Thursday, July 16, 2009

Martyr Alevtina (Valentina) at Caesarea, in Palestine

Commemorated on July 16

The Holy Martyrs Alevtina, Paul, and Chione were from Egypt. During the persecution against Christians under the emperor Maximian (305-313), they were taken to Palestinian Caesarea. Without the slightest fear they confessed themselves as followers of Christ. In the year 308 the sisters Alevtina and Chione were burned, and Paul was beheaded.




SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Books I've Read(or am reading)-Twenty-Two:"Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" by Father Seraphim Rose




(Click on images to enlarge)



















Front cover: The triumph of the Archangel Michael over the antichrist, who is shown falling into the abyss together with the cities of this world at the end of time. Fresco by Pimen Maximovich Sofronov in the Sepulchre of St. John (Maximovitch) of Shangahai and San Fransisco, below the Mother of God "Joy of All Who Sorrow" Cathedral in San Fransisco.

My stash of completed books has grown in front of my computer waiting for me to post on them. I somehow have managed to fall behind in keeping up with posting on each book as I complete it and now I wish I had commented sooner on this one as its contents are not fresh in my mind and I think this to be an important book for many reasons.

First, in these evil days when the byword is "love" and "tolerance" in all things regarded as "Christian", the tone is refreshingly and shockingly uncompromising which serves as a wake up call when read for no other reason that even if one disagrees with Father Seraphim, one at least is challenged as to why he disagrees and is polarized into a very definite stance. I find this refreshing in an age when every blow, if there is ever a blow delivered, is softened and made to appeal to the vague everyone in effort to not affront anyone. Fire is in these pages and from them a man speaks to us, every fibre of his being warning and admonishing. Warning and admonishing itself is not fashionable in our day but perhaps to be fair they never were fashionable in any age.

To believe with Father Seraphim that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church and that outside Her is not the Church is laughable in our day and age when there is in truth no the anything anymore, an age characterized by a relativism all pervasive and rendering even the plausibility of there being a transcendent Truth to be preposterous and anyway, "Just one's opinion."

No idea or principle holds gravity or gains any traction as everything "is just part of the show, folks", entertain me, damn it." "Truth is fine. Give me more of it! (uh, does it pay? is anyone watching me know truth?)"

I also find this book important because it takes serious the belief in wicked spirits and their influence in the affairs of men. As the body may contract sickness and disease why are we not wise according to the spirit also prone to disease and sickness through what it indulges in?

Father Seraphim reminds us that we are not living in Disneyland. There is a deadly seriousness to having being, just existing. He reminds us that the Lord, His Apostles, all the books of the New Testament and the Holy Fathers take very seriously spiritual deception and that as one day is added to another and history moves towards its consummation the Lord draws near.

The Lord will most definitely return. But prior to His most definite return is also foretold by Him and all who speak expressly in the Spirit that most definitely will come this Antichrist.

With Father Seraphim and all the Saints who spoke on these matters and with our Lord, may we admonish one another, saying, "Let us be wise and sober according to our age. We know not the day and time but we are told to observe the season and to notice the leaves on the trees changing color."

Father Seraphim in this book speaks on many subjects but each of the deceptions is understood to have an underlying unifying thread. He gives a thorough treatment on UFO phenomena and parallels the experiences of those who have had "close encounters" with classic demonic manifestation and possession of the previous era. I have had this chapter, actually on my sidebar for quite some time and one may read it here:Father Seraphim Rose on UFOs in "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future".

This book has had a big influence in Russia and for many gave guidance towards Orthodoxy.

Again, an important book.


READ THE PREVIOUS POST IN THIS SERIES:

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Martyr Julita (Ulita) of Tarsus

Commemorated on July 15

The Holy Martyrs Cyricus and Julitta lived in the city of Iconium in the province of Lykaoneia in Asia Minor. St Julitta was descended from an illustrious family and was a Christian. Widowed early on, she raised her three-year old-son Cyricus (Quiricus). During the emperor Diocletian's persecution of Christians, St Julitta departed the city with her son and two trustworthy servants, leaving behind her home, property, and servants.

Concealing her noble rank, she hid out first at Seleucia, and then at Tarsus. There around the year 305 she was recognized, arrested and brought to trial before the governor, Alexander. Strengthened by the Lord, she fearlessly answered the judge's questions, and firmly confessed her faith in Christ.

The governor gave orders to beat the saint with rods. During her torments St Julitta kept repeating, "I am a Christian, and will not offer sacrifice to demons."

The little boy Cyricus cried, seeing his mother being tortured, and wanted to go to her. The governor Alexander tried to sit him on his lap, but the boy broke free and shouted, "Let me go to my mother, I am a Christian." The governor threw the boy down from the high tribunal and kicked him down the stone steps. The boy struck his head on the sharp edges and died.

St Julitta, seeing her lacerated son, gave thanks to God that He had permitted her child to be perfected before her, and to receive the unfading crown of martyrdom. After many cruel tortures St Julitta was beheaded with a sword.

The relics of Sts Cyricus and Julitta were uncovered during the reign of St Constantine the Great (May 21). A monastery was built near Constantinople in honor of these holy martyrs, and a church was built not far from Jerusalem.

We pray to Sts Cyricus and Julitta for family happiness, and the restoration of sick children to health.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor (II)

With questions for Photios and whomever else in the Comment Box.

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor


by Daniel Jones(Photios)
Page 1

II. The ‘Origenist Problem’

To understand the ‘investigative’ theology of Origen’s On First Principles, we need to outline two basic concepts of Plotinus’s ‘The One.’ For Plotinus, ‘The One’ is utter transcendence, beyond all predications, and is “absolute unity itself:”5

It [the One] is not a thing or quality or quantity or intellect or soul: It is not in motion or at rest…It is not thought for there is no otherness in It. It is not movement, but prior to movement

Page 2

and thought. For what would It think about? Itself? But then It would be ignorant before Its thought, and would need thought to know Itself...It is none of them, It can only be said to be beyond them. Now these things are beings, and being: so It [the One] is ‘beyond being’…’Beyond being’ is not Its name; all that it implies is that It is ‘not this.’6


This very apophatic approach to ‘the One’ harkens back to Plato in book VI of The Republic that all human cognition of the good can never pick out the good because the good in its essence is altogether on the other side of esse (i.e. existence) and beyond the diastemic boundary of human cognition.7 However, there is another side to this coin for Plotinus’s conception of ‘the One’: within the One all predications are wholly indistinguishable. Being, activity, and will are all identical:

He is his own act, and is what He is not by chance but according to His own activity…So He is not ‘as He happened to be,’ but as he Himself wills…His essential being is his self-directed activity, and this is one with Himself.8


This concept of simplicity—all predications being identical and indistinguishable—is definitional to the One’s utter perfection. This leads to some interesting consequences. If the One is to be the One, multiplicity must stand over against the One, and the One could not be the One if it did not produce this multiplicity. Plotinus remarks that “everything which is multiple and not one is defective, since it is composed of many parts”9 which in turn means that “distinction is opposition.”10

We see in both of these accounts that there is a certain tension in Plotinus’ view of ‘the One.’ However, it is this latter concept of God being identical to all predications of Him, that one might employ, is inherent in Origen’s On First Principles11 to which I now turn.

