| True vision is available only to those who have no selfish concerns. True asceticism is inspired not by contempt, but by the urge of transformation. The world must be re-instated to its original beauty, from which it fell into sin. It is because of this that asceticism leads to action. The work of Redemption is done by God indeed, but man is called to co-operate in this redemptive endeavour. For Redemption consists precisely in the Redemption of Freedom. Sin is slavery, and «Jerusalem which is above is free.» This interpretation of the ascetical endeavour will appear unexpected and strange. It is certainly incomplete. The world of ascesis is complicated, because it is a realm of freedom. There are many roads, some of which may end in blind alleys. Historically, of course, asceticism does not always lead to creativity. One ought, however, to distinguish clearly between an indifference to creative tasks, and their non-acceptance. New and various problems of culture are disclosed through the ascetic training, a new hierarchy of values and aims is revealed. Hence the apparent indifference of asceticism to many historic tasks. This brings us back to the conflict between the Empire and the Desert. We may well say: between History and the Apocalypse. It is the basic question of the significance and value of the whole historical endeavor. Christian goal, in any case, transcends history, as it transcends culture. But Man was created to inherit eternity. One may describe asceticism as an «eschatology of transfiguration.» Ascetic «maximalism» is primarily inspired by an awareness of the end of history. It would be more accurate to say: conviction, not an actual expectation. The calculation of times and dates is irrelevant, as it is dangerous and misleading indeed. What is important is a consistent use of «eschatological measures» in the estimation of all things and events. It is unfair to suppose that nothing on earth can stand this «eschatological» testing. Not everything should fade away. No doubt, there is no room for politics or economics in the ultimate Kingdom of Heaven. But, obviously, there are many values in this life which will not be abrogated in «the age to come.» First comes Love. It is not accidental that monasticism takes persistently the form of a community. It is an organization of mutual care and help. Any work of mercy, or even a burning of the heart for somebody else’s suffering or need, cannot be regarded as insignificant in the eschatological dimension. Is it too much to suggest that all creative charity is eternal? Are not some abiding values disclosed also in the field of knowledge? Nothing can be said with an ultimate certainty. And yet it seems we have some criterion of discrimination. Human personality, in any case, transcends history. |
| The story of Lazarus, which occurs before Christ’s suffering and death, specifically addresses the heart of the Church after Christ’s suffering and death. For though we rejoice in Christ’s death and resurrection, it is our dead brother (mother, father, sister, friend) who lies heavy on our hearts. St. John’s Gospel records the story of Christ’s raising Lazarus from the dead as the last action of Christ before His entry into Jerusalem. That setting has given rise to the feast of Lazarus Saturday in the Orthodox Church – a small Pascha before Holy Week. The three synoptic gospels make no mention of these events, to which I draw no historical conclusions. The gospels include and exclude events for many reasons, historical considerations seeming to be of the least importance. Which stories, and in what order, primarily serve deeper theological concerns. For St. John, the story of Lazarus serves as the occasion for commentary and teaching on the resurrection of believers, much like the Feeding of the Five Thousand serves for commentary and teaching on the Eucharist. “If you had been here, my brother would not have died,” (Martha’s words) echoes the universal voice of the Church in the face of Christ’s delayed Second Coming. It is the plaintive heart of believers who wonder why God allows suffering. And some of them said, “Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?” (Joh 11:37) It is an obvious question, repeated in various forms by believers as well as scoffers through the centuries. The story of Lazarus, which occurs before Christ’s suffering and death, specifically addresses the heart of the Church after Christ’s suffering and death. For though we rejoice in Christ’s death and resurrection, it is our dead brother (mother, father, sister, friend) who lies heavy on our hearts. “Your brother will rise again.” These words of Christ, like a statement of Church doctrine, bring little comfort to someone stuck in their grief. It is Christ’s affirmation, “I am the resurrection and the life,” that sums up the encounter. The people do not understand, not even when Lazarus is raised from the dead. That Christ Himself is the resurrection and the life does not become clear until His own resurrection. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Becoming Pauls From Sauls Source: St. Mary Magdalene Orthodox Church Dcn. Michael Schlaack 12 January 2021 Photo: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/ In the Epistle to the Galatian church (Gal. 1:11-19), we hear St. Paul’s discussing the validity of his conversion and Apostleship. We know from the book of Acts that he was not a typical convert from Judaism to Christianity. His conversion was more significant and complete than simply exchanging a synagogue for a church. It took an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-6) to change St. Paul from a persecutor of the Christian faith to one of Christ’s greatest disciples, responsible for spreading the Gospel message throughout the far reaches of the Roman Empire. Like many of us who converted to Orthodox Christianity from another religious tradition, St. Paul ran into those who had doubts about the validity of his conversion. Think back to the time you told your family and friends that you were joining the Orthodox Christian Church: What was their reaction? Was it complete acceptance, total skepticism or something in between? Proving the strength of your conversion was probably even harder if you came from no “religious” background at all. To go from a man or woman of the world to a true follower of Christ is quite a change in one’s life, involving more than just getting up early on Sundays. It requires not only going to church but loving the church. It requires a total change in the way we order our lives and priorities. It might even mean having to cease certain activities or friends that conflict with our new-found faith, while also resisting the pull of our previous life. And what about your new-found church family? How might we expect them to react? If you had spent your life not just denying but persecuting the Church and its people, it would only make sense that they would be suspicious of your dramatic change in attitude. We recall from the Acts of the Apostles that it was same Paul (then known as Saul of Tarsus) who as a young man approved of the stoning of St. Stephen, the first holy martyr of the Church (Acts 7:58-8:1). Furthermore, it was while on the road to Damascus to persecute the Christians in the city that Saul was struck blind and had his life-changing encounter with Christ. |
| The cited patristic texts that unfold the theology of “coats of skins”, bring us to the solution of the problem posed: in studying the common genetic, physiological and anatomical hereditary features of animals and humans, in actual fact, science is only dealing with humans that have already been exiled from Eden. In studying his physical nature, clothed in “coats of skins”, natural science quite legitimately and “lawfully” makes certain conclusions about the evolutionary and historical relation with primates. But from the point of view of orthodox theology these conclusions ontologically do not apply to Adam, created in the beginning, and his descendants, but in themselves constitute one of the paradoxical consequences of the fall of our forefathers: the likeness of God is not destroyed, but in a way recedes to the background before the likeness of the “beasts of the field”. Being outside Eden and existing autonomously from the Creator it is impossible to delve very deep into the mystery of our own origin. If the Book of Nature was to give exhaustive knowledge of our origins, then there would have been no need of Supernatural Revelation, given by the Holy Spirit through His chosen prophets. It is clear that the realisation or actualisation of the unchangeable, blessed creative plan for the world (matter – space – time) as incorruptible and “very good” depends on the moral self-determination of our first ancestors in Paradise in relation to God. The created world exists in accordance with the good, unchangeable, perfect divine meaning and plan ( logos), but the form of its existence ( tropos - according to St. Maximus the Confessor) may not correspond to this plan. By expressing his freedom as rebellion against the Divine will, Adam gains a bitter right to “autonomous” existence ( And the LORD God said, Behold, man is become as one of us, to know good and evil - Gen. 3:22). Consequently both the story of its formation and the current existence of the world and existence of man himself appear to him, in his fallen state, as dependent on chance, a blind, meaningless, dead and chaotic process, whi ch includes not only competition, natural selection and death, but also cruelty, suffering and elaborate parasitism. Dwelli ng outside Eden and having ephemeral existence, which is " autonomous from the Creator " , it is impossible to “perceive”, using the means of rationalisation and experience provided by the senses, one " s own origins in any different way. “ Thus the demons divide into parts amongst themselves the visible creation [consisting of] the four elements, letting us see [it only] through our senses in order to arouse our passions, unaware of the divine logoi contained in it,” said St. Maximus the Confessor. |
| The predicative «I am» christological images emphasize the relationship between Jesus and believers, but they remain more christological than ecclesiologica1. Granted, the latter was by this period a serious issue; but for John, ecclesiology is determined entirely by Christology, because the community is defined solely by allegiance to Christ, who is the only way to the Father (14:6). John " s vertical dualism (e.g., the man from heaven in 3:13, 31) and other contrasts such as «flesh» and «Spirit» (3:6; 6:63) repeatedly appear in the service of his emphasis that all humans are utterly inadequate before God apart from Christ and the Spirit. 2743 Like Mark, though to a lesser extent, he emphasizes some obduracy among the disciples (e.g., John 11:13 ; Mark 8:16–18 ); but «the world» is wholly blind and alienated from God ( John 9:39–41; 15:18–25 ; Mark 4:12 ). Some of the predicative «I am» images emphasize relationship in more familiar relational images. Jesus is the shepherd, and sheep must trust the guidance of their shepherd, heeding his voice and knowing that he will provide pasture and safety (10:9, 11, 14). The Synoptics support John " s association of this image with the Jesus tradition ( Mark 6:34; 14:37 ; cf. also Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4). A related image, though not directly relational, is Jesus as the light of the world; here Jesus is the guide who enables one to walk without falling in the darkness outside him ( John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:4–5 ). Most of the predicative «I am» images, however, are more organic, taking relationship beyond the boundaries normally possible in human intimacy. Thus Jesus is living bread from heaven, the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51); people depend on bread as a basic staple of life, and Jesus summons his followers to depend on him the same way. Related images would be the Spirit (who mediates Jesus» presence) as living water (4:14; 7:37–38) and perhaps Jesus as the giver of wine (2:4–7; less clear) and the paschal lamb which would be eaten (1:29; 6:51–56; 19:36). The Synoptics do use metaphors of light (cf. Matt 5:14–16; 6:23; Luke 8:16; 11:33–35), bread (Matt 7:9; 13:33; Mark 8:15 ; Luke 11:5,11–13), drinking ( Mark 10:38–39 ), and so forth, though only occasionally are these metaphors explicitly christological ( Mark 14:22–24 ). |
| What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends? But even those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lustimportunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not in the body. Thus, strangely enough, this emotion not only fails to obey the legitimate desire to beget offspring, but also refuses to serve lascivious lust; and though it often opposes its whole combined energy to the soul that resists it, sometimes also it is divided against itself, and while it moves the soul, leaves the body unmoved. Chapter 17.– Of the Nakedness of Our First Parents, Which They Saw After Their Base and Shameful Sin. Justly is shame very specially connected with this lust; justly, too, these members themselves, being moved and restrained not at our will, but by a certain independent autocracy, so to speak, are called shameful. Their condition was different before sin. For as it is written, They were naked and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 – not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because nakedness was not yet shameful, because not yet did lust move those members without the will " s consent; not yet did the flesh by its disobedience testify against the disobedience of man. For they were not created blind, as the unenlightened vulgar fancy; for Adam saw the animals to whom he gave names, and of Eve we read, The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes. Genesis 3:6 Their eyes, therefore were open, but were not open to this, that is to say, were not observant so as to recognize what was conferred upon them by the garment of grace, for they had no consciousness of their members warring against their will. |
| How can we recognize beneath the outward failings and weaknesses of her historic existence the glorious Bride of Christ: ‘Having neither spot nor stain nor any such thing’ (Eph. v, 27)? How could one escape from the temptation to doubt? Did not the Holy Spirit constantly remedy our human failings, were not the limitations of history continually transcended, our emptiness always transformed into fullness, as the water was changed into wine at Cana of Galilee? How many people pass by the Church without recognizing the splendour of the eternal glory beneath the outward aspect of humiliation and weakness? Yet, how many recognized in ‘the man of sorrows’ the eternal Son of God? One must have eyes to see and an understanding opened in the Holy Spirit to recognize the fullness there where the outward sense perceives only limitations and want. It is not only in the ‘great ages’ of the Church’s life that one can detect this fullness of divine life always present within her. In the age of the apostles, during the times of persecution, and during the period of the great councils, there were always certain esprits laïcs who remained blind in the face of the evidence of the manifestations of the Spirit of God in the Church. We may mention a more recent example of the same insensibility. Within the last generation the Church of Russia has brought forth thousands of martyrs and confessors who will bear comparison with those of the first centuries. In every place where the faith has been put to the test there have been abundant outpourings of grace, the most astonishing miracles–icons renewing themselves beneath the eyes of the astonished spectators; the cupolas of churches shining with a light not of this world. And–greatest miracle of all–the Church has been enabled to triumph over all difficulties, and to emerge renewed and strengthened from her fiery trial. Nevertheless, all this was scarcely noticed. The glorious aspect of what had taken place in Russia remained almost without interest for the generality of mankind. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Male and Female in God’s Image Source: Eastern Christian Insights In our currcultural context, the witness of true Christian marriage simply must become visible, vibrant, and robust, if it is to be taken seriously by mainstream cultureent . Priest Philip LeMasters 12 September 2015 Photo: doski.ru It’s unfortunate when we become so focused on the symptoms of a problem that we ignore its underlying causes. Some Christian rhetoric on same-sex marriage has done precisely that and has failed as a result to transcend the dynamics of conventional partisan politics. Instead of illuminating the unique glory of the life-giving union of husband and wife as an icon of the Holy Trinity and of the salvation of the world, the defenders of traditional marriage often merely skim the surface of public morality. The fundamental problem isn’t that increasing numbers of Americans approve of same-sex marriage; it’s that many Christians and others have forgotten the holiness and unique vocation of the man-woman relationship. Once we lose that key link, the possibility of thinking coherently—and faithfully– about human sexuality is gone. In order to speak with integrity on marriage and family issues, we need first to take a sober look at the failure of the churches to equip our members to embody chastity and sexual purity, and thus to be a witness of holiness in stark contrast to the moral corruption so pervasive in our culture and world. Especially since the dawn of the sexual revolution, Christians have too often turned a blind eye to promiscuity, pre-marital sex, serial divorce and remarriage, and a hedonistic culture that excuses all things in the name of an individual’s pleasure and self-defined happiness. No wonder so many Americans seem to dismiss opposition to same-sex marriage as self-righteous hypocrisy and arbitrary discrimination. Those who tolerate—and at times even seem to condone—sex and cohabitation for unmarried men and women have little standing to criticize the prospect of legal sanction for gay unions. If there is no visible difference between how Christians and others handle these crucial life-shaping matters, why should anyone take seriously what we have to say? If we do not call heterosexuals to holiness, why all the bother about the much smaller population of homosexuals? |
| Second, Tixeront is also correct that the title “Father” customarily is given to bishops, because they are “the teachers of the Faith,” and as the Orthodox Church sometimes describes her hierarchs, “icons of Christ”: the visible heads of their flocks, which are each, “in a particular place,” the Body of Christ. But, as we know, the universal Church has anointed many Christian writers beneath the rank of bishop as “Fathers of the Church,” such as Sts Justin Martyr, Macarius of Egypt, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, Ephraim the Syrian, John of Damascus, John Cassian, etc. In truth, then, any man can be a Father of the Church if his life is characterized by holiness and his doctrine by apostolic orthodoxy. Furthermore, since the Fathers of the Church are the supreme expositors of the Holy Scriptures, “the conscientious keepers of the apostolic traditions”; “God-mantled blessed Fathers” who were “enlightened by the Holy Spirit,” enabling them “to establish doctrine revealed from on high” 2 , then, it is unthinkable that the impious and the heretical may be found in that “blessed fraternity.” And, for that reason, too, it is quite “thinkable” that such men as Augustine of Hippo, Lanctantius, Tertullian, Clement and Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus the Blind, Evagrius Ponticus, etc. are left off the list of the Fathers – whatever may have been their contribution to the defense and understanding of Christianity. Tixeront insists that, although “errors have been laid to the charge of some writers, these mar their works without making them more dangerous than useful; while they are wrong on a few points, there is in them much that is good.” His defense of such writers might carry some validity, if under discussion were savants and philosophers and not “confessors of the faith,” “revealers of God,” who “have no private doctrine, none but the common Faith of the Catholic Church,” as St Maximus the Confessor declared. “They did not draw from their own resources, but learned these things from the Scriptures and charitably taught us... They spoke only by the grace of the Holy Spirit which entirely permeated them” (Rel. Mot., 6–9 PG 90 120CD; Op. theol. et. pol., 28 PG 91 320BC). |
| After two days, on September 7, 1678, they beheaded the Hieromartyr. Witnesses to the martyric death of Archimandrite Macarius carried his body to the monastery church, in which they were hidden for safety. But the returning Turks placed firewood around the church and burned everything in the temple. When the surviving citizens of Kanev began removing the bodies of those who perished, only one body was found whole and as though alive. This was the body of the Hieromartyr Macarius, attired in a hairshirt, with a cross on his breast and another cross in his hand. The holy body was buried in this church beneath the altar on September 8, 1678. The holy Hieromartyr Macarius was a man of highly righteous and spiritual life, glorified while still alive by miracles and the gift of clairvoyance. At Kanev, he healed the blind and the dying. In 1688, during renovation of the temple, the grave of the Hieromartyr was opened, and the incorrupt body of the saint was found. In connection with the danger of invasion for the Kanev monastery, on May 13, 1688 the holy relics were solemnly transferred to the Pereyaslavl Regimental Resurrection Church, along with the hieromartyr’s beloved book, Discourse of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourteen Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul (Kiev edition 1621-23) with his signature on one of the pages. Under Bishop Zachariah (Cornelovich) in 1713, the relics were transferred to a newly built temple of the Pereyaslavl Mikhailovsk monastery, and after its closing the relics rested at the Pereyaslavl Resurrection monastery from August 4, 1786. In 1942, the relics were transferred to the Trinity church in the city of Cherkassa, and from 1965 they have been in the church of the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos in that same city. Hieromartyr Macarius is separately commemorated twice: September 7/20, the day of his repose, and on May 13/26, the transfer of his holy relics. (From OCA.org ). St. Stephen, Bishop of Vladimir in Volhynia Also commemorated April 27/May 10 |
|
|
