not alone in maintaining that an over-reliance on rationality can be dangerous to our well-being.

A leader in the intersection of science and spirituality, Georgetown University's John Haught, says "rationalism imprisons human minds no less than the worship of idols keeps religious people from developing a liberating relationship to the whole depth of being."

There are thousands of things humans accept without hard rationalistic proof. These things include compassion for partners, children and animals; the wisdom of dreams and emotions; and the appreciation of beauty.

In his book God and the New Atheism, Haught writes: "Theology thinks of faith as a state of selfsurrender, in which one's whole being, and not just the intellect, is experienced as being carried away into a dimension of reality that is much deeper and more real than anything that can be grasped by science or reason."

A Canadian neuropsychologist, the University of Montreal's Mario Beauregard, celebrates some of these deeper dimensions in his latest book, Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence of the Mind. Beauregard challenges the materialist mindset of atheists such as Harris, who tend to believe "the brain is just a computer made of meat" and who teach everything can be objectively reduced to rationality.

Examining the emerging science behind such "unexplained" phenomena as the placebo effect, self-healing, meditation and near-death experiences, Brain Wars asks readers to consider the immense untapped power of the mind. Brain Wars points boldly to what the UBC researchers only briefly touch on in their report in Science magazine, where they acknowledge humans have always used both "analytic" and "intuitive" minds.

Even though Harris and other atheists claim science is essentially analytic, another novel study has thrown a wrench into such simplistic stereo-types separating scientists and religious people.

The recent psychological study of more than 200 climate change scientists, performed by Susan Weiler, discovered three out of four of the scientists were highly "intuitive" - compared with only one of four in the general population.

In other words, as Einstein suggested, authentic scientists may well be rational and analytic - but they also have imagination, vision, empathy and a sense of values and esthetics. All of which helps guide them in their intellectual pursuits.

In that way, scientists are just like many spiritual people.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Constantine And Christianity

Daniel Larison

February 1st, 2010

The American Conservative

Comment: You could argue, in fact, that Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as a state religion was an original sin from which Christianity has still not recovered.

You could argue this, but it would have no basis in fact. This may seem a minor point, but the misunderstanding of Constantine’s relationship to Christianity is a common and very frustrating one. Regardless of what one thinks Constantine’s reasons for becoming first a patron of Christianity and then a convert may have been, it is very important to understand what his patronage and involvement did not entail. First of all, Christianity did not become a state religion under Constantine. Christianity became the emperor’s favored religion, and this meant a diversion of wealth away from pagan cults and towards the Church, but the religion did not achieve a distinct and higher legal status until considerably later.

The establishment of Christianity (and a particular form of Christianity at that) as the official, state religion occurred later closer to the end of the century under Theodosios I, when it first became illegal to engage in public pagan religious practices. Even after this, especially in the eastern empire, secular law and ecclesiastical canons remained largely distinct and separate until fairly late in Byzantine history, and the involvement of the emperor in the Church was mostly limited to adjudicating intra-Christian doctrinal disputes. Non-Christians and heretics were under legal disadvantages because of their beliefs, but in most cases they were left in peace.

What more than a few historians and theologians have dubbed "Constantinianism" had nothing to do with Constantine. For that matter, it had very little to do with Byzantium later on. Like the equally mythical concept of Caesaropapism, the picture of a church intertwined with and directed by the imperial government is the product of modern historiography reacting against church-state relations that prevailed in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The phenomenon of state churches in which the secular power ruled over the Church directly began with Henry VIII and repeated itself throughout northern Europe. This particular fusion of politics and religion was a decidedly modern phenomenon, and had little to do with ancient or medieval practices in Byzantium.

[...]

Comment: Christianity was "set on the road" towards becoming a state religion under Constantine.

No, Christianity was not “set on the road” towards becoming a state religion under Constantine. That is the worst kind of teleological, anachronistic historical interpretation. At the time that he was emperor, he was providing patronage to one of a number of religious cults that still flourished in the empire. One of his successors could and did abandon Christianity and promoted traditional pagan cults. The break with past Roman practice was not nearly as decisive or momentous as everyone seems to assume. He provided the Church with legal protections and endowed it with significant property. The Church did not become an “active political entity.” In the east, it is debatable whether we can say that it became such an entity during most of the Byzantine period. Bishops acquired secular authority in those places where imperial authority was lacking, not where it was present.

Comment: Previous to Constantine, the primary symbols of Christianity were not the cross, but the fish, and other life-giving signs.

This is nonsense. Eusebius included cross imagery in his Life of Constantine to establish Constantine’s reputation as a Christian. Constantine was not the one who made the Cross into a major symbol of Christianity. Besides, the Resurrection remained the overriding symbol and idea of Eastern Christianity before and after Constantine. The special attention to Christ’s death was something that developed in western Europe for entirely different reasons. Constantine did not make Christianity into a militant religion. His Christianity did not emphasize violence. Indeed, if you read his letters during the Donatist and Arian controversies, he stressed the importance of concord and peace as ideals. Decades after Constantine, soldiers were still required to abstain from communion for three years if they had shed blood.

Most of the things that are laid at Constantine’s feet came about decades or centuries after him and had little or no connection to anything in his career.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

(5) Orthodoxy's Worship: Liturgical Theology

By Protopresbyter George Metallinos

5. Liturgical Theology

Faith - not only as the ecclesiastical ideology and one’s fidelity to the Saviour Christ but as a teaching also - is a fundamental and inviolable prerequisite of ecclesiastical worship. It is the motivating power of the worshiping faithful, expressed by external acts and moves that comprise its ritual. Worship materializes faith and renders it a group event, while it simultaneously preserves and augments it, thus helping one to delve deeper into it.