For Origen, the problem of free-choice is centered on two anomalies. The first one is a

Page 3

divine problem. As we have stated with Plotinus, God's essence has no multiplicity or distinctions. Existence, Will, and Activity are wholly indistinguishable and identical.12 Any distinction of these attributes is only in the cognition of the human subject. Since God's activity is wholly indistinguishable from his Being, we can say that he is an 'ever-productive' agent. To be ever-productive, the divine essence must create, since it has no distinction of being, essence, will and activity. The essence has but one object of willing to choose—it has but one good thing to do.13 We can therefore say, for God's essence, true freedom is actually a freedom from free choice. Thus, for Origen God was by definition Creator and Almighty:

Accordingly, to prove that God is almighty we must assume the existence of the universe. For if anyone would have it that certain ages, or periods of time, or whatever he cares to call them, elapsed during which the present creation did not exist, he would undoubtedly prove that in those ages or periods God was not almighty, but that he afterwards became almighty from the time when he began to have creatures over whom he could exercise power. Thus God will apparently have experienced a kind of progress, for there can be no doubt that it is better for him to be almighty than not to be so. Now how is it anything but absurd that God should at first not possess something that is appropriate to him and then should come to possess it? But if there was not time when he was not almighty, there must always have existed the things in virtue of which he is almighty; and there must always have existed things under his sway, which own him as their ruler.14

A couple of things that are worthy of noting from this passage: first, we see that the will as the ‘faculty of will’ that is proper to nature is not distinguished from the will as the ‘object of the will’ that the natural will is directed to. Thus, the natural faculty of will, which is identical to the essence, is the same as its object.15 This highlights confusion between nature and person, which has ramifications for Origen’s doctrine of the apokatastasis.16 For a restoration of one’s nature inevitably results in the restoration of one’s person as well. Secondly, since these two are not

Page 4

distinct, what is natural to an agent is absolutely necessary and not contingent. This ‘definitional simplicity’ leads free-will to be defined as between objects dialectically opposed.17 Like Plotinus’s conception of ‘the One’, creation stands over and against God, for the very purpose that God can be Creator. In other words, "he [Origen] imagined an endless flow of ages which had to be filled...Any sequence in the divine predicates appeared to him under the form of real temporal change; and therefore, having excluded change, he was inclined to deny any sequence at all to, or interdependence among, those predicates taken as a whole; he asserted more than the mere "co-eternity" of the world with God; he asserted the necessity of the divine self-disclosure ad extra, the necessity of the eternal realization of the fullness and of all the potentialities of Divine power."18 Likewise, "the world was impossible without God, and God was impossible without the world."19 Therefore, for Origen, God cannot choose not to create, since such a choice is entangled with a dialectic, which would involve multiplicity in Him, and given God's utter perfection, such would by definition be evil and impossible.20

The second problem in Origen’s doctrine of free-choice is the Saints in the Eschaton and this is a creaturely problem. Since we have just shown that for Origen God's freedom is really a freedom from free choice, creation on the other hand, being composite, must therefore involve choice. This choice, however, must precisely be between objects of differing moral value. The creature in its diversity must always have free volition, mutability, and motion:
the will's freedom always moves in the direction either of good or evil, nor can the rational sense, that is the mind or soul, ever exist without some movement either good or evil.21

We see in this passage that Origen logically ties personhood to free-choice and motion, but because he cannot disentangle motion and plurality from his definition of free-will as objects dialectically conditioned, this has some interesting consequences for the redeemed in the Eschaton. With God being absolutely simple, how many willing objects can there be? There can

Page 5

be only one metaphysical object in this logic,22 and Origen has ruled out all diversity or motion in the Eschaton for creatures—absorption into the One. However, Origen is not one to give up on the problem. We saw that motion, free-will, and personhood are tied together in his doctrine of free-choice. The redeemed have but one single good object to will, the other option by definition must be evil, which brings us to the culmination of this human problem as an eternal cycle of falls and redemptions:
the soul is immortal and eternal, it is possible that in the many and endless periods throughout diverse and immeasurable ages it may either descend from the Highest Good to the lowest evil or to be restored from the lowest evil to the Highest Good.23

This is how Origen logically believes in the pre-existence of souls. The cycle was the only conceptual way he could stave off absorption into the divine essence since sin was a clear individuating principle between God and creatures. Sin then becomes the distinguishing mark of creatures and their free will is thought of in terms of between options of differing moral worth, as we have already stated. Since God is perfect nothing sinful could become God thereby staving off divine absorption. The pre-existent souls in God are in stasis. Kinesis results in a fall from this unity resulting in Genesis of the corporeal world with a reversal of this process in a journey back to the One (Kinesis, Stasis).

Before we turn to Maximus and the Monothelite controversy, I wish to note the continuity with history that Maximus has of breaking up the ‘Origenist problem.’ This job seems to first fall to St. Athanasius in the controversy with the Arians over the deity of Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father. Arius was the one who first picked up on Origen’s dialectic that gives two opposed options: Either affirm the eternality of the Son and the eternality of the kosmos or to deny the eternity of the Son and the kosmos.24 In Saint Athanasius, the distinction between essence and will appears to be a real, metaphysical one:
A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the Father’s essence, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will

Page 6

what is by nature.25


Thus, St. Athanasius’s defense of the deity of Christ and His necessity from the Father, along with the free contingency of the world depends on a real distinction between essence and will.26

A continuing break up of the ‘Origenist problem’ occurs in the Cappadocians’s view of the proper knowledge of God through the process of conception (e/pi/noia) against the Semi-Arian Eunomians.27 According to Eunomius, the ούσία of the Father can be known through the precision of the terminology applied to it. It was this idea of having knowledge of the divine essence that the Cappadocians attacked:28
He makes Himself known that He is “by the greatness and beauty of His creatures proportionately” to the things that are known, vouchsafing to us the gift of faith by the operations of His hands, but not the comprehension of what He is.29

We are now able to outline 2 distinct principles that characterize definitional simplicity: 1) The principle of non-contradiction or that plurality cannot be disentangled from moral opposition,30 and 2) What is natural is compelled. With this hermeneutic in place, we can now proceed on with an investigation of Monotheletism.

5 Farrell, Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor, p. 40
6 Enneads VI:8:13; 9:3; V:5:6, c.f. cited in Farrell pp. 40-42
7 Plato, Republic, VI.509B: “You will agree that the Sun not only makes the things we see visible, but also brings them into existence and gives them growth and nourishment; yet he is not the same thing as existence. And so with the objects of knowledge: these derive from the Good not only their power of being known, but their very being and reality; and Goodness is not the same thing as being, but even beyond being, surpassing it in dignity and power.”
8 Ibid., VI:8:17; c.f. Farrell, p. 44
9 Ibid., VI:9:6.
10 Ibid, III:2:16; Farrell, p. 45. This is a very important principle for Monotheletism.
11 It is only my concern in this essay to show the similarity and comparison of this concept in Origen’s doctrine. Farrell, p. 52: “Origen was not familiar with the works of Plotinus, and derives his platonising tendencies largely from the Middle Platonists.”
12 Origen, On First Principles, Bk 1, c. 1
13 Farrell, p. 44
14 Origen, On First Principles, II, 2, 10
15 Thomas Aquinas makes the same claim in Summa Contra Gentiles I.74: “GOOD understood is the object of the will. But what is understood by God in the first place is the divine essence: therefore the divine essence is the first object of the divine will.”
16 We will see that Maximus holds to a notion of the apokatastasis but comes to a different conclusion because of the real distinction between persons and natures. This is likely what Gregory of Nyssa as interpreted by Maximus had in mind as well, although is much debated in modern scholarship.
17 Farrell, p. 55
18 Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Vol. III, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, p. 53
19 Ibid., pp. 55-56
20 Farrell, p. 55
21 Origen, On First Principles, III, 3, 5
22 Although there would be multiple creatures in the Eschaton, man’s natural desire is for God and He being the object of deification, lesser goods do not deify.
23 Ibid., III, 1, 23
24 Florovsky, Aspects, p. 46
25 Athanasius, Third Discourse Against the Arians III, 62, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 4, pp.427-428
26 Florovsky, Aspects, p. 53
27 The Eunomians also held to a ‘definitional’ simplicity of God.
28 See M. C. Steenberg’s excellent essay: The Cappadocian Fathers on Essence and Energy and the Knowledge of God: The Process of Epinoia. http://www.monachos.net/patristics epinoia_ennoia.shtml
29 Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius’s Second Book, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 5, p. 251
30 That is, “distinction is opposition.” Notice Thomas Aquinas’ agreement with this principle in his discussion on the distinctions of the Persons of the Trinity. Summa Theologiae I.28, A.3: “So as in God there is a real relation, there must also be a real opposition.”



READ THE PREVIOUS PART OF THIS PAPER:

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Apostle Aquila of the Seventy

Commemorated on July 14

Saint Aquila, Apostle of the 70: It is possible that he was a disciple of the Apostle Paul, a native of Pontus and a Jew, living in the city of Rome with his wife Priscilla (they are commemorated on February 13 on the Greek Calendar). During the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54) all the Jews were banished from Rome, so St Aquilla and his wife were compelled to leave. They settled in Corinth. A short while later, the holy Apostle Paul arrived there from Athens preaching the Gospel. Having made the acquaintance of Aquila, he began to live at his house and labored together with him, making tents.

Having receivedBaptism from the Apostle Paul, Aquila and Priscilla bacame his devoted and zealous disciples. They accompanied the apostle to Ephesus. The Apostle Paul instructed them to continue the preaching of the Gospel at Ephesus, and he himself went to Jerusalem, in order to be present for the feast of Pentecost. At Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla heard the bold preaching of a newcomer from Alexandria, the Jew Apollos. He had been instructed in the fundamentals of the Faith, but knew only the baptism of John the Forerunner. They called him over and explained more precisely about the way of the Lord.

After the death of the emperor Claudius, Jews were permitted to return to Italy, and Aquila and Priscilla then returned to Rome. The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans recalls his faithful disciples, "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who put forth their heads for my soul, whom I do not alone thank, but also all the Church of the Gentiles and the church of their household" (Rom. 16: 3-4). St Aquila did not long dwell in Rome: the Apostle Paul made him a bishop in Asia. St Aquila zealously labored at preaching the Gospel in Asia, Achaia and Heraklia. He converted pagans to Christ, he confirmed newly-converted Christians in the faith, he established presbyters and destroyed idols. St Priscilla constantly assisted him in the apostolic work. St Aquila ended his life a martyr: pagans murdered him. According to the Tradition of the Church, St Priscilla was killed together with him.

Troparion - Tone 1

As a disciple and companion of Paul
you received in your soul the grace of preaching.
You shone in the night of error and struggled for the Lord's glory.
Sacred minister of the Savior, Aquila, we all acclaim you.

Kontakion - Tone 4

The Church has acquired you, O Aquila,
who shine like a great sun.
With the splendor of your teaching
she enlightens those who honor you with faith,
glorious Apostle of the Lord.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Monday, July 13, 2009

Venerable Stephen of St Sava Monastery

Commemorated on July 13

Saint Stephen Sabbaites, nephew of St John of Damascus (December 4), was born in the year 725. The ten-year-old boy entered the Lavra of St Sava and spent his whole life at this monastery, sometimes going out into the desert for solitary ascetic deeds. The venerable Stephen was given the gifts of wonderworking and clairvoyance. He healed the sick, cast out devils, and discerned the thoughts of those coming to him for counsel. He died in the year 724, foretelling in advance the day of his death. The Life of the monk was compiled by his student Leontius.








SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Sunday, July 12, 2009

St Veronica (Bernice), a woman healed by Christ

Commemorated on July 12

According to Tradition, Saint Veronica was the woman with the issue of blood, who received healing by touching the hem of Christ's robe (Mt. 9:20).

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 Veronica, rejoices with the Angels!

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Saturday, July 11, 2009

St Olga the Princess of Russia, in Holy Baptism Called Helen

Commemorated on July 11

Saint Olga, Equal of the Apostles, was the wife of the Kievan Great Prince Igor. The struggle of Christianity with paganism under Igor and Olga, who reigned after Oleg (+ 912), entered into a new phase. The Church of Christ in the years following the reign of Igor (+ 945) became a remarkable spiritual and political force in the Russian realm. The preserved text of a treaty of Igor with the Greeks in the year 944 gives indication of this: it was included by the chronicler in the "Tale of Bygone Years," under the entry recording the events of the year 6453 (945).

The peace treaty had to be sworn to by both the religious communities of Kiev: "Baptized Rus", i.e. the Christian, took place in the cathedral church of the holy Prophet of God Elias (July 20); "Unbaptized Rus", i.e. the pagans, in turn swore their oath on their weapons in the sanctuary of Perun the Thunderer. The fact, that Christians are included in the document in the first place, indicates their significant spiritual influence in the life of Kievan Rus.

Evidently at the moment when the treaty of 944 was being drawn up at Constantinople, there were people in power in Kiev sympathetic to Christianity, who recognized the historical inevitability of involving Rus into the life-creating Christian culture. To this trend possibly belonged even prince Igor himself, whose official position did not permit him personally to go over to the new faith, nor at that time of deciding the issue concerning the Baptism of the whole country with the consequent dispersal throughout it of Orthodox Church hierarchs. The treaty therefore was drawn up in the circumspect manner of expression, which would not hinder the prince to ratify it in either the form of a pagan oath, or in the form of a Christian oath.

But when the Byzantine emissaries arrived in Kiev, conditions along the River Dneipr had essentially changed. A pagan opposition had clearly emerged, at the head of which stood the Varangian voevoda (military-leader) Svenel'd (or Sveinald) and his son Mstislav (Mtsisha) to whom Igor had given holdings in the Drevlyani lands.

Strong also at Kiev was the influence of the Khazar Jews, who could not but be displeased with the thought of the triumph of Orthodoxy in the Russian Land.

Unable to overcome the customary inertia, Igor remained a pagan and he concluded the treaty in the pagan manner, swearing an oath on his sword. He refused the grace of Baptism and was punished for his unbelief. A year later, in 945, rebellious pagans murdered him in the Drevlyanian land, cut down betwixt two trees. But the days of paganism and the lifestyle of the Slavic tribes basic to it were already numbered. The burden of government fell upon the widow of Igor -- the Kiev Great-princess Olga, and her three-year-old son Svyatoslav.

The name of the future enlightener of the Russian Land and of her native region is first to be met with in the "Tale of Bygone Years," in the phrase where it speaks about the marriage of Igor: "and they brought him a wife from Pskov, by the name of Olga." She belonged, so specifies the Joakimov Chronicle, to the lineage of the Izborsk princes, -- one of the obscure ancient-Russian princely dynasties, of which in Rus during the 10th-11th Centuries there numbered no less than twenty, but who were all displaced by the Rurikovichi or merged otherwise with them through marriage. Some of them were of local Slavic descent, others -- Varangian new-comers. It is known, that the Scandinavian Viking "koenigs" (kinglets) called to become princes in the Russian cities -- invariably assimilated to the Russian language, and often, they soon became genuinely Russian with Russian names and lifestyle, world-outlook and even physical appearance of attire.

Thus, Igor's wife also had the Varangian name "Helga," which in Russian is pronounced Olga. The feminine name Olga corresponds to the masculine name "Oleg" (Helgi), which means "holy" [from Germanic "heilig" for "holy"]. Although the pagan understanding of holiness was quite different from the Christian, it also presupposed within a man a particular frame of reference, of chastity and sobriety of mind, and of insight. The fact that people called Oleg the Wise-Seer ("Veschi") and Olga the Wise ("Mudra") shows the spiritual significance of names.

Rather later traditions regard her a native of a village named Vybuta, several kilometers from Pskov up along the River Velika. They still not so long ago used to point out at the river the Olga Bridge, the ancient fording place, Where Olga was met by Igor. The Pskov geographic features have preserved several names connected with this great descendent of Pskov: the village of Ol'zhinets and Ol'gino Pole (Olga Field); the Olga Gateway, one of the branches of the River Velika; Olga Hill and the Olga Cross near Lake Pskov; and the Olga Stone at the village of Vybuta.

The beginning of the independent rule of Princess Olga is connected in the chronicles with the narrative about her terrible revenge on the Drevlyani, who murdered Igor. Having sworn their oaths on their swords and believing "only in their swords", the pagans were doomed by the judgment of God to also perish by the sword (Mt. 26: 52). Worshipping fire among the other primal elements, they found their own doom in the fire. And the Lord chose Olga to fulfill the fiery chastisement.

The struggle for the unity of Rus, for the subordination to the Kievan center of mutually divisive and hostile tribes and principalities paved the way towards the ultimate victory of Christianity in the Russian Land. For Olga, though still a pagan, the Kiev Christian Church and its Heavenly patron saint the holy Prophet of God Elias [in icons depicted upon a fiery chariot] stood as a flaming faith and prayer of a fire come down from the heavens, and her victory over the Drevlyani -- despite the severe harshness of her victory, was a victory of Christian constructive powers in the Russian realm over the powers of a paganism, dark and destructive.

The God-wise Olga entered into history as a great builder of the civil life and culture of Kievan Rus. The chronicles are filled with accounts of her incessant "goings" throughout the Russian land with the aim of the well-being and improvement of the civil and domestic manner of life of her subjects. Having consolidated the inner strengthening of the might of the Kiev great-princely throne, thereby weakening the influence of the hodge-podge of petty local princes in Rus, Olga centralized the whole of state rule with the help of the system of "pogosti" (administrative trade centers). In the year 946 she went with her son and retinue through the Drevlyani land, "imposing tribute and taxes", noting the villages, inns and hunting places, liable for inclusion in the Kiev great-princely holdings. The next year she went to Novgorod, establishing administrative centers along the Rivers Msta and Luga, everywhere leaving visible traces of her activity. "Her lovischa (hunting preserves) were throughout all the land, the boundary signs, her places and administrative centers, wrote the chronicler, and her sleighs stand at Pskov to this very day, as are her directed places for snaring of birds along the Dneipr and the Desna Rivers; and her village of Ol'zhicha stands to the present day."

The "pogosti" established by Olga, as financial-administrative and law-court centers, represented sturdy props of great-princely power in these places.

Being first of all, and in the actual sense of the word, centers of trade and exchange (the merchant as "guest") gathered together and became organized around the settlements (and in place of the "humanly arbitrary" gathering of tribute and taxes, there now existed uniformity and order with the "pogosti" system). Olga's "pogosti" became an important network of the ethnic and cultural unification of the Russian nation.

Later on, when Olga had become a Christian, they began to erect the first churches at the "pogosti"; from the time of the Baptism of Rus the "pogost" and church (parish) became inseparably associated. (It was only afterwards with the existence of cemeteries alongside churches that there developed the current meaning of the Russian word "pogost" to nowadays signify "parish graveyard".)

Princess Olga exerted much effort to fortify the defensive might of the land. The cities were built up and strengthened, Vyshgorod (or Detintsa, Kroma) they enclosed with stone and oak walls (battlements), and they bristled them with ramparts and pallisades. Knowing how hostile many were to the idea of strengthening the princely power and the unification of Rus, the princess herself lived constantly "on the hill" over the Dneipr, behind the trusty battlements of Kievan Vyshgorod ("Verkhna-gorod" or "Upper-city"), surrounded by her faithful retainers. Two thirds of the gathered tribute, as the chroniclers testify, she gave over for the use of the Kiev "veche" (city-council), and the remaining one third went "to Olga, for Vyshgorod" -- for the needs of building fortifications. And to the time period of Olga, historians note the establishment of the first state frontiers of Russia -- to the west, with Poland. Heroic outposts to the south guarded the peaceful fields of the Kievans from the peoples of the Wild Plains. Foreigners hastened to Gardarika ("the land of cities"), as they called Rus, with merchandise and craftwares. Swedes, Danes, Germans all eagerly entered as mercenaries into the Russian army. The foreign connections of Kiev spread. This furthered the developement of construction with stone in the city, the beginnings of which was initiated under Olga. The first stone edifices of Kiev -- the city palace and Olga's upper enclosure -- were discovered by archaeologists only but in this century. (The palace, or more properly its foundations and remains of the walls were found in excavations during the years 1971-1972).

But it was not only the strengthening of the civil realm and the improvement of domestic norms of the manner of life for people that attracted the attention of the wise princess. Even more urgent for her was the fundamental transformation of the religious life of Rus, the spiritual transfiguration of the Russian nation. Rus had become a great power. Only two European realms could compare with it during these years in significance and might: in Eastern Europe -- the ancient Byzantine empire, and in the West the kingdom of Saxony.

The experience of both empires, connected with the exaltation in spirit of Christian teaching, with the religious basis of life, showed clearly, that the way to the future greatness of Rus lay not through military means, but first of all and primarily through spiritual conquering and attainment. Having entrusted Kiev to her teenage son Svyatoslav, and seeking grace and truth, Great-princess Olga in the Summer of 954 set off with a great fleet to Constantinople. This was a peaceful "expedition", combining the tasks of religious pilgrimage and diplomatic mission, but the political considerations demanded that it become simultaneously a display of the military might of Rus on the Black Sea, which would remind the haughty "Romaioi" [Byzantine Greeks] of the victorious campaigns of Askold and Oleg, who in the year 907 advanced in their shields "to the very gates of Constantinople."

The result was attained. The appearance of the Russian fleet in the Bosphorus created the necessary effect for the developing of Russo-Byzantine dialogue. In turn, the southern capital struck the stern daughter of the north with its variety of beauty and grandeur of architecture, and its jumbled mixture of pagans and peoples from all over the world. But a great impression was produced by the wealth of Christian churches and the holy things preserved in them. Constantinople, "the city of the imperial Caesar," the Byzantine Empire, strove in everything to be worthy of the Mother of God, to Whom the city was dedicated by St Constantine the Great (May 21) in 330 (see May 11). The Russian princess attended services in the finest churches of Constantinople: at Hagia Sophia, at Blachernae, and others.

In her heart the wise Olga found the desire for holy Orthodoxy, and she made the decision to become a Christian. The sacrament of Baptism was made over her by the Constantinople Patriarch Theophylactus (933-956), and her godfather was the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos (912-959). At Baptism she was given the name Helen in honor of the holy Equal of the Apostles Helen (May 21), the mother of St Constantine, and she also had been the discoverer of the Venerable Wood of the Cross of the Lord. In an edifying word spoken at the conclusion of the rite, the Patriarch said: "Blessed are you among Russian women, for you have forsaken the darkness and have loved the Light. The Russian people shall bless you in all the future generations, from your grandson and great-grandson to your furthermost descendants." He instructed her in the truths of the Faith, the churchly rules and the rule of prayer, he explained the commands about fasting, chastity and charity. "She, however," says the Monk Nestor, "bowed her head and stood, literally like a sponge absorbing water, listening to the teaching, and bowing down to the Patriarch, she said, "By your prayers, O Master, let me be preserved from the wiles of enemies".

It is in precisely this way, with a slightly bowed head, that St Olga is depicted on one of the frescoes of the Kiev Sophia cathedral, and likewise on a Byzantine miniature contemporary to her, in a manuscript portrait of the Chronicles of John Scilitius in the Madrid National Library. The Greek inscription, accompanying the miniature, terms Olga "Archontissa (i.e. ruler) of Rus," "a woman, Helga by name, who came to the emperor Constantine and was baptized". The princess is depicted in special head attire, "as a newly-baptized Christian and venerable deaconess of the Russian Church." Beside her in the same attire of the newly-baptized -- is Malusha (+ 1001), the future mother of the Equal of the Apostles St Vladimir (July 15).

For one who had originally so disliked the Russians as did the emperor Constantine Porphyrigenitos, it was no trivial matter for him to become the godfather to the "Archontissa of Rus". In the Russian chronicles are preserved narratives about this, how resolutely and on an equal footing Olga conversed with the emperor, amazing the Greeks by her spiritual depth and wisdom of governance, and displaying that the Russian nation was quite capable of accepting and assimilating the highest attainments of the Greek religious genius, the finest fruition of Byzantine spirituality and culture. And thus by a peaceful path St Olga succeeded in "taking Constantinople", something which no other military leader before her had ever been able to do. According to the witness of the chronicles, the emperor himself had to admit, that Olga "had given him the slip" (had outwitted him), and the popular mind, jumbling together into one the traditions about Oleg the Wise and Olga the Wise, sealed in its memory this spiritual victory in the bylina or folk-legend entitled "Concerning the Taking of Constantinople by Princess Olga".

In his work "About the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court," which has survived to the present day in just one copy, Constantine Porphyrigenitos has left us a detailed description of the ceremony surrounding the stay of St Olga at Constantinople. He describes a triumphant reception in the famed Magnaura palace, beneathe the singing of bronze birds and the roars of copper lions, where Olga appeared with an impressive retinue of 108 men (not counting the men of Svyatoslav's company). And there took place negotiations in the narrower confines of the chambers of the empress, and then a state dinner in the hall of Justinian. And here during the course of events, there providentially met together at one table the four "majestic ladies": the grandmother and the mother of holy Equal of the Apostles St Vladimir (St Olga and her companion Malusha), and the grandmother and the mother of St Vladimir's future spouse Anna (the empress Helen and her daughter-in-law Theophano). Slightly more than half a century would pass, and at the Desyatin church of the Most Holy Theotokos at Kiev would stand aside each other the marble tombs of St Olga, St Vladimir and "Blessed Anna".

During the time of one of these receptions, as Constantine Porphyrogenitos relates, the Russian princess was presented a golden plate inset with jewels. St Olga offered it to the vestry of the Sophia cathedral, where at the beginning of the thirteenth century it was seen and described by the Russian diplomat Dobrynya Yadeikovich (who afterwards was to become the Novgorod archbishop Anthony): "The large golden official plate of Olga of Russia, when she took it as tribute, having come to Constantinople; upon the plate be precious stones, and upon it is written in these stones the name Christ".

Moreover, the wily emperor, after reporting such details as would underscore how "Olga had given him the slip", also presents a difficult riddle for historians of the Russian Church. This is it: St Nestor the Chronicler relates in the "Tale of Bygone Years" that the Baptism of Olga took place in the Biblical year 6463 (955 or 954), and this corresponds to the account of the Byzantine chronicles of Kedrinos. Another Russian Church writer of the eleventh century, Yakov Mnikh, in his work "Eulogy and Laudation to Vladimir... and how Vladimir's Grandmother Olga was Baptized", speaks about the death of the holy princess (+ 969) and he notes that she lived as a Christian for fifteen years, and he places the actual date of Baptism as the year 954, which corresponds within several months to the date indicated by Nestor. In contrast to this, describing for us the stay of Olga at Constantinople and providing the precise dates of the receptions given in her honor, Constantine Porphyrogenitos has us to understand in no uncertain terms that all this occurred in the year 957.

To reconcile the cited chronicles, on the one hand, with the testimony of Constantine on the other hand, Russian Church historians are led to suppose one of two things: either St Olga made a second journey to Constantinople in the year 957 to continue negotiations with the emperor, or she was not baptized at Constantinople, having previously been baptized at Kiev in 954, and that she was merely making a pilgrimage to Byzantium, since she was already a Christian. The first supposition is the more credible.

As for the immediate diplomatic outcome of the negotiations, there were basic matters for St Olga that had been left unsettled. She had gained success on questions concerning Russian trade within the territories of the Byzantine Empire, and also the reconfirmation of the peace accord with Byzantium, concluded by Igor in the year 944. But she had not been able to sway the emperor on two issues of importance to Rus: the dynastic marriage of Svyatoslav with a Byzantine princess, and the conditions for restoring an Orthodox metropolitan to Kiev as had existed at the time of Askold. The evidently inadequate outcome of her mission is detected in her answer, when she had already returned home, which was given to emissaries sent out by the emperor. To the emperor's inquiry about promised military aid, StOlga curtly replied through the emissaries: "If you had spent time with me at Pochaina, as I did at the Court, then I would send the soldiers to help you."

Amidst all this, in spite of her failed attempts at establishing the Church hierarchy within Rus, St Olga, after becoming a Christian, zealously devoted herself to efforts of Christian evangelization among the pagans, and also church construction: "demanding the distressing of demons and the beginning of life for Christ Jesus". She built churches: of St Nicholas and the church of the Holy Wisdom at Kiev, of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos at Vytebsk, and of the Holy Life-Creating Trinity at Pskov. Pskov from that period has been called in the chronicles the Domicile of the Holy Trinity. The church, built by Olga at the River Velika at a spot pointed out to her from on high, according to the chronicler, by a "light-beam of the Thrice-Radiant Divinity", stood for more than one and an half centuries. In the year 1137 holy Prince Vsevolod-Gabriel (February 11) replaced this wooden temple with one made of stone, which in turn in 1363 was rebuilt and replaced finally with the presently existing Trinity cathedral.

Another very important monument of Russian "Monument Theology", as Church architecture frequently is termed, connected with the name of St Olga, is the temple of the Wisdom of God at Kiev, which was started soon after her return from Constantinople, and consecrated on May 11, 960. This day was afterwards observed in the Russian Church as a special Church feastday.

In the Mesyatseslov (calendar supplement)of a parchment Epistle-book from 1307, under May 11 is written: "On this day the consecration of St Sophia took place at Kiev in the year 6460." The date is indicated in the so-called "Antiochian" rather than generally-accepted Constantinople chronology, and it corresponds to the year 960 from the Birth of Christ.

It was no mere coincidence that St Olga received in Baptism the name of St Helen, who found the Venerable Wood of the Cross at Jerusalem (March 6). The foremost sacred item in the newly built Kiev Sophia temple was a piece of the Holy Cross, brought by this new Helen from Constantinople, and received by her in blessing from the Constantinople Patriarch. The Cross, by tradition, was hewn out from an entire piece of the Life-Creating Wood of the Lord. Upon the Cross-Wood was inscribed: "The Holy Cross for the Regeneration of the Russian Land, Received by Noble Princess Olga."

St Olga did much to memorialize the first Russian confessors of the Name of Christ: over the grave of Askold the St Nicholas church was built, where according to certain accounts, she herself was afterwards interred. Over the grave of Dir was built the afore-mentioned Sophia cathedral, which stood for half a century and burned in the year 1017. On this spot Yaroslav the Wise later on built a church of St Irene in 1050, but the sacred items of Olga's Sophia temple were transferred into a stone church of the same name now standing as the Kiev Sophia, started in 1017 and consecrated about the year 1030. In the Prologue of the thirteenth century, it says about the Olga Cross: "for It is now at Kiev in St Sophia in the altar on the right side." The plundering of Kiev's holy things, which after the Mongols was continued by the Lithuanians who captured the city in 1341, did not spare even this. Under Jagiello in the period of the Liublin Unia, which in 1384 united Poland and Lithuania into one state, the Olga Cross was snatched from the Sophia cathedral and carried off by the Catholics to Lublin. Its further fate is unknown.

But even in Olga's time there were at Kiev among the nobles and retainers no few people who, in the words of Solomon, "hated Wisdom", and also St Olga, for having built Wisdom's temple. Zealots of the old paganism became all the more emboldened, viewing with hope the coming of age of Svyatoslav, who decidedly spurned the urgings of his mother to accept Christianity, and even becoming angry with her over this. It was necessary to hurry with the intended matter of the Baptism of Rus. The deceit of Byzantium, at the time not wanting to promote Christianity in Rus, played into the hands of the pagans. In search of a solution, St Olga looked to the west. No contradiction here yet existed. St Olga (+ 969) belonged still to the undivided Church (i.e. before the Great Schism of 1054), and she had scant possibility to study the theological points involved between the Greek and Latin Creeds. The opposition of West and East presented itself to her first of all as a political rivalry, of secondary importance in comparison with her task, the establishment of the Russian Church and the Christian enlightenment of Rus.

Under the year 959, the German chronicler named "the Continuant of Reginon," records: "to the king came emissaries of Helen, queen of the Russes, who was baptized in Constantinople, and who sought for their nation to have bishop and prieSts" King Otto, the future founder of the German Empire, willingly acceded to Olga's request, but he urged that the matter not be decided in haste. It was only on Nativity of the following year 960, that there was established a Russian bishop Libutius, from the monastery brethren of Anatolius Alban am Mainz. But he soon died (March 15, 961). In his place was ordained Adalbert of Trier, whom Otto "generously furnishing all needs" finally sent to Russia. It is difficult to say what would have happened, had the king not delayed for so long a while, but when in 962 when Adalbert showed up at Kiev, he "did not succeed in the matter for which he had been sent, and did consider his efforts to be in vain." Furthermore, on the return journey "certain of his companions were murdered, and the bishop himself did not escape mortal danger."

It turned out that after the passage of years, as Olga indeed had foreseen, matters at Kiev had twisted ultimately in favor of paganism, and Rus having become neither Orthodox nor Catholic, had second thoughts about accepting Christianity. The pagan reaction thus produced was so strong, that not only did the German missionaries suffer, but also some of the Kiev Christians who had been baptized with Olga at Constantinople. By order of Svyatoslav, St Olga's nephew Gleb was killed and some of the churches built by her were destroyed. It seems reasonable, that this transpired not without Byzantium's secret diplomacy: given the possibility of a strengthened Rus in alliance with Otto, the Greeks would have preferred to support the pagans, with the consequent intrigues against Olga and various disorders.

The collapse of the mission of Adalbert had providential significance for the future Russian Orthodox Church, escaping papal dominion. St Olga was obliged to accede to the humiliation and to withdraw fully into matters of personal piety, handing over the reigns of governance to her pagan-son Svyatoslav. Because of her former role, all the difficult matters were referred over to her in her wisdom of governance. When Svyatoslav absented himself from Kiev on military campaigns and wars, the governance of the realm was again entrusted to his mother. But the question about the Baptism of Rus was for a while taken off the agenda, and this was ultimately bitter for St Olga, who regarded the good news of the Gospel of Christ as the chief matter in her life.

She meekly endured the sorrow and grief, attempting to help her son in civil and military affairs, and to guide matters with heroic intent. The victories of the Russian army were a consolation for her, particularly the destruction of an old enemy of the Russian state - the Khazar kaganate. Twice, in the years 965 and 969, the armies of Svyatoslav went through the lands of "the foolish Khazars," forever shattering the might of the Jewish rulers of Priazovia and lower Povolzhia. A subsequent powerful blow was struck at the Mahometan Volga Bulgars, and then in turn came the Danube Bulgars. Eighteen years were spent on the Danube with the Kiev military forces. Olga was alone and in worry: it was as though, absorbed by military matters in the Balkans, Svyatoslav had forgotten about Kiev.

In the Spring of 969 the Pechenegs besieged Kiev: "and it was impossible to lead out the horses to water, for the Pechenegs stood at the Lybeda." The Russian army was far away, at the Danube. Having sent off messengers to her son, St Olga herself headed the defense of the capital. When he received the news, Svyatoslav rode quickly to Kiev, and "he hugged his mother and his children and was distressed, with what had happened with them from the Pechenegs." But after routing the nomads, the warrior prince began anew to say to his mother: "It does not please me to sit at Kiev, for I wish to live at Pereslavl' on the Dunaj (Danube) since that is the center of my lands."

Svyatoslav dreamed of creating a vast Russian holding from the Danube to the Volga, which would unite all Rus, Bulgaria, Serbia, the Near Black Sea region and Priazovia (Azov region), and extend his borders to those of Constantinople itself. Olga the Wise understood however, that all the bravery and daring of the Russian companies could not compare against the ancient Byzantine Empire, and that the venture of Svyatoslav would fail. But the son would not heed the admonitions of his mother. St Olga thereupon said, "You see that I am ill. Why do you want to forsake me? After you bury me, then go wherever you wish."

Her days were numbered, and her burdens and sorrows sapped her strength. On July 11, 969 St Olga died: "and with great lament they mourned her, her son and grandsons and all the people." In her final years, amidst the triumph of paganism, she had to have a priest by her secretly, so she would not evoke new outbursts of pagan fanaticism. But before death, having found anew her former firmness and resolve, she forbade them to make over her the pagan celebration of the dead, and she gave final instructions to bury her openly in accord with Orthodox ritual. Presbyter Gregory, who was with her at Constantinople in 957, fulfilled her request.

St Olga lived, died, and was buried as a Christian. "And thus having lived and well having glorified God in Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, having worshipped in the blessed faith, she ended her life in the peace of Christ Jesus, our Lord." As her prophetic testament to succeeding generations, with deep Christian humility she confessed her faith concerning her nation: "God's will be done! If it pleases God to have mercy upon my native Russian Land, then they shall turn their hearts to God, just as I have received this gift."

God glorified the holy toiler of Orthodoxy, the "initiator of faith" in the Russian Land, by means of miracles and incorrupt relics. Yakov Mnikh (+ 1072), a hundred years after her death, wrote in his work "Memory and Laudation to Vladimir": "God has glorified the body of His servant Olga, and her venerable body remains incorrupt to this day."

St Olga glorified God with good deeds in all things, and God glorified her. Under holy Prince Vladimir, ascribed by some as occurring in the year 1007, the relics of St Olga were transferred into the Desyatin church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos and placed within a special sarcophagus, such as was customary to enclose the relics of saints in the Orthodox East. "And hear ye concerning a certain miracle about her: the grave of stone is small in the church of the Holy Mother of God, this church built by the blessed Prince Vladimir, and in the grave is the blessed Olga. And an opening was made in the tomb to behold Olga's body lying there whole." But not everyone was given to see this miracle of the incorrupt relics of the saint: "For whoever came with faith, the aperture opened up, and there the venerable body could be seen lying intact, and one would marvel at such a miracle -- the body lying there for so many years without decay. Worthy of all praise is this venerable body: resting in the grave whole, as though sleeping. But for those who did not approach in faith, the grave aperture would not open up, and they would not see this venerable body, but only the grave."

Thus even after death St Olga espoused life eternal and resurrection, filling believers with joy and confounding non-believers. She was, in the words of St Nestor the Chronicler, "a precursor in the Christian land, like the dawn before sunrise or the twilight before the light."

The holy Equal of the Apostles Great Prince Vladimir, himself giving thanks to God on the day of the Baptism of Rus, witnessed before his countrymen concerning Saint Olga with the remarkable words: "The sons of Rus bless you, and also the generations of your descendants."

Troparion - Tone 1

Giving your mind the wings of divine understanding,
you soared above visible creation seeking God the Creator of all.
When you had found Him, you received rebirth through baptism.
As one who enjoys the Tree of Life,
you remain eternally incorrupt, ever-glorious Olga.

Kontakion - Tone 4

Today let us praise God the Benefactor of all,
who glorified divinely-wise Olga,
that through her prayers, He may grant our souls remission of sins.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Friday, July 10, 2009

Icon of the Mother of God of Konevits

Commemorated on July 10

The Konevits Icon of the Mother of God: It was with this icon of Greek origin that John, igumen of one of the Athonite monasteries, blessed St Arsenius, founder of the Konevits monastery (June 12). The holy icon was glorified by many miracles.

In the year 1610, during an invasion of the Swedes into the Novgorod territory, the icon was transferred from the Konevits monastery to the Novgorod Derevianits monastery with the blessing of Archbishop Isidore of Novgorod. Each year on July 10 a festal celebration of the Most Holy Theotokos took place at this monastery in honor of Her holy icon. In the year 1799, with the blessing of the Metropolitan Gabriel of Peterburg and Novgorod (+ January 26, 1801), the wonderworking icon was returned to the Konevits monastery. The return of the icon to the Konevits Monastery is celebrated on September 3.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Icon of the Mother of God of Koloch

Commemorated on July 9

The Koloch Icon of the Mother of God manifested itself in the year 1413 during the reign of Basil I, 15 versts from the city of Mozhaisk, in the vicinity of Koloch in the Smolensk governia. A peasant of this village by the name of Luke found the holy icon and took it to his home. One of his household was paralyzed. The sick one put his forehead to the icon with faith and received complete healing.

This became known through the surrounding area, and many of the suffering began to flock to the wonderworking icon, and they received help from the Mother of God. Luke afterwards took the icon to Mozhaisk, and from there to Moscow. At the capital, Metropolitan Photius, together with a gathering of clergy and a multitude of the people, met the holy icon. As the icon was carried through Moscow many of the sick were healed of their infirmities. Later they returned the icon to Mozhaisk.

At the place where the icon appeared, a church was built in honor of the Mother of God. Here the holy icon was housed.

With the offerings of the peasant Luke and other Orthodox, Prince Andrew Dimitrievich built a monastery on this site called the Kolochsk or Mozhaisk.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2008:

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor (I)

I have been meaning to begin this series of posts for a long time now, since about the beginning or so of Lent this year and already it's like, almost, July. C'est la vie.

For those who may not know, I regularly follow the blog, Energetic Procession and can say my understanding of the Orthodox Catholic Church has been greatly enriched through this site.

I have a high amount of respect for Perry Robinson and Photios(Daniel) Jones. Their posts often deal with difficult theological and or philosophical matters.

This series of posts will broken up into five parts, the number of parts Photios wrote his paper in, dated March 29, 2005. To find the original link he provided on Energetic Procession, follow this link: http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2005/05/04/synergy-in-christ/

I am grateful to him for allowing me to post his paper here as well as to Perry who also gave me permission to post freely from their blog.

After posting Photios' paper in five parts, I will post it in its entirety and then place it on my sidebar under "Essays and Articles on the Orthodox Catholic Church and Her Faith".

I have read the paper personally now 6 times very carefully, doing my own personal research into much of the material for my own aid in understanding.

I'm a stickler for definitions and side by side with this paper I had my dictionary and where the dictionary proved inadequate, I did online searches for terms and historical events used as the paper's context.

I would urge the reader to take this paper seriously and to not to understand the thesis merely in a theoretical sense, i.e. , not having a bearing on "real life", but to understand and wrestle with what Photios has written here and bear out its implications on one's own life. For how we understand theology has a definite cause and effect in "real life".

I firmly believe a correct and firm theology(and please understand, I don't approach the issue of theology as some lifeless thing but as our Lord Himself and the correct understanding of Him and living of His Life) is therapeutic.

In posting this paper, I will ask some questions on certain things for more clarification and to deepen my own understanding as I feel the necessity.

So without further ado, here is the paper, its first part. Enjoy.

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor

by Daniel Jones(Photios)

Page 1

I. Introduction

No doctrine of free choice, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor, can be understood apart from the
theology of the Incarnation. It is this “mystery of Christ” in the words of Polycarp Sherwood that forms the
centre and “stands at the very heart of the Maximian synthesis.”1 It is important to note that Maximus stands within the Neo-Chalcedonian position, or as Fr. John Meyendorff correctly calls it ‘Cyrillian Chalcedonian.’ This position is distinguished by three main features: 1) the acceptance of the Theopaschite Formula of St. Cyril, 2) that there was no contradiction whatsoever between St. Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon, and 3) the use of a consistent terminology between Triadology and Christology that is applicable to both.2 As we will see later on in this paper, the Chalcedonian theme of “unconfused” and “undivided,” with respect to Christ’s natures, plays a similar (if not the same) role in Maximus’ understanding of the divine logoi or energies with respect to each other and the divine essence. It is within this paradigm that Maximus “was capable of establishing the orthodox solution of the Monothelite question.”3
In this paper I will sketch the underlining metaphysic of Monenergism,4 its three fold dialectic, Maximus’s break-up of this dialectic, and conclude with Maximus’s over-all grid for a coherent doctrine of predestination subsumed under Christology and Eschatology.

1 Sherwood, ACW vol. 21, p. 29
2 Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 34-35
3 Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator, p. 9
4 I will be using Monenergism and Monotheletism interchangeably throughout this paper for practical purposes.

Spiritual Journal-The "neutrality" of the human person


After reading Father Seraphim Rose, His Life and His Works, I decided to keep a spiritual journal. I can't remember where it is mentioned in that book but it made an impression on me.

I will be posting my thoughts on this book as part of my series I keep on this blog of "Books I've Read or Am Reading" at a later date, when I wade through the stack of books and articles that I have procrastinated posting on and I arrive at this book.

But in the meantime, I will begin putting down some of my thoughts from the journal and fleshing them out some if need be.

This is my first post from this journal and God willing, I will continue putting out these posts.

As some of you may know, I mention the Anti Christ fairly frequently and only because of his lack of mention amongst fellow bloggers and many of those I know in my day to day life in the Church. I will in the future be posting a lot more on this subject matter and by doing this I hope to make it clear that what I have in mind is not the Evangelical Protestant teaching and emphasis of the Left Behind variety but something I believe much more significant and necessary to be understood from within the Church.

Once again, I wish to reiterate that my focus is not to pinpoint dates, times, events but my concern is the understanding the "mystery of iniquity" itself which itself is "timeless", manifesting itself in each age and showing itself more concretely as each day progresses.

Yes, we have been in the last days since the fall but also yes, each day is a day closer. And again: Technology. And again"America" qua America in relation to the prior age that preceeded her and what she means in and of herself when observed within the Church, the kingdom of our Lord. I think we are so confused about what America is as a spiritual concept and that her design is specifically designed to confuse.

Also, the lack of teaching of these issues may be the danger that places us in the category of those the apostle Peter speaks of in Second Peter 3 where he speaks of scoffers coming in the last days who in essence will say, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation".

This, in essence, if you may accept it, sounds a lot like what we're told when we speak about Christ's return and the "End times" by our pastors. Or, often it's said when broaching this subject: "We've been in the last days for the last 2000 years" and that is the extent really that is said about this very important event which is what the early Church looked for with longing.

I must also state once again that warnings about this were spoken about frequently and with knowledge, in an Orthodox manner by our Lord, His Apostles, in nearly every if not every book of the New Testament and this teaching is not merely confined to the Book of Revelation.
Many if not all the Holy Ones of our Church mention the teaching on the Anti Christ and what exactly this means for us to understand and to help us break from the world and not to be taken into the deception under which the whole world lies.

What does this have to do with the "neutrality of the human person?

This.

The Kingdom of Heaven is here, now.

The Kingdom of Anti Christ is here, now.

The human being is of such a nature that he is able to plug into either one. His nature is "neutral" so to speak, in this regard. It is a free choice who we will follow.

Books I've Read(or am reading)- Twenty-One: "Steps of Transformation" by Father Meletios Webber



(click on images to enlarge)





















One reason I've hesitated to get on with this series of "Books I've Read or am Reading" is because I knew this one was approaching and I felt a real reluctance to post on it as it is very personal to me.

I guess I might as well publicly announce on this blog that I have intimate knowledge with Alcoholics Anonymous as of this writing I have been without a drink or drug for a little over 9 years now, my anniversary being June 20, 2000 in that fellowship. I can honestly say that God used AA to literally save my life and that without this intervention, I'm not too sure I would be here right now. It had gotten really bad for me. Perhaps one day I will do a more in depth autobiography and explain much about how I ended up there.

I have not been an active member of the fellowship now since November of 2007 and my reasons are varied and lengthy. But to make it clear, I have many people I love and hold dear and whom I call "friend" today through my time there. Leaving was difficult for me and for those I sponsored and to this day I have people check up on me to see if I'm OK.

Which brings me to the book. It is very well written and has a lot of very good information. On a surface level, I could even say I endorse it. Actually, an excellent book.

However, I have some problems with Father Meletios' worldview in relation to AA and the Church and to explain them, I would need to go into my own reasons for leaving Alcoholics Anonymous. Bound up with my decision to leave are the reasons why I would have to be critical of the approach Father Meletios takes here in this book.

In my course of being in AA, as per my own peculiar make-up, I got into the guts of the program with the full force of my entire being. This is all to the good, I must say, but only because I had the back drop of the Church by which to measure and check myself.

I became associated with a group here in Las Vegas in which I devoted my life. I spent hours upon hours with the people(usually men) who asked for me to sponsor them and my method of sponsorship was to focus around a set time and place with each other around the reading of the "Big Book", the name given to the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous in which the path to "the spiritual awakening", or "vital spiritual experience" outlined in the Twelve Steps of the Fellowship.

I would stress to those I worked with that recovery does not take place with a mere acquiescence with the intellectual principles stated by the Steps. Recovery is the taking of the actions of the Steps within the context of the Fellowship.

As a quick aside, this "living of the Steps within the Fellowship" has provided some rich thoughts for me about the Church and how everything is to be related and made sense of within the context of the Church as hospital.

As I've stated already, the purpose of AA is to provide the sufferer with that spiritual experience which releases the sufferer from the bondage of active alcoholism. Now without going into too much depth, I would like the reader to know that alcoholism as AA understands it has a very specific meaning and "cure"(cure- i.e., to not be actively drinking- not that once coming to AA one can drink in a fashion that is no longer harmful).

As with the spiritual awakening experienced by the taking of the Twelve Steps provided within the context of AA the fellowship formed by those who have recovered from a "seemingly hopeless state of mind and body"(i.e. active alcoholism), so the Church as Hospital in this Fallen World provides theosis to those who live Her Life, that is Christ Himself.

Orthodoxy, correct belief or correct glory, is inextricably linked and cannot be separated from orthopraxy, that is, correct practice, without Orthodoxy being reduced to a mere theoretical belief and system.

Returning to my sponsorship, I would say that I repeated this process many times, spending hours with the guys in the text of the Big Book and explaining it and relating historical anecdotes about the founders of AA and other historical things of significance.

Now in conjunction with this, I chaired a meeting I built on Saturday evenings and titled the meeting "The Psychic Change" Meeting. "Psychic Change" is also interchangeable with "spiritual awakening" and "spiritual experience" which I have related above is the necessary component to bring about recovery from active alcoholism.

Note that I have repeatedly said "active" alcoholism for a reason. In the fellowship of AA, much gets put under the umbrella of alcoholism even in the state of not actively drinking. Bad habits and/or thought patterns that persist are often diagnosed as stemming from the conditions which brought about active alcoholism and hence a lot of emphasis is placed on inventorying ones' past and working on eliminating those defects of character with the help of God(or as it is commonly spoken of in AA, "a Power greater than oneself", a "Higher Power").

I chaired this meeting for about 5 years and the meeting itself was used to speak about how to go about getting the spiritual experience to bring about recovery from alcoholism. I approached the meeting in a very systematic way and started at the beginning of the Big Book and we worked our way through it each week a little at a time and kept the topic presented in the reading as the subject matter of the meeting.

The basic text of the Big Book is 164 pages long. Using select passages from the book, to go through one "cycle" on one night of the week, reading a little at a time, took about 1 and 1/2 years. I did this "cycle" three times.

Here is the format I created and used through which I attempted to outline in brief form what AA was all about:

F. ALCOHOLISM ADDRESSED: “ Alcoholics Anonymous began on June 10th, 1935 through a long chain of improbable events which brought together Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith. Both men were alcoholics of the ‘hopeless variety’. This means they both belonged to a class of drinkers who had a very definite and adverse reaction to alcohol. Both men found intense pleasure in the effect drinking created in them and would often return to the drink in hopes of firing their inward being. They would seek this ease and comfort to the exclusion of the normal demands of life. In other words, they fled from life and would withdraw within themselves, surrounded by the vaporous illusions alcohol gave them.
“Both men at some point gained an awareness of the destruction they were inflicting upon themselves and
upon all who loved them. They resolved to give up alcohol. Both men discovered they could not. They absolutely were unable to not pick up that first drink no matter how many times they swore they would never get drunk again. The peculiar obsession with alcohol had become ingrained into the fiber of their souls.(Their psyche had become scarred). Inevitably, against their own will and against their own judgment, they would take that first drink and for a time they would find that peace alcohol could always be counted on to bring them. And having taken that first drink, all was well, they felt alive, they could get by OK , but desperately they clung to the hope that reality would not come crashing in on them.
“Both men, no matter how drunk they became, could not escape the knowledge somewhere deep down inside that they were just not right, that something was terribly wrong with them and that pouring all the alcohol they could on top of this feeling they could, would not drown it. So they drank to oblivion to escape that gnawing guilt. Then they would wake up to face their close companions: Terror, Bewilderment, Apologies, Regrets, Remorse, Frustration, and Despair.
“Again and again the promises went out to those around them they would stop, but as if on cue, the first drink came and they repeated the whole cycle. They were doomed men, alcoholics of the hopeless variety. Doctors with the desire to see these men put down the drink once and for all threw their hands up in despair, unable to use moral psychology of that day to rearrange their thoughts, emotions, and feelings so they would not find it necessary to take that 1st drink. Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith were only 2 men of a vast class of people with this kind of reaction to alcohol.
“Both men recovered completely from this condition. They had experienced a change in their soul, their personalities, a psychic change. Both men reached the place of utter despair in their own lives in their own
very individual ways and undertook a program of action that if followed closely, to the best of their own individual abilities, insured them for that one day that they would not pick up that first drink.
“The two friends commenced taking this program of action to others afflicted with the same symptoms and hallmarks of the doomed alcoholic. With much hard work a fellowship of men and women who had discovered a sure path out of alcoholism sprung up and the Twelve Steps were formally accepted. In the year 1939 the book ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’ was written to bear record, without distortion, of the experience of these first 100 people who practiced a way of life that produced a psychic change, the change somewhere deep down, of their personalities.
“These people emphasize again and again that the power to change
did not originate from within their own old selves, but came from a Power ‘greater than themselves‘. They discovered, each in their own way, that self could not change self. And having discovered this Power they made a decision to begin trusting Him in the care and direction of their unmanageable lives. With this trust and willingness they began to examine their own selves and many for the first time ever saw their extreme self-centeredness. They began to see how afraid they were and became open and vulnerable with someone else. Someone knew them and understood them! They were no longer so utterly alone. Those that heard their stories helped them to see their defects and helped them to offer these shortcomings to God in the hope that He would remove these things in His own time. Of course, much hurt had been produced in the effort to live their lives without regard for anyone or anything else. Many relationships had been severely or permanently damaged. In an effort to be square with life and to be of more use to God and their fellows, they set out to acknowledge those they had hurt and sought to make right the wrong. They did not go to justify themselves.
“And having done all these things, they continued a daily practice of taking stock of themselves and setting right any new wrongs as they became apparent. They continued to seek more intimacy with God as each understood Him through prayer and meditation. Others, they knew, wanted to be free of this dreadful cycle of alcoholism so they presented this program to them in the hope they too would change from within.”



I later revised the "Alcoholism Addressed" section to the following(because it was so long and those who attended week after week had to hear it over and over):

Saturday Night MOM Group-Psychic Change Meeting
(to be used on every Saturday except each first Saturday of the month)

This meeting is based on what is to be found in the Big Book in the “Dr’s Opinion” on page Roman numeral xxviii where we read:



“” Men and women drink essentially because they like the effect produced by alcohol. The sensation is so elusive that, while they admit it is injurious, they cannot after a time differentiate the true from the false. To them, their alcoholic life seems the only normal one. They are restless, irritable and discontented, unless they can again experience the sense of ease and comfort which comes at once by taking a few drinks—drinks which they see others taking with impunity. After they have succumbed to the desire again, as so many do, and the phenomenon of craving develops, they pass through the well-known stages of a spree, emerging remorseful, with a firm resolution not to drink again. This is repeated over and over, and unless this person can experience an entire psychic change there is very little hope of his recovery.
On the other hand—and strange as this may seem to those who do not understand—once a psychic change has occurred, the very same person who seemed doomed, who had so many problems he despaired of ever solving them, suddenly finds himself easily able to control his desire for alcohol, the only effort necessary being that required to follow a few simple rules. “

Through bitter experience with this alcoholic cycle as described in the “Dr.’s Opinion“, we have come to believe in the necessity of experiencing this psychic change to overcome this grim and fatal malady which once it has gotten a hold of the sufferer refuses to loose its grip until the alcoholic inevitably visits jails, institutions or the grave receives him into its bosom.

We have come to believe in the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous taken in the context of the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous as the means to take us to the solution, a spiritual awakening. The Spiritual Awakening sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism as Alcoholics Anonymous understands it is obtained through the taking of the 12 Steps, a series of actions spiritual in nature.
Step 12 reads: “Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principals in all our affairs”.

This meeting is dedicated to focusing on the psychic change as experienced by the first 100 people and the countless others who followed their example throughout these many years.

I have given the foregoing information to let the reader know that I am very familiar with AA and hold no grudge towards it or its members.

But, from the very beginning of my attendance, I can honestly say that something just didn't jive somewhere deep down. There was a disconnect of some kind between what its spirituality is and that of Christ.(At the beginning of my time in AA, I had not yet returned to the Church and was still somewhat an Evangelical Protestant in my thinking about Christianity). I had learned to strive to judge all things according to Christ and when I returned to the Church's embrace, the disconnect only became more pronounced and difficult to bear and ignore.

One major reason for me to leave was that one can have a very powerful spiritual experience, a real one in which one's world view is forever changed without Christ. This always made me queasy but I managed to rationalize my disquiet away for a time.

I should quickly explain that a "spiritual awakening/spiritual experience/psychic change" does not necessarily denote always a sudden upheaval of previously held notions and beliefs and their uprooting to replace them with a whole new set instantaneously. More often than not, members of AA acquire the "spiritual awakening/spiritual experience/psychic change" in what AA terms of an educational variety, meaning it happens slowly over time.

There are many other reasons I left which I will not go into here and which related to my reading of "Steps of Transformation". One major one is that all spiritual beliefs are held on an equal plane. Also, even as Father Meletios mentions in the book, AA is seen as "spiritual" and "religion" is down a notch or two from the spirituality of AA. He's right, actually, in his assesment of spirituality vs. religion when understood correctly. Even in the Church one may be "religious" and never penetrate into the inner Life of the Church. However, this is no different than the many members who attend the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous and never penetrate and "get it", the much needed spiritual experience needed for recovery even though in many cases they may attend meetings and be associated with AA and its life for a long time. Moreover, there is a tendency within AA to always assume that to be "religious" one cannot therefore be "spiritual".

If anyone wishes to inquire, I will gladly give more of those reasons.

But one more I wish to mention of why I left is not to be laid at the feet of AA at all. It is this. The very real threat of Modernity is felt in all places, not only within the Church but I encountered it within AA and noticed that even though AA is only 74 years old right now, yet many who called themselves members did not understand the Tradition of Alcholics Anonymous(yes, Tradition with a capital "T") and there was a battle, though not often recognized and/or voiced, between those who understood AA accoriding to its essence and the new "psychologized" approach to AA.

I bring this up as a reason for leaving because seeing this in AA and within the Church, I realized that I did not wish to fight this War against Modernity on these two fronts and decided to draw the line in the Church which I would defend to the upmost of my ability and strength.

There is a lot of rich information I would like in the future to write on this subject matter and compare/contrast with the Church but will leave it at what I have written for now.

READ THE PREVIOUS POST IN THIS SERIES: