DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI AND SAN
FRANCISCO
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WITNESS (USPS 412-260)
is published monthly by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Cathedral,
10300 Ashworth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98133-9410.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
OCW, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA. 98133-9410
Fr. Neketas S. Palassis, Editor Email: frneketas@stnectariospress.com
Telephone (206) 522-4471; (800) 643-4233 U.S. & Canada;
Fax: 206-523-0550
MARCH, 2004, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (1534)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. A Liturgical Act of Submission to the Pope
2. What Mel Missed
3. Nigerian bishop warns brides about attire
4. Media show their true colors again
5. About false teachers
6. The stages of Perfection
7. From the Book Center
1. A LITURGICAL ACT OF SUBMISSION TO THE POPE
"My beloved and revered brothers, archbishops and metropolitans, who
have come to receive the pallium. . ."
In this manner did Pope John Paul II begin his address to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate's delegation, which took part in the
celebration of the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome on the
29th of June, 2003.
For decades now, the official local churches of the east have
considered the Pope of Rome the "first bishop of Christianity." The
hour had arrived now to emphasize with concrete signs the obedience
which is owed to the one who is "first."
"While I am preparing to bestow this liturgical symbol upon you - which
you will wear on great feasts as a sign of ecclesiastical communion
with the Apostolic See of Rome - I beseech you to see it always as a
remembrance of a supreme love for Christ, which we have the joy to
share," said the Pope. "In the name of the Lord, do you also, in turn,
become friends of all those whom God has entrusted to you."
With Archbishop Demetrios of America (of the new calendar
Greek jurisdiction) as head, the bishops of the delegation had the
special honor to receive from the hands of John Paul the liturgical
symbol, which they will wear on great feasts as proof of their
ecclesiastical communion with the "Apostolic See of Rome."
"As Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, I renew
today, within the notable context of this feast, my full intent to
place myself in the service of the ecclesiastical fellowship of the
disciples of Christ," said John Paul II in the conclusion of his talk.*
What is the pallium, however? The bestowal of the pallium signifies the
granting of authority to a bishop to serve.
In the 8th century, the bestowal of the pallium signified that
he who received it recognized the governance and headship of the
apostolic Church of Rome. Thus Saint Boniface (680-754 AD), the Apostle
to Germany, in a letter he wrote in 745 AD to Archbishop Cuthbert of
Canterbury (740-758 AD), wrote that his desire to obey the Bishop of
Rome would become the cause for him to received the pallium.
In the 9th century, Pope Nicholas I of Rome (858-867 AD),
while responding about the Bulgarian matter in the 866, specified that
no archbishop would be enthroned or could celebrate the divine
Eucharist if he had not received the pallium from the Church of Rome.
Historians write that this special vestment of the popes is
representative of the increasing authority and position of the Church
of Rome in the West. Already, since the 6th century, the Synod of Macon
in France (581 AD) decreed in its 5th canon that no archbishop could
serve the holy Eucharist "sine pallio" ("without pallium") i.e., if his
election was not endorsed by the Church of Rome by the bestowal of a
pallium.
To all who have sound ecclesiastical criteria, it is evident that we
are here beholding an unconditional surrender to the "first bishop of
Christianity." Of course, for the prevailing indifference, which is so
widespread, this will not seem to be such a significant step.
2. WHAT MEL MISSED
There's a reason why the gospels don't dwell on the blood and gore of
the crucifixion.
by Frederica Mathewes-Green
Most of us have yet to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion," but
we've gained one sure impression: it's bloody. "I wanted to bring you
there," Gibson told Peter J. Boyer in September 15's New Yorker
magazine. "I wanted to be true to the Gospels. That has never been done
before."
This goal means showing us what real scourging and crucifixion would
look like. "I didn't want to see Jesus looking really pretty," Gibson
goes on. "I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it." It's a mark
of our age that we don't believe something is realistic unless it is
brutal. But there's another factor to consider. When the four
evangelists were writing their own accounts of the Passion, they didn't
take Gibson's approach. None of them depict Jesus with a destroyed eye.
In fact, the descriptions of Jesus' beating! and crucifixion are as
minimal as the writers can make them.
"Having scourged Jesus, Pilate delivered him to be crucified," the
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) agree. "When they came to the
place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him." Little more
than a dozen verses later he is dead. The evangelists did not linger
over his suffering in order to stir our empathy. The account of
physical action is so brisk that, back when I was in seminary, I asked
one of my professors why we presume Jesus was nailed to the Cross,
rather than bound with ropes. He supposed it was because Paul later
refers to redemption through Christ's blood. (It slipped the mind of
both of us that, in St. John's Gospel, St. Thomas puts his finger into
the wounds in Jesus' hands.)
If Mel Gibson had allotted his time the way the evangelists
do, the majority of his film would have been about the swirl of people
around Jesus in his last days, how they interact with him! and what
they do because of him. The scourging and crucifixion would have passed
in a flash.
Why would the earliest Christians have handled these events so
discreetly? Not because the events were thought unimportant; the whole
Gospel story builds toward them. Not because the writers were
squeamish, or because they were ashamed. St. Paul speaks boldly
about Jesus' saving blood and proclaims that he will boast in the
Cross.
But in the earliest Christian writings we see a different understanding
of the meaning of the Cross, one which, shockingly, didn't
think it was important for us to identify with Jesus' suffering. For
contemporary Christians it's hard to imagine such a thing.
The extremity of Jesus' sacrifice has been the wellspring of Christian
art and devotion for centuries. It has produced great treasures, from
late Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion, to the meditations of
Dame Julian of Norwich, to Bach's glorious setting of "O Sacred Head,
Sore Wounded." Mel Gibson's "Passion" arrives as the newest entrant in
a very old tradition.
A funny thing happens, however, if we press further back in time.
Before the middle ages, depictions of the Crucifixion show very little
blood. Though the event itself was no doubt horrific, artists preferred
to render it with restraint (like the Gospels, but unlike Gibson). The
visual elements in an ancient icon of the Crucifixion are arranged
symmetrically, harmoniously, and the viewer is placed at a respectful
distance. The depiction is not without drama: Mary and the disciple
John, at the foot of the Cross, reel
in grief. But Jesus does not reveal any sense of torment. He is serene,
almost regal.
What changed? In the 11th century, a theory emerged that shifted the
common understanding of the Cross. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury,
proposed that our sins constituted a debt to God which could not be
simply erased without unbalancing justice. The debt was too immense for
any human to pay, and only Jesus' death could be an adequate sacrifice.
Protestant Reformers, coming a few centuries later, modified some
implications of the theory, but retained the core intact.
Later still, during the Enlightenment, some theologians protested
against the "legalism" of this "substitutionary atonement" theory. They
proposed instead that contemplation of Jesus' suffering moves us in
grateful love toward the Father, and unites us in compassion with all
who suffer. A battle between these so-called "objective" and
"subjective" theories of the atonement occupied much of 19th century
theology.
No matter which you incline toward, however, the emphasis is on
reverent identification with the sufferings of Jesus. The movement in
this drama is from earth to heaven; Jesus as the God-Man takes on the
sin of the world, bears its crushing weight,
and accomplishes divine reconciliation. In this view, the Cross means
"suffering." Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern
Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the
atonement ("theory" would be too strong a word for a view expressed
with a light, wondering touch, and without expectation of wholly
satisfying human curiosity or logic) God in Christ effects a rescue
mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary
involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic
sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell,
and set the captives free. The focus is much broader than the
Crucifixion alone. The movement is from heaven to earth, the reverse of
the later pattern. Paul, writing about 60 AD, describes this divine
descent in the words of the earliest existing Christian hymn:
"Who, though he was in the form of God, Did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped, But emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to death,
Even death on a Cross." (Phil 2:6-8)
Early Christians understood the Cross to be the way that Jesus broke
into the realm of Death. Athanasius, writing about 318, addresses the
question of why, then, Jesus had to be crucified at all; couldn't he
have died of old age? Athanasius offers a number of reasons--the
Creator of life could not have grown ill, that Crucifixion gave public
proof of death-but he does not entertain any concept that suffering
itself was the point. How then could Jesus be a ransom, sacrifice, or
offering? Early Christians understood such terms to mean that it cost
Jesus his life to rescue us. It was a sacrifice to the Father, as a
soldier might offer a superlative act of courage to his beloved
general. It was the price of entry into the realm of Death. It cost
Jesus his life's blood to enter Hades and save us, but it wasn't a
payment to anybody. This helps us see why they did! not linger over the
details of his suffering. It would be as odd as welcoming home a
wounded soldier, and instead of focusing on the victory he won,
dwelling on the exact moment the bayonet pierced his stomach, how it
felt and what it looked like. A human soldier might well feel annoyed
with such attention to his weakness rather than his strength. He would
feel that it better preserved his dignity for visitors to avert their
eyes from such details, and recount that part of the story as scantly
as possible to focus instead on the final achievement. This is the
sense we pick up in the Gospels. Jesus' suffering is rendered in the
briefest terms, as if drawing about it a veil of modesty. What's
important is not that Jesus suffered for us, but that Jesus suffered
for us. It is the contrast with his eternal glory that awed the
earliest Christians. Eastern Orthodox hymns for Good Friday convey
fearful wonder:
"Today he is suspended on a Tree who suspended the earth over the
waters. A crown of thorns is placed on the head of the King of angels.
He who covered the heavens with clouds is clothed in a false purple
robe."
At such sights, "The heavenly powers trembled with fear...The whole
creation, O Christ, trembled; the foundations of the earth were shaken
for dread of thy might...The sun hides its rays at seeing the Master
crucified...The armies of the angels were amazed."
Mel Gibson's "The Passion" promises to be a landmark expression of the
strand of devotion that emphasizes identification with Jesus'
sufferings. It is a strand that has produced powerfully affecting works
of art, and moved and inspired Christians for centuries. The
Crucifixion was, in fact, bloody and brutal-Gibson is on solid
historical ground in wishing to depict them this way-and when he
prayerfully reads the Gospels, no doubt these are the pictures that
appear in his mind.
But they are not, actually, there in the Gospels. The writers of the
Gospels chose to describe Jesus' Passion a different way. Instead of
empathy they invite us to awesome wonder, because they had a different
understanding of the meaning of his suffering.
(A follow-up to members of my mailing list)
I've had a lot of response from conservative Christian friends to the
Beliefnet column I sent out yesterday--
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/132/story_13284_1.html&boardID=63857.
Some of the response seems to be based in confusion, so I wanted to
follow up with clarification. Don't feel you have to read this
if you're not interested in these details; this isn't a new published
article. I'd like to pinpoint where the actual disagreement is. First,
here's where I think we don't disagree.
--I expect that Mel's movie will be a powerful witness and help many
revive or begin a commitment to Christ. --Mel stands as an artist in a
longstanding tradition of depicting the Passion graphically; as an
artist, he is free to depict it any way he wants. --Mel is historically
accurate; the events really were that bloody.
Here's what snagged my curiosity. In the New Yorkerr article Mel says
"I want it very bloody" and "just like in the Gospels." It had never
occurred to me before that the Gospels do not depict it as very bloody.
Reality was very bloody, but when the writers of
the Gospels came to that point in the story, they made a different
choice than Mel does.
I thought further about this. I knew that the history of graphically
bloody Crucifixes and Passion meditations goes back to medieval times,
but before that I lose the thread. Starting at the other end, with the
relatively restrained Gospels, and moving forward, I didn't know of any
examples of early devotional writing that dwelt on the Passion using
this tone of compassionate empathy. The early liturgies for Good Friday
have a subtly different flavor--awe and gratitude for the suffering,
rather than identifying with it. Early depictions of the Crucifixion
are more like the Gospel of John--Jesus is serene and regal. Why did
they choose to portray it that way? When did this change, and why?
Now at this point I'm not talking about Mel's movie any more,
but about history. My goal was never attack the movie, but to use his
one comment as a jumping-off place for exploration. I think however
because of the way Beliefnet titled and packaged the piece it came
across as Mel-bashing. My goal was a more comprehensive exploration of
changing views of Jesus' suffering. My title was "The Meaning of His
Suffering," which is why that's still the last line in the piece.
I discovered of course that depiction of the Passion has changed over
the centuries depending on what people thought it meant to our
salvation. It's actually not useful to turn to Scripture to settle the
argument, because everybody believes their view is based in Scripture.
(Translation can cause problems, too, for example "propitiation"
instead of "expiation," though the term really has no perfect English
equivalent.) People who espouse one view accuse opponents of ignoring
the Scriptures they think most pertinent, and vice-versa.
But what we see is three distinct viewpoints, which arise at different
points in history. This is news to many people; it has never occurred
to them that sincere believers read the bible differently in the
ancient past. But the history really isn't in dispute. I was taught it
thirty years ago in Episcopal seminary. (The best short summary of this
history is "Christus Victor," by the Lutheran theologian Gustav Aulen,
and I highly recommend it.) Scholars and historians agree that this
shift occurred; the disagreement among believers is what you should do
about it.
Some (like me) believe you should always adhere to the earliest
consistent understanding in any theological question. Others say that
later explanations may be better, more thorough or logical
("development of doctrine"), even if it reframes understanding of the
question. And still others say that God is always doing a new thing,
and may even appear to reverse himself; it's wrong to be locked to the
past, change is good. Basically, three positions.
That's the core of our disagreement--whether you cling to the earliest
understanding, or later development, or a "new thing" altogether.
That's the point where conversation should take place. ***
Here's the boring historical part. If you're with me so far, you don't
necessarily have to read it. But if you're confused, keep going. Many
of my correspondents don't know this history and insist instead that
the Blood Atonement theory is the earliest. It just isn't so. They
believe this because they find evidence for it in the Scriptures, but
as I've said, this is a matter of your favorite Scriptures lighting up
for you, in accord with how you've been taught.
The appearance in history of the Blood Atonement, or Substitutionary,
theory can actually be located pretty precisely, in the work "Cur Deus
Homo?" ("Why Did God Become Man?") by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, in
the 11th century. Anselm's idea is foreshadowed in some earlier
writers, like Tertullian, but it was not the general view.
The general view of the early church was not as crisp, as thorough, as
Anselm's. And this is why Catholic and Protestant theologians have seen
Anselm's theory as a great advance. Henry Bettenson, in his anthology
"Documents of the Christian Church," calls "Cur Deus Homo," "one of the
few books that can truly be called epoch-making."
Catholic and Protestants have never claimed that Anselm's
Blood-Atonement theory is the earliest; they've said it is the best. It
was a breakthrough. That implies something else came before. Anselm'! s
theory, as we know, is that our sins create an overwhelming offense
against God's honor, a debt. God cannot merely excuse this offense and
wipe the debt away, because it constitutes an objective wrong in the
universe; justice would be knocked out of balance. There must be
punishment.
Anselm: "Let us consider whether God could properly remit sin
by mercy alone without satisfaction. So to remit sin would be simply
to abstain from punishing it. And since the only possible way of
correcting sin, for which no satisfaction has been made, is to punish
it, not to punish it is to remit it uncorrected. But God cannot
properly leave anything uncorrected in his kingdom. Moreover, to remit
sin unpunished would be treating the sinful and sinless alike, which
would be incongruous to God's nature. And incongruity is injustice. It
is necessary, therefore, that either the honor taken away should be
repaid, or punishment should be inflicted."
He goes on to say that "no sinner can make" complete satisfaction for
sin. "None can make this satisfaction except God. And none ought to
make it except man...One must make it who is both God and man."
Because Christ did not deserve to suffer for us, but paid the debt
voluntarily, he "ought not to be without reward...If the Son chose to
make over the claim he had on God to man, could the Father justly
forbid him doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?"
I think most of you will recognize this. It is the standard view of
traditional Catholics and Protestants.
During the Enlightenment theologians began to criticize this theory as
legalistic, as too rooted in the Old Testament and not enough in the
New, as portraying a God who hardly seems to be one of love. They began
to develop an alternative theory which was little concerned with
punishment of sin; instead, Christ's sacrifice was meant to move and
inspire, so that we voluntarily return to God, and God's moved to
reconcile with us. This theory is called "exemplary" because Jesus is
the example rather than the sacrifice. It's proponents claimed to root
their view in Abelard, a younger critic of Anselm. The big debate in
the 19th century cast these two views as "objective" and "subjective."
Because of this, conservative Christians in the West are disposed to
see any attack on the Substitutionary theory as a move toward
liberalism. That is not so. There is a whole third viewpoint, which
prevailed throughout the first millennium, and continues outside
Western Christianity today.
*** Now I'm going to describe this theory. Though I've described it
from time to time in my writing, I have a hunch that no non-Orthodox
could explain it back to me, because its simply too unfamiliar. It's
strange to us; its premodern. It has the Devil
in it. A theory so odd doesn't fit any of our categories, so as soon as
we read about it we forget it. I've heard that you have to be exposed
to an unfamiliar idea seven times before you remember it. So read this
section seven times. :-) Without grasping this alternative classic
theory, we fall back into presuming that, if it ain't substitutionary,
it's modern, liberal, and bad. This theory, in short, does not consider
the possibility that God could not just forgive us. It presumes that he
does just forgive us. The thing that so troubled Anselm--the image of a
great offense against God that could not be paid or remitted--didn't
occur
to the early church. However, "the wages of sin is Death." Because we
are sinners, we are captives of Death. The term means more than
mortality: it is a package including the Devil, evil spirits,
temptation to sin, and so forth, "the Tyrant." We have sinful hearts
that incline to choose self, and this cooperation with Evil keeps us
infected with the seeds of our own destruction. We are responsible for
our own! fate, because we cooperate with Evil. We are powerless to
escape this fate.
Note that the emphasis is not on sins being an offense
against God. It is more organic, like a disease inside a person. But
imagine that the person loves and caresses the disease, and joins his
will to it in affirmation. What can be done? What would a loving parent
do? The classic view sees God the Father and Christ his Son agreeing to
rescue lost humanity. The Son must actually go into the realm of Death
and break it open. He sets the captives free. The Cross is a high point
in this story. But it is part of a complete story that begins with
Christ's decision to become human, as we see in the Philippians 2 hymn.
It proceeds through the Resurrection and is crowned by the Ascension
and "sitting at the right hand" and even the final Judgment. The whole
story is what saves us. (by the way, salvation is organic too, and
transforms the entire person; its not merely the legal ! remission of
sin. It's called theosis.)
When I was researching this a few years ago I asked some
Patristic scholars what I should read to get a handle on the early
church theory of the Atonement. They replied that there really isn't
one, in terms of Western thinking. The best thing to read would be "On
the Incarnation," written by young Athanasius about 318. I kept saying,
No, I'm not asking about the Incarnation, I'm asking about the
Atonement. They said, It's the same thing. Salvation is the whole
story. (You can probably find "On the Incarnation" on line; its not
very long. I like the edition published by St Vladimir's Seminary
Press, which has a great introduction by C S Lewis.
)
Here's an example of how little the early church dwelt on the
pain of the Passion. Athanasius asks rhetorically, If the whole point
of the rescue was to get Jesus into Hades, why did he have to be
crucified? Why couldn't he just have died peacefully as an old man?
(You might be wondering that yourself about now.)
Athanasius reels off a lot of reasons in reply: that the Author of Life
could not have possibly gotten sick, that the Crucifixion was a public
death and so Christians wouldn't be accused of faking it. But he never
says that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer in order to pay our
debt. It was necessary for him to suffer in order to get into Hades,
yes. It was the price of admission. But not a punishment. Christ
achieved our deliverance at the cost of his blood, but it was not a
payment. As I said, the early church writers did not try to work out a
theory as crisp and complete as Anselm's. They agreed on the central
reality--Christ went into Hades and set us free--but did not establish
any detailed explanation of how it took place. The language in
Scripture about "ransom" and "sacrifice" was explored poetically,
without an attempt to establish explicit doctrine. Gregory Nazianzus
says that such language is always ! bound to lead to uncertainty. If a
"ransom" is paid to a kidnapper, it wasn't
paid to God; God wasn't holding us hostage. But if it was paid to the
Devil, the very idea is outrageous. The Devil was a usurper
and had no right to fair payment. It couldn't be a sacrifice in payment
to the Father, because the Father would not even accept the sacrifice
of Isaac--how much more appalling would be the sacrifice of his own
Son. So, Gregory concludes, we just can't press these images too hard.
It definitely cost Jesus his life's blood to rescue us. It was a ransom
in that sense. He offered it in obedience to the Father. It was a
sacrifice in that sense. When the sacrifice to the Father was explored
in more depth and likened to Temple sacrifice, as in Hebrews, it was
treated poetically, typologically, not literally. It was this softness
of logic that makes the classic theory frustrating to Western
Christians, and elicits impatience. The answer "It's a mystery" sounds
like "it's unreliable". Here we must note another influence on our
thinking: the Scholastic movement and Thomas Aquinas. In the West we
developed a tradition of vigorous intellectual inquiry, and to some
extent divided this from popular piety, so that theology became a realm
for experts. (An aside: this worship-study split shades into a
heart-mind split, and I speculate is one reason Western worship
services, heavy on emotion, are attended by more women than men. It's
not that men are intrinsically less religious--look at Islam and
Orthodox Judaism.)
It's hard for us to imagine a Christians culture in which people didn't
pursue a theological question to the very end. The compensation is that
study and worship are united, so that what we understand moves us to
love God, and love moves us to deeper understanding. It would be
strange to even to think of those as two different functions, because
we are a unity. There are things we don't particularly need to know in
! order to live on this earth and follow our Lord. Early Christians
would say that the exact mechanism of the atonement is one of those
things. We know that Christ has rescued us from the Evil One, and that
we must exercise constant vigilance to keep from hurling ourselves
voluntarily back into the pit. That's all we need to know.
To answer the initial question of "When did treatment of Jesus'
suffering change?" it appears that graphic meditation on the Passion
begins about the 14th century. In medieval times, too, the depiction of
the Devil is reduced in significance, and he becomes a semi-comic
figure. In the substitutionary atonement there is really no role for
the Devil; the whole transaction is between Christ and the Father, so
the Devil fades away (not in reality, of course).
I've been Orthodox ten years and only recently begun to see how
different these views of the Atonement are. Every step of the way as
these paths diverge they lead to divergent views of everything else:
what sin is, what forgiveness is, what the Father's love is like, even
the problem of evil (in the Christian east the West's big question,
"how can a good God permit evil?" doesn't occur; we know evil is in the
world because our sins keep polluting it, keep opening the door. Our
sins empower the Evil One, and he delights in hurting the innocent, not
only because he enjoys their suffering, but relishes the grief of
observers as well.) An unfamiliar idea like this is disruptive and
unsettling, and prompts floods of other questions. I may not have time
to answer them all. But I hoped, by this message, to at least lay out
the groundwork.
Orthodox News, PO BOX 6954
WEST PALM BEACH FL 33405-6954
Volume 6 Number 5 - Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004
A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY ORTHODOX NEWS
Orthodox Christian News
Service
Published by Beliefnet.com, January 2004 Phone: (877) 585-0245
3. NIGERIAN BISHOP WARNS BRIDES ABOUT ATTIRE:
The Daily Champion newspaper in Lagos, Nigeria, reported January 31
that Bishop Adewale Martins of the Diocese of Abeokuta has warned
brides that if they show up for their weddings in indecent attire they
will be sent home immediately.
Reporter Kola Adopoju wrote: "Condemning the spate of moral degradation
in the country, the bishop lamented that indecent dressing and
pornography had contributed immensely to irresponsible sex and the
spread of HIV/ AIDS in the society.
"He regretted that the act of indecent dressing had found its way even
into the church of God in the name of fashion, when there are big
occasions like weddings and funeral ceremonies of the elderly ones.
"Martins warned that the Abeokuta Catholic Diocese which he shepherds
would not condone the act, especially during a wedding ceremony whether
in the name of fashion or civilization.
"According to him, 'In these days, we find that some brides go to their
wedding ceremonies dressed up like prostitutes with their nakedness
exposed for all who care to look, all in the name of fashion. We deride
this and we have decided that in our diocese here we would send back
home any bride to be who appears for her wedding in an indecent bridal
gown,' he added.
"Martins stressed, 'All our priests would counsel brides before their
wedding day and warn them that they would be disgraced if they appeared
for [their] wedding in indecent bridal gowns'."
The Wanderer, Feb. 12, 2004)
4. MEDIA SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS AGAIN
This year's March for Life drew more than l00,000 pro-lifers, a
telephone address by President George W. Bush, and numerous
congressmen, prelates, and pro-life leaders, but, as usual, major media
outlets ignored the annual event.
Pro-lifers in Canada who were searching the American networks on the
day of the March were frustrated to find no coverage on any of the
evening news broadcasts. LifeSite staff attending the March witnessed
firsthand the immense pro-life crowd and only a tiny handful of
pro-abortion opponents.
LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Tim Graham, the director of media analysis
for the Media Research Center (MRC). He told LifeSite of a newly
completed report on media bias in 2003, which demonstrated similar
media distortions.
Pro-abortion media bias are never more evident than television
coverage, or lack thereof, of the annual Washington March for Life.
Analyzing newscasts of the major networks ABC, CBS, and NEC for 2003,
MRC reported on distortions.
For instance, one of the most popular news personalities in America,
CBS's Dan Rather, said of that 2003 Roe v. Wade, anniversary, "Tens of
thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issue filled the
streets of Washington today."
MRC commented, "In fact, the pro-life side consisted of tens of
thousands, while the pro-abortion side could only muster a few tens."
(The Wanderer, Feb. 12, 2004)
5. ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS
by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring
upon themselves swift destruction"-II Peter 2:1.
Man is at war in this world. Continual is the battle and numerous are
the enemies. Among the most dangerous enemies belong the false
teachers. Only if the mind of man is directed toward the Living God
will he be safeguarded from these dangerous enemies.
False teachers are either as blind men or as thieves; first, because of
their blindness they [false teachers] lead both themselves and others
into destruction and second, because of their hatred and envy they
intentionally lead others astray, and hand over both their souls and
bodies to the fires of hell.
The Lord Himself prophesied: "Many false prophets shall rise, and shall
deceive many"-Matthew 24:11. The apostle only confirms the words of his
Lord. Both false prophets and false teachers will sow the seed of
destruction among the people. These are "damnable heresies" by which
some will deny their Lord Who redeemed mankind by His All-pure Holy
Blood. Many false teachers have already appeared and have sown many
heresies, damnable as tares, throughout the world. Brethren, if you
know those "damnable heresies" which the Holy Fathers condemned at the
[Ecumenical] Councils [emphasis added], then you will be able to
recognize the principle seed of poison, which the devil through his
servants sow in the field, over which the Savior had sown pure wheat.
But even if you know or, if you do not know, direct your mind toward
the Lord, enclose your mind with the sign of the Cross, call to your
assistance the Holy and All-immaculate One- the Theotokos, the chosen
ones of God, and especially your guardian angel and do not be afraid.
Along with these always ask the Church and the Church, being more
experienced and victorious against all falsehoods, will tell you what
the truth is. For you are from yesterday and the Church is from time
immemorial. Your memory is shorter than the memory of the Church.
O Lord Jesus, Thou art the only Path, the only Truth, the only Life. 0
Lord, do not permit that we be led by false teachers and to apostate
ourselves from Thee. To Thee be glory and thanks always. Amen.
To this should be added what St. Vincent of Lerins said in the 5th
century:
"All possible care must be taken that we hold that Faith which has been
believed everywhere, always, by all."
How does Ecumenism measure up to this standard?
It doesn't. From a historical point of view, at least, one can
assuredly say that Ecumenism was believed nowhere, never, by no one.
St. Vincent provides us with a truly Orthodox understanding of the true
Catholic Faith in its response to a widespread, but erroneous doctrine:
"What if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an
insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be the
Christian's care to cleave to antiquity [i.e. the Church's ancient
teaching], which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of
novelty."
(A Commonitory, St. Vincent of Lerins)
6. THE STAGES OF PERFECTION
"Father, I would like to ask you about an expression found in
St. Symeon the New Theologian's writings. The Saint said that if we
don't see God in this life, we will not see Him in the other."
The priest answered: "You should read the 14th and 17th Chapters of the
Gospel according to St. John. It explains everything.* The Apostles and
the Prophets are the foundation."
At this point, the priest explained to me the teaching concerning the
soul's healing.
He said, "The stages of perfection are three: purification,
enlightenment, and deification (theosis). Those in heresy and some of
our own Orthodox who have been influenced by them have replaced
purification with ethics, enlightenment with ancient philosophy, and
they have transferred theosis to the life to come. This is why this
expression of St. Symeon's and the other Holy Fathers' now seems
incomprehensible to us." These stages, of course, are achieved by the
grace of God.
("Protopresbyter John Romanides" by Rev. George D. Metallinos. Athens,
2003).
* It is helpful to keep in mind that in Ancient and New Testament Greek
(not Modern Greek), the verbs "to see" and "to know" have similar
verbal forms.
7. FROM THE BOOK CENTER
Click here to
order the titles below
OLD TESTAMENT HOMILIES: ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. Collections of
occasional homilies on Old Testament themes delivered in Antioch and
Constantinople, not part of any series and never before translated into
English. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. The translator is not an
Orthodox Christian and we recommend that one skip the introduction and
pay little heed to the footnotes. Paper e$15.00 ea.
(OTH1) Vol. 1. Homilies on Hannah, David and Saul 155 pp.
(OTH2) Vol. 2. Homilies Jeremiah
and Isaiah 141 pp.
(OTH3) Vol. 3. Homilies on the
Obscurity of the Old Testament and
Homilies on the Psalms 152 pp.
(CHL) CHRISTINA GOES TO THE HOLY LAND by Maria Khoury. The
journey of a lifetime for Christina and her family - a pilgrimage to
the holy land. A large format picture book for children in full color
with a map, glossary and notes for parents. 31pp. paper e$14.00
(TM34) LAZARUS, COME FORTH: Byzantine chant in Greek for Lazarus
Saturday by Yioryos and Konstantinos Bilalis of Romeiko. CD is
accompanied by a beautiful full color book in Greek and Engllish with
rare icons, musicological commentary on hymns and translation of text.
e$30.00
(TM36) FROM THE PASSION TO THE RESURRECTION: Pascha . Byzantine
chant in Greek from the Pascha Service. The Resurrection Services
through theological texts of the Holy Fathers and unpublished texts of
contemporary theologians. Rare icons and analysis by expert
iconographers. Byzantine Chant interpretation of master composers with
scholars' commentary on the music. Book in Greek and English with a CD.
e$30.00
* For the entire text of the Pope's sermon, see Katholike, October 7,
2003, p. 4. This entire article was translated from the Greek
(???????,Pascha 2003).