A Critique of the Holy Synod in Resistance

In his lecture titled "Orthodox-Heterodox Dialogues and the World Council of Churches" delivered at St. Vladimir's Seminary on 23 May 1980, Fr. John Romanides mentions the following regarding the Traditionalist ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod of Resistance:

"The fifteen Canonical Orthodox Churches, numbering some 300 million Orthodox Christians, sent their representatives to Thessaloniki to meet with each other between April 29th and May 2nd in order to deal with a new Old Calendar heresy. This new phenomenon of Anti-Ecumenical Augustinians are headed in Greece by the so-called Orthodox Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and in the U.S.A by the so-called Orthodox Archbishop Chrysostom of Aetna, California. They have been caught trying to establish their Augustinian heresy posing as enemies of Ecumenism in such countries like Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia etc. This Cyprian of Fili had originally been a new calendar priest of the official Church of Greece. But some years ago he joined an Old Calendar Church. It is suspected that behind this movement are those who are trying to penetrate Orthodox countries with Augustine's heresies under the guise of Traditional Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Posing as very super-conservative traditional Orthodox, Cyprian of Fili and Chrysostomos of Aetna have been quite busy trying to promote and defend Augustine's heresies among the Orthodox as one can readily see in their publications. What is of interest is the fact that both Latins and Protestants consider Augustine as the founding father of both the Latin and Protestant theologies. Therefore, what is said in this introduction about the cure of the sickness of religion applies equally to both Cyprian of Fili and Chrysostomos of Aetna and their attempt at penetrating traditional Orthodox countries with the sickness of religion."

What does Fr. Romanides mean when he calls the group of Metropolitan Cyprian and Archbishop Chrysostom "Anti-Ecumenical Augustinians"?

What he is referring to here is the ecclesiology espoused by Augustine of Hippo. The ecclesiology of Augustine, which is clearly outside the consensus of the Church Fathers, teaches that within the sects and divisions of Christianity the "union of peace" had been broken and torn asunder, but in their mysteries or sacraments the "unity of the Spirit" had not been terminated. This shows, as Father Florovsky observes, "the unique paradox of sectarian existence: the sect remains united with the Church in the grace of the sacraments, and this becomes a condemnation once love and communal mutuality have withered." Thus, Augustine directly affirmed "that in the sacraments of sectarians, the Church is active; some she engenders of herself, others she engenders outside, of her maid–servant, and schismatic baptism is valid for this very reason, that it is performed by the Church." According to Augustine, then, "the Holy and Sanctifying Spirit still breathes in the sects, but in the stubbornness and powerlessness of schism healing is not accomplished." (Florovsky, Ecumenism I, p. 37-42.)

However, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage, every schism is a departure out of the Church, out of that sanctified and holy land "where alone rises the baptismal spring, the waters of salvation." He writes:

"For it is no small and insignificant matter which is conceded to heretics, when their baptism is recognized by us; since thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to the hope of life eternal. And the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God. For if any one could be baptized among heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained remission of sins, he was also sanctified." ("Epistle to Jubianus")

We must add to this however that the First Canon of Saint Basil suggests that the issue of schism and heresy is more complex than is implied by St. Cyprian. Though the Orthodox Church agrees with the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian, it also acknowledges the oikonomia applied by St. Basil. Through oikonomia, or economy, the Church can create grace where there is no grace, and thus fill the empty form of a sacrament by schismatics and heretics. For this reason, often a schismatic or heretic will be received into the Church through chrismation, and not baptism. This economy applied by St. Basil however does not override the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian, but rather compliments it. Orthodox ecclesiology states that the Church can create grace outside of Her boundaries, but at the same time does not accept what is beyond her boundaries.

Fr. Florovsky writes:

"As a mystical organism, as the sacramental Body of Christ, the Church cannot be adequately described in canonical terms or categories alone. It is impossible to state or discern the true limits of the Church simply by canonical signs or marks.... In her sacramental, mysterious existence the Church surpasses canonical measurements. For that reason a canonical cleavage does not immediately signify mystical impoverishment and desolation. All that Saint Cyprian said about the unity of the Church and the sacraments can be and must be accepted. But it is not necessary, as he did, to draw the final boundary around the body of the Church by canonical points alone." (Florovsky, Ecumenism I , p. 37.)

To be fair to Augustine, however, he did believe that schism and heresy were a serious matter. He wrote: “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.” The boundary however was spiritual, where grace operated but it did not save.

On the other hand, Metropolitan Cyprian and his Synod considers the canonical Churches to be a part of the Church of Christ. He writes: "Persons in error concerning the correct understanding of the faith -- and thereby sinning, but not yet judged by an ecclesiastical court -- are ailing members of the Church" ("Ecclesiological Theses," ch. 1, 4; pp. 2, 7). So he divides his ecclesiology between the "ailing" and the "healthy". His Synod consists of the "healthy" members of the Church, while all those outside of his Synod are "ailing". Though the ailing are "walled-off" from the healthy, they are still part of the Church. He writes: "The New Calendarists, besieged by the heresy of Ecumenism and Innovation, have not been deprived of Grace, or at any rate, it is not within our competency to make such a pronouncement on our part ... we are not speaking of union with Belial, but (only) with those ailing in faith, several of whom are in need of spiritual treatment ... in view of this, we do not totally break off communion with them.” Yet as the ROCOR Church stated in its 2001 Resolution which terminated its communion with Metropolitan Cyprian and his Synod: "Metropolitan Cyprian declares in his thesis that 'the Orthodox have become divided into two parts: those who are ailing in the faith and those who are healthy...' (Ch. 3, p. 4), but then he immediately goes on to speak of 'restoring to Orthodoxy' those ailing in the faith (Ch. 3, p. 5), whereby he clearly falls into a doctrinal contradiction, for how is it possible 'to receive into Orthodoxy' those who already are Orthodox?!"

"Without a doubt," says the venerable John Cassian the Roman, "he who does not confess the faith of the Church is outside the Church." The same is confirmed also by Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople: "Members of the Church of Christ are wholly devoted to the truth, and those not wholly devoted to the truth are not members of the Church of Christ." And St. Cyprian of Carthage teaches: "Just as the devil is not Christ, although he deceives in His name, so also such a one cannot be accounted a Christian as does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and Faith." In agreement with all the Fathers, the Great Hierarch Gregory the Theologian, in his Second Epistle Against Apollinarius, also teaches: "Avoid those holding to another doctrine and consider them alien to God and to the Universal Church." The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs Concerning the Orthodox Faith states: "We believe that all amongst us are members of the catholic Church, even the faithful themselves, i.e., those who unconditionally confess the pure faith of Christ the Saviour." And St. Gregory Palamas also explains: "Those who are of the Church of Christ, the same are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth, the same are also not of the Church of Christ..."

The same Resolution produced by ROCOR in 2001 states:

"Metropolitan Cyrpian makes a statement concerning the division of the Church by reason of ecumenism, by drawing an analogy between the present state of the Church and Her state during the time of the iconoclastic heresy. In his ecclesiology, he attempts to compare the present-day new-calendarists and ecumenists with the iconoclasts, whom the Fathers of the VII-th Oecumenical Council united to the Church through repentance and the renouncing of their heresy. Likewise, Metropolitan Cyprian refers to the VII-th Oecumenical Council, the Acts of which employ the expressions 'severance,' 'divisions,' etc. He reaches a totally unfounded conclusion, that the iconoclasts, prior to their having been judged by the Council, were not yet heretics, as such; and that their mysteries were therefore recognized as being valid. However, concerning the iconoclasts who were joined to Orthodoxy, neither did the Oecumenical Council consider them as having belonged previously to the Church, nor did they themselves make any pretences as to their comprising Her. Here are the testimonies of the joining iconoclasts themselves. Basil, Bp. of Ancyra: 'To the extent of my ability, I investigated the question of icons, and with complete conviction turned to the Holy Catholic Church.' Theodore, Bp. of Myra in Lycia: '...I pray God and your holiness to join me, a sinner, to the Holy Catholic Church, as well.' John, the most-God-pleasing Locum Tenens of the Apostolic Throne in the East said: 'Heresy separates every man from the Church.' The Holy Council stated: 'that is obvious.' But Metropolitan Cyprian, in his ecclesiology, changes the terminology: 'they were received into Orthodoxy,' thereby inferring an unthinkable distinction between the Church and Orthodoxy, which is impossible."

Metropolitan Cyprian cites St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite for inspiring his ecclesiology for "walling-off" the ailing members of the Church from the healthy. However, Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos writes: "The Holy Kollyvades, as opposed to the Protestantized Old Calendarists, did not cut themselves off from ecclesiastical communion with the Latin-minded of their day. In fact, greater grievances took place then against the Holy Canons than those which are committed by todays espousers of Ecumenism. Many witnesses refer to the fact that the Orthodox received Communion from the Papists and vice versa." Fr. Epiphanios goes on to write how their testimonies showed that they liturgized together, prayed together, commemorated their hierarchs, performed their funerals, received their Confessions, and were taught by them. Despite all this, not even the Holy Kollyvades Fathers walled themselves off from the Church, nor was it indicated that they considered to do so. He also writes how when Orthodox even accepted Catholics into communion, as was done in 1274 and 1439, not even then did even the most zealous Orthodox (like St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Gennadios Scholarios) consider establishing their own Church with their own Hierarchy and thus cut themselves off, or divide themselves. Even St. Theodore the Studite and his Synod, whom Old Calendarists bring up as one of their champions, and who was anathematized by many in his day for cutting off communion with the Church for certain economies done by the hierarchs, including St. Methodios who was Patriarch, eventually repented and returned to the Church. Not only did St. Methodios condemn the actions of the Studite Fathers, but St. Daniel the Stylite, St. Ioannikios and St. Theophanes the Confessor did as well. St. Theodore was indeed a champion of the Church against Iconoclasm, but this did not prevent him from committing a serious ecclesiological error which, as stated, he did repent of.

So the dilemma of Metropolitan Cyprian and his group is to either cut themselves entirely away from the canonical Church, if they truly believe them to be preaching heresy, or to unite with the canonical Church and cease preaching that the Church is divided. Otherwise they remain in a heretical limbo cut off from the Church.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: Divine Liturgy At the Site of St. Michael Paknanas' Martyrdom

On July 9th in 1771, the young St. Michael Paknanas was beheaded by the Turks for not converting to Islam, at the current site of the Temple of Zeus in Athens. It was here where he was also buried.

Today marked the third year in a row where Fr. Maximos Kappas, parish priest of the Holy Church of Saint Photini in Ilissou, together with about 50 believers, celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the site of St. Michael's martyrdom.

In his sermon, Fr. Maximos recalled the life of St. Michael, and expressed his hopes that his grave will be opened and that a translation of his holy relics take place.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Existence of Jesus

Craig S. Keener

July 8, 2012

The Huffington Post

Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.

One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient.

We recognize that most people write only about what they care about. The only substantive early works about Socrates derive from his followers. The Dead Sea Scrolls extol their community's founder, but no other reports of him survive. The Jewish historian Josephus claims to be a Pharisee, yet never mentions Hillel, who is famous in Pharisees' traditions. Israeli scholar David Flusser correctly observes that it is usually followers who preserve what is most meaningful about their teachers, whether the leaders were Buddha, Muhammad, Mormon leader Joseph Smith or African prophet Simon Kimbangu.

Interestingly, however, once ancient writers had reasons to care about Jesus, they did mention him.

Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.

Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription).

From Jesus' followers, who were interested, we naturally learn much more. Fifteen to 30 years after Jesus' ministry, Paul wrote much about Jesus, including an encounter that Paul believed he had with the risen Jesus probably within a few years of Jesus' execution. Rightly or wrongly, Paul staked the rest of his life on this experience. Other early Christians also preserved information; some 30-40 years after Jesus' ministry, Mark's Gospel circulated. Luke reports that "many" had already written accounts by the time Luke writes. Luke shares with Matthew some common material that most scholars think is even earlier than Mark. Only a small minority of figures in antiquity had surviving works written about them so soon after their deaths.

What can the first-century Gospels tell us? Certainly at the least they indicate that Jesus was a historical figure. Myths and even legends normally involved characters placed centuries in the distant past. People wrote novels, but not novels claiming that a fictitious character actually lived a generation or two before they wrote. Ancient readers would most likely approach the Gospels as biographies, as a majority of scholars today suggest. Biographies of recent figures were not only about real figures, but they typically preserved much information. One can demonstrate this preservation by simply comparing the works of biographers and historians about then-recent figures, say Tacitus and Suetonius writing about Otho.

What was true of biographies in general could be even more true of biographies about sages. Members of sages' schools in this period typically preserved their masters' teachings, which became foundational for their communities. Memorization and passing on teachings were central. Oral societies were much better at this than most of us in the West today imagine; indeed, even illiterate bards could often recite all of Homer from heart. None of this means that the Gospels preserve Jesus' teaching verbatim, but by normal standards for ancient history, we should assume that at the least many key themes (e.g., God's "kingdom") were preserved. Indeed, many of the eyewitnesses (such as Peter) remained in key leadership positions in the movement's earliest decades.

One significant feature of these first-century Gospels is the amount of material in them that fits a first-century Galilean setting. That setting differs from the Gospel writers' own setting. The Gospel writers updated language to apply it to their own audiences, but they also preserved a vast amount of information. This is merely a sample; specialists devote their lives to the details.

Yet, valuable as examining such historical evidence is, we must return to where we started. Logically, why would Jesus' followers make up a Jesus to live and die for? Why not glorify real founders (as movements normally did)? Why make up a leader and have him executed on a Roman cross? To follow one executed for treason was itself treason. To follow a crucified leader was to court persecution. Some people do give their lives for their beliefs, but for beliefs, not normally for what they know to be fabricated. Jesus' first movement would not have made up his execution or his existence. How much they actually remembered about him is a subject for a future post.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Q. & A. - Theological Implications of the Higgs Boson

Question: I have read an article claiming the the scientists at the CERN supercollider have actually found the Higgs Boson ("God Particle"). All my atheist friends are now ranting, raving, and, more or less, partying over the fact that now "God has been disproved!" So my question is: assuming that CERN has found this boson, what theological implications does the Higgs boson have?

Answer:

The reaction of your atheist friends to this discovery is eloquent testimony to the deplorable state of science education in our country which has been frequently lamented by professional scientists.

Without wanting to spoil the party, I have to say that this impressive achievement just has no theological implications of any direct sort, so far as I can see. The Higgs boson is the final particle postulated by the standard model of particle physics to be empirically confirmed. The standard model postulates various fundamental sub-atomic particles like quarks, electrons, photons, and the like in order to explain three of the fundamental forces of nature, namely, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. The fourth fundamental force, gravity, is left out of the standard model.

One of the theoretical particles in the standard model is a type of particle, called a boson, which is responsible for a field permeating space which determines the mass of various other particles moving through space. For example, the photon has zero mass, whereas the electron has a small mass. This particle has been called the Higgs boson after Peter Higgs, the physicist who predicted its existence, and the corresponding field the Higgs field.

Because the Higgs boson decays so quickly and requires such extraordinarily high energies to create, it took considerable time, effort, and money to finally provide empirical confirmation that the standard model was correct in postulating such a particle. It is one of those wonderful instances in science where theoretical predictions were shown to be correct by experimental scientists.

I think you can see that this confirmation just has no theological significance, except in an indirect sense (e.g., testimony to the mathematical order and beauty of nature). In particular, it changes nothing for cosmological arguments for the universe’s beginning or teleological arguments concerning the fine-tuning of the universe, since those arguments have proceeded on the assumption that the standard model of particle physics is correct (--at least so far as it goes! We still need a Grand Unified Theory in order to explain the physics of the universe prior to the emergence of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as distinct forces. And prior to that we need a quantum theory of gravity or so-called Theory of Everything to incorporate the gravitational force. We have neither of these yet.) All that was wanting was empirical confirmation of the standard model with respect to the Higgs boson. Now we apparently have that; so much the better! Nothing has changed.

The contrary impression, evidently shared by your friends, is undoubtedly due to the appellation “the God Particle” given to the Higgs boson by Leon Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. Some people seem to think that the Higgs Boson takes the place of God. In fact, however, Lederman called it “the God Particle” for two reasons: (1) like God, the particle underlies every physical object that exists; and (2) like God, the particle is very difficult to detect!

I really like Lederman’s nomenclature because it highlights two aspects of God’s existence, first, His conservation of the world in being, and, second, the hiddenness of God. With respect to the first, according to Christian theology, God not only created the universe in being, but He upholds it in being moment by moment. Were He to withdraw His sustaining power, the universe would be instantly annihilated. Similarly, on a physical level, without the Higgs boson nothing would have any mass and the universe would be devoid of physical objects. (By the way, no fear that the Higgs boson supplants God in conserving the universe because the Higgs boson is itself a contingent particle, which decays almost as soon as it is formed, so that it does not exist necessarily, and the Higgs boson and the Higgs field themselves are the products of the Big Bang and so non-necessary and non-eternal.)

With respect to the second point, it is part and parcel of the problem of evil that God is hidden. Not only is He undetectable by the five senses, not being a physical object, but He sometimes seems frustratingly absent when we need Him most. But the lesson of the Higgs boson is that physical undetectability is no proof of non-existence, and something can be objectively there and real, even pervasively present, even when we have no direct evidence of its presence. Just because you may not see God’s hand at work when you are suffering, that doesn’t imply that God is not present and active in your situation unbeknownst to you. So the Higgs boson is a nice reminder of these features of God’s existence.

It’s a shame that atheists who have little understanding of science or theology should party over something that has not happened and miss what is truly celebratory in this triumph of human reason and discovery.

Read also:

The “God Particle” Is A Stupid Name

Russian Church Hails Possible Discovery of "God Particle"

Greek Orthodox Church Stance on the “God Particle”

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos on the Big Bang and the Higgs Boson

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Sts. Prokopios and Constantine, Protectors of Orthodox Marriage

In the blessing at the conclusion of the Holy Matrimony service, the prayers of St. Prokopios* (commemorated on July 8) and those of Sts. Emperors Constantine and Helen (commemorated on May 21) are requested, as they are considered as protector saints of marriage. But I have been asking myself why the Church considers Sts. Constantine and Helen as intercessors for marriage? By mentioning them together in the service of Holy Matrimony, is confusion not perpetuated (or created) among some believers that they are husband and wife?

Reading about the lives of these protector saints of marriage, we find some striking similarities between them. Just as Constantine the Great had a strong relationship with his mother who was instrumental in bringing him to Christ, Prokopios also had a strong relationship with his mother Theodosia. The difference is that Prokopios led his mother (who was a strong pagan believer) to Christ.

Another similarity is that both St. Constantine and St. Prokopios had a vision of the Holy Cross. Most of us are familiar with the revelation to Constantine, which changed the course of Salvation history. The vision of the Holy Cross was instrumental in Constantine’s decision to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire. It also empowered his mother Helen to travel to the Holy Land to find the holy places where our Lord lived, walked, taught and ministered unto us and to build churches on these sites. 

Reminiscent of St. Paul the Apostle, St. Prokopios, who was at one time a general in the Roman army of Diocletian, was sent to Alexandria to destroy those “who believe in the One who was crucified.” About three o’clock in the morning, while on the road to Alexandria, an earthquake shook the ground and there was lightning and thunder. Prokopios heard a voice from Heaven asking him, “O Neania (which was his name as a pagan), do you come against Me also?” A bright cross appeared in the sky and the voice continued, “I am Jesus the Crucified One, the Son of God.” The cross went up to Heaven and the voice spoke again saying, “In this sign that you saw, you will defeat your enemy and My peace will be with you.” The Holy Cross, which led these Saints to the true faith, united them in the Body of Christ and protected their lives, is also the guiding sign of Holy Matrimony. The experience of the Cross is what made these Saints the praying protectors of Holy Matrimony.

Of course, we acknowledge the fact that “the cross we all must carry" in our following of Christ is part of marriage. However, the cross is also associated with marriage, because marriage is seen as a fight. This fight is not a struggle between two persons trying to work out their differences and making the marriage (the “becoming one”) work, as we might simplistically see it. This is a good fight, a “warlike” fight, the husband and wife become partners, and they help and support one another.

We understand marriage in this way as a school of virtues. In marriage, the natural gratification of the pleasures of the flesh is sanctioned by God as an expression of true love between a husband and a wife and as a means of perpetuating mankind. In regard to this, St. Paul says, “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain even as I am (unmarried): but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passions.” The Cross of Christ is part of marriage, for in this sign, marriage will succeed, will conquer, will destroy the enemies of our souls and will find the peace of God.

Sts. Constantine and Helen are considered as intercessors for marriage, because they were crowned emperors: “God-crowned Kings and Saints-equal-to-the-Apostles.” Marriage is also called “the crowning” (cununia, the Romanian word for Holy Matrimony, comes from the noun cununa, meaning crown), for in marriage, a crowning takes place. The new couple indeed becomes King and Queen, being crowned for each other. Their crowning is recognized on Earth and in Heaven. They start a new dynasty, and a new little church,” which can last until the end of the world through their offspring.

What I believe is more important is the fact that Sts. Constantine and Helen’s crowns were received in Heaven. We know the same thing about St. Prokopios, who died as a martyr for the faith in Christ. From the Heavenly place, these saints pray that the crowned servants of God in Holy Matrimony will also become worthy of the Heavenly Kingdom.

Let those of us who receive the crowns of Holy Matrimony, remember that marriage will succeed only when it is under the protection of the sign of the Holy Cross.

Let us also remember that, ultimately, marriage is not a goal in itself, but a means for the Salvation of our souls. In this respect, the prayer of the priest at the crowning is meaningful: “Bless their goings out and their comings in; replenish their life with good things; receive their crowns into Your kingdom, preserving them spotless, blameless, and without reproach, unto ages of ages.”

Source

* It should be noted that the name Prokopios means "to advance" or "to move forward" or "to improve" or "to increase". In the last prayer during the Service of Matrimony, when St. Prokopios is invoked, it is prayed that the newly-crowned couple "advance" or "move forward" (προκόπτων) in their faith in Christ. In the hymns dedicated to St. Prokopios we pray that just as he "advanced" in faith, that he also lead us to "advance" in Christ and good works. This is the primary reason St. Prokopios is invoked during the Service of Matrimony. [J.S.]

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Veneration of St. Prokopios in the Time of the Crusades

THE VENERATION OF ST PROKOPIOS IN THE PERIOD OF THE CRUSADES AND HIS VITA ICON IN THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM

By Georgios Tsantilas

Exhibited today in the great hall of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem is the vita icon of St Prokopios (Fig. 2), which according to tradition was found beside what are considered to be the tombs of saints Prokopios and Modestos, in Jerusalem. It is the only surviving vita icon of the saint.

In the central panel of the icon, St Prokopios is represented in bust framed by seventeen scenes from his life (Figs 3-6). The cycle of St Prokopios in the Jerusalem icon follows faithfully the Vita written by Niketas David the Paphlagonian and the arrangement of the scenes corresponds exactly to the narrative sequence in that text. This case is not unique, since in the vita icon of St Catherine in the Sinai monastery, the twelve scenes from her cycle correspond to the Vita composed by Symeon Metaphrastes.

The vita icon of St Prokopios includes a series of Western ele­ments, which permit the more precise definition of its date as well as the milieu within which it was created. The rela­tionship of this icon both to illuminated manuscripts that are ascribed to scriptoria operating in Acre and to Crusader icons in the monastery of St Catherine on Mt Sinai, dating to the second half of the thirteenth century, as well as the com­bination of punched and incised design in its execution, which is encountered after the mid-thirteenth century, lead to the attribution of the icon to a Crusader workshop in Acre and its dating after the mid-thirteenth century but before the fall of that city in 1291. More specifically, the icono­graphie and stylistic affinity with codex Add. 15268 in the British Library (c. 1285) lead to the dating of the icon of St Prokopios in the 1280s.

The boosting of the veneration of St Prokopios by the Cru­saders is confirmed by another three notable thirteenth-cen­tury works in the Sinai monastery, all of them associated with the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. These are the icon of St Prokopios created at Sinai by the painter Petros from Jerusalem in the early thirteenth century, the epistyle with the great Deesis including the two saints Prokopios and George, and the diptych with St Prokopios on the left and the Virgin and Child on the right (Fig. 7α-γ). The last two works are dated to the second half of the thirteenth century and are ascribed to Crusader artists located in Acre.

In the last scene on the Jerusalem icon, representing the saint's burial, a ciborium is visible behind his sarcophagus. It is identified as the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (Fig. 6). This depiction, combined with the fact that this is the only scene in the cycle that bears an inscription, leads to the conclusion that the painter had incorporated in his work elements ex­tracted from the contemporary surrounding reality and thus indicated that the martyr's tomb was in Jerusalem.

The church of St Prokopios in Jerusalem is attested in the Georgian Calendar as well as in sources of the period of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The textual testimonies are confirmed by excavation findings at Abou Thor, where the ruins of a three-aisled basilica of the sixth century were re­vealed, and beneath this a crypt of the fourth century. The archaeological findings clearly demonstrate that the basilica was renovated during the period of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The tombs of Sts Prokopios and Modestos are considered to have been located on this site.

The discovery of the icon of St Prokopios close to his tomb, as well as the iconography of the last scene, directly connect the work with the church of St Prokopios and his relic in Jerusalem. The linking of the vita icon with churches in which the tomb or relic of the saint was situated is docu­mented not only by the icon of St Prokopios but also by two vita icons of St John the Lampadistes in the homonymous monastery on Cyprus, where a twelfth century parekklesion accommodates the saint's tomb. The vita icon of St Cather­ine in the Sinai monastery is also associated with her relic, which existed in the monastery at least from the early thir­teenth century.

The linking of the vita icons of Prokopios, John the Lam­padistes and Catherine with their relics, in Jerusalem, Cyprus and Sinai respectively, places yet another interpretative para­meter with regard to the function and use of vita icons in the Eastern Mediterranean during the thirteenth century.

Read more and see icons here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Poem About St. Prokopios the Great Martyr

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

When it is the will of the Omniscient God,

Persecutors become His servants,

Haters, wonderful apostles

Pagans, zealots for the Faith.

By God's will, Saul became Paul

Neanias, Saint Prokopios

Prokopios, against Christ went,

As a Christian, to his mother came.

Tortures prepare and himself received tortures,

All of a sudden, the truth he recognized

Before the Son of God, bowed down,

The earthly king, ceased to serve

To the heavenly King, a servant became.

The King of Heaven to him a gift bestowed

The gift of might, the afflicted to help

As at that time, so it is today:

By Prokopios, the afflicted are comforted

For today as one time, he helps.

Read also: The Life of Saint Prokopios the Great Martyr

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

14 Russian Pilgrims Die in Ukraine Bus Crash

July 7, 2012

RT

A bus with pilgrims from Russia got into an accident on a Ukrainian highway, leaving 14 dead and 29 wounded. The bus driver reportedly lost control of the vehicle which crossed into the oncoming lane, driving into a drainage ditch and rolling over.

The bus with Orthodox Christian pilgrims from Velikie Luky in the Pskov region of Russia crashed at 5:30 am local time near the city of Chernigov in northern Ukraine. The passengers were traveling to Pochaevskaya Lavra Monastery. There were 43 people on board the bus, including 41 passengers and 2 drivers.

Preliminary data suggests the pilgrims, mostly women aged 20-70, organized the trip and hired the bus themselves. The driver, who has been detained, appears to have fallen asleep at the wheel.

Both the drivers insist they were not sleeping when the bus crashed, and deny responsibility for the accident, local media report.

“The bus had to turn into the oncoming lane because of a white car that suddenly wheeled into their lane, and was moving fast onto them,” Itar-Tass quotes a Ukrainian broadcaster as saying.

Eighteen pilgrims wounded in the crash were brought to a Chernigov hospital, RIA-Novosti reports. Six remain in serious condition.

Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations (EMERCOM) is actively cooperating with Ukrainian police and the Interior Ministry in investigating the tragedy. Two Russian emergency planes arrived to the country to evacuate the wounded. One of the planes flew back to Moscow Sunday night, bringing 14 of the 29 injured passengers along. The other plane flew 11 wounded passengers, who are not in critical condition, as well as the corpses of the pilgrims, to Pskov, says EMERCOM.

The transfer of three people has not been allowed due to their health condition. One more person will have to stay in Ukraine at the investigators' request.

Authorities in the Pskov Region on Russia’s western border have declared July 9-11 as days of mourning. Compensation payments have been set at 600,000 rubles (some $18,000) to the families of those killed and at 200,000 rubles (some $6,000) to those injured.

Russia’s Emergency Ministry has updated the lists of those either killed or injured in the accident:

Injured (name, year of birth):

1. Belyakov Dmitry, 1986

2. Kozitskaya Irina, 1962

3. Logvinenko Yulia, 1966

4. Chernova Tatyana, 1959

5. Polyakova Antonina, 1965

6. Sokolova Valentina, 1981

7. Illarionova Galina, 1953

8. Zubova Tatyana, 1954

9. Zhurkina Viktoria, 1988

10. Potashenkov Sergey, 1981

11. Vasilyova Olga, 1976

12. Snigiryova Natalia, 1978

13. Katerinich Andrey, 1975

14. Pavlova Maria, 1936

15. Suprun Nina, 1944

16. Kasyanova Lyudmila, 1968

17. Malakhova T., 1953

18. Belagurova V., 1960

19. Yevseeva I., 1966

20. Proshchenkova T., 1956

21. Boyarishcheva L., 1938

22. Kruglova G., 1967

23. Smirnova N., 1951

24. Timofeeva O., 1953

25. Guseva L., 1959

26. Boyarchuk A., 1974

27. Zalisova T., 1969

28. Kremkov V., 1959

29. Potashenkova K., 1953

Dead (name, year of birth):

1. Murzina L., 1946

2. Turovskaya L., 1949

3. Chernysheva M., 1941

4. Zalisova L., 1994

5. Kistova V., 1941

6. Lashchinina E., 1950

7. Golubeva L., 1964

8. Kovalyova N., 1955

9. Moryakova M., 1962

10. Furayeva E., 1995

11. Furayeva N., 1954

12. Chestokina A., 1956

13. Barabanova A., 1975

14. Kopayeva N., 1959

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Kyriaki in Plovdiv, Bulgaria

The Church of Sveta Nedelya (Saint Kyriaki) in the Bulgarian town Plovdiv (Philippoupolis) is one of the biggest churches in the town. The original building was built in 1578. From this church is preserved only the main icon of St. Kyriaki.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

World's Largest Stone Cross Installed in Sevastopol

Jun 29, 2012

The Voice of Russia

The 24-ton cross, made by Russian masters in the Urals as a gift to their fellow countrymen, stands in an open area near the Church of St. Nicholas so that all those willing can touch it and feel the greatness of the Orthodox faith.

7.5 meters high, the cross is made of whole granite blocks covered in gold leaf.

St. Nicholas Church was built in commemoration of soldiers who were killed defending Sevastopol during the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th century.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On the Pain of Being Permanently Separated From A Spouse

By St. John the Prophet

Question 129: What should I do? For my sorrow at being separated from my wife is persisting violently.*

Response: It is written about man and woman: "The two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Therefore, just as if you were to cut off a member of your own flesh, the rest of the body would also be in pain for a while, until the wound is healed and the pain subsists; so is it necessary for you to be in pain for a while, since your very own flesh has been cut away.

* Written by a monk, named Theodore.

From The Letters of Saints Barsanuphios and John; translated by John Chryssavgis.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Nektarios and Patriarch Athenagoras

The official recognition of Metropolitan Nektarios of Pentapolis, the Wonderworker of Aegina, as a Saint was accomplished by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, under Patriarch Athenagoras, which took place on 20 April 1961.

Few people know however that Patriarch Athenagoras (+ July 7, 1972) actually met St. Nektarios. In 1918, while Athenagoras was residing on Mount Athos, he was invited by Metropolitan Meletios of Athens to come to Athens to serve under him as a deacon. During this time he met St. Nektarios and received his blessing. St. Nektarios also gave the future Ecumenical Patriarch a photograph, on which he signed: "To the man who was predestined to write history. Nektarios of Pentapolis."

(Σοφοκλέους Δημητρακοπούλου, "Ο άγιος Νεκτάριος Πενταπόλεως. Η πρώτη αγία μορφή των καιρών μας", Σελ. 281 - 282.)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Responding To Those Who Insult Religion

By St. John the Prophet

Question 658: When I see someone insulting religion and blaspheming the holy faith, I am troubled against this person, supposedly out of zeal. What does this mean?

Response: You have certainly heard that no one can come to correction through evil, but rather only through good. Therefore, speak to this person with meekness and long-suffering, advising him in godly fear. And if you see that you are troubled, it is not necessary to say anything to him.

From The Letters of Saints Barsanuphios and John; translated by John Chryssavgis.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: Elder Paisios - A Saint of Our Times

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: A Recording of Elder Paisios

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Icon of St. Sisoes the Great

Concerning the icon of St. Sisoes staring over the dead bones of Alexander the Great, we do not know for sure if this depicts a historical event. We do not have a historical account of what the icon describes until its depiction first starts appearing in monasteries in Greece following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

The inscription on the icon reads:

Sisoes, the great ascetic, before the tomb of Alexander, King of the Greeks, who was once covered in glory. Astonished, he mourns for the vicissitudes of time and the transience of glory, and tearfully declaims thus:

'The mere sight of you, tomb, dismays me and causes my heart to shed tears, as I contemplate the debt we, all men, owe. How can I possibly stand it? Oh, death! Who can evade you?'

The astonishment of Sisoes has been an icon of contemplation for all Christians, especially for monastics, since the 15th century and has spread so much in popularity that it appears throughout hundreds of Greek churches and monasteries. Among the most famous come from Holy Trinity Monastery and Varlaam Monastery at Meteora, and Hosios Loukas. The site of the church where this icon usually appears is on the opposite side of the altar area as people exit the church, where also the Dormition icon of the Theotokos also appears. It is wisely placed here so Christians can contemplate death as they leave the church.

It is no coincidence that this icon became so popular after the Fall of Constantinople. Constantinople, once the seat of the Roman Emperor from the time of Constantine the Great, always looked to Alexander as one of the most exemplary of rulers. In fact, this was a tradition of all the Roman Emperors. The historian Dion Cassius (155-235 AD) reports that after Augustus had visited the body of Alexander in Alexandria, he was asked if he also wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, the sovereigns of Hellenistic Egypt. He refused, saying: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Roman universal rule was considered an inheritance of the Roman Emperors received through Alexander.

It is not implausible that the depiction of Sisoes lamenting over the tomb of Alexander is a historical event lost to us in document form but survives only in iconography. In many ways, the iconographic tradition is just as reliable historically as is a written document. Since Sisoes was a contemporary of the time of the destruction of Alexander's tomb, I would find it difficult to believe that such a wise disciple of Anthony the Great living outside Alexandria would not at least make some comment in this regard.

Sisoes lamenting over Alexander is also a lament over an ideology. It is not by coincidence that both men are known by the epithet "Great". At one time, during Roman rule that lasted over a millennium and a half, Alexander was an icon of the Empire, but now that the Empire was gone the Romans looked to monastics as the only hope for suffering Orthodoxy under the Ottoman Muslims. It is this outlook which formed the Orthodox mentality during this period. That is not to say that it did not exist before, since this was always a part of christian and monastic tradition, but now Sisoes stands over Alexander's dead bones alive and learning the great lesson of the vanity of worldly glory. Roman glory may have vanished, but the Kingdom of Heaven reigns forever.

Read also: Sisoes the Great and the Contemplation of Death as a Means to True Life in Christ

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

An Atheistic Take On Living Without Hope

In “Hope Against Hope” (New Humanist, July/August 2012), British philosopher and atheist Julian Baggini offers,

Indeed, Sam Harris suggested to me that without hope we might be more at peace. “Hope and fear are completely natural responses to uncertainty. But they are two sides of the same coin: if we would be free of fear, we must let go of hope. Easier said than done, of course. But it is possible. And being without hope is by no means synonymous with despair. Rather, it is tranquility.”

The idea that we need hope much less, if at all, was confirmed to me in the conversation with Warburton and Haynes, when her mother, who had joined us after our event, volunteered the idea that “Hope surely just is that every day is astonishing in its own right. When you get to my age you do begin to think somewhat about death and what seems to me extraordinary is that I have had life.” I told her that seemed right to me, except that I wouldn’t call that hope. In a way, it’s better than hope. It’s not hope for things that might happen but appreciation for and delight in what you have. Hope is of its nature directed at the future, but often we would do better to focus on a nearer horizon.

Warburton distilled the thought. “There’s something better than hope, which is not to postpone everything but to focus on what’s going on now.” My hope is that thoughts like these can supersede hope.

This could maybe work if one is well off and filled with pleasant distractions in life - be it wealth, health, family, career, etc. But most people, through no fault of their own, have lives that don’t bear thinking about in the present day without hope. Jesus Himself acknowledged the difficulty of one well off and filled with distractions to embrace hope and meaning beyond what we can create for ourselves:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" - Matthew 19:23-24

And St. Paul advises:

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." - 1 Timothy 6:17-19

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Nilus of Sora: Life at the Sora River

Ten Miles from St. Cyril's White Lake Monastery is the Sora (or Sorka) River, where St. Nilus of Sora (May 7) chose to establish his Skete. It was a wild, dark and desolate place. The River Sora barely flows through this marshy, low-lying region, and it resembles more a swamp than a river. There is forest all around. Here, having erected a cross, St. Nilus built at first a chapel and a solitary cell and dug a well. And when several brothers had gathered together to live with him he built a wooden church in honor of the Meeting of the Lord. Later another wooden church dedicated to St. John the Forerunner was added. Nearby he built a mill.

From this skete St. Nilus wrote to his friend St. Innocent:

"When we were living together with you in the Monastery of St. Cyril, you know how I avoided worldly ties and strove to live according to the Holy Scripture, even though in my slothfulness I did not succeed in this. At the end of my wandering I came again to the Monastery, built a cell near it, and lived as best as I could. Now I have resettled far from the Monastery and have found by God's grace a place according with my ideas, a place little accessible to worldly people, as you yourself have seen. Living in solitude, I occupy myself with searching the spiritual writings: above all I search the Lord's commandments and their commentaries, and the Apostolic tradi­tions; then the Lives and instructions of the Holy Fathers. I reflect on all this, and whatever I find after reflection to be God-pleasing and useful for my soul, I copy out for myself. In this is my life and breath. As for my infirmity and sloth, I place my hope in God and the Most Pure Mother of God. If there is something for me to undertake, and if I find nothing about it in Scripture, I lay it aside for a time until I do find some­thing. I do not presume to undertake anything at all on my own will and according to my own judgement. Whether you live as a hermit or in coenobitic life, pay heed to the Holy Scripture and follow in the footsteps of the Fathers, or be in subjection to one who is known to you as a spiritual man in word, life and judgement. The Holy Scripture is harsh only for earthly ways of thinking, who rather desires to live according to his own passionate will. Others do not wish humbly to search the Holy Scripture, do not wish even to hear of how one should live, as if the Scripture were not written for us or need not be put in all times. The words of the Lord will always be words as pure as refined silver; the Lord's commandments for them are dearer than gold and precious stones, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Athanasios the Athonite - Hard Working, Sociable, and Progressive

By Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi

According to his biography, St. Athanasios hailed from the east, from Trebizond. After finishing his education as a teacher of literature, while still very young, he was touched by Divine Grace. He forsook the world and espoused monasticism under the guidance of his uncle (St. Michael Maleinos).

It is said that when the young generals, who later played a crucial role in the Byzantine Empire, Nikephoros and Leon, visited St. Michael to confess, he guided them to the place where St Athanasios, then thirty years old, was staying and told them that he wanted to show them a ‘treasure’. After meeting and talking with Athanasios, the two men were truly amazed and concurred that indeed he was ‘a great treasure’. They were then commanded to ‘reveal all their thoughts to this very monk for ever’. Until the end of their lives, these two great men continued to have St. Athanasios as their spiritual guide. Nikephoros was so keen to be with him that they promised each other to live together as monks for ever.

Nikephoros never managed to keep his part of the promise. Being a general, he was called to free Crete from the pirates. Then he became emperor against his will, and was later murdered. However, he never stopped looking after the Monastery of Great Lavra, established by St. Athanasios.

St. Athanasios came to Mount Athos from Bythinia. When he reached Karyes, which was the centre of monasticism at the time, he never revealed who he was, but pretended to be an illiterate peasant. His elder had tried several times to teach him to read to assist him with his spiritual regime. He, however, was pretending to be incapable of learning.

Finally, those who knew him revealed the truth and he had to confess that indeed he was the renowned Athanasios. After that, since he could no longer live in obscurity, which he so preferred, he roamed the Holy Mountain, looking for an appropriate place to stay. He even reached the most eastern region of the Holy Mountain, ‘Melana’, where he lived as a hesychast in a cave for a while. Later on, being pressurized by Nikephoros, he began constructing the Great Lavra Monastery. The news that Nikephoros was crowned Emperor reached him before the construction had finished. Athanasios became upset with the news, because Nikephoros had broken his promise to the Lord to become a monk. Thus, he abandoned the monastery out of humility and hatred for glory, and because of his love for the hesychastic life. After writing a reprimanding letter to Nikephoros, he came to Cyprus with Anthony, one of his disciples.

While in Cyprus, the Lord asked him to return to the Holy Mountain and finish the monastery. He obeyed, and by completing Lavra, he became the pillar of the monastic life on Mount Athos. He managed to start the various isolated cells, Sketes and hesychastic places to communicate amongst themselves. He also initiated the communication amongst his own disciples who were living inside the coenobium. Thus, they all gradually came under his obedience. They remained in their various places of abode, but they depended on him spiritually. To be honest, he had managed to establish the balance on which the long-standing Athonite monasticism rests. Therefore he ought to be rightfully named as the Abbot, the governor and the regulator of Athonite monasticism. As I have already said, he had managed to unite the isolated and difficult to reach fathers residing in Athos, under one guide, while at the same time respecting their freedom and convincing each one that they may indeed become true monks by following the philosophy of the Holy Fathers. He truly applied the relevant saying by Paul: "Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving...the one who leads, with zeal" (Romans 12:6-8), and also ‘the hesychast with sobriety’.

Therefore, St. Athanasios is not just a Saint amongst so many others, but is the exceptional spiritual father to all hagiorite monks. Throughout the generations each one of us may find what he needs by studying his personality, his fatherly affection and providence, his illuminating intellect and his discretion, and may be fortified to pursue his goal, preserving the blessed hope that he will eventually succeed in his monastic life.

Two exceptional elements single out this great beacon. One is his absolute love for hard work (φιλοπονία), the continuous carrying of one’s cross. He regarded this as the most essential aspect and the spinal cord of monastic discipline. He engaged his love for hard work mostly as part of his hesychastic discipline, which he began and continued until the time he assumed his important duties. He was so attracted to hesychasm that he used to complain that he had assumed great social responsibilities inherent in the monastic life against his wish. He fervently wished to be absolved of all duties and get on with his hesychastic life, which he had so many times enjoyed in his cave on the southeastern outskirts of Lavra, the so-called Vigla region.

The second element was the issue of love, of sociability and solidarity. Even though he imposed very austere asceticism and hardship on himself, he was very loving and affectionate towards others. We believe that his abundant love and affection which has truly united monks in the context of Athonite monasticism will continue to connect them unto the end of ages, as divine providence determines through the ceaseless mediation of this great beacon. Nonetheless, if we try to extol him, we will demean him. These meager facts were mentioned as a necessary duty so that each one of us is roused in imitation of some of his various and numerous virtues. He was so determined to strengthen his flock that even during the liturgy he would sit on the left of the Holy Altar and receive the confession not only of monks of his own brotherhood, but also of many others.

Prompted by the most free (πανελεύθερο) spirit of his fatherly affection to comfort and pacify all different personalities from the weakest to the strongest, he didn’t refrain using even his secular knowledge in an effort to adjust and ease the monastic discipline to enable even the weakest to boast about their monastic capacity without being discouraged. In his broad fatherly providence, he had improvised a regime which was not only unheard of, but also objectionable compared to the isolated monastic customs of the Holy Mountain. He had constructed ports, roads, cellars, vineyards, gardens and anything else which within limits could provide some comfort to the people who could and wished to become monks. This effort had created grievances. As it is mentioned in his biography, he was regarded as ‘the introducer of innovation’. He was then slandered and had the Administration of Mount Athos rally against him. They were about to pass judgment against him on charges that he had violated the regime and the type of hesychasm which the fathers followed, but the Mother of God intervened personally and pacified them. She also encouraged him to continue his task boldly without discouragement. On any occasion, when he was financially hard up and could not continue his immense task, our Lady would personally console him. Her promises and her presence were so real and perceptible that when the storage rooms and the cellars were empty once, she presented herself and told them: "I am the Provider (Oikonomos - Oικονόμος), have concern no more". Indeed on several occasions, when the numerous laborers, monks and lay people could not be fed, the storage rooms were filled with provisions at her command. Ever since, this holy monastery does not have an official Provider, like other monasteries, but only a deputy Provider. Her icon, the so-called Ekonomissa, which was the one performing this miracle, is still at the Oikonomeio and performs even more miracles. The monks show their particular veneration to the icon and express their gratitude to the Mother of God. Several times she was seen to bless and increase the provisions in the cellars according to the monastery’s needs.

This is what I wished to remind you of tonight. Most of you are already aware of it. But you must now pay more attention and direct your respect to this fact: Namely, that even though there are now several different regimes and various pious elders, the Great Elder, Abbot, Spiritual Father and Protector for each one of us is the most holy Father St. Athanasios, who is also inexplicably the continuator of the order and the provider of this place, if not of the entire eastern monasticism.

With his mediation and the mediation of the Most Immaculate Lady Mother of God, Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, have mercy on us and deliver us from our sins. Amen.

Source: Γέροντος Ιωσήφ Βατοπαιδινού, Διδαχές από τον Άθωνα, Εκδόσεις ‘Το Αγιον Όρος’, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1989. (Translated by Olga Konari Kokkinou; edited by John Sanidopoulos)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: The Feast of St. Athanasios of Athos at Great Lavra

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Russian Church Hails Possible Discovery of "God Particle"

July 4, 2012

Interfax

The Moscow Patriarchate has congratulated scientists on the possible discovery of the Higgs boson, or "God particle."

"I am glad about this discovery and I would like to congratulate scientists on it. It probably again raises the question of whether matter has always been the way it is now or initially developed according to a special scenario and is not eternal and unchanging, as some people believed several decades ago," the head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, told Interfax-Religion on Wednesday.

According to earlier reports, scientists from the Cern research center in Switzerland announced the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle on Wednesday. This particle could be the "Higgs boson" or "God particle," which, according to the standard physics model, created the mass of the Universe.

The proof of the existence of the Higgs particle will fit in the theory of the Universe accepted by most scientists. When the Universe began cooling down after the Big Bang, a hypothetical force known as the Higgs field was formed. This field explains the appearance of the mass of the particles that formed atoms.

The clergyman pointed out that Sergio Bertolucchi, director on research and scientific calculations at Cern, "honestly admits that only 4% of the existing particles can currently be studied and the remaining 96% remain unknown."

"In my view, humanity is only just beginning to know the world, both spiritual and physical. We really do not even know what is located twenty kilometers down in the ground, although we can see far-away stars," he said.

This means that there is still a great deal of room for research and thought and for knowledge and understanding of their limitations, he said.

Read also: Higgs Boson Binds the Universe, but Humans Give It Meaning

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Jefferson's Support For Intelligent Design

Stephen C. Meyer

July 15, 2009

The Boston Globe

IN THE battle over how to teach evolution in public schools, Thomas Jefferson’s demand for a “separation between church and state’’ has been cited countless times. Many argue that the controversial alternative to Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, is an exclusively religious idea and therefore cannot be discussed under the Constitution. By invoking Jefferson’s principle of separation, many critics of intelligent design assume that this visionary Founding Father would agree with them.

But would he? For too long, an aspect of Jefferson’s visionary thought has been ignored, hidden away as too uncomfortable for public discussion - his support for intelligent design.

In 1823, when materialist evolutionary ideas had long been circulating, Jefferson wrote to John Adams and insisted that the scientific evidence of design in nature was clear: “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.’’ It was on empirical grounds, not religious ones, that he took this view.

Contemplating everything from the heavenly bodies down to the creaturely bodies of men and animals, he argued: “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.’’

The “ultimate cause" and “fabricator of all things’’ that Jefferson invoked was also responsible for the “design’’ of life’s endlessly diverse forms as well as the manifestly special endowments of human beings. Moreover, because the evidence of “Nature’s God’’ was publicly accessible to all and did not depend upon a special appeal to religious authority, Jefferson believed that it provided a basis in reason for the protection of individual liberty. Thus, the Declaration of Independence asserted that humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’’

Of course, many people assume that Jefferson’s views, having been written before Darwin’s “Origin of Species,’’ are now scientifically obsolete. But Jefferson has been vindicated by modern scientific discoveries that Darwin could not have anticipated. For example, in 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,’’ according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’’

This discovery has made acute a longstanding scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed or solved: the mystery of how the very first life on earth arose. To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet modern scientists who argue for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes have failed to explain the origin of the information in cells. Instead, they argue for design because systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes.

DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. Information - whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal - always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of digital code in DNA provides a strong scientific reason for concluding that the information in DNA also had an intelligent source.

Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. Jefferson said just that, and based his political thinking on it. The evidence for what he presciently called “Nature’s God’’ is stronger than ever. Our nation’s existence, with its guarantee to protect each person’s “inalienable rights,’’ may be counted among the fruits of Jefferson’s belief in intelligent design.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Top Ten Movies of 2012...So Far

As I customarily list my top ten movies of the year every end of December or beginning of January, I try to divide the year in half as well in order to make the end task a bit easier. It also serves the purpose of recommending movies from the year, before the summer blockbusters begin. The movies of the first half of the year typically are not the best, so few will probably make my top ten at the end of the year. But there are still some gems which I recommend.

1. The Avengers

I'm sure everyone has seen this by now, and if you haven't, do so. If you can see it in IMAX 3-D, even better. This movie had high expectations, and it fulfilled them all very nicely.

2. The Grey

A great philosophical horror movie, where you get to also see Liam Neeson punch a wolf in the face.

3. Bernie

I hesitate to say anything about this movie. I went in cold not knowing anything about it, except that Jack Black starred in it, and I left very enthusiastic about it. Do not watch a trailer, do not read a review - just see it!

4. Moonrise Kingdom

Rotten Tomatoes gave this a 94%, so it has the critical acclaim to back me up on including this in my top ten. A perfect and funny nostalgic summer flick.

5. The Hunger Games

I already wrote a review of this movie, which can be read here.

6. Underworld: Awakening

I already wrote a review of this movie, which can be read here.

7. Safety Not Guaranteed

The description of this movie sounds silly: "Three magazine employees head out on an assignment to interview a guy who placed a classified ad seeking a companion for time travel." However the movie is very funny and good, with excellent performances. Plus, Aubrey Plaza should be better known as a female comedian.

8. Chronicle

A super hero movie with a "found footage" look, making it very believable, except for the formulaic ending.

9. John Carter

The story of John Carter is the story that inspired some of the most beloved super heroes we know today. Unfortunately it was not as well received as it should have been, which I think is due to its title and the fact that it was made by Disney. I really liked this movie however.

10. Haywire / Safe House

I was divided on my last pick, so I just went with two movies here. Both have strong performances coupled with a lot of action and thrills.

And that is my top ten...so far. Hopefully soon I will start writing more movie reviews again.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr