"Main Posts" after Saint or Feast of the Day

Please be sure to scroll down past the Saint or Feast of the day.

After the Saint or Feast of the day I post my "Main Posts". These may be anything including original articles, book reviews, adding new blogs to my web page and just about anything new I may wish the reader to read.

Please note I do not always have "Main Posts" posted.

I tend to leave "Main Posts" up for several days.

Sophocles

Martyr Vincent of Spain

Commemorated on November 11

The Holy Martyr Vincent of Spain from his childhood was the disciple of a wise pastor Valerian, the bishop of the city of Augustopolis (now Saragossa, Spain). When he reached mature age, the virtuous, educated and eloquent Vincent was ordained deacon by Bishop Valerian. Since the bishop himself was not adept in speech, he gave a blessing to his deacon, an eloquent orator, to preach in church and among the people.

Diocletian (284-305) sent the governor Dacian to the city of Valencia, Spain with full authority to find and execute Christians. People denounced the wise bishop and his deacon to the governor, who arrested them. The soldiers, mounted on horses, dragged the Elder and his disciple behind them in chains from Augustopolis to Valencia, and there they cast them into prison beaten and tortured, giving them neither food nor water.

They subjected the bishop to the first interrogation. The Elder spoke quietly, but seemed tongue-tied and uncertain. Then St Vincent came forward and made the most eloquent speech of his life before the judges and assembled people. After he sent the bishop back to prison, the persecutor gave orders to torture the holy deacon.

The martyr underwent many torments: while nailed to a cross, he was whipped and burned with red-hot rods. When he was removed from the cross, he then himself joyfully climbed back upon it, saying that the executioners were lazy and had not fulfilled their master's orders. They became angry and tortured him again, until they were all exhausted.

After the tortures they threw the martyr back into prison. That night the astonished guard heard him singing Psalms, and saw an unearthly radiant light in the prison. The next morning the holy martyr was condemned to be burned on a gridiron. Christians took the saint's body and buried it with reverence. This occurred in the year 304.

Troparion - Tone 4

Your holy martyrs, O Lord,
Through their sufferings have received incorruptible crowns from You, our God.
For having Your strength, they laid low their adversaries,
And shattered the powerless boldness of demons.
Through their intercessions, save our souls!

Kontakion - Tone 8

Today the church honors those who fought the good fight and died for their faith:
The victorious Menas, the noble Victor and the ascetic Vincent.
The church glorifies their divine struggle and cries out with love:
Glory to You, O Christ, the lover of mankind.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 20008(with 2007's link here also):

Elder Paissios Against Zionists and Cowardly Orthodox

Hat tip to Jay and the original, SerbiaLivesBlog
-------------------------------------------------

”The Zionists want to rule the world”, warned holy monk of Mt. Athos Elder Paissios before his death in 1994.

Translated from a Russian translation of the Greek original.

Elder Paissios of Mt. Athos

Editor’s note: On a remote, narrow peninsula in the Aegean Sea lies the monastic republic of Mt. Athos, spiritual heart of the Orthodox Christian world. For centuries monks have lived and prayed here for the salvation of their souls and the world, and every devout Orthodox Christian male strives to make the pilgrimage to Mt. Athos at least once in his life. Elder Paissios (1924-1994) is considered by many to have been the Holy Mount’s greatest ascetic of the 20th Century. Over the course of his life the words of this humble Greek monk, who came to be honored by believers as an “holy elder” (geronta in Greek, starets in Russian), were recorded by the thousands who journeyed to seek his advice and prophecies. In the following quotes Paissios warns of the great cataclysms which await us in our Apocalyptic times. His counsel of spiritual preparedness and how to achieve it will be of use to all those who strive to do good while maintaining spiritual equilibrium in a world growing increasingly hostile to our salvation. Paissios seems to have foreseen everything: the ever more frequent and senseless wars and the growing totalitarianism of “Schengen Europe”, “Homeland Securitized” America and “Putinized” Russia, the downward slide of our modern, globalized world into licentiousness and madness, the approaching Last Judgement.

“If the Metropolitans are silent, then who will speak?”

What unsettles me is the reigning mood of tranquility. Something is in the works. We still haven’t understood properly either what’s going on, or the fact that we will die. I don’t know what will come of this. The situation is very complicated. The fate of the world depends on just a few people, but God is still putting on the brakes. We have to pray a lot, and with pain in our hearts, so that God will intervene: our times are very hard to understand. A lot of ash, rubbish, and indifference has accumulated, and a strong wind will be needed to blow it all away. It’s frightening! The Tower of Babel is upon us! Divine intervention is needed: Great upheavals are happening. What a bedlam! The minds of whole nations are in confusion. But in spite of the ferment I feel a certain consolation inside, a certain confidence. God still dwells in a part of the Christians. God’s people, people of prayer, still remain, and God in his all-goodness still tolerates us and will put everything in order. Don’t be afraid! We’ve gone through many storms, and still haven’t perished. So should we be afraid of the storm which is now gathering? We’ll not perish this time either! God loves us. In Man there’s a hidden power which comes out when necessary. The difficult years will be few. Just a lot of thunder. Don’t get upset in the least, for God is above everything. He rules everyone and will bring all to the defendant’s bench to answer for what they’ve done, according to which each will receive his just desserts from God. Those who’ve in some way helped the cause of good will be rewarded, and those who do evil will be punished. God will put everyone in their place in the end, but each of us will answer for what they did in these difficult years, both in prayer and in deeds. Today they’re trying to destroy faith, and for the edifice of faith to fall they quietly pull out one stone, then another. But we’re all responsible for the destruction; not just those who destroy but we who see how faith is being undermined and make no effort to strengthen it. As a result the seducers are emboldened to create even greater difficulties for us, and their rage against the Church and the monastic life increases. Today’s situation can be resisted only spiritually, not by worldly means. The storm will continue to rage a bit, will throw all the flotsam, everything unnecessary, onto the shore, and then the situation will become clearer. Some will receive their reward, while others will have to pay their debts. Today there are many who strive to corrupt everything: the family, the youth, the Church. In our day it’s a true witness to speak up for one’s people, for the state is waging war against divine law. It’s laws are directed against the Law of God. But we are responsible for not letting the enemies of the Church corrupt everything. Though I’ve heard even priests say: “Don’t get involved in that. It’s none of your business!” If they had reached such a non-striving condition through prayer I would kiss their feet. But no! They’re indifferent because they want to please everyone and live in comfort. Indifference is unacceptable even for laymen, and all the more so for the clergy. An honest, spiritual man doesn’t do anything with indifference. “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully”, says the Prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 48:10). There’s a war on today, a holy war. I must be on the front lines. There are so many Marxists, so many Masons, so many Satanists and assorted others! So many possessed, anarchists and seduced ones! I see what awaits us, and it’s painful for me. The bitter taste of human pain is in my mouth.

* * *

The spirit of lukewarmness reigns. There’s no manliness at all! We’ve been spoiled for good! How does God still tolerate us? Today’s generation is the generation of indifference. There are no warriors. The majority are fit only for parades. Godlessness and blasphemy are allowed to appear on television. And the Church is silent and doesn’t excommunicate the blasphemers. And they need to be excommunicated. What are they waiting for? Let’s not wait for someone else to pull the snake out from its hole so that we can live in peace. They’re silent out of indifference. What’s bad is that even people who’ve got something inside have begun to grow cool, saying: “Can I really do anything to change the situation?” We have to witness our faith with boldness, because if we continue to be silent we’ll have to answer in the end. In these difficult days each must do what’s in their power. And leave what’s out of their power to the will of God. In this way our conscience will be clear. If we don’t resist, then our ancestors will arise from their graves. They suffered so much for the Fatherland, and we? What are we doing for it?.. If Christians don’t begin to witness their faith, to resist evil, then the destroyers will become even more insolent. But today’s Christians are no warriors. If the Church keeps silent, to avoid conflict with the government, if the metropolitans are silent, if the monks hold their peace, then who will speak up?

* * *

Give thanks to God for everything. Try to be manly. Pull yourself together a bit. Do you know what Christians are suffering in other countries? There are such difficulties in Russia! But here many exhibit indifference. There’s not enough disposition to kindness, love of devotion. You see, if we don’t begin to make war against evil, to expose those who tempt believers, then the evil will grow larger. If we throw aside fear then the faithful will be emboldened a bit. And those who wage war against the Church will have a harder time. In the past our nation lived spiritually, so God blessed her, and the saints helped us in miraculous fashion. And we were victorious against our enemies, who always outnumbered us. Today we continue to call ourselves Orthodox Christians, but we don’t live Orthodox lives.

* * *

A lukewarm clergy lulls the people to sleep, leaves them in their former condition so they won’t be upset. “Look”, they say. “By all means don’t say that there’ll be a war, or the Second Coming, that one must prepare oneself for death. We must not make people alarmed!” And others speak with a false kindness, saying: “We mustn’t expose heretics and their delusions, so as to show our love for them.” Today’s people are water-soluble. There’s no leaven in them. If I avoid upsetting myself to protect my fleshly comfort then I’m indifferent to holiness! Spiritual meekness is one thing, and softness and indifference are quite another. Some say: “I’m a Christian and therefore I have to be joyful and calm.” But they’re not Christian. They’re simply indifferent. And their joy is only a worldly joy. He in whom these worldly seeds are present is no spiritual person. A spiritual person consists of nothing but pain. In other words, he’s in pain at what’s going on, he’s in pain for people’s condition. And divine comfort is bestowed upon him for his pain. “He Who Goes Low Goes Sure” Our goal is to live an Orthodox life, not just to speak or write Orthodox. If the preacher has no personal experience then his sermons won’t go to the heart, won’t change people. To think like an Orthodox is easy, but to live an Orthodox life requires effort. Today God tolerates what’s going on. Tolerates, so that evil people will be unable to justify themselves. God expects patience, prayer and struggle from us. If you anger when you yourself are offended, your anger is unclean. But if someone is offended in the service of holiness, that means the zeal of God is in him. Indignation can be righteous when it’s indignation for God’s sake. That’s the only justifiable kind of indignation in a person. It’s unseemly to become angry in one’s own defense. Resisting evildoers is another matter, however, when it’s in defense of serious spiritual matters, when our holy faith, Orthodoxy, is concerned. Then it’s your duty. To think of others, to counter the blasphemers in order to defend one’s neighbor — this is pure, because carried out in love.

* * *

Evil lies within us. There is no love in us, so we don’t feel all people to be brothers and are tempted by [the knowledge of] their sinful ways. But it’s not right when moral failings become known to all. The injunction of the Gospels to “tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18:17) doesn’t mean that everything has to become known to everyone. By exposing the moral failings of our brother we arm the enemies of the Church, give them another pretext to escalate the war against Her. And the faith of the weak is shaken in this way too. If you want to help the Church, then try to mend your own ways, rather than others’. In straightening yourself out you straighten out a particle of the Church. If everyone were to do that then the Church would be in perfect order. But today’s people attend to everything under the sun, only not to themselves, because it’s easy to teach others, while mending one’s own ways requires effort.

* * *

If we expose someone out of love, with pain in our hearts, then a change will occur in his heart whether he understands us or not. But to expose without love, with partiality, only enrages to object of our exposure. Our hostility strikes against his egoism, producing sparks like flint against steel. If we tolerate our brother out of love, he will feel it. But he also feels our hostility, even if we keep it inside and don’t express it. Our hostility arouses alarm in him. We must always ask ourselves: “Why do I want to say what I’m about to say? What is motivating me? Do I really care about my neighbor or do I just want to show him how wonderful I am, to show off a bit?” If someone tries to solve ecclesiastical problems allegedly out of faith, but really thinking of his own advantage, then how can such a person win God’s blessing?

* * *

Sweet words and great truths have value when uttered by righteous lips. They take root only in people of good will and clean conscience. Truth, when used without judgment, can commit a crime. And he who possesses sincerity without reason commits a twofold evil, first against himself, then against others. Because there’s no empathy in his sincerity. A Christian must not be a fanatic but have love in his heart for all. He who throws words around carelessly, even true words, does evil. Veneration is a good thing, and the predisposition for good is also good, but spiritual judgment and breadth are needed to guard against fanaticism, that false companion of reverence.

* * *

Wakefulness and sobriety are needed. All that a person does he must do for the sake of God. Christ must be at the source of every movement. Much attention is required, for when we do something with the aim of pleasing others we gain no benefit. We ascend to the heavens not through earthly striving but by humbling ourselves spiritually. He who goes low goes sure and never falls. Ours is an age of sensationalism and hullabaloo. But the spiritual life is not noisy. Divine enlightenment is required and when it’s not there the person abides in darkness. He may act out of good intentions but create many problems in his confusion, both for the Church and for society. There was a time when the Holy Spirit enlightened us and showed us the way. A grand business! Today it finds no reason to descend to us. Difficult years are ahead. The Old Testament Tower of Babel was child’s play compared with our age. The Seal of the Antichrist Becomes a Reality It’s possible that you’ll live through much which is described in the Book of Revelations. Much is coming to the surface, little by little. The situation is horrible. Madness has gone beyond all bounds. Apostasy is upon us, and now the only thing left is for the ’son of perdition’ (2 Thess. 2:3) to come. The world has turned into a madhouse. A great confusion will reign, in which each government will begin to do whatever comes into its head. We’ll see how the most unlikely, the most insane, events will happen. The only good thing is that these events will happen in very quick succession. Ecumenism, common markets, a one-world government, a single made-to-order religion: such is the plan of these devils. The Zionists are already preparing their messiah. For them the false-messiah will be king, will rule here, on earth. A great discord will arise. In this discord everyone will clamor for a king to save them. At that moment they’ll offer up their man, who’ll say: “I’m the Imam, I’m the fifth Buddha, I’m the Christ whom Christians are awaiting. I’m the one whom the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been waiting for. I’m the Jewish messiah.”

* * *

Difficult times are ahead. Great trials await us. Christians will suffer great persecutions. Meanwhile, it’s obvious that people don’t understand that we’re on the verge of the end times, that the seal of the Antichrist is becoming a reality. As if nothing’s happening. That’s why Holy Scripture says that even the chosen will be deceived. The Zionists want to rule the earth. To achieve their ends they use black magic and satanism. They regard satan-worship as a means to gain the strength they need to carry out their plans. They want to rule the earth using satanic power. God is not something they take into account. One sign that the fulfillment of prophecy is near will be the destruction of the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem. They’ll destroy it in order to restore the Temple of Solomon which used to be on the same place. In the end the Jews will pronounce the Antichrist messiah in this rebuilt temple. The rabbis know that the true Messiah has already come and that they crucified Him. They know this, and yet they are blinded by egoism and fanaticism.

* * *

Two thousand years ago it was written in the Book of Revelations that people will be marked with the number ‘666′. As Holy Scripture says, the ancient Hebrews laid a tax on the peoples they conquered in various wars. The yearly tax was equal to 666 talents of gold. (3 Kings 10:14, 2 Chronicles 9:13.) Today, in order to subjugate the whole world they’ll once again introduce the old tax number linked to their glorious past. That is, ‘666′ is the number of mammon. Everything is going as planned. They put the number a long time ago on credit cards. As a result, he who is not marked with the number ‘666′ will be unable to buy, sell, get a loan, or find work.

* * *

Providence tells me that the Antichrist wants to subjugate the world using this system. It will be foisted upon people with the help of the mechanisms which control the world economy, for only those who receive the mark, an image with the number ‘666′, will be able to take part in economic life. The mark will be an image which will first be placed on all products, and then people will be compelled to wear it on their hand or forehead. Little by little, after the introduction of ID cards with the three sixes, after the creation of a personal dossier, they’ll use cunning to introduce the mark. In Brussels a whole palace with three sixes has been built to house a central computer. This computer can keep track of billions of people. And we Orthodox are resisting this because we don’t want the Antichrist and we don’t want dictatorship either. “The most we can suffer is martyrdom.” There will be three and a half hard years. Those who don’t agree with the system will have a rough time. They’ll constantly be trying to imprison them, using any pretext they can find. They won’t torture anyone, but without the mark it will simply be impossible for a person to live. “You’re suffering without the mark”, they’ll say. “And if you had just accepted it you would have had no difficulties.” For this reason, by learning to life a simple, moderate life here and now you’ll be able to get through those years. By getting a little bit of land, raising a little wheat and some potatoes, planting some olive trees, and keeping animals of some sort, a goat or chickens, the Christian will be able to feed his family. Stockpiling is of little use: Food doesn’t keep for long before spoiling. But these oppressions will not last for long: three, three and a half years. For the sake of the chosen the days will be hastened. God won’t leave a person without help. Tomorrow thunder will strike, and the brief dictatorship of the Antichrist-satan will come. Then Christ will intervene, will give the whole anti-Christian system a good shaking up. He’ll trample upon evil and turn everything to good use in the end. – And if someone receives the mark unknowingly? It’d be better to say “uncaringly”. How can one be unknowing, when everything is crystal clear? And if a person doesn’t know, then he should become interested and find out. By accepting the mark, even unknowingly, a person loses Divine Grace and gives himself up to demonic influence. When a priest immerses the infant in the baptismal font, the infant receives the Holy Spirit without knowing it, and Divine Grace begins to abide in him. Some people say: “What’s destined by God to be will be. What business is it of ours?” They can say whatever they want, but in reality it’s not like that! Unfortunately, some modern priests diaper their flock like infants, to keep them from getting upset. “What’s going on today isn’t important”, they say. “Don’t be alarmed. All you need is to have faith in your hearts.” Or they scold: “Don’t speak on that topic, about ID cards or the mark of the beast. It will just upset people.” If they were to say instead: “Let’s try to live more spiritually, to be nearer to Christ and not to be afraid of anything. You see, the most we can suffer is martyrdom,” then they’d at least be preparing their flock for the coming tribulations. Knowing the truth, a person will begin to mull things over and shake himself out of his sleep. What’s going on will begin to cause him pain. He’ll begin to pray and to be on his guard, so as to not fall into that trap.

* * *

What do we see now? It’s bad enough that cunning ‘interpreters of Scripture’ are commenting prophecy after their own fashion. They’re representatives of the clergy, but they’re more cowardly than lay people. And it would behoove them to exhibit a healthy spiritual unease and help Christians by sowing beneficial concern so they’ll be strengthened in their faith and receive divine consolation. I’m amazed: Doesn’t what’s happening give them any cause for concern? And why don’t they at least add a question mark to the interpretations they come up with? And if they help the Antichrist and the mark, lead other souls to perdition? No, behind the “perfected credit card system”, behind “computerized security” lurks worldwide dictatorship and the yoke of the Antichrist. “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” (Rev. 13:16-18) “You must be ready for death.” The world has lost control of itself. Honor and self-sacrifice have abandoned people. The taste of sacrificial joy is unknown to today’s people, and that’s why they’re so tortured. For only when you co-participate in the pain of another do miracles happen. If a person doesn’t cultivate in himself the spirit of self-sacrifice then he thinks only of himself and doesn’t receive Divine Grace. The more a person forgets himself, the more God remembers him. Those who die heroically don’t really die. And where there’s no heroism nothing worthwhile can be expected. Our time is like a bubbling and steaming cauldron. One needs temperament, audacity, courage. Take care not to be caught unprepared, if something is to happen. Start getting ready now so that you’ll be able to resist difficulties. Christ Himself tells us: “Therefore be ye also ready” (Matt. 24:44), doesn’t He? Today, living in such complicated times, we have to be not merely ready, but triply ready, at the minimum! Possibly we may meet not only with sudden death, but with other dangers. So let’s drive away the desire to arrange our lives comfortably! May love of honor and the spirit of self-sacrifice live in us.

* * *

I see that something is in the works, that something lies just around the corner, but it’s constantly being put off. Little delays all the time. Who’s creating the delays? God? Another month passes, then another couple of months! That’s how it all goes. But since we know what awaits us, let’s develop love in ourselves, to the degree that we can. That’s the main thing: for true brotherly love to exist between us. Kindness, love — that’s strength! Guard the secret as well as you can and don’t indulge in excessive frankness. If “he and I and the bell-ringer” are all in on the secret, then what will come of that? Death in battle adds greatly to God’s mercy, for a person who dies the death of the brave sacrifices himself to defend others. Those who give up their lives out of pure love in order to defend their neighbor are imitating Christ. These people are supreme heroes. They arouse fear in our enemies. Death herself trembles before them, because they scorn her due to their great love, and attain immortality in this fashion, finding the key to eternity under the gravestone. They enter into eternal blessedness without difficulty. That’s why I say to you: Cultivate self-sacrifice, brotherly love. May each of you attain a spiritual condition which will allow you to get out of difficult situations. Without a spiritual condition a person loses courage, because he loves himself. He can renounce Christ, betray Him. You must be ready for death. We believe that nothing is in vain, that our sacrifice has meaning.

* * *

Remove your “I” from everything you do. The person who leaves his “I” rises above the earth, moves in another atmosphere. As long as he remains inside himself he cannot become a heavenly being. There is no spiritual life without sacrifice. Try to remember, at least a little bit, that death exists. And since we’ll die in any case, let’s not take care of ourselves too much. Look after your health, but not to the degree where you begin to bow down before your peace and well-being. I’m not asking anyone to throw themselves headlong into dangerous adventures, but you have to have at least a bit of heroism, my brother!.. Feats are committed not by the tall in size but by the audacious, the heartfelt, and the self-sacrificing. There’s no barbarity in spiritual audacity. Such people don’t fire at the enemy, but over his head, forcing him to surrender. A kind man prefers being killed to killing. The harmonious person is prepared for accepting divine powers. The mean, the cowardly, and the small of spirit, on the other hand, use impudence to hide their fear. They’re afraid of themselves as well as others and shoot without stopping. Courage and audacity are one thing; criminality and malice quite another. In order to succeed at anything one needs a wild streak, in the positive sense. He who lacks this wild streak can become neither a hero nor a saint. The heart must become uncalculating.

* * *

In our age audacity has become a rarity. Water, not blood, flows in people’s veins. So if a war were to break out, God forbid, many would simply die of fright while others would lose heart, because they’re used to an easy life. Fear is necessary when it helps a person turn to God. Fear from lack of faith, from lack of trust in God, on the other hand, is ruinous. Such fear is driven out by audacity. We must remember: The more a person fears, the more he is tempted by the enemy. If a person refuses to strive to become courageous, and doesn’t strive for real love, then when a difficult situation arises he’ll become a laughingstock. The warrior takes joy in the fact that he’s dying so that others won’t have to. If you dispose yourself this way then nothing will be frightening. Courage is born from much love, kindness and self-sacrifice. Today people don’t even want to hear about death. However, he doesn’t remember about death is living outside of reality. Those who fear death and love life’s vanities are in a state of spiritual stagnation. Bold people, who always keep death before them and think about it constantly, on the other hand, conquer vanity and begin to live in eternity and heavenly joy while still here on earth. May he who fights in the war for Faith and Fatherland cross himself and not fear, for God is his helper! God Himself will decide whether he is to die or to live. One needs to trust God, not oneself. The Russians will take Turkey. The Chinese will cross the Euphrates. Providence tells me that many events will happen: The Russians will take Turkey and Turkey will disappear from the world map because a third of the Turks will become Christians, another third will die in the war and another third will leave for Mesopotamia. The Mid-East will become a theater of a war in which the Russians will take place. Much blood will be spilled. The Chinese, with an army of 200 million, will cross the Euphrates and go all the way to Jerusalem. The sign that this event is approaching will be the destruction of the Mosque of Omar, for its destruction will mark the beginning of work by the Jews to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, which was built on the same spot. There will be a great war between Russians and Europeans, and much blood will be spilled. Greece won’t play a leading role in that war, but they’ll give her Constantinople. Not because the Russians adore the Greeks, but because no better solution will be found. The city will be handed over to the Greek Army even before it has a chance to get there. The Jews, inasmuch as they’ll have great power and the help of the European leadership, will become proud and insolent beyond measure and conduct themselves shamelessly. They’ll try to rule Europe. They’ll play all sorts of tricks, but the resulting persecutions will lead Christians to unite completely. However, they won’t unite in the way desired by those who are now engaging in various machinations to create a single church united under a single religious leadership. Christians will unite because the unfolding situation will naturally separate the sheep from the goats. Then the prophecy: “one flock and one shepherd” will actually come to pass.

* * *

Don’t give in to panic. Cowards are of use to no one. God looks at a person’s situation and helps him. We have to remain cold-blooded and use our brains. No matter what happens, we must continue to pray, think and act. It’s best to always stand up to a difficult situation using spiritual means. However that spiritual boldness which is born of holiness and striving towards God is missing today, as is the natural boldness needed in order not to turn coward in the face of danger. In order to hold back a great evil, great holiness is needed. A spiritual person can hold back evil and help others. In the spiritual life the biggest coward can attain great courage by entrusting himself to Christ and His divine help. He can go to the front lines, do battle with the enemy, and win! So therefore we will fear God alone, not people, no matter how evil they may be. The fear of God makes any coward into a hero! A person becomes fearless to the extent he unites with God.

Unbelievable but true the biggest miracle of the century in Romania.

Hat tip to Constantine.

From here.

(translated from the Greek. I have edited it.)
---------------------------------------------------------

Translated in English...

Thursday, 15 October 2009

Unbelievable but true the biggest miracle of the century in Romania.

In a small village in Romania no priests existed and the residents went often to the Patriarch and demanded him to fulfill the empty spot. However the Patriarch did not have the means of satisfying the demand for a priest.

The villagers went over and over again but there was nothing their Patriarch said that was any different... "I do not have an extra priest or else I would sent one to the village."

Meanwhile people died unread (no services), others had relationships and children without marriage vows, the children and adults alike were unbaptized.

Then one day, outside of the Church a car pulled up and stopped and out stepped a priest shouting. The village was astonished.

The villagers went to the Church to welcome him and told him: "How did you come to the village after our Patriarch had said that he doesn't have a priest to send us?"

Then the priest said: "Isn't that what you wished for? You wished for a priest? Now he has come."

All the villagers were glad in the presence of the new priest.

The priest began immediately working. He went to all the graves and read the (exodio) prayers. He baptized and wedded everyone in the village and administered Holy Communion.

One day he invites all the villagers to Church and tells them: "I will leave now, my mission work is done."

The villagers were very astonished and shocked at his comment and said: "Now that you came, you are leaving?"

However the priest didn't listen to their comments and proceeded with his decision.

When the villagers realized that there wasn't anything they could do, they thanked him.

After days, the villagers went to Patriarch and they thanked him for sending them a priest and to let him know that they would kindly appreciate it if he could send them another priest soon, but the Patriarch didn't know anything.

He said to them, "I didn't send a priest because I don't have one, however let me check with the Protocingkelo to see if he had sent a priest to you to serve your needs."

He phoned the Protocingkelo but he too didn't send anyone.

The Patriarch inquired, "What did this priest do for you?"

The villagers said, "He wedded us, baptized us, he performed funerals for our parents. He did what any other priest would have performed for us."

Then the Patriarch asked, "Did he give you any papers or log the mysteries?"

"Of course," said the villagers. "He gave us papers and he wrote them in the Church's books."

"Then did anyone see what he wrote? And with what name did he sign?"

(all the documents were written in Romanian and we are not well educated and the signature he signed in a language we have not seen before)

The Patriarch requested they go bring the books in order to see who was this clergyman.

When they returned with the book the Patriarch remained speechless. He couldn't believe his eyes but indeed all the documents were written in Romanian while his name was written in Greek with the name of his signature "Nektarios, Bishop of Pentapolis."

Source: Demetrios Velaoras

PAPAL PRIMACY - A Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy

From here.
----------------

PAPAL PRIMACY - A Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy

By Nicholas P. Vasiliades

Introduction

It is well-known that the Papists insist upon the so-called "primacy" of the Pope with unrelenting obstinacy. In addition, they have declared that: "Union of Christianity means nothing else but subjugation [to the Pope], the only representative of Christ on earth". And that "the primacy and infallibility are not ecclesiastical decrees that the Church can annul but dogmas whose foundations no one is in a position to shake"[1]. And furthermore that "the Catholic Church [i.e. the papist parachurch] is not going to sacrifice anything from its truths [note: rather its falsehoods]". "In other words", as the Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica Demetrius Tselengides writes in an epistle he sent to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, "the Pope in the Latin West - through the dogmatically consolidated "infallibility", also affirmed by the Second Vatican Council, and through the contested primacy of authority upon the entire Church - has arbitrarily taken the place of the Spirit of Truth in the Universal Church"[2].

The Papists' constant reiteration of this position leaves no doubt as to what type of union they seek through their dialogues with the Orthodox. They seek a union modelled after the detestable Unia.

Many worthy books par excellence have been written on where the Papists base their arguments for the "primacy", how that came to be and how it was established. As an example, we bring three such paradigmatic informative, scientific and weighty studies: a] St. Nectarius of Pentapolis, Historical study on the causes of the Schism ... and on the question of possibility or not for union; b] Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome [a historical and critical study], ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642; c] P. N. Trembelas, On the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965.

In this short study that follows, we re-publish five texts that have been previously published in the magazine "O Soter" [Year 2001 Volume] and we reply to the unacceptable position that the Synod of Constantinople [Eighth Ecumenical Synod, AD 879-880] supposedly acknowledged the Pope's "primacy of authority", and that consequently the matter has already been settled since then! ...
We publish these articles supplemented with additional material into one new article on account of the discussions taking place as regards the "role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all nations" in the way that came to be accepted by the Joint International Theological Commission for the theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists in Ravenna [8-14 October 2007][1]. The conversation focuses on how we Orthodox need to understand or interpret the blatantly heretical "Papist Primacy", so that the union between Orthodox and Papists is established! ...

The stance held by certain Orthodox on the matter is deplorable, if we are to judge by the things we heard from them during the proceedings of the "Scientific Meeting" entitled "The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches", organised by the Department of Dogmatic Theology [of the Faculty of Theology] of the Aristotelian University School of Theology on 20 May 2009 in the Ceremonies Hall of the aforementioned University[2].

It is deplorable and extremely worrying because these Orthodox, as Professors of Theology, with their present demeanour not only scandalise the Orthodox fold but they also harm the Papists themselves. Unfortunately, once again it is verified that the words of St. Basil the Great addressed to Bishop Eusebius of Samosata about the Pope and the Westerners of his time have diachronic validity. He wrote: "Truly, when those of a proud nature are flattered, it is natural for them to become more arrogant than they usually are. After all, if the Lord is merciful to us what other help do we need? If however the wrath of God remains against us, then what possible use is there for the help from the Westerners' "eyebrow" [i.e. arrogance, haughtiness, pride]?"[3]

Let the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II also instruct us, who went to the pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence [AD 1438-1439] with great courage believing also [rather naively] that the Orthodox would return "triumphant victors"! It was not long however before he was utterly disappointed and confessed: The Latins are "quarrelsome people, vainglorious and inconvincible. They do not come around or consent to our words, nor do they want to submit to the truth[4]."

It is about time we feared the God of Truth. And it is about time we felt for Christ's rational flock, the Christian fold of our Orthodoxy. Let us not wound them with our constant retreats to the heresy of Papism or with our uncompromising union with cacodoxy, believing ourselves to be wiser than the God-bearing Fathers and Orthodoxy's Saints had been.

Unacceptable positions

The Papists do not leave any opportunity that may serve Papism's dreadful ecclesiological heresy on the Papist primacy go unexploited. This way we find "Katholiki", the Uniate Papist newspaper of Greece, on 26 June 2001 republishing an envoy's article from the Athenian newspaper "BEMA" [29 April 2001] entitled "The primacy of the Pope of Rome and the way it is exercised". The article included the following: "More and more people insist that supposedly the Eastern Church [viz. Orthodoxy] does not recognise, not has she ever recognised any primacy to Rome, apart from a mere honorary seniority in the etiquette, we could call it, of the presbygenous patriarchates. This position", the author continued, "is so baseless that it harms the credibility of those who uphold it and renders in advance the outcome of any serious dialogue that promptly aims towards the gradual rapprochement of the two Churches to be impossible. [...] Those who support such a position in good faith, and there are of course many who do, overlook, among other things, that the Synod of Constantinople of 879-880, through which the complete restoration of the relations between Old and New Rome was sealed, adopted a Canon through which not only was the primacy of Rome recognised, as the Synod itself understood it in those days, but also sealed this establishment opposite future doubts and controversy".

Next, the writer of the article insists on the aforementioned Canon, the 1st canon of the Synod of Constantinople in 879-880, about which he says that his Orthodox interpreters, among them the ever-memorable Professor of Dogmatics John Carmiris, gave "a different, diametrically opposite, interpretation to the last paragraph". This interpretation he considers it to be "outrageous"!

It is obvious that the Uniate - Papist newspaper rushed to re-publish the article in question because it supports the positions of the Vatican and in particular the "primacy of authority" that the Pope insists he has.

According to John Carmiris, during the Synod of AD 879-880, the Orthodox supported that "based on a recommendation by the Papal representatives ... any innovation of the honorary rank and privileges of the pope of Rome, i.e. every alteration of the primatus honoris [primacy of honour] of his into primatus jurisdictionis [administrative primacy], was prohibited"[5]. The interpretation of this Canon by the ever-memorable Professor John Carmiris is not at all "outrageous", as we shall be proved further down.

Before we do this however we first have to reply to the article's accusation that the position held by the Orthodox, that "the Eastern Church does not recognise, nor has she ever recognised any primacy for Rome, apart from a mere honorary primacy in the etiquette ... of the presbygenous patriarchates" is "baseless". This position is not at all baseless."

Ecclesiastical History confirms that during the course of the first three centuries we do not find any event during whose course the Church recognised any administrative primacy to the Bishop of Rome. During that period, the Church of Christ was not being governed "monarchically" nor was it receiving orders from Rome. Ecclesiastical Synods would convene unbeknownst to the Bishop of Rome. Bishops would be elected and judged without any interference from the Bishop of Rome.

This tactic is also confirmed by the Apostolic Canons where the principles for the governance of the Church of Christ during the first centuries have been recorded. The great and most significant authority of these Canons has already been evidenced by the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] in its 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th Canons. According to the Apostolic Canons, every local Church would be governed by her own Bishop [cf. Apostolic Canons 32, 35, 38, 39, and 76], while any type of interference of a Bishop in another Bishop's jurisdiction was prohibited [Apostolic Canons 34, 35].

The local episcopates [communities] constituted the local Churches, each one of which would be governed by the "first" as its "head". However, the "first" would never do anything without the concordant opinion of the other Bishops, just as none of the others would do something without the concordant opinion of the "first". "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing superfluous without his opinion; each one must only do whatever is within his own community, and in the lands that are subject to it. But neither should he do anything without the opinion of the others; for that is how there will be concord ..." [Apostolic Canon 34]. In other words: the bishops of every land must acknowledge who is "first" among them; that is, bishops must know who their Metropolitan is, and regard him as the "head", and not do anything without his opinion that may be superfluous; namely, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of the bishop's own episcopate, but attempts to transgress this. Each and every bishop may act without obtaining the opinion of his Metropolitan, only on whatever belongs to the limits of his own episcopacy and in the territories that fall within those boundaries. But even the Metropolitan must not proceed with anything of common concern "on his own and according to his own opinion", without the opinion of all his bishops. Only in this way can concord exist.... Therefore, the Bishop of Rome likewise had jurisdiction ONLY over his own episcopate whose "head" he was, and no other[6].

This system applied during the first three centuries of Ecclesiastic History. What ensued in the centuries that followed we shall describe further along.

The difference between "Primacy of Honour" and "Primacy of Authority"

As already mentioned above, during the first three centuries, the Church of Christ solved all the emerging problems by means of local Synods. There is no instance where the Church had sought the resolution of an issue of general ecclesiastical nature, only by the Bishop of Rome. However, from the 4th century onwards, on account of the major issues that had appeared, which had been caused by the various heresies, these issues were discussed and resolved by Ecumenical Synods. In these Synods, the representatives of the Bishop of Rome were accorded first place, not because he had any authority over all the other Bishops, but because the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the "first" in honour among all the other "first" Bishops. He was acknowledged "honourably" as "first" because his See was situated in Rome, the State capital. At the time when the Holy First Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] was convened, "firsts" were the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. They were regarded as equals among themselves, in compliance with the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Synod.

When the Ecumenical Synods bestowed Bishops with a primacy of "honour" and determined the order of the "firsts", they would only accept as a basis for this determination the political significance associated with the cities in which these older hierarchs were Bishops. This, after all, is the reason that the Holy Canons command "to co-adjust ecclesiastical things with political ones" for the preservation and increment of a state's "cohesion". This principle was upheld both in the East and in the West, throughout all the centuries.

Besides, "the first characteristic of every Ecumenical [Synods] is that they must be convened upon the orders not of the Pope or a certain Patriarch, but by royal commands"[7]. "Pope" was the title given to the Bishops of Rome from the 8th century onwards. It should be noted however that the Bishop of Alexandria was already being addressed as "Pope", even before the 8th century; as for the title "Patriarch", it began to be bestowed during the reign of emperor Theodosius II the [AD 408-450].

Ecumenical Synods were usually presided over by those who were first among the ranks of Bishops, and not by the Papal "legati" [=envoys, representatives]. No Bishop of Rome had ever been present in person, during any of the Ecumenical Synods. As for the solving of various issues that were discussed during Ecumenical Synods, the one who could have authority and influence - and essentially did have - was only the one who stood out for the constancy, integrity, clarity and strength of his Orthodox convictions; that is, anyone who presented himself and proved himself to be a genuine expresser and representative of the evangelical truth, even if he were not a Bishop. A characteristic example of this is St. Athanasius the Great who played a very basic and important role in the Holy First Ecumenical Synod, even though at the time he was only a young archdeacon of the Church of Alexandria.

After all, the validity and legitimacy of the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods were dependent just as much on the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as they were on the validation by any other Patriarch. Moreover, the decisions of the Holy Synods, in which neither the Pope nor his representatives were present, these had absolute and complete validity and were of a compulsory nature for all the Bishops. They were just as compulsory for the Bishop of Rome.

During the course of the first eight centuries, in other words during the period prior to the devastating Schism, when the Church of Christ was still united, the supreme authority in the Church belonged exclusively to the Ecumenical Synods. They were the ones that authentically and infallibly formulated the teaching of the Church; they were the ones who judged the Bishops, even if the Bishop was a Pope or a Patriarch. It is well-known that the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod [AD 680] condemned the Patriarchs of Constantinople Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul II and Peter, Pope of Rome Honorius, Cyrus of Alexander and others.

Now, if the Ecumenical Synods gave a "primacy of honour" to the Pope, in parallel to all the other Patriarchs, this was not an authority or leadership. Because there can be "primacy" among equals. Whereas leadership or authority presuppose subordinates, subjects and the subjugated.
The "primacy" that was recognized in the Pope was only a primacy of honour and not a privilege of authority and leadership. Besides, the Holy Second Ecumenical Synod had also bestowed the "equal rank of honour" as that of the bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople. The God-bearing Fathers of this Synod decided: "Τον μεν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επίσκοπον έχειν τα πρεσβεία της τιμής μετά τον της Ρώμης Επίσκοπον, δια το είναι αυτήν Νέαν Ρώμην" [Canon 3]. [The Bishop of Constantinople should have the rank of honour immediately after that of the Bishop of Rome, on account of Constantinople being the New Rome and is called such for this reason. However, in this case, the preposition "after" as correctly interpreted by St. Nicodemus the Haghiorite "does not denote a later point in time", as some interpret, "but neither a demotion or a reduction" as others do, but "it denotes an equality in honour and rank, according to which, the one is first, the other is second, in order of honour"[8].

The Holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod institutes similar things with its 28th Canon, whereby, according to Saint Nicodemus' interpretation: "Just as the Fathers had rightly given privileges to the throne of Old Rome on account of the presence of regency in that city - in other words, that he [the city's Bishop] be addressed as the "first" of all the other Patriarchs in rank, thus likewise they gave equal and identical honorary privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome - that is, of Constantinople." [9].

But the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod also instituted the same things. In its 36th Canon it mentions: "We stipulate that the throne of Constantinople is to enjoy equal honours with that of Old Rome". In other words, the God-bearing Fathers of this Synod were stipulating that the Bishop of Constantinople "should enjoy equal and the same privileges as the bishop of Rome [...], being second to him only in rank"[10].

The 1st, 3rd, 4th Ecumenical Synods and the Synods of Constantinople of AD 867 and 869 on the "Primacy" of the Pope

The Metropolitan system of the ancient Church, which was not at all monarchic, is interpreted in an excellent manner by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325]. It states: "The ancient customs should be preserved, the ones in Egypt and in Libya and in Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria will have authority over all of these [places], because this [the ethos, custom] is also usual for the Bishop in Rome. Similarly in Antioch and in the other provinces, the ranks of honour are preserved by the Churches". This Canon testifies that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch "were regarded as equals towards each other". The Canon says; in the same way that the Bishop of Rome has the same custom [ethos] as the Bishop of Alexandria, thus does he have the same authority as he does. Furthermore, the same Canon testifies that the system in the ancient Church was not a monarchic one. It also interprets that "the Bishops were not assigned under only one Bishop, nor were all the Churches under one Church. All Bishops and all Churches were administratively independent of each other. But among all the Bishops, the one of Rome was recognized as the "first throne", for being the Bishop of the capital city of the State. His status did not differ from the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople that he now has in the Orthodox Church"[11].

On the Latins' insistence that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod [AD 431] had proclaimed the "primacy" of authority of the Bishop of Rome in the overall-universal Church, we refer the reader to the wonderful scientific work of the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The 3rd Ecumenical Synod and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Reply to the encyclical of Pius XI "Lux Veritatis", Athens, 1932. The truth is that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod not only did not alter, but with the same decree had supported the existing order in Church administration even more. "It strictly prohibited the violation of the rights that belonged to the local episcopal thrones of the Administrations and the Provinces, according to the custom that prevailed long before, during ancient times" and "it proved that it was foreign to any notion of monarchical primacy", that is, of "the authority of one episcopal throne over the others"[12].

Nor did the Holy 4th Ecumenical Synod [AD 451] recognize any "primacy" in the Bishop of Rome. Like the 3rd Ecumenical Synod, it too repulsed every notion of administrative primacy for the Bishop of Rome. "Glaringly evident proof of this is all that [ took place] during the [discussion] of the sensational 28th Canon of this Synod"[13].

This is the situation that prevailed in the Church during the first 8 centuries.
We now come to respond to the claim that the 8th Ecumenical Synod [Synod of Constantinople of 879-880] had supposedly recognised and sanctioned the "primacy" of authority for the Bishop of Rome!

The arbitrary intervention by Pope Nicolas I in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople, which was brought on by the deposing of Patriarch Ignatius and the election as Patriarch of Photios the Great [despite his involuntariness] in 858AD is well-known. Pope Nicholas I was the one who had presented the Church of Rome as an ecumenical Church! He therefore perceived this as an opportunity to impose himself on the Eastern Church also. However, his scandalous interventions in the internal administrative affairs of the Bishop of Constantinople were repulsed and condemned by the Synod of Constantinople of AD 867. This Synod, "condemned and anathematised the unprecedented for the Church of the East and with such arrogance projected ‘primacy' [of the Pope], by means of which "the canonical order that was designated by the Ecumenical Synods as well as the independence of the Patriarchal thrones was being overturned" and by means of which "the Bishop of Rome striving to render himself the absolute monarch over the catholic [= entire] Church"[14].

But also in the Synod of Constantinople of AD 869, the independence, autonomy and equality of the five Patriarchal thrones had been supported without any objection by the Papists. Furthermore, every notion of a monarchic primacy or a primacy of authority for Rome was rejected. In this manner, "the Papal primacy with its new meaning", which had been presented in a dictatorial and anti-ecclesiastic manner by pope Nicholas I, was not accepted by this Synod either[15].

However, the primacy of the Pope's authority was also rejected triumphantly at the Synod of AD 879-880. This Synod is the last general Synod of the united ancient Church of Christ. Both the Fathers and the ecclesiastical authors characterized it as the 8th Ecumenical Synod. But even the Synod itself had characterised itself many times in its Minutes as "Ecumenical". [For more information read here].

The Synod of AD 879-880 was convened by Photios the Great, who had already risen to the rank of Patriarch. He was also the one who presided over the Synod, while three representatives of the Pope also participated, as well as three representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, 18 Metropolitans and many Bishops from the ecclesiastic administrations of Thrace, Pontus, Ephesus, Illyria and Southern Italy; 383 Bishops in all. This Synod was truly imposing. Unanimity prevailed; its activities were conducted smoothly, and during its fifth Session the Minutes of the Holy 7th Ecumenical Synod were acknowledged by everyone.

Further along we shall comment upon the truly important first Canon of this Synod, which directly relates to our topic.

The important Synod of AD 879-880 in Constantinople

At this most important Synod of Constantinople of AD 879-880, it was clarified that the reinstatement of Photios to the patriarchal throne was not accomplished by the Pope, the way that the Pope had wanted it to be acknowledged. The latter had acknowledged the reinstatement as a finalized matter. It is however characteristic that, with regard to the renowned decree of the 1st Canon of this Synod, the Papist historians had attempted to dispute its authenticity! But because they did not succeed, they attempted to misinterpret it and ascribe to it a meaning according to which this decree supposedly does not limit, but rather it validates, the privileges of the Pope and the Papist church! ...

Unfortunately for the Papists, the truth of the matter differs. The purpose of the decree - as can be surmised in general, both from the Minutes of the Synod as well as from the content of the decree - was to avert the anomalies that arose from the fact that clerics convicted in Constantinople resorted to the West in order to be acquitted! In fact, there were followers of Ignatius who, encouraged by Rome, did not recognize Patriarch Photios!

However the tendency of Pope Nicholas I and his successors to arbitrarily acquit clergymen of another Church, whom She had condemned - or to condemn clergymen of another church by anti-canonically intervening in its internal affairs - was an obvious innovation. The same should of course have applied for any possible anti-canonical out-of-bounds intervention by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the internal affairs of the Church of Rome, and the possible acceptance and acquittal by the Patriarch of Constantinople of Latin clerics who had been condemned by Rome.

Pursuant to this paragraph, the decree ends as follows: "...on none of the ranks of honour that belong to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans or to Her President (or Primate) overall shall we innovate now, or later on". The rank of honour referred to here, is the one that pertained to the Pope.

These had already been determined by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, the 3rd Canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, the 28th of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and the 36th of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. Subsequently, with the aforementioned decree, every innovation to the privileges of the Bishop of Rome was forbidden, as was every transformation - both now and in the future - of the "primacy of honour" into a "primacy of authority" As the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos correctly observes "through the aforementioned decree, the Patriarch of Constantinople was equated to the Patriarch of Rome, and subsequently every transgression by the latter [the Pope] was forbidden. Not only was the Bishop of Constantinople equated to the Bishop of Rome, but Photios himself was personally elevated above Pope John." The Patriarchs of the East had praised Photios with their epistles. Michael of Alexandria addressed him as "a luminous and illuminated person, the perfection of Priesthood, the gnomon of truth, arch-pastor of the Church of God". Theodosius of Jerusalem referred to him as "head of the body of the Church". Theodosius of Antioch as "holy father" while Avramius of Amida also called him "holy father". But even the papal representatives compared Photios "to the sun" that illuminates "all of creation". During the last session, where Procopius of Caesaria in praise of Photios had said: "this is the kind of person that should truly have the supervision of the entire world - in the manner of the arch-shepherd, Christ our God", the papal representatives had added: What you said is true "and we, who live at the end of the earth, these are the same things that we hear"! But even before these words were uttered, the same representatives had said[16]: "Blessed be our God, for the good fame of the most holy Photios the Patriarch has reached not only our land, but all over the world". And yet, Saint Photios "did not puff up [become arrogant, pompous, haughty] on account of these praises, and he never sought to exercise an office above the one set by the holy canons".

It is also worth noting that the Synod of AD 879-880 ended with the following statements about Photios: "Paul and Eugene, the most holy Bishops and vicars of Old Rome, also Peter, the very God-fearing presbyter and cardinal, said: if someone does not consider him [Photios] to be a holy Patriarch and does not respect communion with him, let his portion be with that of Judas and let him not be included at all among the Christians. And the Holy Synod cried out: all of us believe and think the same, and if someone does not consider him a Hierarch of God, let him not see the glory of God"[17].

Pope John VIII initially acknowledged this Synod, after being notified of its Minutes. The Latins however did not want the Minutes to be published! At the same time they attempted to alter them, or to deny their authenticity! ... Scientifically however, all these attempts have now been refuted so, nowadays both the authority of that historic Synod, as well as its Minutes "remains incontestable".

A timely blow against the Papist primacy of authority

It was very natural that the decision of the historic Synod of AD 879-880 would displease the Pope. For this reason, on account of certain complaints made by the Pope against this most important Synod [chiefly because the Church of Bulgaria was not ceded to his jurisdiction and because Patriarch Photios had not officially expressed his gratitude towards the Roman Church in that Synod, for the recognition on their part of Photios], Latin historians asserted that the Papal representatives who had participated in the aforementioned Synod: a] had violated the instructions that had been given to them; b] were not familiar with the Hellenic language and for this reason were not in a position to properly whatever was being discussed; c] were bribed! ... But these arguments by the Franco-Latin historians merely prove that either the Pope's representatives were incapable of faithfully upholding Rome's guidelines or, that when observing and familiarizing themselves with matters at close range, they perceived the irrationality of the Pope's demands[18]. Besides, the two Bishops [representatives] of the Pope had remained in Constantinople for about two years prior to the Synod of AD 879-880 and therefore it was only natural that they would have learnt and subsequently comprehended the Hellenic language very well. Furthermore, Cardinal Peter, a member of the Pope's delegation at the Synod, had vividly participated in the Synod's discussions, proving his familiarity with the Hellenic language. Moreover, all three Papal representatives "were convinced by and acquiesced on the decisions" during the Synod.

Apart from the other very positive results of the aforementioned Synod, it was also "proven" that the Bishop of Rome "is not the ruler of the catholic [entire] Church; that his authority is not absolute and therefore he had improperly and mom-canonically intervened in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople [...]. Hence a timely blow was struck against Papal authority, given that it had expressed itself with non-canonical acts. The new primacy of authority was rebutted. It was accepted that the Pope of Rome is one of the five Patriarchs of the catholic [overall] Church and that the honorary primacy that he has -along with them- does not give him the right for arbitrary transgressions [...]. Through this [Synod], the Church had once more officially refuted the primacy of authority of the Bishop of Rome. The decisions of this Synod were in accordance with what the preceding Ecumenical Synods had instituted, in compliance with the Tradition of the Church"[19].

Conclusion

Pursuant to the above, it is proven that the united Church during the first millennium had never acknowledged in the Bishop of Rome "a primacy of authority and power at a universal level". It only admitted that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals (primus inter pares) - among the five Patriarchs. It conceded that he, just like the Bishop of Antioch, did not inherit any privilege of administrative authority or office from the Apostle Peter, who -after all- was never the head or any kind of monarch of the Christian world, nor was he the founder of the Church of Rome, nor had he ever served as bishop for a long time in Rome. Furthermore, the Bishop of Rome is not a successor of the Apostle Peter, given that Peter had never been Bishop of Rome. These claims have no historical basis[20]. But even if we accept that the Apostle Peter had founded the Church of Rome, so what? Was that the only Church that he had founded? Both he and the Apostle Paul had founded many Churches.

Therefore, the office of Pope was the same as the office of the other Patriarchs. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical Synods, which had spoken of the "primacy of honour" for the Bishop of Rome, did not state that they had determined this as a "divine right" or "by divine command and in relation to the Apostle Peter"; they had determined it thus, because Rome was the ancient capital of the State. Besides, it was for this reason that the throne of Constantinople was honoured "for Her being the New Rome"[21].

This, therefore, has been the steadfast faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who has continued to unswervingly uphold the guideline, the teaching and the tradition of the united Church of the first eight centuries. This was also declared by the response of the Synod of Constantinople of 1895 to Pope Leo XIII, who had been inviting the Orthodox to a union with Rome, on the basis of the principles of the Latin Unia! That significant Patriarchal and Synodical Epistle, which had been sent to the Pope in August of 1895, mentioned among other things [excerpt conveyed here in an English translation]:

"XVI. Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the synodical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods"[22]. Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and ii sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism unknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebuked The assertion therefore of Leo XIII, when he says in his Encyclical that before the period of the great Photius the name of the Roman throne was holy among all the peoples of the Christian world, and that the East, like the West, with one accord and without opposition, was subject to the Roman pontiff as lawful successor, so to say, of the Apostle Peter, and consequently vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is proved to be inaccurate and a manifest error.

XVII. During the nine centuries of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the excessive claims of primacy on the part of the bishops of Rome, nor consequently did she ever submit herself to them, as Church history plainly bears witness [...]".

These are the things that prevailed up until the time that the Church was united. This position is summarised very nicely by Professor Demetrius Tselengides, who writes:

During the first millennium, when the Church was united, "the supreme authority in the Universal Church was exercised always and only by the Ecumenical Synods. Besides, the Orthodox Church had never accepted the papal primacy, the way it was perceived and interpreted by the 1st Vatican Council [1869-1870], which had proclaimed the Pope as the infallible expresser of the conscience of the Church, with the ability to contradict even those decisions by an Ecumenical Synod!" With this decision, the heretic Papists "not only invalidate the synodic system of administration of the Church; they essentially invalidate that very presence of the Holy Spirit in Her"[23].

Now that the "Church" of Rome is clearly heretical, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church is held by the Patriarch of Constantinople ["for her being New Rome"], who is, however, "the first among equals". Every other position is inadmissible and constitutes an entirely illegitimate and conceited claim to disastrous authoritarianism in the Church and a Luciferian mindset.

Those who strive to support this antichristian mindset are doing so in vain and are committing a grave sin. This is the reason that every time this foreign mindset appeared the Church reacted, checked it, castigated it and rejected it. That is why there can be no substantial dialogue with the Vatican as long as the Pope continues to persist in the accursed "primacy of authority" which is a horrible ecclesiological heresy, as are "infallibility", the procession of the Holy Spirit "and from the Son " [Filioque] and his other heresies.

"Papal primacy: a Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy"
NICHOLAS P. VASILIADES
BROTHERHOOD OF THEOLOGIANS "O SOTER" - ATHENS 2009

---

[1] Cf. the Ravenna Document: Ecclesiological and Canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.
[2] Cf. "The Theological Dialogue between Orthodoxy and Papism", magazine "O Soter", issue 1985, pp. 361-363 and issue 1986, pp. 390-392
[3] St. BASIL THE GREAT, Epistles 239, To Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, PG 32, 893B
[4] S. SYROPOULOS, Les "MEMOIRS" sur le Concile de Florence [1438-1439], supervised byV. Laurent, ed. Du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971, Vol. VII, Chap. 22, p. 372 [17-21]. For more cf. NIK. P. VASILIADES, St. Mark the Eugenicus and the Union of the Churches. Edition "O Soter", 20076, p.109
[5] JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Athens 19602, p.267
[6] For more see also CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Historical and critical study, ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642, pp. 15-20.
[7] Cf. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder of the noetic nous of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, ed. "Aster", Al. and E. Papadimitriou, Athens 1970, "Prolegomena" to the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, p.118, footnote 1.
[8] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, pp. 157-158
[9] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Hermeneutics on the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, Rudder, pp. 207-208
[10] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, p.252
[11] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.22
[12] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.71
[13] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 78-86
[14] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.176
[15] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.184
[16] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 192-193. Mansi XVI, 521; 524
[17] Mansi XVII, 524
[18] Cf. CONSTANTINE PAPARREGOPOULOS, History of the Hellenic Nation, ed. Eleutheroudakis, Athens 1932, Vol. 4, Part 1, p.265
[19] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 198-199
[20] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.10
[21] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.204. For the position and role of Apostle Peter in the Church, see the beautiful and very informative study of P. N. TREMBELAS On the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965
[22] For the entire text of the very important reply cf. JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbol Records of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 2, Graz-Austria 19682, p.932[1018]-946a[1032]
[23] Letter of DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES, To the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain

---

[1] Newspaper KATHOLIKI [instrument of the Uniates of Greece], Athens 16.10.1963
[2] Cf. Letter of the Professor of the theological School of the A.U.T. DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain [www.romfea.gr, 14.9.2009]

Holy Father Arsenius of Cappadocia

November 10

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

Blooming in the Desert – Episode 6-Interview with Archpriest Eric Tosi, Secretary of the OCA

Interview with Father Eric.

Blooming in the Desert

-------------------------------
This episode was a lot of fun to do.

All the episodes are done in my home and this one was no different. What we did that was different was to open up my home to the parishioners who wished to attend. We served up some excellent local pizza and had soft drinks and beer and wine and made a night of it. We had a good 35 to 40 people present which will account for some of the noise in this podcast.

A fairly large number of people turned out from my home parish of St. Paul the Apostle Orthodox Church(OCA). As well, some other good friends from St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church also came out to be a part of the podcast which Father Eric Tosi so graciously accepted to take part in.Father Eric is the former priest of St. Paul in Las Vegas. He served the community here for about seven years before being called on to take a role in the Orthodox Church in America's central administration.

He is an officer of the Church at the national level and his official position is that of Secretary.

Father Eric was the priest who played a vital role in my life upon my return to the Church. I am very grateful for him and also for the time we spent together on many occasions. Many are the memories he left behind for so many of us.

We all knew he left for reasons that God had called him to. He was part of the "solution" to the ailments of the Orthodox Church in America's former troubles which in large measure abated with the election of His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah at the 15th All American Council which took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in November 2008. I was at that Conference.

Father Eric, along with many others, was instrumental in the Conference itself as well in many of the reforms of transparency in the Church.

This interview , on Blooming in the Desert, is in large part his telling of the story of his transition from parish priest to being on the administrative side of the Church. Almost the entire first half of this podcast is him answering questions in response to the many questions he was asked regarding the change from a "simple" parish priest to an officer on the national level.

We then asked other questions which ranged from questions on theology, ecclesiology and the like to questions of evangelism and questions of presenting the Orthodox Faith to those who are new.

I won't say anymore but would direct you to the show.

READ THE PREVIOUS POST ON BLOOMING IN THE DESERT:

Blooming in the Desert – Episode 5 – Pillars of Piety Series Part 3: Almsgiving

We got a little busy and it took some time, but here is our latest release on almsgiving.

This proved to be rather difficult. Almsgiving is difficult to locate as an isolated subject apart from prayer and fasting in the writings of the Fathers and in modern writings as well.

That being the case, however, I like what the show has to offer in discussion on almsgiving.

Follow the link here to Blooming in the Desert to listen to this week's podcast and visit the blog post written to compliment it.

Previous post on Blooming in the Desert:

Venerable Matrona the Abbess of Constantinople

Commemorated on November 9

Saint Matrona, Abbess of Constantinople was born in the city of Perge Pamphylia (Asia Minor) in the fifth century. They gave her in marriage to a wealthy man named Dometian. When her daughter Theodota was born, they resettled in Constantinople. The twenty-five-year-old Matrona loved to walk to the temple of God. She spent entire days there, ardently praying to the Lord and weeping for her sins.

At the church the saint met two pious Eldresses, Eugenia and Susanna, who from their youth lived there in asceticism, work and prayer. Matrona began to imitate the God-pleasing life of an ascetic, humbling her flesh by abstinence and fasting, for which she had to endure criticism by her husband.

Her soul yearned for a full renunciation of the world. After long hesitation, St Matrona decided to leave her family and entreated the Lord to reveal whether her intent was pleasing to Him. The Lord heard the prayer of His servant. Once, during a light sleep, she had a dream that she had fled from her husband, who was in pursuit of her. The saint concealed herself in a crowd of monks approaching her, and her husband did not notice her. Matrona accepted this dream as a divine directive to enter a men's monastery, where her husband would not think to look for her.

She gave her fifteen-year-old daughter to be raised by the Eldress Susanna, and having cut her own hair and disguised herself in men's attire, she went to the monastery of St Bassion (October 10). There the Nun Matrona passed herself off as the eunuch Babylos and was accepted as one of the brethren. Apprehensive lest the monks learn that she was a woman, the saint passed her time in constant quietude and much work. The brethren marveled at the great virtue of Babylos.

One time the saint was working in the monastery vineyard with the other monks. The novice monk Barnabas noted that her ear-lobe was pierced and asked about it. "It is necessary, brother, to till the soil and not watch other people, which is not proper for a monk," answered the saint.

After a certain while it was revealed in a dream to St Bassion, the igumen of the monastery, that the eunuch Babylos was a woman. It was also revealed to Acacius, igumen of the nearby Abraham monastery. St Bassion summoned St Matrona and asked in a threatening voice why she had entered the monastery, to corrupt the monks, or to shame the monastery.

With tears the saint told the igumen about all her past life, about her husband, hostile to her efforts and prayers, and about the vision directing her to go to the men's monastery. Convinced that her intent was pure and chaste, St Bassion sent St Matrona to a women's monastery in the city of Emesa. In this monastery the saint dwelt for many years, inspiring the sisters by her high monastic achievement. When the Abbess died, by the unanimous wish of the nuns the Nun Matrona became head of the convent.

The fame of her virtuous activities, and miraculous gift of healing, which she acquired from the Lord, spread far beyond the walls of the monastery. Dometian also heard about the deeds of the nun. When St Matrona learned that her husband was coming to the monastery and wanted to see her, she secretly went off to Jerusalem, and then to Mount Sinai, and from there to Beirut, where she settled in an abandoned pagan temple. The local inhabitants learned of her seclusion, and began to come to her. The holy ascetic turned many from their pagan impiety and converted them to Christ.

Women and girls began to settle by the dwelling of the nun and soon a new monastery was formed. Having fulfilled the will of God, revealed to her in a dream, the saint left Beirut and journeyed to Constantinople where she learned that her husband had died. With the blessing of her spiritual Father, St Bassion, the ascetic founded a women's monastery in Constantinople, to which sisters from the Beirut convent she founded also transferred. The Constantinople monastery of St Matrona was known for its strict monastic rule and the virtuous life of its sisters.

In extreme old age St Matrona had a vision of the heavenly Paradise and the place prepared for her there after 75 years of monastic labor. At the age of one hundred, St Matrona blessed the sisters,and quietly fell asleep in the Lord.

Troparion - Tone 8

The image of God was truly preserved in you, O Mother,
for you took up the Cross and followed Christ.
By so doing, you taught us to disregard the flesh, for it passes away;
but to care instead for the soul, since it is immortal.
Therefore your spirit, O holy Mother Matróna, rejoices with the angels.

Kontakion - Tone 8

You passed through the storm of life without faltering, chosen and godly Mother Matróna,
guided to the harbor of life, where you sing hymns to the Deliverer.
You ever pray that Christ may grant us grace and mercy;
you preserve the flock which you painstakingly gathered!

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

Groundless and dangerous are the theological dialogues

From here.
-----------------------------------

Groundless and dangerous are the theological dialogues
Letter by: Mr. Paul Savvidis, Theologian.

To the obvious and unrepentant ones, apart from the unnecessary and foolish continuous theological and ecclesiastic dialogues, a clear argument is made of the Papist and Orthodox views below and in fact manifested, the bare faced effort to impose the papist falsehoods.

I believe that the whole process starts not from one simple false theological ecclesiastic basis but from a groundless rationale of an ecclesiastic nature. It is an undeniable truth that the papist theologians never begin the theological dealings with sincere intentions for a complete agreement of compliance on the pure, indissoluble, inseparable and non negotiable positions of the mutual faith of the first eight centuries, of the seven ecumenical Synods until the unlucky day of the 20^th July 1054.

All the subsequent convulsive actions of the papists aim at the creation or rather the duel to impress that they wish and are interested in the "union" which they themselves infringed upon and did everything towards the non-union since the omnipotence of a worldly and sole leader ensured fully the essentials for life to the obedient- ‘ferro iniqe" always to the disadvantage of the Orthodox people. The unpleasant historical reference to early and contemporary events cry aloud about the word of truth.

We now come to the essence of our topic. Our holy bishops, the presbyters, theologians and all those who take part- to whom were sent reasonable questions on past roaring improprieties- they know very well, or even faintly, that the Church comes together and is present during the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist. And in return, the Divine Eucharist accordingly unites her members to her Lifegiving Head, Lord Jesus Christ in such a way that to each of us the mystery of the Church is realized, that which Saint Chrysostom so characteristically notes, "We and Christ are one". Heading this Eucharistic Congregation "of the immortals", of the people of God, the head of the local Church, is the Bishop (where there is a Bishop, there is the Church) according to the Godbearing and apostolic Father Ignatios, but in his place also the Presbyter, namely the Priest.

The question that is directed to all those involved in the theological dialogue, who willingly or unwillingly missed the mark but who also co-traded with improper papist positions (Balamand agreement, Ravenna etc) can they assure us in an Orthodox and patristic way that the same Mystery of the Divine Eucharist exists and is officiated in Papism and is wholly valid? Even if we accept with impunity the answer YES, then naively and a lot more fruitlessly we "run and fail" to convince the Orthodox and the heterodox to unite since we are exactly of the same Holy Chalice which is also the sign of Union. To what purpose all this continuous theological and ecclesiastic upheaval of so many centuries? It is finally time to hasten with "jubilant feet and burning heart" to exchange the most desired embrace of love! Proper their priesthood, therefore proper also their mysteries.....

Here however we arrived at the Lydian rock of the problem and of our intense Orthodox puzzlement. We the Orthodox, clerics and lay people, believe, confess and declare in all directions "Urbi et Orbi" the ageless words of Saint Cyprianos "outside the Church, there is no salvation"! For in the Church belong the mysteries, the action of the divine Grace, the asceticism and theosis.

But oh nave papists since you do not have a church; you do not have priesthood or valid mysteries (since for you the divine Eucharist is a carrier ....... of germs and you do not offer it to your faithful!) towards what purpose all your eagerness for conferences, dialogues and sensational battles? Is it not enough that you have the visible representative (Vicar) of Christ, in the monstrosity - the Nation of the Vatican?!

Is it not a least indication of lack of fear of God and impudence to maintain that you are a "Church" and at the same time refer to us, the Orthodox, as "deceived brothers" when you cannot show us one saint, martyr or miracle worker, after your unilateral and deliberate departure from the fold of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? You who did not hesitate to downgrade to the point of degrading our magnificent and mutual saints such as Saint George, Saint Barbara and so many other just because they were easterners? I do not wish to be swept away to your slippery slope....

Do you have any blessed Elders with foresight and clear sighted you could point to us, such as the Paisioses, Jameses, Porphyrioses or other speculative souls hidden in the mountains and caves and "cavities of the earth" who have become poles of attraction and admired by so many deteriorated, aching and wounded souls?

Oh papists and all you Orthodox who take part in the conferences, you all well know that we have an amazing inter communion of only Orthodox holy churches in many same faith lands? Thus, Saint Nektarios of Egina travels to Russia and performs the mysteries (!), while Saint Seraphim of Sarov brings together thousands of faithful in Attica, Saint Luke the Physician, Archbishop of Crimea, performs moving miracles in our Country! Truly does the proud Rome, the nation of the Vatican, have to day something corresponding to offer us? Where and who are your saints "corrupted" or not who are miracle workers that the Orthodox may venerate them? Or perhaps is it without reason the three full bodied saints of the Ionion and the Lady Faneromeni are present there, as guarding sentries and protectors from the "western crest" and from the papist absolutism? Could you call your "priest" to make the holy water without salt- and remain unaffected from the corruption of time, or to cite exorcisms on a demoniac and him asking for an Orthodox priest because only he has the Grace of the mystery of Priesthood? The questions must seem to you overly na¨ve but they nevertheless remain unanswered? And about the Holy Light what is your position? And why does it only happens with the Orthodox?

Is the truth not crystal clear that you use an ambiguous language at the theological dialogues that reminds more of tough negotiations for the achievement of more diplomatic objectives and positions? How could you convince us of your sincere and untainted love when on the occasion of the illumined Elder Paisios was asked about the visit of the blessed Patriarch Demetrios to the Vatican with the familiar compliments and common prayers, replied "He was deceived"! How many more testimonies do we need? This is how you acted and will always continue to act.

One other question is directed to those responsible for the selection of the persons for the Orthodox representation. We believe that many occasions not only they do not uphold the word of truth but also sign articles which cry aloud that they contravene pure Orthodox patristic positions. They are neither better nor more qualified. A manifested ecumenical intention, an unprocurable Christianity, an unstable tendency at balancing of the truth and one similar division of the truth in all its twists and turns and selected parts. And at the end of all the deliberations naturally the "god pouring grace did not breathe" but they agreed "to an agreement badly agreed upon"!

On the lips of the pious people of God, the defender of the Orthodox dogma that under no occasion they can be - according to the ever memorable and champion struggler of Orthodoxy professor Mouratodis- "one irresolute, pathetic and externally propelled mass" exists the bitter and often the most bitter complaint, why at those conferences that are called, no matter how they are called, there do not take part people of theological, patristic and of fighting stature from the venerable Hierarchy of Greece? The mention of certain names will clash with their mediocrity. In the garden of our Most Holy Mary could it be possible that there do not exist holy and illumined personalities whose account and testimony of the theological truth is a fruit of purely painful and intense prayers and repentance? Could it be possible that our schools are lacking personalities of Teachers in action and worth who teach and transfuse the pure patristic spirit and the deposition of the greatly honourable Truth, which is the guarantee of the unchanging orthodox teaching? And finally the Orthodox Hierapostolic Brotherhoods do they not have eminent theological personalities whose both oral and especially written word is the guarantee of Orthodoxy and together the heavy artillery of our Church against all sorts of heretical teachings?

Unfortunately most of those who participate are called "Legionaires" namely those who are resident abroad, who are deeply indoctrinated or better grafted by the intense worldly spirit of the West and that is why their theological armor is nowhere to be found, with no backbone and mostly "graceless" and not seldom with negotiated heretical solutions- positions. The testimony and the submission of their written articles, cry for the word of truth! Not few times in their worldly circles what counts for them is not the ascetic spirituality of Orthodoxy, but the "appearance" or rather their civil image, the exterior picture which is backed by titles and civil and philanthropic works!

They are masters of dialogue, inexcusable luxury and much more wasted time for us to try through this type of meetings to convince the inconvincible papists about the treasures of our Church and the correctness of our dogmas. The Union, may I immediately correct, namely the return of the heretics to the Orthodox Church, can happen through contrition, with sincere tears of repentance and confession and above all by the traditional, pure and as such valid Baptism. Everything else is from the evil one.....

The last and most compassionate word is directed with great respect as much to the venerable head as to the Hierarchy of our Most Holy and Martyric Cyprus. Why, honourable fathers so much preparation, so much zeal for one more ecumenical conference- dialogue on your sanctified island? Could it be that the present Attila did not have as ancestor the other "civilized" Frankish Attila that not only did he oppress your island but unblushingly devasted and "sacrificed" with his inhuman bestialities - ferociously and with unabated appetite? Perhaps you should be reminded of the truth when the thirteen holy martyrs of Kantara of Nicosia (Lefkosia) rise from their tombs?

Truly you know of the many steps of the papists towards all of the international organizations with intense protests and balloting resolutions for the invasion of Attila, and what about their results? When did the "Christian" west exert influence on the old and sinful Albion to avert the hangings of the fighters of EOKA? I fear that perhaps like the pope who had sent a disgusting congratulatory telegraph to Kemal Ataturk on the slaughter of the Orthodox population of Smyrna, perhaps again their guilty silence secretly or openly, God knows, contributes to the freeze of the presently existing situation?

And the final word. The Dialogues are rather cosmetic and social meetings- according to the lay expression in other words "to love each other" with the corresponding excessive compliments, the competing bids for the most expensive gifts and the luxurious dinners, the hotel comforts. Truly, perhaps the hospitality of an austere Monastery at least for the Orthodox representatives with some "frugal abundance" would have been the prudent place? And in the present economic crisis how many open wounds could have been patched up if this fruitless and provocative extravagance was invested on families that live at the limits of morbid starvation?

To be sincere and honest with ourselves, the great losers will be the Orthodox who in knowledge or ignorance bargain or compromise positions-eternal truths and imperishable. Having won,the papists who with their known time wasting evasions and tricks, try to convince and pass their obvious anti-ecclesiasticism for "ecclesiology".

In this chaotic impasse and religious syncretism which is the consequence but also the continuation of an immoral morality which completely nibbles all the spiritual vitality of the land and creates an atrocious hell, sometime sooner or later, like charmingly Elder Paisios used to repeat "The Spiritual Laws shall also work". Namely, all the entangled parts and the interlaced self interests "will pay the price" painfully on a personal or even social level for all those mostly provocative, ecumenistic fiestas.

Nothing has been lost yet. Glory be to God, there is still adequate time to reverse things through repentance. The Orthodox Church always lived and lives the miracle of the return of the "deceived" and their re-gathering into her Fold.

But all our own who participate in the theological conferences let them know "full well" that the "last word" of all the decisions of a theological mixing of Orthodox and papist "belongs to the people of God" which is again ready but also mature to respond with the timeless word of Joseph Bryenios, "we shall not deny you our friend Orthodoxy".

Let the papists also hear these.

The present article is also part of the signing of the "Confession of Faith"

Paul Savvidis
Teacher of Theology, 5^th Gymnasium of Veria

pavlos_sav@yahoo.gr

Two Deaths- A Halloween Story

Every so often it happens to me that my past love of Punk Rock is renewed and brought back up to the surface when happening to chance upon a link on YouTube or on facebook or any other site I may happen to be on of some band I used to like and listen to. I don't happen to be looking for it but when I chance upon it, I click and whoosh...I'm 20 years younger again. But not really. I am who I am today because of my past but I am who I am today in spite of my past.

Formed by the past and reacting to the past all in one person.

I click on the link of whichever artist I happen to see and sort of relive my teenage years and early twenties. What usually happens is that I reminisce and begin searching YouTube for footage of bands I have liked or had interest in. I give them a listen and they seem so fresh as they were then except I see more now than I did then. Much the same phenomena when I was young and loved my favorite cartoons.

The cartoons were one thing then but revisiting them as an adult I have often been surprised by their sheer complexity and in the adult matter they actually convey.

As a boy I lost myself in them but when seeing them now, critically, I discover much about cognition, comprehension, meaning and applicability of the data I received in my past viewing cartoons or the music I listened to as I got older. In other words I analyze their meaning to me then by what I know now and who I am now.

I use cartoons and especially music to make the comparison with then and now but I do so not with music and cartoons being exclusive vehicles of the comparison, but as types, and ones of my own particular life and experience and only two of the unlimited types available for the sake of this post to make such a comparison with. In saying this, I leave you the reader to meditate on your own types and what it is that formed you and your own understandings of then and now.

Listening to the music artists I then remember others and I look them up. I have been doing this quite a bit recently.

One artist I never listened to growing up was GG Allin. Not for any particular reason other than he didn't appeal to me at that time. His name and notoriety was familiar, however, and I knew basically what he was about.

In my recent reminisces I decided to see more about what he was about through the Youtube material available.

The following pretty much sums up what the man was all about. It is the first part of four recorded for The Jane Whitney Show in 1993.



Once getting on the link you can access the other three parts if you wish but I won't post them here.

In taking his own message to its logical outcome, he wished to kill himself publicly at one of his performances. He never actually did carry this out as his death came upon him unexpectedly and in a manner not of his choosing.

I became more interested and watched a few more of the videos and ran across this video, taken at his funeral.




How garish and unclean the corpse looks. The following account of his funeral is taken from the above referenced link to GG Allin in the "Death" section of the article.

At his funeral, Allin's bloated, discolored corpse was dressed in his black leather jacket and trademark jock strap. He had a bottle of Jim Bean beside him in his casket, per his wishes (openly stated in his self-penned acoustic country ballad, "When I Die"). As part of his brother's request, the mortician was instructed not to wash the corpse (which smelled strongly of feces), or apply any makeup. The funeral became a wild party. Friends posed with the corpse, placing drugs and whiskey into its mouth. As the funeral ended, his brother put a pair of headphones on Allin. The headphones were plugged into a portable cassette player, in which was loaded a copy of The Suicide Sessions. The video of his funeral is widely available for purchase, and is an extra feature on the Hated DVD and some bootleg VHS tapes.

After seeing the video of his funeral I was thinking about him. I also experienced the desire to pray for him and I felt a loss that there are so many like him who are slaves to the nihilism that pervades and permeates us as a mode of being in our current world or perhaps more accurately we may state the present nihilism to be quite "natural" and well suited to the Fallen World and an outworking of the continuing spirit of the age opposed to God Incarnate in Christ.

I also thought about him and his life and why he chose to live that way. I thought of him with sadness and even prayed for him, understanding that Christ mourned over his death and his rejection of Him. This man, GG Allin, filled with such pain and misery expired in his rage. I thought of myself who lived as he did, just not having taking it to the level he did. I thought of all of us who perhaps will never do what GG Allin did but who nonetheless are partakers of Death and the living out of the death of this present age.

GG Allin was not a poser. He tried to "break through" in his own sick way out of the trap of existence deprived of its filling with God. He was not able to penetrate and burst this plane and I believe his rage was both a result of and a fuel he drew on to attempting to burst through. Perhaps along the lines of what Jim Morrison of The Doors meant when he sang "Break on Through".

There is no breaking through this existence which is defined by Death without being found in Him Who is both Creator and the one Who overcame this present age and Who calls all to be found in Him that we too may escape the corruption of the present age of Death we sojourn in.

My thoughts turned to the Blessed Elder Joseph of Vatopedi who recently reposed in the Lord. I thought of the circumstances of his death and on the article I posted relating to the events following his repose. You may also view footage of his funeral as well by following the link here. The picture you see is the one that was taken of him some time after his death when the smile came upon his face that amazed all who saw it. This story has been widely circulated and is a great encouragement.

I could not help but be struck by the very different lives of these two men and the very different ways they were treated after their deaths.

One, Elder Joseph, participating with his will in the Uncreated Energies of the Triune God and experiencing heaven while alive, dies with his entire person in the hope of the Resurrection.

The other, GG Allin, dies with hatred against God and as in life, so his spirit leaves his body and lies putrid; his body reflecting the death so well which he so tried to emulate and "live".

For me, GG Allin was the me of then taken to its logical conclusion in the type he represented and Elder Joseph is the me of then who is now attempting to live his type now to the glory of God that I too may experience the Resurrection unto Life.

7th Sunday of Luke

Tone of the week: Plagal of the First Tone

Eleventh Eothinon

Resurrectional Apolytikion in the Plagal of the First Tone

Let us worship the Word who is unoriginate * with the Father and the Spirit, and from a Virgin was born * for our salvation, O believers, and let us sing His praise. * For in His goodness He was pleased * to ascend the Cross in the flesh, and to undergo death, * and to raise up those who had died, * by His glorious Resurrection.

Resurrectional Kontakion in the Plagal of the First Tone

You descended to Hades, my Savior, and shattered its gates, as the Almighty. As Creator, You raised the dead with yourself, and smashed the sting of death, O Christ. You freed Adam from the curse, O Lover of humanity. Therefore we all cry out to You, Save us, O Lord.

Seasonal Kontakion in the Fourth Tone

Today, the most pure temple of the Savior, the precious bridal chamber and Virgin, the sacred treasure of God, enters the house of the Lord, bringing the grace of the Divine Spirit. The Angels of God praise her. She is the heavenly tabernacle.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

Martyrs Melasippus and Karina and their son Antoninus, and 40 children

Commemorated on November 7

The Martyrs Melasippus and Karina and their son Antoninus, and 40 children converted by their martyrdom at Ancyra suffered during the reign of the emperor Julian the Apostate in the city of Ancyra in Phrygia in the year 363. The holy Martyrs Melasippus and Karina, lacerated by iron hooks and exhausted, died under torture.

Their son Antoninus, whom the persecutor forced to watch the torture of his parents, spat in the face of the apostate emperor. For this he was subjected to cruel tortures, but he remained unharmed, and then he was beheaded. Forty other youths, seeing that the Lord had preserved His confessor Antoninus unharmed by tortures, believed in Christ, and they openly confessed their faith and endured martyrdom.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

Venerable Luke the Steward of the Kiev Near Caves

Commemorated on November 6


SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

Apostles' Patrobas, Hermes, Linus, Gaius, Philologus, Apostles of the Seventy

Commemorated on November 5

Saints Patrobas, Hermes, Linus, Gaius, Philologus, Apostles of the Seventy preached the Gospel in various cities, each enduring various hardships in their service as bishops.

St Patrobas (Rom 16:14) was Bishop of Neopolis (now Naples) and Puteoli in Italy.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):

St John of Georgia

Commemorated on November 4

Among the multitude of saints we remember those Christians who dedicated their earthly lives to glorifying God and serving others. In a single lifetime they performed all the spiritual feats of the venerable and devout fathers, confessors, and martyrs.

Among the saints canonized by the Georgian Church, only four have been called “Righteous.” They are St. Ilia Chavchavadze, well known as the “father” and “uncrowned king” of the Georgian nation, and Sts. John, Steven, and Isaiah the Georgians.

It is believed that Holy John, Steven, and Isaiah lived in Jerusalem and guarded the Tomb of our Lord. It is probable that the Georgian Orthodox Church proclaimed them deserving of exceptional honor in recognition of their dedicated service at the Tomb of the Savior.

For several centuries the Georgian Church has glorified the Righteous John, Steven, and Isaiah and asked for their intercessions before the Lord.
SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008(with 2007's link here also):