The Nativity of our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary

The Nativity of Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary: The Most Holy Virgin Mary was born at a time when people had reached such a degree of moral decay that it seemed altogether impossible to restore them. People often said that God must come into the world to restore faith and not permit the ruin of mankind.

The Son of God chose to take on human nature for the salvation of mankind, and chose as His Mother the All-Pure Virgin Mary, who alone was worthy to give birth to the Source of purity and holiness.

The Nativity of Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary is celebrated by the Church as a day of universal joy. Within the context of the Old and the New Testaments, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was born on this radiant day, having been chosen before the ages by Divine Providence to bring about the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God. She is revealed as the Mother of the Savior of the World, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Most Holy Virgin Mary was born in the small city of Galilee, Nazareth. Her parents were Righteous Joachim of the tribe of the Prophet-King David, and Anna from the tribe of the First Priest Aaron. The couple was without child, since St Anna was barren.

Having reached old age, Joachim and Anna did not lose hope in God's mercy. They had strong faith that for God everything is possible, and that He would be able to overcome the barrenness of Anna even in her old age, as He had once overcame the barrenness of Sarah, spouse of the Patriarch Abraham. Sts Joachim and Anna vowed to dedicate the child which the Lord might give them, to the service of God in the Temple.

Childlessness was considered among the Hebrew nation as a Divine punishment for sin, and therefore the righteous Sts Joachim and Anna had to endure abuse from their own countrymen. On one of the feastdays at the Temple in Jerusalem the elderly Joachim brought his sacrifice to offer to God, but the High Priest would not accept it, considering him to be unworthy since he was childless.

St Joachim in deep grief went into the wilderness, and there he prayed with tears to the Lord for a child. St Anna wept bitterly when she learned what had happened at the Jerusalem Temple. Never once did she complain against the Lord, but rather she prayed to ask God's mercy on her family.

The Lord fulfilled her petitions when the pious couple had attained to extreme old age and prepared themselves by virtuous life for a sublime calling: to be the parents of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the future Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Archangel Gabriel brought Joachim and Anna the joyous message that their prayers were heard by God, and of them would be born a most blessed daughter Mary, through Whom would come the Salvation of all the World.

The Most Holy Virgin Mary surpassed in purity and virtue not only all mankind, but also the angels. She was manifest as the living Temple of God, so the Church sings in its festal hymns: "the East Gate... bringing Christ into the world for the salvation of our souls" (2nd Stikhera on "Lord, I Have Cried", Tone 6).

The Nativity of the Theotokos marks the change of the times when the great and comforting promises of God for the salvation of the human race from slavery to the devil are about to be fulfilled. This event has brought to earth the grace of the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom of Truth, piety, virtue and everlasting life. The Theotokos is revealed to all of us by grace as a merciful Intercessor and Mother, to Whom we have recourse with filial devotion.

From the web site of the Orthodox Church in America.

The Countdown

7

ROCOR Synod Approves Communion with Moscow

The Holy Synod of the Russian Church Abroad has approved the Act of Canonical Communion and issued a decree. It would appear that formal communion will be restored by the end of the year. The full text is below.

From the web site of The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia:

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, at its regular session on August 24/September 6, 2006, considered:

The report of the Secretary of the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, on the results of the seventh joint meeting of the Commissions held in late June of this year.

After an exhaustive discussion of the matter, decreed:

1. To take into consideration the report of Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff.
2. On the basis of the decision of the Council of Bishops of May 15-19, 2006, to confirm and approve the “Act on Canonical Communion” in its revised form as prepared by the church Commissions at the seventh joint meeting, along with other materials developed by the Commissions.
3. In accordance with the directions of the Council of Bishops of 2006, to instruct the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, jointly with the Commission on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to work out the details of the ceremony of the signing of the “Act” and the Rite of establishment of canonical communion of both parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.
4. Also, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Bishops, to authorize Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Chairman of the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, to coordinate together with Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun the simultaneous publication of the “Act” which has been confirmed by both Holy Synods on the official websites of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.
5. To consider at the next expanded session of the Synod of Bishops, to be scheduled at the time of the feast day of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God this year, on the proposals prepared by the joint Commissions at their next meeting.
6. To inform the flock through a special Address on the present state of the negotiation process and the proposed plans for the future.

+ Metropolitan Laurus
President

+ Archbishop Mark

+ Archbishop Kyriil

+ Bishop Michael

+ Bishop Peter

Quote of the Day

Sometimes I find quotes that give me that sinking feeling they were directed towards me personally.

"He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..."

-St. Maximos the Confessor

ROCOR & Moscow ...

The Holy Synod of the Russian Church Abroad is meeting in NY and is expected to finish its business on Thursday. Its very possible they will give formal approval to the Act on Canonical Communion. Pray for all concerned and stay tuned.

A Saint's Confession

The Holy Royal Martyr and Passion Bearer Czar Emperor Nicholas II

Father Afanasy's testimony about the Emperor's confession is very moving: "Next to me stood one who had no peer among those living on earth. Up to this moment he was our God-sent Anointed one who, according to the Law of Succession, for 23 years reigned as the Russian Orthodox Czar. And now, the humble servant of God Nicholas, as a meek lamb, benevolent towards all his enemies, forgetting all abuses, is fervently praying for the well-being of Russia, deeply believing in its glorious future, kneeling and looking at the cross and the book of the Gospels, is confessing to the Heavenly Father, with me, an unworthy one, as a witness, the innermost secrets of his long-suffering life, reducing himself to dust before the greatness of the King of Heaven, tearfully asking to be forgiven for his voluntary and involuntary transgressions." The suffering of the Sovereign brings to mind the long-suffering Righteous Job, on whose feast day Nicholas II was born. The Emperor's life was comparable to the suffering of Job - he accepted his cross just as the Biblical righteous one accepted the misfortune which was sent to him - firmly, patiently, meekly, and without a shadow of grumbling.

-From the report of the Moscow Patriarchate commission investigating the possibility of canonizing the Russian Orthodox Emperor Nikolai II

The magic number is now 9

The Mets swept a daytime double header today against the Atlanta Braves. They now need to win nine games to clinch the NL East division pennant. If the Phillies loose tonight the number will become eight. For the last twenty years with a single exception the Mets have sucked. Since the day I formally entered the Church they have been in first place and have dominated the National League. What further evidence on behalf of Orthodoxy beyond this obvious miracle does one need? Lord have mercy!

Addendum: Make that EIGHT!!!!!

Do we need Rome?

Owen of The Ochlophobist posted the following reply to the thread over at Pontifications that I noted below. I am not in full agreement with every point he makes. For instance I do think we need a Church Council. But broadly speaking he makes a very powerful argument about the difficulties that lie between Orthodoxy and Rome. Please direct any comments or replies to the thread on Pontifications. Owen’s post #80:

Diane,
People who get offended by comments annoy me, so never worry about offending me. I did mean what Mr. Grano suggests. I think that most patristic scholars (Prot, Catholic, Orthodox) would agree that it is an anachronism to suggest that St. Maximus or any other Eastern father would have held something akin to universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility as defined by Vat. I. The fact that they held to papal primacy, that they had a very high regard for the papacy, that they believed that Rome had consistently and faithfully taught the Catholic faith, and that Rome was the place to go for final appeal when things went bad in the home region does not amount to the two points of Vat. I which RCs and Orthodox will never agree on. Whether or not these pro-papal beliefs of the Eastern fathers naturally develop into Vat. I is another matter RCs and Orthodox will never agree on.

My comments regarding why we Orthodox should not want and do not need the Pope (as part of some ecumenical agenda) is easily construed as lacking in my former irenic manner. Fair enough. I must confess that I recently had the opportunity to attend a Novus Ordo Mass for the first time in over 4 years. During those 4 years I have tried my darndest to immerse myself in the Byzantine liturgical tradition and spiritual discipline. After having seen a Novus Ordo in this context, I must argue that while I might not be irenic in a technical sense I am being loving when I state this: The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches will never reunite. For them to reunite one of them will have to stop being who she is, and this simply is not going to happen. This is the reality that professional ecumenists and internet theo-pundits refuse to acknowledge. As many Catholics have noted in this thread, if the Roman Catholic Church were to agree to Fr. Hopko’s terms, it would not be the Roman Catholic Church that reunited with Orthodoxy, but some other new communion. Likewise, if Rome did not agree to something like Fr. Hopko’s terms, and Orthodoxy nonetheless united with her, the Orthodox Church at that point would cease to exist, despite the condescending analysis of Roman Catholic theologians and ecclesiocrats who assure us that we need do nothing more than say yes. To speak that yes would be to speak no to Orthodoxy. As an Orthodox, you might imagine how likely I think that scenario is. Time and time again in these debates, it seems to me that many RCs simply don’t believe us when we say that we are the fullness of the Church, that we are the Church which Christ founded, that we are and nobody else is. The general response from RCs carries with it a tone that communicates, “O, isn’t that cute, little Orthodoxy thinks she’s the Church!” But, alas, we really do believe what we say, and because we believe what we say, we believe that we don’t really need the Roman Church. If Rome returns to Orthodoxy, great, if not, Oh well.

This brings me to the ecumenical economic reality that is the elephant in this room. We Orthodox are chided for the fact that our terms for a reunite (via Fr. Hopko in this case) demand so much from Rome while Rome’s terms demand so little from us. Well, uh, yeah. When you get us you get our problems - some jurisdictional issues, a piety that is often enough totalizing (in a day in which the rest of Christianity, including American Catholicism, can barely muster any piety), and your usual amount of corruption and sin, etc. But when you get us you also get a large influx of churches which are liturgically and devotionally stable, and which hold on (in a relatively clear fashion) to Holy Tradition and venerable traditions. That would certainly help the good guys, whoever they are, in the trad-con-prog wars going on inside the RCC. It might even breathe some life into some of the old Western traditions which were once thought dead. But what do we Orthodox stand to gain if we accept Rome’s terms? Please keep in mind that we already understand ourselves to be the Church, so we do not gain that understanding. Many of our jurisdictional problems would not be solved - how many Patriarchs of Jerusalem are there right now who are in communion with Rome? Our discipline is not going to get any better, if anything it might get worse, following Rome. The Pope, from an Orthodox point of view, is not able to keep his own house in order, in terms of what Orthodox consider to be basic Church discipline. Furthermore, the Pope of Rome in this day and age is, as you admit, not able to play too strong of a hand in administrative affairs. He would be on pins and needles with the incoming Orthodox Churches in that regard. The only thing a Pope could offer us that we do not already have is a spokesperson, his ability to call a council, and his ability to declare dogma. As I have already stated, I don’t share Fr. Hopko’s enthusiasm for a central, formal, spokeperson for the Church. I don’t think that the Orthodox Church needs a council, because there are no new heresies under the sun, Christology and Trinitarian thought have been fully explained and defended by the Church, and there are no matters of discipline in the Orthodox Church at this time which I believe justify an Ecumenical Council. As for declaring something to be a dogma, why? We have the fullness of dogma now. We have more doctrinal and dogmatic unity now than the contemporary RCC could ever dream of. Thus, I don’t see any benefit for the Orthodox in agreeing to Rome’s easy terms (assuming that were even possible), other than an increase in prestige, and I am of the opinion that we should not be all that concerned with prestige. Should the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches reunite (something which is possible), that would put the nails into the coffin of Rome’s eastward ecumenical agenda. Then we would have a multi-rite Eastern Orthodox Church with the full weight of the Greek and Syriac traditions under one roof. And the Latins then, as now, can wander about as they see fit.

Perhaps I am less irenic in tone because after some years of being Orthodox and then visiting a Novus Ordo Mass (in a “conservative” RC mega-parish) I was struck by the fact that it may as well have been a mainline Presbyterian service or a happy clappy Pentecostal service, it was so far from what I recognize Christianity to be. We think it kind in these circles to talk about what we have in common, but what is not said (enough anyway) is that what we have in common is all abstract. In the real flesh and blood terms of authentic communion we have very little in common. You talk about Eucharist, but in the end your Eucharist is very, very different from ours. You talk about the veneration of Mary, but in the end your Marian veneration is very, very different from ours. You talk about the communion of the saints, but in the end your relationship to the saints is very, very different from ours. You talk about Sacraments, but in the end your Sacraments are very, very different from our Mysteries. You talk about prayer, almsgiving, and fasting but in the end your understanding of the spiritual disciplines is very, very different from ours. You talk about Church, but in the end your understanding of Church is very, very different from ours. I used to think that these differences were merely aesthetic and trivial. I no longer do. I have to agree with His All-Holiness Bartholomew that there is an ontological difference at the heart of what divides us. Yes, we are the poor little Orthodox Church, but we are the Church, and every time we are “mocked” by a thinly veiled condescension for thinking so it only serves to increase our resolve and identify all the more with the cross of Christ.

An Orthodox Papacy?

Fr. Stephen Freeman (OCA) has posted an article on Pontifications by Fr. Thomas Hopko (also OCA). The subject is an Orthodox approach to the Papacy in the modern world. Jump over to Pontifications and join the disucussion.

(Saint?) Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina

Sept 2nd was the anniversary of the repose of Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina (1934-1982). This extraordinary man is among the most famous American converts to Orthodoxy. Born Eugene Rose he was baptized as a Methodist and was raised in a normal middle class family. Early in life he abandoned all religious belief professing atheism and later practicing Buddhism. As a young man in college Eugene fell into a life of hedonism. In the 1950s he was introduced to Orthodox Christianity (ironically by his homosexual lover). As his attraction to Holy Orthodoxy grew so his love for the world and its pleasures waned and he gradually abandoned the ways of his dissipated youth. During this period he became close friends with and adopted as a spiritual mentor the great St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco (then archbishop of SF). In 1962 he was received into Orthodoxy via Holy Chrismation by his spiritual father St. John.

In the early 1960’s Eugene with another Orthodox Christian organized a community of Christian booksellers and publishing dedicated to St. Herman of Alaska (not yet canonized by the Church). By 1966 Eugene had reached the point where he and some of the others felt the need to withdraw from the world and pursue the angelic life. They departed the world and settled in the wilderness of Northern California near Platina. There they lived the monastic life under extremely ascetic conditions (no running water or electricity). In 1970 he was tonsured as a monk by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) where he took the name Seraphim after St. Seraphim of Sarov.

It was in his monastic life that he also began to write articles and books on Orthodox spirituality and other topics. His works include God's Revelation to the Human Heart, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, and The Soul After Death. He also founded the magazine The Orthodox Word which is still published at the monastery today. His fame soon spread for his spirituality and also for his sound teachings on many subjects though some of his eschatological writings were and remain highly controversial.

He defended the veneration of pre-schism western saints including Blessed Augustine at a time when some challenged the practice. He also strongly defended the grace of the Church in Russia when more radical elements were attempting to deny that the Russian Church retained grace. He became an outspoken critic of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline Mass) as it began its slide towards eventual schism.

In 1982 Fr. Seraphim complained of stomach pains and after some procrastination and resistance allowed himself to be taken to the hospital in Redding California. There it was discovered that he was gravely ill. Prayers from all over the Orthodox world went up for his recovery but it was not to be. Within days he reposed.

His body was returned to St. Herman’s Monastery in Platina where it was said that a sweet odor emanated from it and it showed no signs of corruption. After several days he was buried and his grave remains a place of pilgrimage for pious Orthodox Christians. Many miracles have been attributed to his intercession and there is a movement to have him glorified as a saint. At present none of the various Orthodox synods have chosen to act on the matter though it is widely assumed that the ROCOR would be the most logical one to do so if the decision is ever made since he lived his monastic life under their jurisdiction. Informally he is widely referred to as Blessed Seraphim of Platina and some icons have been produced with his image depicting him as a saint (see above).

On a personal note I can relate that I had the pleasure of visiting St. Herman’s Monastery this last Cheesefare weekend in preparation for being received into the Orthodox Christian Faith. The monastery is today under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Church after a brief period where it had become extra-canonical. The monks are extremely welcoming of visitors though they ask that you write ahead or email them. They do have an email address that they check every day or two on a computer in the local town. The monastery remains very rustic with none of the amenities of the modern world. The bunk houses for guests have wood burning stoves for heating in the winter. The food was surprisingly good.

St. Herman’s is located in a remote area of Northern California a little less than an hour from Redding. It is not far from Trinity National Park and the scenery is breathtaking. Pilgrims and those seeking a retreat from the world are always welcome though they do not accommodate women overnight in the monastery. Ladies are encouraged to contact St. Xenia’s monastery for women which is close by. While staying in the monastery visitors abide by the monastic rule there to the extent possible. Spiritual reading material is given to visitors and when they tire of reading they often ask the abbot for some small task to perform with the monks. If you plan to visit, pack conservative attire as modesty is required while on the monastery’s grounds. Also wear comfortable shoes since in the church they follow the traditional Orthodox practice of standing through services. Benches are available for the infirm or those not accustomed to long standing. A flashlight and sanitary napkins are also good things to bring. There is still no running water or electricity. St Herman’s follows the Old Calendar and all services are in English.

For those interested the monks may be contacted by email at: stherman@stherman.com

Hat tip to the Young Fogey whose blog reminded me of the anniversary.

Addendum: When I originally wrote this essay I said that Fr. Seraphim had been raised Catholic. I was mistaken and have corrected the text above. He was baptised in the Methodist Church.

The passing of a witness to history...

Speaking of assassinations, Nellie Connally, the wife of the then Gov. John B. Connally of Texas has died. She was the last living witness to the murder of President John Kennedy who was actually in the car when it happened. When the attack occurred she cradled her gravely wounded husband in her lap during the high speed drive to the hospital. The Governor survived his wounds. In the photographs above Mrs. Connally can be seen sitting next to her husband in the driver side jump seat of the president’s open limousine as it leaves the airport for and later in the fateful parade through Dallas on Nov 22 1963. Mrs. Kennedy in her famous pink suit and pillbox hat is sitting behind her.

Europe -- Thy Name Is Cowardice

An interesting op-ed from the German DIE WELT (Translated into English):

Europe -- Thy Name Is Cowardice
By Matthias Dopfner
David's Medeinkritik | January 7, 2005

[This article was originally posted in German in DIE WELT.de and was translated from German by Hartmut Lau.]

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -- your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

Read the rest here.

The latest in liberal protest: Assassinating G. W. Bush

Dateline Chicago Oct 2007: The President of the United States is walking out of a hotel when suddenly there is gunfire and pandemonium. The president falls as security people draw weapons. Of course it’s all captured on live television. Fortunately this is a scene from a movie. Unfortunately the movie is a politically motivated assault on the United States. And just in case anyone misses the point the President who is assassinated is… you probably guessed it… George W. Bush.

Now I have become increasingly disenchanted with this administration’s policies. And I am a staunch defender of the right to freedom of expression. But I am also a strong defender of the right to criticize the irresponsible exercise of that freedom. This is so over the top it is a no brainer. It needs to be roundly condemned by descent people of every political and religious persuasion.

You can read what sounds like a disturbingly sympathetic report on the film by clicking here.

Feast of Saint Simeon the Stylite

Saint Simeon the Stylite was born in the Cappadocian village of Sisan of Christian parents, Sisotian and Martha. At thirteen years of age he began to tend his father's flock of sheep. He devoted himself attentively and with love to this, his first obedience.

Once, after he heard the Beatitudes in church, he was struck by their profundity. Not trusting to his own immature judgment, he turned therefore with his questions to an experienced Elder. The Elder readily explained to the boy the meaning of what he had heard. The seed fell on good soil, and it strengthened his resolve to serve God.

When Simeon was eighteen, he received monastic tonsure and devoted himself to feats of the strictest abstinence and unceasing prayer. His zeal, beyond the strength of the other monastic brethren, so alarmed the igumen that he told Simeon that to either moderate his ascetic deeds or leave the monastery.

St Simeon then withdrew from the monastery and lived in an empty well in the nearby mountains, where he was able to carry out his austere struggles unhindered. After some time, angels appeared in a dream to the igumen, who commanded him to bring back Simeon to the monastery.

The monk, however, did not long remain at the monastery. After a short while he settled into a stony cave, situated not far from the village of Galanissa, and he dwelt there for three years, all the while perfecting himself in monastic feats. Once, he decided to spent the entire forty days of Great Lent without food or drink. With the help of God, the monk endured this strict fast. From that time he abstained from food completely during the entire period of the Great Lent, even from bread and water. For twenty days he prayed while standing, and for twenty days while sitting, so as not to permit the corporeal powers to relax.

A whole crowd of people began to throng to the place of his efforts, wanting to receive healing from sickness and to hear a word of Christian edification. Shunning worldly glory and striving again to find his lost solitude, the monk chose a previously unknown mode of asceticism. He went up a pillar six to eight feet high, and settled upon it in a little cell, devoting himself to intense prayer and fasting.

Reports of St Simeon reached the highest church hierarchy and the imperial court. Patriarch Domninos II (441-448) of Antioch visited the monk, celebrated Divine Liturgy on the pillar and communed the ascetic with the Holy Mysteries.

Elders living in the desert heard about St Simeon, who had chosen a new and strange form of ascetic striving. Wanting to test the new ascetic and determine whether his extreme ascetic feats were pleasing to God, they sent messengers to him, who in the name of these desert fathers were to bid St Simeon to come down from the pillar.

In the case of disobedience they were to forcibly drag him to the ground. But if he was willing to submit, they were to leave him on his pillar. St Simeon displayed complete obedience and deep Christian humility. The monks told him to stay where he was, asking God to be his helper.

St Simeon endured many temptations, and he invariably gained the victory over them. He relied not on his own weak powers, but on the Lord Himself, Who always came to help him. The monk gradually increased the height of the pillar on which he stood. His final pillar was 80 feet in height. Around him a double wall was raised, which hindered the unruly crowd of people from coming too close and disturbing his prayerful concentration.

Women, in general, were not permitted beyond the wall. The saint did not make an exception even for his own mother, who after long and unsuccessful searches finally succeeded in finding her lost son. He would not see her, saying, "If we are worthy, we shall see one another in the life to come." St Martha submitted to this, remaining at the foot of the pillar in silence and prayer, where she finally died. St Simeon asked that her coffin be brought to him. He reverently bid farewell to his dead mother, and a joyful smile appeared on her face.

St Simeon spent 80 years in arduous monastic feats, 47 years of which he stood upon the pillar. God granted him to accomplish in such unusual conditions an indeed apostolic service. Many pagans accepted Baptism, struck by the moral staunchness and bodily strength which the Lord bestowed upon His servant.

The first one to learn of the death of the saint was his close disciple Anthony. Concerned that his teacher had not appeared to the people for three days, he went up on the pillar and found the dead body stooped over at prayer. Patriarch Martyrius of Antioch performed the funeral before a huge throng of clergy and people. They buried him near his pillar. At the place of his ascetic deeds, Anthony established a monastery, upon which rested the special blessing of St Simeon.

We pray to St Simeon for the return to the Church of those who have forsaken Her, or have been separated from Her.

Homily on the Word the Son of God

From The Prologue from Ohrid:

In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1).
The Logos-the rational, intelligent Word-existed in the beginning. This pertains to the Divine Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Brethren, by saying, In the beginning, do we think that the Word of God has a beginning? Or that there was a certain date in time when the Son of God was born of God the Father? In no way! For the birth of the Son of God can have neither a date nor a beginning, since time is a condition of this transient world, and it does not affect the eternal God, and therefore does not affect anything at all that is of God. Can the sun remain the sun, if the sunlight is separated from it? Will a man remain a man, if his mind is taken away? Would honey still be honey, if its sweetness is separated from it? It cannot. Even less can one conceive of God as separate from His Logos, from His rational Word, from His Intelligence, from His Wisdom-the eternal Father separate from His co-eternal Son.
No, brethren, the words are not about the beginning of the Son of God from God the Father, but rather about the beginning of the history of the created world and the salvation of mankind. This beginning is in the Word of God, in the Son of God. He began both the creation of the world and the salvation of the world. Whoever would speak of the creation of the visible or invisible worlds, or of the salvation of mankind, must begin with the Beginning. And that Beginning is the Word of God, the Wisdom of God, the Son of God. For example, if someone were telling a story about boating on a lake, he might begin it like this: ``In the beginning there was a lake, and on it sailed a white boat….'' No reasonable person would interpret the words, ``In the beginning there was a lake…'' to mean that the lake came into existence on the same day that the boat sailed on it. Thus, no rational man could take the words of the Evangelist, In the beginning was the Word…, as though the Word of God came forth from God at the same moment that the world was created! Just as the lake existed for thousands of years before the boat sailed on it, so the Word of God existed for a whole eternity before the beginning of creation.
O Son of God, co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, enlighten us and save us.
To Thee be glory and praise forever. Amen.

The Music of the Russian Orthodox Church

The BBC recently did a news report on the summer school for liturgical music held at Holy Trinity Monastery (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia). You can listen to this wonderful program here.

Hat tip to Fr. John Whiteford.

Quote of the Day

"Because modern minds are very sick, as minds, and Benedict XVI has a modern mind, like millions and millions of modern people, including churchmen, around him."

-Richard Williamson (schismatic Roman Catholic & bishop vegante) explaining in part why he believes Pope +Benedict XVI is a heretic.

Read the rest here.

Caution & disclaimer: This above link is to a traditionalist Roman Catholic web site that is sympathetic to the schismatic SSPX and is known for controversial and sometimes extremist posts. The reader is advised to approach with care.

Ad Orientem

"Praying toward the East is handed down by the holy apostles, as is everything else. This is because the comprehensible sun of righteousness, Christ our God, appeared on earth in those regions of the East where the perceptible sun rises, as the prophet says: 'Orient is his name' (Zech. 6:12); and 'Bow before the Lord, all the earth, who ascended to the heaven of heavens in the East' (Cf. Ps. 67:34); and 'Let us prostrate ourselves in the place where His feet stood' (Cf. Ps. 67:34); and again, 'The feet of the Lord shall stand upon the Mount of Olives in the East' (Zech. 14:4). The prophets also speak thus because of our fervent hope of receiving again the paradise in Eden, as well as the dawn of the brightness of the second coming of Christ our God, from the East."

St. Germanus of Constantinople.

Questions about money? Ask the OCA...

From the web site of the Orthodox Church in America:

SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] — On Tuesday, August 22, 2006, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman, announced the debut of a new section on the Orthodox Church in America web site [www.oca.org] that will enable interested individuals to submit questions and obtain answers regarding the financial situation of the Church.

"The objective of this new feature will be to initiate and continue a dialogue between the faithful of the Church and the central Church administration," Metropolitan Herman said. "All questions are welcome, and we will attempt to the best of our ability to provide answers in an open and timely manner.

Read the rest here.

Rome Orthodoxy and the big "D": Are we closer than we think?

While I am on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), I am thinking that perhaps its time to briefly discuss one of the more common complaints I hear from my former co-religionists. That is the dreaded “D” word. Divorce. Even among the many Catholics who are friendly to Orthodoxy this is a sticking point. They complain about how we permit divorce. This is not a subject I am very comfortable with, but its one worth talking about. Let’s start by briefly stating where the two churches are on this.

The RCC’s position on divorce is pretty clear (as is their official position on most subjects). They don’t allow it. They don’t recognize it. It does not exist as far as they are concerned. They affirm that marriage is a sacramental contract being permanent and therefore is indissoluble. Those who are divorced may still commune provided they do not attempt to remarry. The RCC bars remarried Catholics from the sacraments.

By contrast the Orthodox position on divorce is less rigid or legalistic. In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. In Orthodoxy marriage is also considered permanent and divorce is seen at the least as a manifestation of sin and in many cases as a sin in and of itself. (It’s worth noting here that our understanding of sin is different from the Western Church’s, but that’s a topic for another day.) A major point of difference is the approach to the reality of divorce.

Orthodox Christians condemn it but acknowledge that it exists. In some rare cases most Orthodox will even tell you it may be the lesser of evils. Typically these can be reduced to what I once heard described as the three “A”s, abandonment, abuse and adultery (if it’s persistent). I think I might even add another “A” and suggest apostasy on the part of a spouse as a possible justification. I am not talking about an Orthodox Christian who becomes Roman Catholic or Baptist. I am thinking more along the lines of the husband who comes home and says “Honey guess what. I have converted to Islam and next week we are moving to Saudi Arabia where I just know you will love meeting my three new wives.”

While condemning the reality of divorce Orthodoxy is more concerned with the causes of this tragedy and healing the soul wounded by it. Pastorally the divorced Orthodox Christian is treated as someone who has fallen on the road to God and is in need of help as opposed to blanket condemnation. This help typically consists of confession coupled with spiritual counseling which might last a while and possibly a period of being excluded from Holy Communion. This doesn’t mean we condone divorce. We don’t. But it does mean we live in the real world as did the apostles (1 Cor 7:12-16). Jesus himself seems to have affirmed at least the possibility of divorce in cases of adultery and grave immorality (Matt 5:32 & Matt 19: 9). Even the RCC now permits in grave cases civil divorce without being barred from the sacraments. This was not true until fairly recently (of which more in a bit).The crux of the difference between Rome and Orthodoxy is less our attitude towards divorce than towards remarriage.

The Second Marriage:

Many RCs (and way too many Orthodox) are under the impression that in Orthodoxy you have a right to be married three times. That’s a serious error. Presuming compliance with the canons of the Church the Orthodox Christian can claim the right to one marriage blessed in the Church. Second marriages are NOT a right. Indeed the Orthodox Church severely frowns on them. This is true even in cases where the second marriage is the result of the original spouse dying. That’s because in Orthodoxy a valid marriage is not presumed to end with death. However in some cases a second marriage (and in rare cases a third) are tolerated through oikonomia and a condescension to human weakness. This is the decision of the local bishop under the guidance of the particular synod of bishops.

The rules for this will vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even between bishops in the same jurisdiction. However, generally second marriages are allowed out of pastoral concern for the divorcee/widow who might otherwise have great difficulty in life. Also the concept of annulment is not really known in Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox jurisdictions don’t have juridical courts which weigh the background of a marriage and pronounce it valid or not. In many cases there is a presumption that a failed marriage was spiritually defective from the word go. By contrast the RCC has a peculiar position. It unconditionally forbids second marriages on the part of the divorced but permits with no reservation a fourth or more marriages on the part of the widowed. In Orthodoxy fourth marriages are forbidden.

A legitimate question might be asked about the history of this issue. Without going into the kind of detail that would turn this essay into a short book, it is generally acknowledged that remarriage after divorce was known in the East as early the fifth century. Tolerance for the practice was confirmed at the council of Trulla (692) and various lesser synods. What is not as widely known is that divorce and remarriage also existed in the West. In fairness it must be admitted that it was less common than in the East and had largely been suppressed by the late eighth century. As is often the case, the Fathers can be quoted effectively by both sides though again in fairness some of them were very severe in their criticism of second marriages.

Today:

Until fairly recently the RCC excommunicated anyone who had a divorce. Thus the sacraments were not only withheld from those who remarried but from those who were divorced for any reason. Since the Second Vatican Council this position has evolved into the present policy of excluding only remarried divorcees from communion. But is this a fair description of the RCC’s policy? Or is it closer in practice if not perhaps theory to Orthodoxy than some would like to admit?

Since the late 1960’s the number of so called annulments issued by the RCC world wide but especially here in North America has increased exponentially. There were just 400 granted in the US in 1968 but by 1978, the church handed out 45,000 (an increase of 11,250 percent). By 1983 67,000 annulments were granted in the United States. The number has leveled off since then, but still exceeds 60,000 annually! Theory aside; I would respectfully argue that the Catholic Church does in fact grant divorces. They just call them annulments. That’s not intended as a shot at the RCC but a simple statement of belief backed by statistics. It is well known and has been widely reported in Catholic publications that annulments are easily available to those with money or the right connections. From an historical point of view this has always been true, though it has become far more pronounced in recent decades.

Is this immoral? Strict conservative Catholics have been bent over this for a long time. But I would suggest that in some ways the Roman bishops are being better pastors by acknowledging human sin while striving to reinforce the weak soul. This fairly blatant nod and wink at divorce and remarriage probably keeps people in the Church who might otherwise be lost. Even the most liberal RC bishop is unlikely to give someone more than one marriage annulment. So the “annulled” Catholic knows when he presents himself for marriage number two that he better get it right this time. This is not really that far removed from the practice in Orthodoxy, even if there are a lot of legalistic hoops to jump through.

All this is not to say that we Orthodox do not have our own problems. I mentioned that there is a widespread belief that any Orthodox has a right to be married up to three times in the Church. In far too many cases clergy do little to disabuse the faithful of that false belief. In some places second marriages are indeed permitted too liberally in my opinion. The jurisdictional soup that we deal with outside of traditionally Orthodox countries also makes things harder. If your Greek bishop will not allow you to remarry or wants you to wait a year before doing so why just slide on over to the Antiochians or the OCA (example only not to be taken literally) and one of them might marry you with less hassle. One blessing is that from what I have been able to glean from various sources it seems that some Orthodox bishops are becoming increasingly reluctant to allow third marriages in all but the most unusual cases. Some even prohibit them altogether unless both previous marriages ended with the death of the spouse.

In closing it should be emphasized that even when second marriages are permitted they are not occasions of joy for Orthodox Christians. They are in fact quite penitential in their form. This applies even to widows. There are no crowns and the entire service is subdued with a heavy emphasis on our human failings and imploring the mercy of God, without which we can not hope to be saved.