| Fr. Andrew Nikolaidi speaks on the good and bad sides of the Internet for Orthodox Christians. Modern means of communication break into private life, and Orthodox Christians are no exception. Almost all parishioners and clergymen periodically illuminate their face with the bluish light of a smartphone screen or sit in front of a computer in order to log in to social networks, chat with friends, find out news, read edifying teachings and quotes from wise and sometimes very wise people sent from one group to the other in the form of all these touching images and cards. In the vastness of the world’s network, a certain term has already been formed – “orthonet”. It denotes the Orthodox segment of the Internet. Indeed, the Internet is a great thing that allows you to instantly receive and provide information, learn, share experience and, most importantly, communicate. And every Orthodox Christian can use this tool as help in his spiritual growth. Probably, the accusatory sermons of some unreasonable zealous Orthodox Christians, rejecting all new inventions of the human mind and declaring the computer, phone and Internet a devilish obsession, have long passed away. In this regard, it is obviously worth recalling apt words of one of the venerable and respected hierarchs: “It is easier to call television a demon than to go to television and preach there”. The same logic, no doubt, is suitable for characterizing the attitude of a Christian to the latest inventions of mankind, including the Internet. After all, the apostles used the technical equipment of their era – sailed on ships, travelled on chariots, sent letters to their disciples, etc. And the saints of all time were not afraid and did not refuse various innovations. Therefore, we, the children of our time, can and should use the advantages that the era gives us. But sometimes many people forget that there are always two sides to every story. And, by giving the Orthodox Christian new opportunities to preach the Gospel and grow in spiritual life, the Internet as the World Wide Web offers us new forms of temptation, which can become a huge fly and undo all our good undertakings. |
| In case you haven’t been following the news‚ the Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of the recognition of same-sex unions throughout United States. Does this come as a surprise? Absolutely not! We knew it was just a matter of time. But how did we get here? How come that we need a court of law to decide what marriage is? Before we start pointing fingers at the state for changing our understanding of marriage‚ we have to admit first that even in Christianity‚ there are different views of what actually marriage is. Most Christians would agree that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that mutually agree to spend their lives together‚ but looking deeper we see a divergence of opinion on several aspects. The one that is most relevant to the current situation is the disagreement on the sacramentality of the marriage union. The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Church agree that marriage is one of the Sacraments of their respective Churches. The reformed however‚ starting with Luther begin to dispute this idea. “The most remarkable difference between Catholic [and Orthodox for that matter – author’s note] and Lutheran theologies is Luther’s denial of the sacramentality of marriage” In Luther’s own words: “Die Ehe ist ein eusserlich weltlich Ding” – marriage is an outside worldly thing. It is during his times that the state started to be tasked with the recording of marriages‚ which in his view were regarded as binding contracts between two willing parties in the presence of witnesses. Luther’s actions‚ however stream from deeper roots‚ because even in the Roman Catholic Church‚ that he separated himself from‚ marriage was‚ and still is‚ also regarded more as a covenant between husband and wife‚ who effectively become the ministers of the sacrament to each other. Marriage is not something accomplished by God through the power of priesthood‚ but a mutual agreement with the priest as a witness. “…the [Roman] Church teaches that in a Catholic wedding‚ the sacrament of matrimony is not conferred on the spouses by the priest or deacon who officiates. It is conferred by the spouses themselves‚ who administer it to each other when they exchange their consent. As canon 1057.1 observes‚ a marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of two people who are legally capable of getting married. In other words‚ the Catholic cleric‚ who must be present at a Catholic wedding does not actually marry the two spouses‚ because they marry each other. Instead‚ the relevant canons of the code repeatedly assert that the cleric simply “assists” at the marriage.” |
| Let’s Have More Teen Pregnancy Family life : Bringing up children Last Updated: Feb 8th, 2011 - 05:50:02 Let’s Have More Teen Pregnancy By Frederica Mathewes-Green Dec 15, 2010, 10:00 Discuss this article Printer friendly page Source True Love Waits. Wait Training. Worth Waiting For. The slogans of teen abstinence programs reveal a basic fact of human nature: teens, sex, and waiting aren’t a natural combination. Over the last fifty years the wait has gotten longer. In 1950, the average first-time bride was just over 20; in 1998 she was five years older, and her husband was pushing 27. If that June groom had launched into puberty at 12, he’d been waiting more than half his life. If he been waiting, that is. Sex is the sugar coating on the drive to reproduce, and that drive is nearly overwhelming. It’s supposed to be; it’s the survival engine of the human race. Fighting it means fighting a basic bodily instinct, akin to fighting thirst. Yet despite the conflict between liberals and conservatives on nearly every topic available, this is one point on which they firmly agree: young people absolutely must not have children. Though they disagree on means-conservatives advocate abstinence, liberals favor contraception—they shake hands on that common goal. The younger generation must not produce a younger generation. But teen pregnancy, in itself, is not such a bad thing. By the age of 18, a young woman’s body is well prepared for childbearing. Young men are equally qualified to do their part. Both may have better success at the enterprise than they would in later years, as some health risks—Cesarean section and Down syndrome, for example— increase with passing years. (The dangers we associate with teen pregnancy, on the other hand, are behavioral, not biological: drug use, STD’s, prior abortion, extreme youth, and lack of prenatal care.) A woman’s fertility has already begun to decline at 25-one reason the population-control crowd promotes delayed childbearing. Early childbearing also rewards a woman’s health with added protection against breast cancer. |
| Photo: doxologia.ro What does it mean to be spiritual? The world knows and promotes all kinds of “spiritualities” related to music, art, nature, leisure, sports, and many other kinds of human activities, including religious and quasi-religious practices. Many such activities are fairly harmless and promote a sense of physical and emotional well-being. Others however may involve obsessive preoccupations with popular music, sports or other forms of entertainment, and may actually be quite harmful, such as in the case of experimentation with drugs. For Orthodox Christians, being spiritual has to do with ordinary Christian living based on faith in God as we know Him in the person of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. For an Orthodox Christian, the first thing about being spiritual is not to dare think that you are spiritual but only humbly to seek to live by your faith in Christ and His teachings. Faithfulness, humility, discernment, peacefulness, love, truthfulness, compassion, and inner joy are the primary attributes of Orthodox spirituality. Orthodox spirituality is a quality of life that is always anchored and grows out of Orthodox piety. Orthodox piety is a way of life defined by observance of the ordinary expressions of Orthodox Christian life: regular worship, prayer at home, lighting and offering a candle, baking and offering the prosforo, fasting, philanthropy, celebrating the feast days of the liturgical calendar, reading the Scriptures and the writings of the Church fathers, serving in one of the Church ministries and services, and above all, fervent faith in Christ and whole-hearted obedience to His teachings. An Orthodox Christian can never cease doing the works of Orthodox piety, or somehow circumvent them, or think to rise above them, and still think that she or he can make progress in spiritual life. Spiritual growth occurs by reliance on God’s grace and attentiveness to practicing and living by the full meaning of the acts of piety and so to transform, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, Orthodox piety into Orthodox spirituality. For example, a person can light a candle without much thought and be done with it. However, as one offers a monetary gift, takes up a candle and lights it as an offering to God, and at the same time, again and again, perceives that symbolically she or he is offering herself or himself to God, and that the flame of the candle is her or his burning faith in God, or doubly also the flame of the baptismal grace in the soul—all this turns a pious act into a spiritual act full of meaning and power for strength and newness in life. |
| The decisions of the hierarchy of the Church of Greece on the “Holy and Great Council” and the final outcome Met. Hierotheos Vlachos At its meetings on 24 and 25 May 2016, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, as was its right and responsibility, studied the texts adopted by the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Summits of the Primates, further to the decision and proposal of the Standing Holy Synod. Having taken into account Article 11 of the Organization and Working Procedure of the “Holy and Great Council” it decided to submit proposals, amendments, corrections and additions, which were submitted within the prescribed time to the competent Pan-Orthodox Secretariat of the “Holy and Great Council”. As stated in Article 11 of the Organization and Working Procedure of the Holy and Great Council “At the conclusion of deliberations, the approval of any change is expressed, according to pan-Orthodox procedures, by the consensus of the delegations of each autocephalous Orthodox Church. This means that an amendment that is not approved unanimously shall not be passed.” The important thing is that most of these proposals were adopted unanimously by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, while some were approved with a minority of one or two Bishops voting against out of a total of 76 present, and one proposal was approved by an open vote. These facts imply that this decision by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece was solidly supported and expresses the consciousness of the Orthodox Church in Greece, which has a high theological, pastoral and monastic ecclesiastical level. 1. The key points of the decisions of the Hierarchy There are four key points in the decisions taken by the Hierarchy, namely, the issue of the person , the granting of autonomy to an ecclesiastical province, the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, and the unity of the Church as a given fact. a) According to the Fathers of the Church, the term person was attributed to the Triune God, while throughout patristic literature the biblical term human being (anthropos) is used for humans in the theological meaning of human beings created in the image and likeness of God. When sometimes the Fathers use the term hypostasis for human beings, they use it based on the Bible and not on philosophy. |
| This Great Lent let us be thankful as we serve joyfully without complaint. Jesus’ visit to the home of Martha and Mary in Bethany teaches us a great deal about joyful service and the power of our thoughts, whether positive or negative, to shape our day. In this Gospel account, we learn that we can give glory to God in the little things we do for one another. In this encounter, Jesus invites Martha to renew her mind (Ephesians 4:23-24), taxed with negative thinking, and illuminate her thoughts with the thought of Him by rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks to God for the opportunity to serve her Lord. Martha felt alone, unheard, and unappreciated. She was distracted with much serving and was worried and troubled about many things while her sister Mary sat at Christ’s feet and heard His word. Martha cried out to the Lord for help. The Gospel tells us that Martha approached Jesus and asked Him if He didn’t care that her sister had left her alone to serve. She begged Jesus to tell Mary to get up from His feet and help her. Jesus answered, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42) What is this better part Mary chose? Was it wrong for Martha to be focused on completing her household responsibilities while Jesus was visiting? What do these two sisters and their encounter with Christ teach us? Jesus said that He came to serve and not to be served. (Matthew 20:28) Therefore, the wrong Martha committed could not have been with serving as such. Rather, as Martha was setting the table, pouring the water, mending the food, sweeping the floor, and welcoming guests- all beautiful and necessary things by the way- her mind was worried and her heart was troubled. Mary chose the better part because she was present to Christ, but Martha could have chosen the best part by being present to Christ whilst seeing her tasks as her divine calling and sacred service. |
| WASHINGTON (CNS) -- During the week following the pan-Orthodox council, which wrapped June 26 in Crete, Greece, Orthodox clergy in the U.S. reflected on what the council would mean for Orthodox Christians here. Going into the council, the most pressing issue for American Orthodox Christians was the question of the diaspora: how the church’s hierarchy should work in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, but where different groups of Orthodox Christians now live, like in America and Australia. In these places, various Orthodox churches like the Greek, Russian and Ukrainian coexist, meaning that a city like New York can have 10 bishops from five different Orthodox churches. This current organization conflicts with the Orthodox canon, or law, that there should be only one church authority in each region. The final message and encyclical from the Holy and Great Council made no changes to the current structure but affirmed the importance of the governing episcopal assemblies, which bring together the different bishops in these regions. “The council decided to encourage their (the episcopal assemblies’) continuation until the situation in the various regions matured for future development,” said American Greek Orthodox Father John Chryssavgis, who attended the council. The American assembly, called the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, is the largest in the world, with almost 60 bishops. Greek Orthodox Father Patrick Viscuso, a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, said the affirmation of episcopal assemblies is “actually a wonderful thing.” “Episcopal assemblies are a first step for sorting out the canonical structure of the Church and bringing about canonical normalcy,” Father Viscuso told Catholic News Service in a phone interview from New Jersey. He said the assemblies are helpful in terms of pooling the Orthodox churches’ resources, and that while they won’t eliminate the priority of ethnic identities in the Orthodox Church, they are a step closer to ensuring the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. |
| Was Moses Really the Author of the Pentateuch? How should the Orthodox be? I would suggest, above all, not imposing grievous ties on oneself by confusing the stubbornness of Protestant fundamentalism with Patristic Tradition. For them, the authority of Scripture is based upon a literal interpretation of Revelation: God dictated these words to the great Prophet Moses, and therefore they are trustworthy. But for them, on the other hand, there is no such thing as Tradition. The average Orthodox reader of the Bible doesn’t think about questions such as the authorship or dating of individual books. The first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch of Moses? Of course, the Prophet Moses wrote it – after all, that’s what it’s called, and that’s what Scripture and Tradition teaches. And whoever doesn’t agree is an impious atheist. But then this Orthodox reader might come up against arguments from the other side. He either rejects them out of hand, starting directly from the conclusions without bothering with the arguments, or… he considers them and agrees with some of it. Does this then mean Scripture and Tradition are unreliable? Some draw this conclusion. Let’s stop and think about it. Tradition is a difficult and diverse thing; in it one can find all kinds of different statements (for instance, about a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, and the marriages of hyenas with morays), but only some of them are in fact of doctrinal significance. The question of the authorship of Biblical books clearly is not one of them. But what about the name the “Pentateuch of Moses”? Doesn’t it indicate an author? Not necessarily. Thus, the Psalter bears the name of King David, but David definitely didn’t write Psalm 136, “By the waters of Babylon,” simply because he died long before the Babylonian captivity. It’s unlikely that Jonah, Ruth, and Job themselves wrote the books that bear their names. And the Prophet Samuel certainly didn’t write the two books bearing his name in the Hebrew tradition (First and Second Kings in ours [i.e., in the Septuagint]) simply because he died in the middle of the first book. |
| Imagine there’s no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too John Lennon John Lennon’s lyrics strike a chord in us. We all remember a time when we yearned for a unity with others where the slightest separation is melted away in the face of pure love and abiding peace. Indeed the longing for true communion is the fundamental God-implanted hunger in every human soul. However over the centuries many have misused or misapplied this natural yearning for communion by artificially discounting the true borders of personhood. Examples include political ideologies such as Communism and like-minded social experiments such as hippie commune-ism. Platonism and other philosophical forms of dualism sought the release of the “invisible and indefinable” spirit from the confines of “evil” material existence. Examples of religious and deistic forms of a boundary-less union are the pantheism of Hinduism and the Christian heresy of Docetism, which claimed that Jesus only appeared to be circumscribed by a physical body. All of these have one thing in common—they seek to create a perceived communion by breaking down extant distinctions and definitions. As the former Beatle seems to advocate, division and disunity are actually caused by boundaries and beliefs. Yet a “communion” without borders is short-lived and futile because it is not consonant with reality itself. For instance, a country is not threatened by the existence of its borders; its borders are what make possible a real identity and a unifying culture. Imagine a country without borders and I will show you an imaginary country. Certainly, there are always dangers of unhealthy ethnocentrism, blind patriotism, or insular closed-mindedness. But a country without borders, without a distinctive history, without unifying cultural principles and symbols, without flag or anthem, is no country at all. If, because there are no borders, everyone is automatically a member, then no one is truly a member, for membership in such a non-entity is entirely meaningless. |
| Anger blinds and deafens. Anger keeps us from thinking clearly and from paying attention to and loving the human beings in our presence right now. CHLOE EFFRON//WIKIMEDIA COMMONS (PLUTARCH), ISTOCK (SMOKE) If I were to venture a guess as to the most commonly confessed passion that I hear in confessions, I would say that it is anger. Just about everyone is angry. According to many of the saints, anger and misdirected desire are the two main passions from which all vices and passions come. The sources of anger can be varied, but I think there are two sources of anger that are most common in the people here in western Canada whom I confess and with whom I often have ‘confessional chats.’ The first source is, it seems to me, cultural expectation. There is a cultural expectation in Canada, and in North America generally—especially among the privileged class (usually of European descent, working class or better off financially, and that is most pronounced among the better educated)—an expectation that life would, could, and should be fair. We in North America generally have egalitarian suppositions and expectations. We expect the courts, institutions, businesses and other people in general to treat us fairly and equally. And when this is not the case, when either I or someone with whom I identify is treated unfairly, I become angry. Anger coming from this source, if the source is not a particular injustice I am experiencing, often comes from politics, from identifying with a particular political position, party or issue. That is, although I myself am not immediately or directly effected by a real and immediate injustice, I identify with those who are or seem to be or even might possibly be effected. Some Christians, particularly those especially interested in political action, argue that such vicariously acquired anger is a good thing because it motivates one to work politically for change in unjust systems. The Church Fathers of the desert and philokalic tradition, however, see things differently. |
|
|