Orthodox worship is Trinity-centred in its topics and its structure. Its strength and its hope spring from the Triadic God. The Church liturgically offers up “glory to the Father, and the Son, and to the Holy Spirit”.

The Eucharist “anaphora” (referral) is addressed to God the Father. The Son is also the recipient of the offered sacrifice, given that He is “of the same essence” and co-enthroned with the Father, and He is the central axis of that sacrifice as well. He is “the offerer and the offered and the recipient” during the Divine Eucharist. Ecclesiastical worship is the continuation of Christ’s redemptive work, and it incorporates the Mystery of Divine Providence. Christ is the “ecclesiast” (“churchifier”) Who gathers us unto His Body and the faithful are the “churchified” who participate in His worship and are recipients of His glory. Those who receive Holy Communion “worthily” (II Corinthians 3:16) prove to be a temple of Christ, and the mystery of Faith is officiated inside their hearts.

But ecclesiastical worship is just as equally Spirit-centred, because the Holy Spirit is also present during worship, the way that the luminous mist was present when it “overshadowed” the Disciples and the entire Mount during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). Orthodoxy’s true worship is the Holy Spirit’s prayer-rousing energy inside the heart of the faithful, as is the case with the Saints, who are the true worshipers of God because they are participants of the celestial worship. The entireness of worship is the work of the Holy Spirit, Who “holds together the entire establishment of the Church”. The prayer, “Thou Heavenly King, the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth…” is the one that inducts us into every Service.

In divine worship, a “communion with the Holy Spirit” takes place. Everything is governed by the sanctifying power of the Paraclete. At the peak moment of the Sacrament, we beseech the Holy Spirit to “come upon us” (the officiators) and upon the “holy gifts” (the bread and the wine), as well as upon “all of the people”, and to perform the “spiritual sacrifice”, by transforming the offered gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and uniting all the participants into one body.

The Church’s worship stands out for its “traditionality”. This is the most dynamic carrier of ecclesiastical tradition. “Tradition” in the Church is the perpetuation of the Christian mode of existence; it is life in the Holy Spirit, which can lead to the Church’s true purpose: Man’s theosis and the sanctification of Creation. The truly faithful person will persist in those elements that comprise the genuine ecclesiastical stance. That is what Faith is basically all about: for one to remain faithful and unswerving towards the will of God and the Tradition of the Saints. The criterion for the genuineness of ecclesiastical worship is its degree of “traditionality”. This also contributes towards the unity of local churches, both contemporaneously and across Time.

The liturgical texts provide the liturgical theology, which constitutes a pristine expression of the ecclesiastical dogma. That is why worship becomes “a school for piety” that teaches the faith, with the support of the media of art, and especially iconography - that “most eloquent book” of the Church, as Saint John the Damascene had said. Orthodox worship throughout the ages has shaped the mentality of the faithful, as one can see from certain church-loving personalities such as the heroic General Makriyannis or the pious author Alexandros Papadiamantis. A person’s association with worship is an indicator of his ecclesiastical demeanour.

It therefore stands to reason that one can speak of an Orthodox and a non-Orthodox worship, because the Orthodox element underlying worship is not composed of faceless structures; it is the faith that is being materialized by these structures. Ever since ancient times, one’s confession of faith was linked directly to worship. Worship remains the sermon of truth throughout the ages, as personified by the Saints and the “remembrance” of the redemptive events found in the Old and the New Testaments. However, beyond being the sermon of faith, ecclesiastical worship also contributes towards its own defence, by fending off heretical fallacies. It is already a known fact that ecclesiastical theology is usually formulated as a response to heretical provocations. This is evidenced by the feast-days and the special church services dedicated to Holy Fathers and Ecumenical Synods. Vespers and Matins provide us with the theology of every single feast-day, in lieu of a theological arsenal for the faithful. The observant faithful becomes, for all intents and purposes, a theologian of the Church.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Documentary: Elder Iakovos Tsalikes of Evia

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Holy Scripture and Holy Men of God

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

This is witnessed by the Apostle Peter who himself was a holy man of God, a rock of faith and a knight of the Cross. As a holy man of God he, by his own personal experience, explains how the holy men of God spoke and what they said and he says: "They spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." However, they did not speak according to their own reasoning nor according to their own memory nor according to their own speculation nor according to their own eloquence but rather they spoke from the Spirit and according to the Holy Spirit. The wisdom of God flowed through them and the truth of God was revealed through them. Holy Scripture was not written with "the false pen of the scribes" (Jeremiah 8:8), but was written by the servants and the chosen ones of the Holy Spirit of God. Neither was Holy Scripture written by men whose writing was a vocation, but rather it was written by the saints of God, directed and compelled by the Spirit of God. Often, not even wanting and, at times even protesting, they had to write as the Holy Prophet Jeremiah witnesses saying: "I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His Name. But His word was in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing and I could not stay" (Jeremiah 20:9).

O my brethren, Sacred Scripture is not of men but of God; it is not of the earth but rather from heaven; neither is it from the body but from the Spirit; yes, from the Holy Spirit of God. Inspired by the wisdom and truth of the Holy Spirit, these holy men of God wrote: Prophets, Evangelists, Apostles, Fathers, Teachers, Hierarchs and Shepherds.

O God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom and Truth, inspire us by Your Life-creating breath, that we may recognize Wisdom and Truth and by Your help to fulfill them.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Ripe Fruit of Ecumenism - Anglican Priest Converts To Orthodoxy

By Protopresbyter Dr. John Mesolora

At the end of the year on 31 December 2011 Wayne Burke ended his tenure in the Anglican Church and on 1 January 2012 he entered the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Spyridon of Kefallonia approved his application to enter the Orthodox Church and he was catechized by Protopresbyter Dr. John Mesolora who anointed him with Holy Myrrh at the Church of Saint Spyridon in Argostoli in the evening of December 31 and the next day he received his first Holy Communion.

Wayne was baptized as an infant in the Episcopalian Church in San Francisco, California. He served as an altar boy and was a member of the church choir. He received his college degree and graduate degree in communication rhetoric at the University of San Francisco and a PhD at the University of Cardiff in Wales. His theological and priestly studies, required for ordination, were done at St. Stephen's House at Oxford. He was also a reader of the Anglican Church. At Oxford he met the Orthodox bishop and professor of that University, Kallistos Ware, whose books The Orthodox Church, The Orthodox Way and The Lenten Triodion he studied after their meeting. The Anglican Church offered him to become a priest and he accepted, but he asked to do his practicum at the Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity at Oxford, which he did. Here he learned much about Orthodox worship and ecclesiastical music.

He was consecrated deacon then priest by Bishop Geoffrey Rowell of Gibraltar and went on to serve as reader, deacon and priest for the Anglican Church of Saint Paul in Athens. In Athens he came in contact with the Hagiorite Metochion of the Ascension in Vyrona with Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaias and Lavreotikis under whose spiritual guidance he was under with the blessing of the Anglican bishop of Gibraltar.

Wayne was a member of the Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue, was a founding member of the Community of Saints Sergius and Alban in Athens, and participated in a mission to the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Leadership 100 Society in America. Today he teaches rhetoric and communication at the American College DEREE in Athens.

He was married with an Orthodox wedding (the mystery was celebrated by Fr. Haralambos Haritou in Kefallonia Caves) to a scholar and professor and native of Kefallonia, Anna-Maria Konstantakis, and they have one daughter, Maria Ourania. This is also how he came to know Saint Gerasimos, who at some critical moment of his life appeared in his dream accompanied by a nun, and he tended his hand and called him near to him. The call of this "Orthodox patron" played a crucial role in his final decision to leave the Anglican Church, whose continuous "deviation from tradition" he watched with sadness, and he sought refuge in the Orthodox Church. The admission ceremony took place in my Church of St. Spyridon in Argostoli in English from the SERVICE BOOK OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of New York and all North America....

His sponsor was Mrs. Helen Konstantakis and Wayne was given the name Gerasimos according to his wish. May he prove worthy of such great grace.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Rotten Fruit of Ecumenism - Metropolitan Symbolically Baptized By Catholic Bishop

Ecumenism Day (May 5) was established in Germany in 2003 to bring together divided German Christians of various denominations and churches who believe in the Holy Trinity to symbolically celebrate their mutual cooperation. This year on Ecumenism Day thousands of pilgrims gathered in Trier to venerate an alleged robe of Christ, probably of medieval origin, which is seamless and came to symbolize on this day the seamless unity of Christians which is desired. However when the various Christian representatives, among whom was Metropolitan Augoustinos of Germany, gathered at the Basilica of Constantine, things went a little too far and the representatives got ahead of themselves with a symbolic baptism of each member by another member. They dipped their hand in water and symbolically baptized each other on the forehead with an open hand, saying: "You are baptized in the Name of the Triune God". Then, as a reminder of the theme of the pilgrimage, a white baptismal stole with the theme written on it was put on each representative. This was done to Metropolitan Augoustinos by Bishop Karl Heinz Wiesemann of the Catholic Church. Such are the unfortunate situations an Orthodox participant can get into when Ecumenism goes too far and the program is beyond their control and not properly evaluated beforehand to avoid a scandalous incident.

Many photos can be seen here and here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

(4) Orthodoxy's Worship: “Churchifying” the Agents

By Protopresbyter George Metallinos

4. “Churchifying” the Agents

During worship, the Church transforms the magnitudes of this century into realities of the heavenly kingdom, thus giving a new meaning to their function and their point of reference. One of these magnitudes is: (a) the place. The Church’s worship soon disengaged itself from the Judean Temple and the Synagogue. The Divine Eucharist was initially performed in private quarters (“in the household”) and a congregation of the faithful was called “the household church”. Having developed in a Hellenistic environment, the Church assumed the Hellenic term “ecclesia” (the summoned ones), which was now used to likewise refer to the congregating of the public (the people), but with Christ now as Her centre and Her Head. The term for “temple” was originally assigned to mean the congregating of the faithful in Christ (John 4:21). Stephen the Deacon would proclaim that: “the Lord on high does not reside in handmade temples” (Acts 7:48). After 313 A.D., the temple was to acquire a special "christianized" meaning also.

The Temple, as the sacred place of a congregation, was linked to the notion of “heaven on earth”, since the Church’s liturgy is an “ascension” of the faithful to the hyper-celestial Altar. This is what is expressed by a hymn that says: “while standing in the temple of Your glory, in heaven do we think we stand”.

There is a special service dedicated to the consecration of a Temple (The Consecration Service), which expresses the Church’s theology regarding the Temple. The Saints throughout the ages have never ceased to preserve Stephen’s perspective; for example, according to the blessed Chrysostom (†407): “Christ with His coming cleansed all the universe; every place became a place of prayer…”. In other words, the temple may facilitate congregating, but the congregation itself never loses sight of its celestial perspective.

In a “Byzantine” temple, the icon of the Pantocrator (the “all-governing”) Christ that is positioned inside the central dome, gives the faithful the feeling of being under the paternal supervision of God. One thus becomes aware of certain liturgical contrasts: below-above, earth-heaven, secular-saintly, death-life, endo-cosmic - exo-cosmic, etc. Through the eyes of the Saints - the “theoumens” (those who have attained theosis) - we too can see the uncreated Light of the celestial kingdom, during the liturgy of our Church. During the “inauguration” of a Temple, fragments of holy relics are embedded inside the holy Altar, so that the Church’s worship will forever be referred to the uncreated Divine Grace, which is resident in the relics of the Saints. In this way, all the Sacraments and sanctifying acts of the Church have their foundations in the Grace of God, without being dependent on the moral cleanliness of the officiator. Everything linked to the function of the temple is “consecrated” and sanctified: the holy vessels, the holy vestments, the liturgical books, the icons, all of them being rendered “channels” of Divine Grace.

(b) In the Church’s worship, Time is also given a new meaning. The Church’s new perception of Time is confined to the boundaries of Christian soteriology. Time is “churchified”, with the transcending of its “cyclical” self (in Hellenism) and its “linear” self (in Judaism). “Salvation” in the Christian sense is not an escape from Time and the world; it is a victory over the fiendishness and the evil of this world, and the sin dwelling inside it (John 17:15). History and Time are not abolished; they are innovated.

The Church’s liturgical Time does not lose its linearity, because it has a beginning and an end - the “fulfilment of Time” (Galatians 6:4), which was realized with the incarnation of God the Logos. Time was given a beginning by God during Creation, and its “end” is Christ, Who gives a soteriological significance to every moment of Time (“Behold, now is a welcome Time; behold, now is a day of salvation” (II Corinthians 6:2). With the incarnation of the Logos of God, History now heads towards the End Times, because the “End” is Christ, after Whose incarnation “nothing new” is expected historically, except only the fulfilment of the “end”, with His Second Coming. In worship, Christ is “the One Who will Return”; He is “Emmanuel”, He is “God amongst us” (Matthew 1:23).

Liturgical Time also has a vertical dimension, since Christ and His uncreated Kingdom come “from above”, thus showing us our eternal destination (“let us lift up our hearts”). The Church’s liturgical time is experienced as the continuous presence of salvation. In the Church’s worship, all three temporal dimensions (Past-Present-Future) are contracted into one, perpetual “Present” of the Divine Presence. This is why we have so many references to the Present in our liturgical language: “Christ is born today…”, “today, Christ is baptized in the Jordan…”, “today is Christ suspended on a piece of wood…”. This is not an ordinary, historical remembrance. Liturgically speaking, “remembrance” does not imply any intellectual recall or historical repetition, because the events that are linked to our salvation took place “once”; soteriologically, however, they also apply “for all eternity”. During worship, these events are extended spiritually and are rendered events of the Present, so that every generation of faithful may partake equally of the redemptive Grace that exudes from them. Our worship does not aspire to provoking a Platonic sort of nostalgia, but to generating an awareness of our extending into the Future - into the kingdom of God.

Thus, the worshipping Church re-constitutes the dimensions of Time, incorporating them into the eternal “now” of the Divine Presence. The remembrance of the Past becomes a memory “in Christ”, and the hope for the Future a hope “in Christ”. The Future acquires a hypostasis, just like the “life of the aeon to come” (Hebrews 11:1), when the faithful have reached sainthood – the union with uncreated divine Grace. Liturgically, we refer to a remembrance of the Future, since everything moves in that direction. Every moment of Time is transformed into an “opportunity” (potential) for Salvation. A par excellence “opportunity” is a Feast day, a liturgical “remembrance” of God’s gifts and His philanthropy. A Feast day is an expression of Man’s nostalgia for the eternal, as substantiated in the Saints and the soteriological events being commemorated. The Feasts of the Church are linked, not to some myth (as is the case in idolatrous sacraments), but to actual, historical persons and events. Already by the 1st century, the Feast of Sunday was established as the first day of Creation’s restoration, i.e. the Day of the Resurrection. The Divine Eucharist is the culmination of the Church’s celebration, and every day is an ecclesiastic Feast day, inasmuch as the Divine Liturgy can be performed therein.

(c) Furthermore, ecclesiastic worship also ministers to the mystery of the Logos, in all its aspects. The ecclesiastical and liturgical logos is expressed as benediction-prayer; as the recital of Scriptures; as hymn-singing; as sermons; as the divine Eucharist (the “breaking of bread” – Acts 2:42). These are but different aspects of the same sacrament. In each one of these liturgical expressions, it is the same Logos of God being offered, in a special way each time. The Logos of God summons the members of His Body, so that He can dwell inside it. Without the divine Logos, the sacrament is perceived as a magical medium; without the sacrament, the Logos is transformed into a fleshless dogmatism or a religious ideology.

The Scriptural readings - with the Book of Psalms first – is the offering of the recorded Holy-Spiritual experience of the Prophets and the Apostles, which presupposes the revelation of God (=the Logos of God) within the heart of His Saints. Both the Old and the New Testaments are recited during the ecclesiastical gathering, based on an “order” that was determined by our Holy Fathers. The entire ecclesiastical body participates in the liturgical recital of the Scripture: the Apostolic tract is read by one of the laity, while the Gospel tract is read by the Deacon and the sermon is delivered by the Bishop or the Presbyter (Elder). The Scripture is recited ecclesiastically; not in the usual prosaic or artistic, theatrical manner, but in a “verbodal” (spoken-singing) manner, or in other words, half-chanted. This testifies that the Holy Bible is not just any man-written book; it is God’s perpetual message through His Saints, during the congregation of His faithful. In the Church, the Gospel is sacred and is bestowed special honour; it is placed atop the holy Altar, it is honoured with prostrations, it is incensed, and the people are blessed with it. The priests’ “entry” into the Sanctum with the Gospel is a declaration of the resurrected Christ’s presence among us. The sermon, as the interpretation and the consolidation of the Scriptural word, renders the Scriptural message a contemporary one to the liturgical congregation. The liturgical sermon focuses not on “how the gospel events happened”, but “where they lead us”. The Holy Bible is interpreted by the Church in the Church, in direct association with Christ and the Saints, because it is only with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit that it can be comprehended and interpreted.

However, the liturgical logos-word is also articulated as the congregation’s response to God, in the form of benedictions and hymns; “Euchography” and “Hymnography” are not only the heart of ecclesiastic worship; they are also Byzantium/Romania’s most significant literary creation. The hymnals’ poetic form provides immense potential, inasmuch as it is the most effective medium for the ritual requirements of the ecclesiastical body, which experiences and confesses its faith “by weaving words (logoi) out of melody, for the Logos”. The Church’s hymnography becomes Her “unsilencable voice”, which confesses Her faith in a continuous and blessed song of Orthodoxy.

(d) In ecclesiastic worship, Art is also “churchified”, in all its forms. The only art form that the Church did not accept was sculpture, because of its obviously earthen character. In worship, art becomes a theological language, ministering to the Eucharist experience of divine-human communion. Liturgical art has beauty, order, rhythm, melody... however, these elements are rendered functional-beneficial, in the service of the body. The aesthetics of liturgical art are spiritual and do not aspire to impress, given that they are not directed at the physical senses, since this art form strives to reveal “the divine and uncreated beauty of Christ’s virtues”. This is why products of ecclesiastical art are known to be miracle-working (for example the holy Icons); it is because they too partake of the uncreated divine glory (Grace), thus proving their participation in the Uncreated.

Ecclesiastical worship’s art is so “beauteous”, that it in fact fulfils its spiritual purpose: the ministering to the faith. This is why it is Orthodoxy’s steadfast requirement, that liturgical art preserve its “sameness in essence” with the dogma, with the faith that it ministers to: the attaining of an uninterrupted fulfilment of its spiritual mission.

There is a difference between ecclesiastical-liturgical art and religious art. The former portrays the event of Salvation, the way it historically took place, as well as the collective acceptance of it by the ecclesiastical body. Religious art, on the other hand, is an expression of the artist’s personal approach to the mystery. That is why it is not liturgical. A certain correlation to this would be a comparison between “demotic” (colloquial) poetry and its classical form. As in everything else in worship, the stamp of the monastic world – the more traditional part of the ecclesiastical community – is also very apparent in all the creations of ecclesiastic art.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Priest Calls On People To Give Blood With Red Balloons

The photo above depicts Papa Yiannis Stavropoulos, who for many years in the city of Patras has quietly done significant charity work for the poor by collecting food, money and clothing which are used in turn to buy pharmaceuticals, meet essential needs, and pay the rent for those who are less fortunate. He fulfills his priestly role by not only helping those who go to the church seeking help, but he goes out to those before people reach such a point of desperation. Therefore, Papa Yianni not only helps the needy of his parish, but goes throughout the entire city seeking the needy, even helping the prisoners of Saint Stephen's Prison in Patras. A few years ago Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Patras gave Papa Yianni the responsibility of the donation center of the Metropolis.

Twice a year, in the Fall and the Spring, Papa Yiannis wears a white shirt over his cassock and goes to the streets distributing leaflets inviting people to give blood, explaining the importance of blood donation, since blood is unique and cannot be produced in a factory.

This year Papa Yiannis went beyond his boundaries in seeking blood donors at George Square by distributing red balloons, which look like a drop of blood, to children every morning. On the balloon it says: "Give Blood, Holy Metropolis of Patras".

"We want children to become preachers of the idea of donation, in areas beyond this square. We want the whole city to learn about this special activity of the Metropolis of Patras. At the same time we make a gift to children, Greeks or non-Greeks, because, despite one's progress, a balloon always fascinates a child. We see them leaving happy, holding the balloon in their hand, and this makes us happy", said Papa Yiannis, who will be at the square till this Saturday.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Greeks of Turkey; Is it too late?

In the spring of 2011, two young journalism students flew to Istanbul, Turkey with a mission to shed light on a pressing violation of religious freedom and human rights. One of them, Tania Karas, a Greek American and 2011 graduate of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, received a global research grant to spend three weeks documenting the daily lives and demographic strength of the country’s last Greek Orthodox Christians. She interviewed 20 community leaders, young people and government officials on the challenges of living within a community whose population is in decline.

The trip culminated in a meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual leader of the world’s 250 million-plus Orthodox Christians whose Holy See has been in Istanbul for 1,700 years. Upon her return to the U.S., Tania tracked the community over the next 12 months. She found that despite marked improvement in relations between Turkey and its minorities, many challenges remain. What follow are the stories of Greek resilience and pride she discovered.

Read the rest here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

(3) Orthodoxy's Worship: The Worshiping Community

By Protopresbyter George Metallinos

3. The Worshiping Community

The Orthodox Church manifests Herself historically as a worshiping community. Even heterodox such as Erich Seeberg (a major Protestant theologian) have called Her “the religion of worship on the ground of Christianity”. During worship, the faithful partakes of his Church’s way of existence, which is referred to as “a feast of the first-born”, “a house of celebrants” who are “eternally jubilating” in an eschatological foretasting of the heavenly kingdom. The Church’s worship was, from the very beginning, a community act; it was an act of the local Church, and not of the faithful as individuals. During worship, the individual becomes a member of the “community in Christ” (in which he enters with his Baptism) and he then partakes of the life of a specific, local community, and not some universal and generalized notion of Christianity. In worship, the ecclesiastical body becomes evident with its local assembly. Even “private” prayer is understood Orthodoxically as something within the ecclesiastical community - as an extension of it. The Divine Eucharist in particular is the Sacrament of the Church as a body, and is also the purpose of the liturgical act.

The Church’s worship unites the faithful, across time, with all the Saints and the reposed faithful, contemporaneously with the brethren who are presently living “in Christ”. The Church is thus proven in Her worship as “one flock, comprised of people and angels, and one kingdom” (blessed Chrysostom). This unity of the Church, with Christ at the center as Her Head, is portrayed during the “withdrawal” of the “Precious Gifts”, when the distribution of Holy Communion is completed. The Officiator “withdraws” (collects) inside the Holy Chalice the “Lamb Christ” (of Whom both clergy and laity have just partaken), the “portion” dedicated to the Theotokos, the Angels and all the Saints, and the portion for the living and the deceased - this rite normally being performed by the head officiator, the Bishop, who comprises the visible center of the Sacrament (the invisible center being Christ). Thus, the “personal” Body of Christ is joined in an “unconfusable and indivisible” manner to His “communal” (collective) Body – His faithful. Inside the Holy Chalice is “assembled” the community of faithful, together with Christ and one another. Christ is thus manifested as the absolute center and the Head of the Church; the Church as the Body of Christ, and the faithful – both living and deceased – as members of that Body.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Paschal Miracle of the Epitaphios in 2011

At the Church of Saint Paraskevi in Lefkadia a miracle occurred with the flowers which adorned the Epitaphios on Good Friday on April 22, 2011. After 37 days, which was three days before the leave-taking of Pascha (on May 29, 2011) and also the Sunday of the Blind Man, the dead and dried up flowers (which symbolize life) which still adorned the Epitaphios (which symbolizes the tomb of Christ) came back to life. When this video was taken (June 12, 2011), which was fifty days after Pascha, new buds were still being produced.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Abet Hasman: A Crypto-Christian in Greek Politics

Abet Hasman, the deputy mayor of Patras and head of the municipal social services, left a secret revealed only in his obituary, read at his funeral by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Patras - that he was secretly baptized an Orthodox Christian. Abet, who was born a Muslim and came to Greece from Jordan to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Thessaloniki and finally settled in Patras in 1985, was baptized secretly by Metropolitan Chrysostomos when he was 57 years old. According to the Metropolitan: "He did not say it anywhere. But one day he approached me and asked me to baptize him. He chose the name Alexander, and we baptized a little while later his son. I baptized him in the Chapel of St. John the Theologian of the Diocese." He goes on to mention that he was married in the Church of Saint Andrew, and his son was also baptized with the name Alexander at the Church of Panagia of Paralias. He loved Greek history and especially Alexander the Great, which is why he chose the name for himself and for his son.

Below is a video of the funeral, which took place on 15 May 2012 with Metropolitan Chrysostomos remembering him:

4,000 people showed up for his funeral and burial at First Cemetery, which showed how much loved he was by the people.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Atheistic "Five-Year Plan" Was Announced in the USSR 80 Years Ago

1929 magazine showing Jesus being dumped from a wheelbarrel by a muscular industrial worker; the text suggests that Industrialization Day can be a replacement of the Christian Transfiguration Day.

May 15, 2012

Interfax

On Tuesday, there will be 80 years since the Soviet government issued a decree on the "atheistic five-year plan."

Stalin set a goal: the name of God should be forgotten on the territory of the whole country by May 1, 1937, the article posted by the Foma website says.

Over 5 million militant atheists were living in the country then. Anti-religious universities - special educational establishments for training people for decisive attack against religion - were organized.

According to the plan on religion liquidation, all churches and prayer houses should have been closed by 1932-1933, all religious traditions implanted by literature and family by 1933-1934, it was planned that the country, and firstly youth, would be grasped by total anti-religious propaganda by 1934-1935, clerics were to eliminated by 1935-1936, and the very memory about God should have disappeared from life by 1937.

However, the census of 1937, where a question about religion was included on Stalin's instruction, puzzled Bolsheviks: 84% of 30 million illiterate USSR citizens aged over 16 said they were believers; the same was said by 45% of 68.5 million literate citizens.

Churches were again closed in big numbers in 1937. About ten thousand churches were closed in 1935-1936, eight thousand in 1937, over six thousand in 1938. According to the modern data, about 350-400 churches from pre-revolutionary churches were open in the early war years.

When bishops were arrested, Metropolitan Sergy (Stragorodsky) had to dissolve the temporary Synod on May 10 and administer all dioceses with the help of his vicar bishop and chancellery, which included a secretary and a typist.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Serbian Holy Synod Appeal on Behalf of Archbishop Jovan

Announcement of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the occasion of the latest imprisonment of Archbishop John

Belgrade, May 12th, 2012

After years of persecution, harassment, arrests and imprisonments, His Beatitude the Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje kyr Dr. John, pan-Orthodoxly renowned and recognized canonical Prelate of the ancient Ohrid Archbishopric, was sentenced yesterday, May 11th, to two and a half years in prison under false charges of alleged fraud and embezzlement, the result of a politically motivated and staged pseudotrial of a Stalinist-type, organized upon the blatant request of the schismatic organization calling itself “The Macedonian Orthodox Church”. He was sentenced solely because of His unwavering commitment to the unity of the Church of God; because of his communion with the Serbian Patriarchate and thereby with universal Orthodoxy worldwide; and because of his persistent and confessional fight against the schismatic mentality and anti-Ecclesiastical ethnophiletism. This is a unique case in contemporary Europe – if not in the whole civilized world – of the authorities, by order, to commit an act of cruel violence and an atrocity upon the Orthodox Church and Her lawful senior representatives, most violently breaking both their own laws and international norms and conventions. Fortunately, several diplomats, representatives of the Orthodox Church, as well as representatives from organizations and institutions dedicated to the protection of human rights and religious freedom, attended the “trial”, and thus an accurate report and a clear picture of this sad and ugly scene staged in the Veles courtroom can be made to the relevant factors and the public.

The Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, under whose canonical jurisdiction the autonomous Ohrid Archbishopric is, condemns with the deepest moral indignation this incomparable violence and persecution conducted under the guise of legal order, and is always with the brothers and sisters from the Ohrid Archbishopric, in prayer and evangelic love, and especially with their Shepherd, who gladly accepts and endures suffering for our forefathers’ faith as well as for the unity of Christ’s holy Orthodox Church. The Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church finally calls:

- for all sister Orthodox Churches throughout the ecumene;

- for all other Christian Churches in the world;

- for the World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches and other Christian organizations;

- for the spiritual leaders of major world religions;

- for the for governments and relevant public authorities of legally regulated states, primarily democratic;

- for the international institutions;

- for the institutions and organizations of human rights and religious freedom; and

- for all people of good will;

to provide spiritual, moral, legal and any other possible support to the prisoner of conscience, the Archbishop John, and to contribute to his release from prison as soon as possible.

The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church

Source

Greetings in our Risen Lord,

Christ is Risen!

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

As many of us already know at this time His Eminence, the Archbishop of Ohrid and the Metropolitan of Skopje has been sentenced 2 ½ years in a prison in Skopje. The Orthodox Church has truly been wounded and crucified on the Cross by this scandal that an Archbishop under the Patriarch of Serbia has been sentenced for this period of time.

Every voice and loving Christian is humbly needed at this hour for an appeal for the release of Archbishop Jovan. The health of the Archbishop is not good at this time, and doctors or any reports about his health is not known to anyone including his own diocesan bishops, priest, monks, nuns, and faithful. The prison authorities have refused any reports as to the condition of the Archbishop.

The above photo says the following: “Archbishop Jovan, they put you in a dungeon, but you are in truth.” Please note the health of the Archbishop in this photo taken before his imprisonment in December 2011.

Now take a look at the you tube of the Archbishop being brought to court on 11 May 2012, note how much weight the Archbishop has lost, since he was put in prison in December, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68hn_iEqBvM&feature=share

This is not the first time the diocese or the Archdiocese of Archbishop Jovan has been persecuted as this has been a constant situation for the last several years. Note the following you tube where one of the bishops under Archbishop Jovan named Bishop Marko and Hieromonk Irinej are being harassed for doing a funeral service at a local Orthodox cemetery, the Security Police are pushing them around and trying to stop them for performing the funeral service.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN9ATOXtuzw

Let us without a doubt join the Synod of bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church in our appeal for the immediate release of Archbishop Jovan, and for the proper registration of his diocese, and as well as make further appeals to the free world for his release now today.

The addresses of relevant people to contact are:

1. U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

2. Ms. Hilary Clinton

Friends of Hillary

1900 M Street, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

accountingdepartment@hillaryclinton.com

3. US Embassy in Skopje

Embassy Address:

Str. "Samoilova" Nr.21

1000 Skopje

Republic of Macedonia

Fax: +389 2 310-2499

And Ms. Marisa MacIsaac whom you met: MacIsaacM@state.gov

4. OSCE Mission to Skopje

Address:

Oktomvriska Revolucija bb

MK-1000 Skopje

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Fax: +389 2 323 4234

info-MK@osce.org

and Mr. Kristoph Herbst who is following our cases: Kristoph.Herbst@osce.org

5. Delegation of the European Union to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Address: Mito Hadzivasilev Jasmin 52v, 1000 Skopje

Telefax: (+389 2) 3248 501

E-mail: delegation-fyrmacedonia@eeas.europa.eu

6. The Conference of European Churches

CEC Office in Geneva:

PO Box 2100,

150, route de Ferney,

CH- 1211 Geneva 2

Fax: +41 22 791 62 27

7. Human Rights Watch

New York

Address: 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY 10118-3299 USA

Fax: +1-212-736-1300

Washington DC

Address: 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20009 USA

Fax:+1-202-612-4333

Berlin

Neue Promenade 5 10178 Berlin, Germany

Fax. +49-30-259306-29

berlin@hrw.org

Paris

142 rue Montmartre

75002 Paris, France

Fax: +33-1-43-59-55-22

E-mail: paris@hrw.org

Brussels

Avenue des Gaulois, 7.

1040 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: +32-2-732-2009

8. Freedom House

fax 202-293-2840

info@freedomhouse.org

9. Mr. José Manuel Barroso

President of the European commission

1049 Brussels, Belgium

10. Mr. Olli Rehn, Vice President of the European Commission

European Commission

Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs

B-1049 Brussels

Belgium

Fax (+32) 2 29 809 98

Every voice will help and every Christ-loving prayer for sure shall helps as well for the release of Archbishop Jovan.

Remember if we remain silent then the Archbishop will perish. The Archbishop will die in prison!

Talk is cheap! Action is needed is absolutely necessary to support well intention words; otherwise talk is cheap. Our Lord Jesus Christ bear witness, after prayer comes the act of bearing witness. What is happening in FYROM is a persecution of a wonderful soul Christ-loving by a Stalinist era grouping of make believe Christians! This is the 21st century! What would our Lord have to say about this at this hour?

If you would like to help the Archbishop and his diocese please send your loving donation (tax deductible):

The Archbishop Jovan Fund

c/o St. Herman of Alaska Orthodox Monastery

P.O. Box 70

Platina, CA 96076

USA

May our Merciful-God hear our prayers and our loving appeal for the release of Archbishop Jovan now today.

Peace to your soul!

God love and bless you!

Humbly in Christ our Lord,

+ Very Reverend Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes

President of The Archbishop Jovan Fund USA

Who prays for you and with you!

Cell phone: 208-860-2479

I have run to the fragrance of your myrrh,

O Christ God, for I have been wounded by your love;

do not part from me, O heavenly Bridegroom.

"Wounded by Love," The Life and The Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios

See us at facebook.com/orthodoxchurchboise

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

(2) Orthodoxy's Worship: Liturgical Order and Historical Evolution

By Protopresbyter George Metallinos

2. Liturgical Order and Historical Evolution

Ecclesiastical worship has its own order, i.e., the sum of ritual formalities that govern it. “Typikon” (Greek=formal) is the name of the special liturgical manual which provides the outline and the structure of the Church’s worship, according to how the holy Fathers had formulated it over the centuries. With its established “order” and liturgical unity, the Orthodox ideology was preserved successfully - despite all the circumstantial readjustments and local particularities, i.e., the natural flow of events that were observed in the past - thus enriching the liturgical act and also fending off the various cacodoxies and confronting the various heresies. However, the development of ecclesiastical worship took place organically, with an inner order and consistency, without its unity being disrupted. New elements resemble the branches of a tree, which may spread out but still allow for its unimpeded growth. So it is with Orthodoxy, where the Slavic-speaking Churches observe the order of the “Holy Monastery of Jerusalem” (of Saint Savvas), while the Hellenic-speaking ones are based, mainly, on the order of the Great Church of Christ (in Constantinople), of the Holy Studite Monastery. This difference in the order observed does not disrupt the unity of Orthodox worship. The liturgical structure is specific, and is common to all Orthodox Churches, as one can discern in an inter-Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Various liturgical forms had already appeared, as early as ancient Christian times (the “Eastern” form: Alexandrian, Antiochian or Syrian and Byzantine; the “Western” form: African, Roman, Paleo-Hispanic or Mozarabian, Ambrosian, Paleo-Gallic, Celtic, etc.). The expulsion of all the heresies that had arisen during the Church’s historical course had also contributed towards the appearance of local differences, but in a spirit of freedom. This is why the various liturgical forms are useful for discovering and verifying the liturgical evolution of the local Churches, as well as their interaction within the framework of the unity of the Orthodox Faith.

One landmark in the evolution of ecclesiastic worship was the era of Constantine the Great, with the inauguration of Constantinople-New Rome (in 330 A.D.) which opened up new, cosmogonic perspectives. The development of every area of ecclesiastic life (=the work of the holy Fathers) had an organic continuance, without this meaning in the slightest a “falling away from primeval Christianity”. The post-313 victory over idolatry gave birth to a universal feeling and theology of “victory” and triumph, which permeated even the very structures of worship. Its development went hand-in-hand with the Synodic formulation of the Triadic Dogma, the cultivation of theological letters, the organizing of monasticism, the erecting of a multitude of temples, etc. With a slow but steady pace, the particularities of worship were minimized and ecumenical forms appeared, based on a stable and unchanging core, which assimilated and united all local particularities. The fruits of these developments are the varying architectural forms of temples, the development of liturgical cycles (daily, weekly, annual), and the addition of new feastdays and services. These developments are chronologically classified as follows: the 4th and 5th centuries are discerned for the vast liturgical flourishing and the profound changes in worship; in the 6th and 7th centuries, the various forms are stabilized; in the 8th and 9th centuries, the final “Byzantine form” is established, which, after the 14th and 15th centuries (Hesychasm, Symeon of Thessaloniki), led to the liturgical order that continues to apply to this day.

The “Byzantine form” of Ecclesiastical Worship was reached through Monasticism, which comprises the authentic continuation of the ecclesiastical community and the permanent safeguarding of the purity and the witness of ecclesiastical living. Throughout the ages, it was Monasticism that preserved the eschatological conscience, through its fending off of secularization. This is why its impact on the Church’s course has proven to be not only definitive, but also beneficial.

Monasticism incorporated worship into its ascetic labors, putting a special emphasis on prayer and, through the “Prayer”, turned its entire life into worship. Monasticism cultivated and enriched the liturgical act, by offering the Church Her liturgical “order” and practically all of Her hymnographical, musical and artistic wealth.

Following Monasticism’s victory and the end of the Iconoclastic issue (9th century), the monastic “form” was passed on to the secular dioceses as well, and this “form” was to eventually prevail throughout the Orthodox Church. The monasteries cultivated the main structural elements of Orthodox worship; also its hymnography (poetry) and its music, and it is in them, that the truth is preserved to this day: that worship is not just “something” in the life of Orthodoxy, but that it is the very center and the source of renovation and sanctification of every aspect of our life.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr