Orthodox Tidings

Moving on

2008-03-21T15:44:00.001-05:00

This blog is moving to:

http://horologion.wordpress.com

The contents will be expanded, but remain pretty much the same, but hopefully more regular and more interesting.

Hope to see you there.

Eric John

Christian Service in War

2007-02-15T16:21:00.000-06:00

Blessed Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1986)

Christian Service in War
by Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York
Translated by Hieromonk Varlaam Novakshonoff

Avoid war, but when it must be fought it can be the sacrifice of laying down one's life for the friend.

Naturally, this Christian patriotism we have spoken of requires from each of us as great a service as possible to the nation. The value of such service is even more significant if it is rendered unselfishly - free of any material calculations and considerations. A person serves the country in one way or another when he participates in its life by, for example, expressing himself in the press or in civil elections, etc. In this, one must strive to bring benefit to the whole country, the whole people, and not to one's own personal or party interests - then one's conscience will be at peace. It may be that one will not attain great external success, but let him, nevertheless fulfil the duty of a patriot and a faithful child of the nation in an honorable and Christian manner.

There is a saying, "In misfortune, a friend is known." Love for the nation is most clearly manifested in times of national trials and troubles. We all know how it feels when someone close to us is ill. We do not want diversions or satisfactions. In our sorrow and concern, we sometimes cannot even eat or drink or sleep. One who truly loves one's nation will manifest similar feelings during times of national troubles. If our heart is filled with nothing but our own personal experiences and interests, if we moan and sigh while our deeds remain far from our words, then our love for the nation is poor indeed.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated their enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

++++++++++++

Reprinted from the booklet published by the Committee on Education of "The North American Traditional Orthodox Mission" and "The Department of Education of The Canadian Orthodox Church"
Missionary Leaflet # E37b
Copyright © 2001 Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission
466 Foothill Blvd, Box 397, La Canada, Ca

Interesting Icon

2007-01-12T00:41:00.000-06:00

A Pronouncement from the Holy Mountain of Athos

2007-01-10T18:49:00.000-06:00

Karyae, 30 December 2006.

The recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th November 2006) and thereafter the visit by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos (14th December 2006) gave rise to a multitude of impressions, evaluations and reactions. We shall bypass those things that the secular Press had evaluated as positive or negative, to focus on those things that pertain to our salvation, for the sake of which we abandoned the world to live in the barrenness of the Holy Mountain.

As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall. We honour and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently laboured for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavourable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honour the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate.

However, the events that took place during the recent visits of the Pope to Fanarion and of His Beatitude the Archbishop to the Vatican brought immense sorrow to our hearts.

We desire and we struggle all of our life to safeguard the trust of the Holy Fathers, which was bequeathed to us by the holy Founders of our sacred Monasteries and the blessed reposed fathers before us. We strive to the best of our ability to live the sacrament of the Church and the unblemished Orthodox Faith, according to that which we are daily taught by the Divine Services, the sacred readings, and the teachings in general of the Holy Fathers which are set out in their writings and in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. We guard our dogmatic awareness “like the pupil of our eye”, and we reinforce it, by applying ourselves to God-pleasing labours and the meticulous study of the achievements of the holy Confessor Fathers when they confronted the miscellaneous heresies, and especially of our father among the saints, Gregory of Palamas, the Holy Martyrs of the Holy Mountain and the Holy Martyr Kosmas the First, whose sacred relics we venerate with every honour and whose sacred memory we incessantly celebrate. We are afraid to remain silent, whenever issues arise that pertain to the trust that our Fathers left us. Our responsibility, towards the most venerable fathers and brothers of the overall brotherhood of the Holy Mountain and towards the pious faithful of the Church who regard Athonite Monasticism as their non-negotiable guardian of sacred Tradition, weighs heavily upon our conscience,

The visits of the Pope at the Fanarion and the Archbishop’s visit at the Vatican may have secured certain benefits of a secular nature, however, during those visits, various other events took place which were not according to the customs of Orthodox Ecclesiology, or commitments were made that would neither benefit the Orthodox Church, nor any other heterodox Christians.

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy: On the contrary, the Pope is in fact visibly promoting and trying to reinforce the Unia along with the papist dogmas on primacy and infallibility, and is going even further, with inter-faith common prayers and the pan-religious hegemony of the Pope of Rome that is discerned therein.

As for the reception of the Pope in Fanarion, we are especially grieved by the fact that all of the Media kept repeating the same, incorrect information, that the psalms that were (unduly) sung at the time had been composed by Monks of the Holy Mountain. We take this opportunity to responsibly inform all pious Christians that their composer was not, and could never be, a monk of the Holy Mountain.

Then there is the matter of the attempt by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens to commence relations with the Vatican on social, cultural and bio-ethical issues, as well as the objective to mutually defend the Christian roots of Europe (positions which are also found in the Common Declaration of the Pope and the Patriarch in the Fanarion), both of which may seem innocuous or even positive, given that their aim is to cultivate peaceful human relations. Nevertheless, it is important that all these do not give the impression that the West and Orthodoxy continue to have the same bases, or lead one into forgetting the distance that separates the Orthodox Tradition from that which is usually presented as the “European spirit”. (Western) Europe is burdened with a series of anti-Christian institutions and acts, such as the Crusades, the “Holy” Inquisition, slave trading and colonization. It is burdened with the tragic division which took on the form of the schism of Protestantism; the devastating world wars, and the man-centered humanism and its atheist view.

All of these are the consequence of Rome’s theological deviations from Orthodoxy. One after the other, the Papist and the Protestant heresies gradually removed the humble Christ of Orthodoxy and in His place, they enthroned haughty Man. The holy bishop Nicholas of Ochrid and Zitsa wrote the following from Dachau: "What, then, is Europe? The Pope and Luther.... This is what Europe is, at its core, ontologically and historically". The blessed Elder Justin Popovitch supplements the above: "The 2nd Vatican Synod comprises the rebirth of every kind of European humanism.... because the Synod persistently adhered to the dogma on the Pope’s infallibility" and he surmises: "Undoubtedly, the authorities and the powers of (western) European culture and civilization are Christ-expellers".

This is why it is so important to project the humble morality of Orthodoxy and to support the truly Christian roots of the united Europe; the roots that Europe had during the first Christian centuries, during the time of the catacombs and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils. It is advisable for Orthodoxy to not tax itself with foreign sins, and furthermore, the impression should not be given to those who became de-Christianised in reaction to the sidetracking of Western-style Christianity, that Orthodoxy is related to it, thus ceasing to testify that it is the only authentic Faith in Christ, and the only hope of the peoples of Europe.

[We note] The Roman Catholics’ inability to disentangle themselves from the decisions of their pursuant (and according to them, Ecumenical) Synods, which had legitimised the Filioque, the Primacy, the Infallibility, the secular authority of the Roman Pontiff, ‘created Grace’, the immaculate conception of the Holy Mother, the Unia.

Despite all these, we Orthodox continue the so-called traditional exchanges of visits, bestowing honours befitting an Orthodox Bishop on the Pope and totally disregarding a series of Sacred Canons which forbid common prayers, while the theological dialogue repeatedly flounders, and, after being dredged from the depths, it again sinks down.

All indications lead to the conclusion that the Vatican is not orienting itself to discard its heretical teachings, but only to “re-interpret” them – in other words, to veil them.

Roman Catholic ecclesiology varies, from one circular to the other; from the so-called “open” ecclesiology of the Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint", to the ecclesiological exclusivity of the Encyclical "Dominus Jesus". It should be noted that both of the aforementioned views are contrary to Orthodox Ecclesiology. The self-awareness of the holy Orthodox Church as the only One, Holy, Catholic (overall) and Apostolic Church does not allow for the recognition of other, heterodox churches and confessions as “sister churches”. “Sister Churches” are only the local Orthodox Churches of the same faith. No homonymous reference to “sister churches” other than the Orthodox one is theologically permissible.

The “Filioque” is promoted by the Roman catholic side as yet another legal expression of the teaching regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, and theologically equivalent to the Orthodox teaching that procession is “only from the Father” – a view that is unfortunately supported by some of our own theologians.

Besides, the Pontiff is maintaining the Primacy as an inalienable privilege, as one can tell from the recent erasure of the title “Patriarch of the West” by the current Pope Benedict XVI; also from his reference to the worldwide mission of the Apostle Peter and his successors during his homily in the Patriarchal Temple, as well as from his also recent speech, which included the following: "...within the society, with the Successors of the Apostles, whose visible unity is guaranteed by the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Ukrainian Catholic Community managed to preserve the Sacred Tradition alive, in its integrity" (Catholic Newspaper, No.3046/18-4-2006).

The Unia is being reinforced and reassured in many and various ways, despite the proclamations by the Pope to the contrary. This dishonest stance is witnessed, apart from other instances, by the provocative intervention of the previous Pope, John-Paul II, which led the Orthodox-Roman catholic dialogue in Baltimore into a disaster, as well as by the letter sent by the current Pope to the Cardinal Ljubomir Husar, the Uniate Archbishop of Ukraine. In this letter dated 22/2/2006, the following is emphatically stressed: "It is imperative to secure the presence of the two great carriers of the only Tradition (the Latin and the Eastern).... The mission that the Greek Catholic Church has undertaken, being in full communion with the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is two-fold: on one side, it must visibly preserve the eastern Tradition inside the Catholic Church; on the other, it must favour the merging of the two traditions, testifying that they not only can coordinate between themselves, but that they also constitute a profound union amid their variety".

Seen in this light, polite exchanges such as the visits of the Pope to Fanarion and the Archbishop of Athens to the Vatican, without the prerequisite of a unity in the Faith, may on the one hand create false impressions of unity and thus turn away the heterodox who could have looked towards Orthodoxy as being the true Church, and on the other hand, blunt the dogmatic sensor of many Orthodox. Even more, they may push some of the faithful and pious Orthodox, who are deeply concerned over what is taking place inopportunely and against the Sacred Canons, to detach themselves from the corpus of The Church and create new schisms.

Thus, out of love for our Orthodoxy, but with pain as regards the unity of the Church, and with a view to preserve the Orthodox Faith free of all innovations, we proclaim in every direction that which was proclaimed by the Extraordinary, Double, Holy Assembly of our Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain on the 9th / 22nd of April 1980:

"We believe that our Holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, having the fullness of Grace and the Truth, and for this reason, an uninterrupted Apostolic Succession. On the contrary, the “churches” and the “confessions” of the West, having distorted the faith of the Gospel, the Apostles and the Fathers on many points, are deprived of the hallowing Grace, the true Sacraments and the Apostolic Succession...

Dialogues with the heterodox - if they are intended to inform them about the Orthodox Faith so that when they become receptive of Divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened they might return to the Orthodox Faith – are not condemned.

In no way should a theological dialogue be accompanied by common prayers, participation in liturgical assemblies and worship by either side and any other activities that might give the impression that our Orthodox Church acknowledges the Roman Catholics as a complete Church and the Pope as a canonical (proper) Bishop of Rome. Such acts mislead the Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholic faithful, who are given a false impression of what Orthodoxy thinks of them....

With the Grace of God, the Holy Mountain remains faithful - as do the Orthodox people of the Lord - to the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, and also out of love for the heterodox, who are essentially helped, when the Orthodox with their steadfast Orthodox stance, point out the extent of their spiritual ailment and the way they can be cured.

The failed attempts for union during the past teach us that for a permanent union, according to the will of God, within the Truth of The Church, the prerequisite is a different kind of preparation and course, than those which were followed in the past and appear to be followed to this day".

By all of the Representatives and Superiors of the common Assembly of the twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain Athos.

------------
Originally posted at the Ely Forum by Fr. Michael

Mohammedans take over former Christian church building--with Christian complicity

2006-12-08T00:18:00.000-06:00

Two PCUSA churches in Louisiana merged, according to the Layman, and sold one church property to a local Islamic Association, turning down two offers from Christian churches to purchase the property. Perhaps they didn't offer as much money. The church they sold was First Presbyterian Church (Bossier City, LA), and the steeple "was once topped by a cross."

According to the Layman, Rev. Beth Sentell, one of co-pastors of the merged congregation, "said two considerations influenced their decision to sell the church plant to the Islamic Society. First was the amount of money offered, second was the opportunity to engage in interfiath dialogue and friendship." She and her husband, Dr. Web Sentell, "plan to invite the Islamic congregation and its imam to a church supper where the imam will field questions. Dr. Sentell said, 'We worship the same God.'" Co-pastor J. Daniel Hignight was asked "if he would ever seek to lead a member of the Islamic Society to Jesus Christ." He replied, "I don't feel a particular need to convert them to Christianity."

Get the scoop.

He doesn't feel a particular need to convert them to Christianity. Hmm... Sounds like he's a perfect candidate for dhimmitude. He's already submitting himself to Muslim rule even before being threatened with death. And with most non-believers in a state of religious apathy, our list of allies against an Islamic global takeover is growing thin. Perhaps the Islamists won't have to resort to more violence after all. There seem to be enough people in the world who'd be more than happy joining hands with them and singing kumbaya.

Many thanks to Fr. Joseph at the Orthodixie Blog.

Thoughts on Orthodoxy's "Eastern ghetto"

2006-12-07T22:44:00.000-06:00

I think a lot of people in the Orthodox world, although they acknowledge the pre-schism Orthodoxy of the West, are content with importing specifically Eastern Christian things into modern Western Orthodoxy (meaning, in this case, Orthodoxy in the West) --Eastern Rites, the Philokalia, Byzantine chant. And, with these things, many Western converts become "Easternized." They gravitate more toward St. John Climacus rather than St. Benedict, for example. Not that this is wrong, it just seems strange to me.

I chant in a Byzantine style, I celebrate the feasts of Eastern Saints with Eastern liturgics, and yet I'm a product of Western culture, a descendant of Western Christians whose long-ago ancestors were Orthodox Christians who used Western Rites and Gregorian Chant, went on pilgrimages to Einsiedeln, Compostela, and Tours, blessed themselves with Holy Water, prayed in Latin, and fraternized with Benedictines. Their blood flows in my veins and their ideas still flow through Western culture, albeit obscured by godlessness as silt clouds a once pristine lake or river.

In sermons, I hear about the decrepitude of American/Western culture and how I should conform my life to the Church. That's all well and good because the Church is universal and its culture transcends all others. But at times it doesn't seem like my Church, while giving me, the individual, life and purity, is working very hard to heal my Western culture, to remove that which has polluted it, to cure its hurts and correct its thoughts. Sometimes it seems as if my Church would rather my Western culture be replaced entirely with something of a more singularly "Eastern" flavor.

The Orthodox Church, it seems today, wants to preserve itself as "Eastern," and so is not concerned with rediscovery of its Western past, traditions, and outlook. Sure, some books have been written about Western Orthodox Saints, and some jurisdictions have Western Rites blessed for use (albeit the users of these Rites are numerically miniscule and their practices are, wrongly, looked down upon by other Orthodox), but, as modern Orthodoxy has lived in the West for over a century, it only seems like Western converts are becoming more "Eastern" in their expression of Orthodoxy. Instead of a rediscovery of a lost Western heritage, converts mostly rush into the "Eastern" side of things, even to the point of viewing Orthodoxy as an Eastern religion, ignoring or being ignorant of Orthodoxy's Western heritage and Western incarnation. Some Orthodox even view the Western inheritance as something lost, mysterious, unknowable, or, worse, tainted by heretical trends like the Filioque or St. Augustine's theological mistakes.

This is a real shame. If the Orthodox Church in the West remains exclusively or predominately "Eastern" in its expression of Christian culture, I don't think it will outgrow its foreigness and exoticism enough to become for modern Westerners what it was for ancient Westerners--simply, the Church of Christ. True, real mission work is not about numbers, but it's also not just about the conversion of the individual. Classical Orthodox mission work has always focused on the society, the culture. Make the culture Orthodox, and it will support the people for generations. Westerners becoming Orthodox do not stop being Western culturally. Such a thing would be impossible. However, the current trend is that they are becoming Eastern in their spiritual and religious culture. Thus, what they have to offer by word and example to their non-Orthodox Western brethren, is a praxis which is foreign to Western culture because it did not develop in Western culture. Therefore, fellow Westerners will not necessarily recognize it as being something in which they can take part in a natural, familiar way. Orthodoxy does, however, have a particular Western praxis which developed in the Western cultural milieu. While it is Orthodox and Christian (and, thus, still strange to many Westerners), it is fundamentally familiar, and non-Orthodox Westerners will be able to view it as something which belongs to them.

There are a few things to keep in mind. 1). The Western Orthodox praxis is not a carbon copy of the Eastern Orthodox praxis. 2). It did not die in the East-West schism. 3). There's no manual on how to construct it. Just like with the Eastern praxis (unless someone is affecting it), it is intuitive and experiential and recognizable as piety. It's not about beards or rubrics or fasting rules--it's proper Church culture in Western form and you'll know it when you see it. How's that for an answer?

Maybe, eventually, we'll get to a point where an Eastern Rite priest can lead a Lenten retreat on St. Benedict's Holy Rule instead of St. John Climacus's Ladder of Divine Ascent without raising eyebrows. Perhaps statues of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints will not be put in the same category with Hindoo idols. The shrine of St. Martin of Tours might one day recover its ancient status and receive more visitors than Disneyland. But none of this will happen unless the Orthodox of the West are willing to venerate the ancient Orthodox Saints, emulate them, learn from them, become like them in praxis of Orthodoxy. The culture and the religious and spiritual praxis of the individual should be of the same substance so as to avoid confusion and foster personal and cultural growth in the Faith. Individuals who have an inner cultural split of a kind such as this will be more likely to pass on such a split to their children and neighbors. And, if this cultural split is perpetuated amongst the Orthodox of the West, there is little hope of the Western culture becoming Orthodox again. The Western culture is sick because it has dispensed with it's appropriate spiritual and religious praxis. Grafting an Eastern spiritual and religious praxis on to the sickened Western culture runs the same risk of a mis-matched organ transplant--rejection.

Happy Feast of St. Ambrose of Milan

2006-12-07T00:47:00.000-06:00

Here's the entry from Orthodox Wiki.

And, fittingly, the entry from Vicipaedia Latina, the Latin Wiki.

And, since he is a great hymnographer of the Church, a summary of his hymns.

Orthodox Missionary Priest, 110 years old and still evangelizing

2006-12-05T21:59:00.000-06:00

Read more about Father Elias Wen and the 75th anniversary of his ordination to the Holy Priesthood here.

May God grant our good Father peace, health, salvation, and many more years. And, especially, to see the renewal of Orthodoxy in China, something which must be very dear to his heart, as he is Chinese and was a missionary in China for many years, serving under St. John Maximovitch in Shanghai and San Francisco.

New Blog Launched

2006-12-05T00:47:00.000-06:00

Check out my new blog, Real People: Indigenous Nations and Christian Missionaries.

The place of Fr. Seraphim Rose in the Orthodox Church

2006-11-29T00:13:00.000-06:00

Blessed Father Seraphim Rose, Monk (+2 September 1981)

Those who Thy glory shall attain,
How wondrously Thy grace doth train!
O God unseen, how very near
Art Thou, their vows and prayers to hear.

Far from the only home they love
They lift their hearts and hands above,
And greet their mansions in the sky,
With many a tear and longing sigh.

Since death to Thee must shew the way,
Their flesh with toils and fasts they slay,
And long for that dear hour to come
When death shall call their spirits home.

By torments swift, and sudden pain,
The Martyrs heavenly glory gain,
But these, to make their crown secure,
A daily, lingering death endure.

+ All laud to God the Father be;
All praise, Eternal Son, to Thee;
All glory, as is ever meet,
To God the Holy Paraclete. Amen.

--Tua beandos gloria, Vesperal hymn for the Common of Abbots, Hermits, and Monks, from the Breviary. The English translation may be a bit contrived in order to fit into rhyme, but the point is understood.

++++++++++++

The Orthodox world, being what it is, has conflicting opinions of Fr. Seraphim. Besides what may be the majority of Orthodox with views in the middle of the road, there are, of course, the extremists. On one hand, you have the malicious revilers, those who call him a gnostic or even, very bizaarely, a Nestorian. On the other hand, you have the eager beaver cleavers who hang onto every word he wrote and don't seem to get any farther than that. Obviously, Father Seraphim means many things to many people--perhaps too many things to too many people. For this reason, along with the imminent end of the world (which we've been expecting for 2,000 years, by the way--not to disparage those who believe the end is near, the world is certainly not rushing toward a blessed utopia), I think that Fr. Seraphim will not be glorified on earth before the meek inherit it.

If, however, Fr Seraphim is glorified, I wonder what the Eastern Rite service texts will look like. (The Western Rite texts will probably be the same as for a Confessor or Monk with perhaps a proper Collect.) I must say, though, that not all liturgical texts for saints really do justice to the saint, if that's a way to put it.

For example, the ROCOR akathist to St. John of Kronstadt reads more like an apologia for right-wing Russian politics than a witness to St. John's holiness, his love of the poor, his dedication to priestly service. I would love to see a translation of the Moscow Patriarchate version for comparison purposes. St. John Maximovitch's akathist, which, if I'm not mistaken, was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose, is also not very--I don't know--appealing, something I could read over and over again. (It's sort of fit into a mold, if you will.) This could be a problem with Byzantine Rite liturgics in the first place--there are just too many things one has to put into a service--unlike the Western Rite where one can't put in as much as one would like. Byzantine liturgics vary widely in their content and quality and Western liturgics vary only ever so slightly.

I could imagine Fr. Seraphim being venerated as some kind of visionary or teacher. Of course, one of his main attractions is that he is a white-bread American convert to Orthodoxy, like so many of us, and, indeed, I think a case could be made that he displayed what I would consider the most worthy attributes of American culture, together with the true Orthodox monastic spirit.

It's interesting that, as much as his own writings get promoted so often (like "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future"), he was more of a translater than a writer--and a very skilled translator at that, being able to read a Russian text and record the English translation on a cassette tape. And, even as a writer, he was more of a relayer or redacter of patristic teaching, especially 18-19th century Russian patristic teaching which is NOT different essentially from ancient patristic teaching, it's just for a different age with different issues.

More than these things, however, I think of Fr. Seraphim as an example of repentance. Personal repentance is too often swept under the rug in the lives of and liturgical services for saints, in my opinion, which is too bad because we are living in an age in need of repentance (what age wasn't?). More investigation should, of course, be done into the circumstances and fruits of his repentance, if this is possible. However, I'm not sure how much real academic research can be done at this point, since Fr. Seraphim already has a kind of mythic aura around him. The historical record is obscured by the legend of Father Seraphim and also by the debacle between Fr. Herman and the Church Abroad after Fr. Seraphim died.

Thus, investigatory committees that look at eye-witness testimonies and writings will probably never be able to reveal his sanctity to everyone's satisfaction. That's why I think that, if Fr. Seraphim is to be venerated more widely and glorified, God will reveal his holiness in some way.

Even though Orthodoxy does not require miracles of its saints, miracles serve as a means of dispelling doubts, as well as increasing love for the saint. A miracle worked through a saint's prayers builds a very strong and special relationship between the saint and the person or persons for whom the saint worked the miracle.

I'm not sure, but right now at 1 a.m., I can only think of 2 American saints--St. Herman of Alaska and St. John of San Francisco, both Wonderworkers in their earthly lives--who have worked miracles after death. The others were glorified for their holy lives, their martyrdom, their selflessness and zeal for spreading the Word of God, which is, of course, good enough reason for venerating them.

So, even if Fr. Seraphim works no miracles, one cannot deny him his zeal, his selflessness, the sacrifices he made and the pains he endured for the sake of Christ. Not to mention what appears to be a victory over many, many temptations and sins. Perhaps this will come to light, or perhaps God is saving it for the real, heavenly life, I don't know. I do know, however, that Fr. Seraphim's books--those he wrote and those he translated, are making a big impact on Orthodox Christians throughout the world, especially in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. This is very good because his writings are Orthodox and traditional. Also, his veneration is spreading in America. Many have visited his grave and several different Orthodox clergymen have concelebrated at the anniveraries of his repose. I hope that knowledge of his work and sanctity will grow even more so that it will be possible for people to get to know and love Fr. Seraphim. In my view, he appeals to a lot of people for various reasons. It's just hard to see through the clouds of denunciation, hyper-enthusiasm, and the way Fr. Seraphim's life and works have been used to justify so many agendas of lesser folk. All those things hide his real qualities, in my opinion.

A Good Rumor

2006-11-26T21:23:00.000-06:00

In honor of a good rumor I heard recently, I'm posting this icon as a commemoration. As you may know, if you've been reading this blog from it's beginning, "Einsiedeln" or "Orthodox Tidings," as it was first called and still named on the Web address, is dedicated to my patron saint, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco. I heard from a fellow parishioner yesterday that a friend of mine who makes candles for our church and several others, is building a chapel dedicated to St. John on her property. I've helped here work on another chapel in the past. When this is done, the count will be at four, not including the plans for a chapel to St. Nectarius, God-willing. I haven't called her yet to ask if this rumor was true, but, true or no, even the idea of building a church for St. John deserves a little commemoration.

Ethiopian Orthodox Liturgical Snippit

2006-11-26T20:58:00.000-06:00

This is a excerpt from a liturgy which was held in the Ethiopian Orthodox (Oriental) Monastery Church in Jerusalem. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, if the Ethiopians have only 1 site in the Holy City. I think they have at least two. I'm classifying their monastery on the "roof" of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with the succession of chpaels and small rooms which appear to be in a narrow stairway. (I mean, the area is small, one room per level, with stairs in between and some beautiful iconography on the walls.) If any of you dear readers have had the blessing of going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, you might remember the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre. To the right of that are the crosses people carry in processions on the Via Dolorosa and further to the right is a doorway leading into the Ethiopian church. I was able to visit it once (sometimes it's closed) and was greeted by a monk (can't recognize him as one of the clergy here, but I think I remember seeing him on TV), but it's an amazing place, as you can see. I have yet to make it to an Ethiopian liturgy, but it's high on my list.

Unfortunately, this video is too short. Being a liturgical maximalist, I would much prefer to see the four-hour long Sunday morning service, but until then this little bit will have to suffice.

What constitutes traditional Catholicism?

2006-11-24T02:07:00.000-06:00

Altar of St. Columba Antiochian Orthodox Church in Lafeyette, Colorado. A Western Rite parish.

I hope that ye few, but hopefully faithful, readers of this humble blog will take a moment to view the film of the Traditional Roman Catholic Latin Mass featured in the last post. It is a good liturgical specimen of a bygone era. It displays some things sorely lacking in modern church liturgies (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). These things are:

1. Reverence. Above all for God, then for the Altar and the Sacrament, and also for the priest and the work that he does, as well as reverence for the mass itself.

2. Divine splendor. This is seen in the vestments of the priest which are festal and shine even in a black and white film. Such is also shone in the ecclesiastical chant (read Gregorian in this case) and in the skillfulness and attention of the choir and the clergy in chanting and carrying out their duties, including processing, censing, etc. Also, this is reflected in the dress of the congregation and in their attentive and prayerful demeanor.

3. Piety. Love for God. Love for neighbor. Keeping the commandments of Christ. Liturgically, piety is shown in prayer and devotion, and in the orderliness and grace of the clerical and congregational actions and chanting.

These are three of the most important things which modern liturgical celebrations lack. And I don't think I would be wrong in saying that such reverence, divine splendor, and piety were perpetuated at church, in seminary, and at home through a culture concerned with these things. Now this culture has been destroyed. And, as the Psalmist says, "if the foundations are destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" It is a sad phenomenon that an understanding once held by all church-goers in common is now only held by a few individuals. And, as we also see with other issues, when a common understanding is lost or discarded, it is next to impossible to regain.

I once recently visited a Web site of a traditionalist Roman Catholic (possibly SSPX) Benedictine monastery. I saw pictures of their church inside and was a bit shocked by how un-Benedictine it was. It was down-right gaudy--replete with hideous angelic statuary and an excess of candles. I'm not sure what that community used for music, whether it was straight Gregorian chant or a mix with more operatic settings such as those in the mass film below. Anyway, I was left to question what this group thought most worth preserving in their tradition. Perhaps they had reverence, piety, and divine splendor in their worship, but do they know that all these things can be affected, to the point that they become fake? And after that, what are they left with but their gaudy decorations and Zippadee doo-da liturgical settings? Wouldn't it be better to have architecture, decoration, and musical forms which reflect piety, reverence, and divine splendor more than just what happens to be fashionable or look and sound "nice"?

Liturgical abuses of our modern era should be a warning to us all. We need to take more seriously what we put into our liturgical celebrations not only for what we hope to get out of them, but so that good liturgical celebrations--done in reverence, piety and divine splendor--may be there for our children and all those who will seek God in the future. If we do not take heed and do our part, no matter what our station, liturgy as it should be, as worship of God, will vanish from the earth, and we will be left with what passes for liturgy in many circles--an action for the worship of man. This is the prevailing trend. Let no one think that he or his church is safe. The enemy has already declared war and the first victims have been slain.

2006-11-18T22:15:00.000-06:00

Traditional Latin Roman Catholic Mass

It's a lengthy video, but, as it is a Paschal Mass and narrated by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, it's well worth watching and, since it has Gregorian Chant, it's worth listening to, too.

With special thanks to Gillibrand at Catholic Church Conservation, who had posted it earlier. Thanks!

Orthodox Divine Office Forum

2006-11-18T17:12:00.000-06:00

Click to join orthodoxdivineoffice

The Coolest Pontifical Pic Ever

2006-11-14T23:34:00.000-06:00

The Catholicoi (plural of Catholicos) of Malankara (Syrian) Orthodox Church of South India, founded by the Apostle Thomas. Catholicos Basileos Marthoma Didymus I sits at left on the throne and Catholicos-designate Paulos Mar Militheos is seated next to him.

from Ben's Western Orthodoxy blog. Thanks Ben!

Among the First Orthodox Christians Martyred by Roman Catholics

2006-10-14T20:42:00.000-05:00

Blessed King Harold II

Today we commemorate those martyred at Hastings in England, namely Blessed King Harold II and his army, who gave their lives in defence of not only their country, but their faith, that of Holy Orthodoxy.

Before the battle, as the two armies were lined up for the fight, William, Duke of Normandy, commanded that an edict from Pope Alexander II be read aloud for all to hear. This order excommunicated King Harold and all who would fight with him, thus severing them completely from the heretical Papist Church, but not from the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for the excommunication was unjust and founded on the Pope's claim to be supreme over all the Churches and all rulers of nations as well.

From 1054 up to this time, the schism of West from East was just beginning to solidify. Indeed, the drifting away of the Western Church from the Eastern had its roots in earlier centuries. It is important to note, however, that the departure of the Roman Church into heresy happened over many centuries. (And, in as much as the Roman Church continues to add even new heresies to old ones, this movement away from the Truth continues to this very day.) The beliefs, teachings, practices and principles of the Roman Church were indeed changing by 1066. Pope Alexander II's excommunication of innocent and pious Christians was evidence of this. At Hastings, the Papacy was now taking sides in worldly affairs, turning temporal matters into issues of eternal salvation. The Battle of Hastings, the Battle for England, was but a warm up for what was to come. For in this battle, the mind of the New Papacy was revealed and the Roman Church took a significant step of departure into heresy.

Pope Alexander had received much support from the Normans, and so, when William, Duke of Normandy, approached him with the matter of conquering England, the pope blessed him to go on what was, in essence, a Crusade to bring England and the English Church into subjection, regardless of the fact that the English Church and people had, for centuries, been pious Orthodox Christians, even receiving approval for their chief hierarchs from the Orthodox Roman Popes since the days of St. Augustine of Canterbury (late 6th, early 7th cent). The English Church and people, however, had yet to be made supporters and subjects of the New Papacy. Being far away from deveolpments in Rome, the Orthodox English were not aware that anything sinister was going on in Rome. Only when the order of excommunication was read before King Harold and his troops, did the Orthodox English finally realize that something had gone horribly wrong. The independence of both their Church and nation were forfeit. By the whim of a wordly pope, both were taken away from the English, and given to foreigners. What would follow the Norman Conquest would be nothing less than cultural and ecclesiastical destruction for England and the English Church and genocide for the English people who dared to resist the onslaught of invasion.

The mastermind of this and other ignoble deeds was the man who would become the successor to Alexander II, Cardinal Hildebrand, the future Pope Gregory VII, architect of the Papal Reformation. In the work of this Hildebrand, we see the culmination of previous Papal errors. Although the Papocaesarism of Pope Nicholas I, the contender against St. Photius of Constantinople, and the unprecedented action of Pope Leo IX in actually leading troops into battle were departures from Orthodox faith and praxis, the work of Gregory VII to subjugate the Western and, though unsuccessfully, the Eastern Churches and secular rulers to papal overlordship served as a sign to the world that the Roman Church had turned her back on Holy Tradition and sought after her own ends.

On this day in 1066 at Hastings, the God-loving King Harold, together with his loyal troops, commended themselves to God, for those whom they had honored as brethren and leaders in the Faith had foresaken them. Shouting the Orthodox English battle cry, which invoked the aid of the Holy Cross, King Harold and his faithful soldiers faced down their foes and would have had the victory in a closely matched battle had not the heretical invaders resorted to cunning through feigned retreats. Indeed, both the king and his army were weary from battle, having defeated a Norwegian invasion in the north of England and straightway come to Hastings to drive out yet more invaders.

But victory was not to be had a second time. The blessed King Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow. He plucked it out and continued to fight bravely. In the end, however, he was cut down by Norman knights and hacked to pieces. His body was desecrated, and many Norman Crusaders abused the remains of the fallen king, a thing to which not even pagans and Turks had been wont to do with the remains of their foes.

Plaque Marking Place Where King Harold Fell

The fallen English, those thousands of unsung heroes of Orthodoxy and England, were laid to rest, most likely on the battlefield itself, this being the custom in those days. The remains of King Harold were taken quietly and without fanfare to his family church in Bosham village by the sea. There they remain to this day, awaiting the recognition and honor of the True Church on earth, even as the souls of these martyrs must surely receive from God and His angels in Heaven.

Holy Trinity Church in Bosham, now Anglican

Let us, therefore, who love Orthodoxy, beseech the Lord to grant rest to His faithful servants who were slain by the enemies of piety. And let us ask of them, "O blessed martyrs, if ye have received grace from God, intercede for us sinners, that our souls may be saved and that we may be delivered from the assaults of our visible and invisible enemies. Amen."

Statue of King Harold from the Battle Abbey at Hastings

For more information about Blessed King Harold II and the Battle of Hastings, visit the following Web sites:

The Fall of Orthodox England
Entry from Orthodox Wiki
Entry from Wikipedia
King Harold's Battle Force
About Bosham and the Battle
BBC article about grave of King Harold II
Royal Mystery on Brink of Solution

St. Edward the Confessor, pray for us sinners!

2006-10-13T17:22:00.000-05:00

Statue of St. Edward the Confessor

Today is the feast of one of England's greatest Orthdoox Saints, and the second-to-the-last Orthodox King of England, St. Edward the Confessor (+1066). Specifically, it is the feast of the translation of his holy relics. The date of his holy repose, January 5, but since the early 12th century, his principle feast day has been the his translation. As January 5 is also the Vigil of Epiphany, celebrating the feast today allows for more to be done, liturgically, to honor the Saint.

These days, October 13-15 are, in a way, high holy days for Orthodox England. On October 14, the memory of Blessed King Harold II, the last Orthodox King of England and those with him at Hastings are commemorated (+1066), who died defending their Orthodox homeland and people and Church from a Papal Crusade which sought to bring the English Church and people into subjection. Then, on October 15, we commemorate the last Orthodox English Bishop, Blessed Ethelric of Durham (+1072), who died in a Norman Roman Catholic prison, a martyr for Holy Orthodoxy.

To learn more about the fall of Orthodox England, click here to read a short book or long article written by Vladimir Moss. While some of Mr. Moss's conclusions about this and other Orthodox topics tend to the extreme and the topic he writes on has yet to be thoroughly researched by trained academics, the article itself is at least a starting point for such research and a source of information for Orthodox Christians with inquiring minds.

The link above also has a lot of good information on the Life of St. Edward and his miracles which God worked through him even while he lived on this earth.

Westminster Abbey, built by St. Edward the Confessor
The original Abbey would not have had Gothic architecture. Most likely, it was kin to other Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical structures, few of which survive today, with Romanesque influences which would have come from the Normanization of England, which was taking place even before the invasion of 1066. St. Edward, having been raised in Normandy amongst his Norman relatives, brought with him many Norman ideas and counsellors to England.

Collect for St. Edward the Confessor
O God, Who didst bestow upon thy Blessed King Edward the crown of everlasting glory : grant us, we pray Thee ; so to venerate him on earth, that we may be found worthy to reign with him in heaven. (+) Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our God, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

Brief Life of St. Edward
Edward, surnamed the Confessor, was the nephew of the holy King Edward the Martyr, and himself the second-to-last Anglo-Saxon King. That he should succeed to the Kingdom was shewn by the Lord in a trance to a most holy man named Brithwald. When he was ten years old the Danes, who were ravaging England, sought him, to put him to death, and he was driven into exile to dwell with his mother's brother, Richard II, Duke of Normandy, at whose Court he lived among all the allurements of vice a life of such uprightness and innocency as made all men to marvel. He was a burning and shining light for love of God and the things of God, very gentle-hearted, and quite free from any lust for power. Of him the saying is preserved, That he would rather not be a King if he had to win a kingdom through slaughter and blood.

When the Danish tyrants, who had robbed his brothers Edmund and Alfred of life and kingdom, were passed away, Edward was called back into his own country and with the hearty good-will and rejoicing of all, took the kingdom. He set himself to repair the breaches which wars had made, and began with the things of God. Of the Churches of the Saints, he built some altogether, and renewed others and gifted them with incomes and privileges, being chiefly fain that religion should rise from the low estate whereinto it had fallen. He was brought by the nobles of his Court to marry, but it is constantly said by all writers that in matrimony he remained a virgin with a virgin bride. So great was his love toward Christ, and so strong his faith, that somewhiles when the Mass was in saying, he won to see Christ, with countenance full of grace, and glory of God's light. By reason of the abundance of his charity he was styled everywhere the father of orphans and of the poor, and he was never happier than when he had spent upon the needy the whole of his kingly treasure.

He was famous for the gift of prophecy, and foretold by inspiration from heaven many things that were to befall England. Of this gift the following is a remarkable instance. Sweyn, King of the Danes, was embarking on ship-board with the mind to invade England, when he fell into the sea and was drowned, and God made known his death to Edward at the very same moment that it happened. He had a wonderful love toward John the Evangelist, so that he was used never to refuse anything for the which he was asked in his name. The Evangelist appeared to him one while in tattered raiment, and, in his own name, asked him for an alms. It befell that the King had no money, wherefore he took a ring from off his finger and gifted him therewith. Not long afterward, the Evangelist sent the same ring back to him by a pilgrim, with a message concerning his death, which was then at hand. The King therefore commanded that prayers should be made for him, and then fell blessedly asleep in the Lord, upon the very day which had been foretold to him by the Evangelist, that is to say, 5th day of January, in the year of salvation 1066. He was famous for miracles both during his life and after his repose. His memory soon came to be venerated throughout Christendom. On the 13th day of October, in the year 1102, his body was lifted from the earth and found uncorrupt and sweet-savoured.

The Tomb of St. Edward the Confessor

I'm not certain if his holy relics are located here or not. The Destruction of the Monasteries (Westminster Abbey was a large monastery) and the Deformation under Henry VIII caused the destruction of St. Edward's tomb and shrine, while his holy relics were buried in an obscure place. I couldn't tell from the on-line histories if Queen Mary was able to find the holy relics and put them back where they belonged.

The Crown of St. Edward the Confessor

It's not the actual crown he wore. The gold in this crown, however, is believed to have come from St. Edward's own crown. It isn't improbable, given that St. Edward was venerated as much by the Norman invaders after his death as by the Anglo-Saxon English while he was alive.

2006-10-06T17:55:00.000-05:00

Deo gratias! The blog is now back up and running the way it should be. At least, I haven't found any egregious errors like mislinking links. Thanks to the discovery of a "cache" whilst looking for the remnants of the sidebar, I was able to reconstruct much of what was before, albeit with some improvements. Links for blogs I read should be up soon, but first I need to find the right picture for the sidebar. Yes, I can see it's crowded. At least it's not boring. If anyone has any suggestions about widening the gap in the middle between the posts and the sidebar, please let me know.

The days of the Orthodox Tidings Web Page, however, are numbered. I'm thinking of transfering its contents to the blog and then, if need be, getting a free Web page.

Random Orthodox Saint

2006-10-06T17:48:00.000-05:00

And today's Random Orthodox Saint is:

Louis the Pious, Holy Roman Emperor (20 June 840)
Here are some articles on him:

Wikipedia Article

Patron Saints Index Entry

Biography from Bookrag

Unfortunately, I was not able to find any liturgical propers for him or a vita or something further detailing his sanctity on the Internet. Not that I'm surprised. Most Western Orthodox Saints (and Eastern ones, for that matter) don't get more than a few lines of mention anywhere--in print or on the Web. It's too bad.

Glorification of St. Innocent Veniaminov

2006-10-06T02:35:00.000-05:00

To celebrate this feast, I offer a set of Western propers for St. Innocent, meant for the recitation of Vespers and Lauds (and perhaps a II Vespers is called for, since he is a national patron). They're by no means the last word and I'm by no means an expert. I compiled them because St. Innocent is a rather special saint, as a bishop, missionary, and patron of Orthodoxy in America. May we have his blessing and prayers today and always.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Antiphons (skipping the 4th at Vespers)

1. A man doth plan his ways, but the Lord directeth his steps. May the prayers of the Holy Bishop Innocent, the enlightener of our land, direct us into the Kingdom of
Heaven.

2. By his word he brought heathen worship to an end in the distant reaches of Alaska and Siberia. Then, bound in chains of obedience to the will of God, he brought comfort to believers in the ancient capital. Through his prayers, may we receive mercy from Christ our God.

3. The blessed John Smirennikov, instructed by the Angels, cried out to the people of Akun, "Go ye out to meet the priest of the Most High God. Listen to him who
will show you the way to the Kingdom of Heaven."

4.O ye priests of God, bless ye the Lord: O ye servants of the Lord, sing a hymn unto God, alleluia. (and the Benedicite follows here at Lauds)

5. Thy life, O holy father Innocent, Apostle to our land, proclaimeth the dispensation and grace of God. Thou didst labor in dangers and hardships for the Gospel of Christ, but God preserved thee unharmed since thou wast exalted in humility. Pray that He may guide our steps into the way wherein we should go.

Chapter at Vespers and Lauds
(Ecclus 44:17)
Behold a great priest who in his days pleased God and was found righteous: * and in the time of wrath he was made a reconciliation. Thanks be to God.

Short Responsories
At Vespers:
R. Holy Father Innocent, * Intercede for us. (repeat)
V. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Glory...
Intercede for us.
Holy Father Innocent, * Intercede for us.

At Lauds:
R. Their sound is gone out * Into all lands. (repeat)
V. And their words into the ends of the world. Etc.
Glory...
Into all lands.
Their sound is gone out * Into all lands.

Hymns at Vespers and Lauds as for a Bishop Confessor

Vespers Post-Hymn Verse:
V.The Lord guided the righteous in right paths
R. And shewed him the Kingdom of Heaven

Lauds Post-Hymn Verse:
V. They declared the work of God
R. And wisely considered of His doing

Antiphon on Magnificat:
Thou didst evangelize the northern peoples of America and Asia, proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to the Natives in their own tongues. O Holy Hierarch, Father
Innocent, enlightener of Alaska and all America, whose ways were ordered by the Lord, pray to Him for the salvation of our souls, in His heavenly Kingdom.

Antiphon on Benedictus:
O Holy Father Innocent, in obedience to the will of God, thou didst accept dangers and tribulations, bringing many peoples to the knowledge of the truth. Thou hast showed us the way; now by thy prayers to God, help us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Collect:
O Lord, we beseech Thee, hear the prayers which we offer Thee on the solemnity of blessed Innocent, Thy Bishop and Confessor, and the Apostle to our land: and by the interceding merits of him who worthily attained to serve Thee so faithfully, absolve us from all our sins and bring us into Thy Heavenly Kingdom. Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

As you can see, if you have access to and experience using either the Monastic, Roman, or Anglican Breviaries and have seen or heard the Eastern Rite propers for the saint, these Western Rite proposed propers are a mix of elements from the Common of the Apostles, the Common of Bishop-Confessors, stichera, troparia, and the kontakion from the Eastern Rite service, as well as a few new creations.

Perhaps my liturgical experiments will incite the purists to wrath, but I do think there is a need for a proper Western Rite service to our American saints. Maybe someone will write proper hymns or improve on this humble offering. I'm always open to suggestions.

Into cyber-oblivion

2006-10-02T23:48:00.000-05:00

I changed templates and lost EVERYTHING. I didn't remember this happening before, but the last time I changed templates was a while ago and I've made many more additions. I also (after the fact, of course) remember saving my sidebar links and pics and such. Now I have to try to put all of it back together again. What a pain! I feel sick right now, after all that work. If anyone knows an easy way to recover it, let me know.

Marriage and Possible Alternatives: The Pursuit of Wholeness and Holiness

2006-10-02T15:26:00.000-05:00

by Father John H. Erickson, Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary

An Address given at the SVS Summer Institute – June 2004

No apology is needed for the theme of this year's Institute: "Does
Christian Marriage Have a Future?" Practically daily we hear in the
media how "traditional" concepts and definitions of marriage are
being challenged. In the first few months of 2004 the focus has been
on same-sex marriage – now legal in Massachusetts, among other
places, and gaining vocal support in many quarters, Christian
churches included. But the challenge to "traditional" concepts and
definitions of marriage is not limited to this latest headline
getter. A few decades ago the term "open marriage" entered our
vocabulary. We also learned about "prenups," i.e., marriage qualified
in various ways by formal prenuptial agreements. These days we barely
blink when we hear about couples living together or when we encounter
marital breakdown ending divorce – divorce often followed by
remarriage and (then even more frequently) by another divorce. (A
frightening statistic: At this point the average length of a marriage
in the United States is five years.) If TV ratings and star salaries
offer any indication, we as a society see nothing amiss in sex and
marriage as these are presented on Friends, where sex has become a
recreational activity and marriage a running joke.
How are we Orthodox Christians to respond? It's easy to speak of the
need to maintain or restore "traditional" values of marriage and
family. All around us we find people doing so – including not a few
televangelists and politicians. It's easy simply to jump on the
bandwagon, to repeat what so many other folks are saying. It's harder
– but much more necessary – to examine more closely our own
understanding of Christian marriage. Do we have a distinctive and
compelling vision to offer today's society, rather than just
denunciations? What challenge can we pose to the world of Friends?

I believe that we do have a compelling vision to offer. But I also
believe that this vision will be at odds not only with the world of
Friends but also with some of the "traditional" understandings of
marriage that we encounter in our society and that we also may repeat
without appropriate critical reflection.

I'd like to begin with some aspects of the historical record – and
not just because I am a historian. It is important to examine our
preconceptions, what we take for granted, what we in turn often
believe to be common to human beings of every culture, of every
historical epoch, and therefore normal and normative for all human
beings. We often lapse into thinking that the past was very much like
the present, though maybe a little less spoiled. We look back with
nostalgia to the "good old days" – of the Eisenhower administration.
We look back at the way that marriage and family were understood and
practiced when Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver were our TV
favorites. That's where we find our "traditional" family values and
the "traditional" understanding of marriage. It is important,
methodologically, to question this short-sighted understanding of
what is "traditional." Before we as Orthodox Christians can recover
our own distinctive vision and voice, before we can present that
vision as a credible challenge to the world of Friends, we have to be
aware of how different the past was. In particular, we have to be
aware of the enormous differences between pre-modern traditional
societies and modern society as it emerged especially in the last
century. The realities that impinge on people today who marry or
don't marry, who have children or don't have children, are not
necessarily the same as those of a thousand or two thousand years ago
or even a hundred years ago. A couple factors may easily be overlooked.

First of all, the place of marriage in life and society itself is
different. We today have a lot of choices thrust upon us - e.g., to
marry or not to marry. In most pre-modern societies, there were far
fewer options, far fewer choices when it came to life and lifestyle.
In the relative absence of social and even physical mobility, a great
deal more was taken for granted. Your life would be very much like
that of your parents. If your father was a farmer, you would be a
farmer – or farmer's wife. Barring some calamity, you would remain in
the same village; you would remain in the same social class. You
would marry, and marry relatively young, especially in the case of
women; and within marriage you would have very clearly delineated
roles, prescribed by custom and tradition right down to acceptable
positions for sex. You would have children if you could, because you
needed them for economic reasons, to help in the fields or in your
trade. And in the absence of a civil society offering some measure of
protection to individuals, your very survival depended on having a
close network of family and clan, an extended family often domiciled
together, people who could help you in times of adversity or take
revenge on someone who had wronged you.

Certainly in the Roman world, where Christianity first spread,
"family values" were very important. Roman law offered many powerful
incentives to marry and have a family, and it imposed penalties for
not doing so. But this was mainly for utilitarian reasons, to
maintain social structures and assure the economic wellbeing of the
empire. Men and women were expected to place their bodies at the
service of society, as it were, men by governing a household – and
here keep in mind that this was very definitely a patriarchal,
androcentric society - and women by bearing children. So too in
ancient Judaism, "family values" were important. Men had to have
children as a means for survival in life - and beyond. Offspring
provided your only immortality. Hence the levirate, which provided
that if a man died without issue, his brother should take his wife
and raise up children for him. In general, then, whether in Roman
society or ancient Judaism, you could not expect to find divine favor
or human respect if you didn't marry and have children. No place for
singles here, or for the barren! Those who were unmarried generally
were subordinate elements within the extended household – slaves,
unmarriageable daughters, widowed grandmothers, and others who helped
provide necessary services for the household, from child-care to
elder-care.

One more thing to note: In the Graeco-Roman world, as in many other
traditional societies, you did not look to marriage and family to
fulfill all your needs in life - at least if you were a free man.
Marriage was important for your economic wellbeing and material
support – certainly you valued your wife and children just as you did
your other possessions. But for emotional support you looked to
friendship, which by definition was possible only with peers, with
other respected male members of society, and certainly not with women
or slaves or other inferiors. And often you did not look to marriage
even for major sexual satisfaction. A very revealing ancient saying
goes something like this: The gods have given us our wives for
legitimate children, men for friendship, and courtesans for pleasure.

Could someone – for whatever reason - opt out of the social demands
of marriage and family? This would have been very difficult in
antiquity, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman, and indeed in most pre-
modern societies. But Christianity offered the ancient world a very
different message, a very different view of marriage and family – one
that was truly revolutionary and truly liberating. Christianity told
men and women that you do not have to marry and procreate to be saved
- to have a sense of self-worth accompanied by a sense of divine
acceptance and acceptance by those other human beings who mean the
most to you. Christianity accepted and honored marriage, but it also
accepted and honored celibacy. It valued children, but it also saw
the barren – Joachim and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth – as blessed
by God. In short, Christianity relativized the importance of both
marriage and family. It did so by placing marriage and family - and
indeed all human relations - in a new perspective, a perspective made
possible by Christ's self-giving love. The ancient world valued
marriage and family very highly, but for the wrong reasons. It valued
them because they were thought to be a hedge against death – one's
own death, the death of society. But Christ showed that love is
stronger than death.

We will be returning to the new perspective offered by Christianity
at many points during the coming days. For the moment, however, I
would like to return to the subject I raised earlier: the difference
between the world of antiquity, the traditional world of pre-modern
society that we have just surveyed, and the modern world, the world
in which "traditional" notions of marriage and family are being
challenged in so many ways.

Certainly in the modern world, we have greater economic and social
mobility. No longer is it taken for granted that your life will
differ little if any from that of your parents. Quite the opposite!
Here in America we like to believe that the son or daughter of a poor
immigrant coal-miner can become a doctor, a lawyer, a successful
businessman. We also emphasize the dignity and the rights of the
individual, giving less importance to the group, the clan, the wider
society. And we place enormous importance on personal fulfillment,
making this the goal of life. We are encouraged to discover what is
really important to me, what really makes me happy, what really
satisfies me. And given modern affluence, we can usually figure out
some way to finance our self-gratification.

In this modern world, there is no longer a self-evident relationship
between marriage and maintenance of subsistent daily life or even
mundane happiness and satisfaction. In economically developed
countries, marriage is no longer an economic and practical necessity.
You don't have to marry and stay together (even though you may really
hate each other) and have children in order to scratch a living from
a meager plot of land. You don't have to be married to enjoy a
comfortable life. You can find many avenues for fulfilling, enriching
personal experience in careers outside the home. In this modern
world, to marry or not to marry, to have children or not to have
children, requires more self-conscious decisions than was the case in
traditional societies. But here is the irony. In this modern world,
very much as in traditional societies, marriage and family (now
reduced to the nuclear family) very often is held up as the norm for
the normal, well-adjusted human being. Certainly through the 1950s
and even beyond, it was generally expected that anyone worthy of
respect would get married, have kids, buy a nice suburban house,
acquire a car and a dog, join the PTA, and be an active church member
in the bargain. (Of course, not everyone fit this pattern, but these
were viewed with some suspicion and distrust.) Often, from our
present perspective, we look back on this as "traditional" marriage,
normal and normative - the way things always have been, the way they
should be now. But the element of necessity attendant on marriage in
past ages and other societies was absent: the goal had become
personal fulfillment, with marriage presented as the place where
personal fulfillment can be found. The ideal marriage, as presented
in popular literature from the 1920s-30s onward, comes to be
"companionate marriage": the bliss of husband and wife together, as
helpmeets, lovers, best friends, soul-mates. In contrast to earlier
times, marriage comes to be seen as the place where the normal, well-
adjusted human being, male or female, can expect to find virtually
every satisfaction - sexual, emotional, spiritual. This is asking a
lot of marriage!

Christians have bought into this understanding of marriage in a big
way. This has been especially true in evangelical Protestantism,
where marriage very often is presented as THE appropriate state for
the good Christian, as God's highest calling for all men and women.
But we Orthodox have done so also. Quite rightly, no doubt, we have
spoken about the goodness of God's creation of the human being as
male and female. Perhaps in reaction to an earlier and possibly
unhealthy preoccupation with celibate life, we have ransacked
patristic literature for remarks favorable to marriage and sexual
activity and have complained, on the other hand, about those many
patristic texts that do not seem quite so enthusiastic. In much of
our popular literature on marriage, an unmarried life - celibacy in
whatever expression, monasticism included - is not really presented
as an option. Here are a few remarks culled from student mini-essays
in the course that Prof. Rossi and I give on marriage: "For their
spiritual health, people need to be channeled into an accountable way
of life" – the context here suggesting that unmarried people are
shirking responsibility. "For the never married, the Church and
priests should work to help people find mates." The Church should
"give confidence to the unmarried and dispel fear of marriage through
sermons, talks, retreats and seminars." These remarks may not be
altogether representative. Some mini-essays over the years have noted
that "marriage is not for everyone" and that we should not regard the
single state as only an interim before marriage, something temporary,
an abnormality in need of correction. But the overwhelming tendency
is to present marriage as the norm for Christian life.

This of course places enormous pressure on the unmarried. Consider
the comments that one often hears: "I can't understand why an
attractive young girl like you has not found herself a husband." Or:
"How many children do you have? None, I'm not married. Oh, I'm
sorry..." But this also places a lot of pressure on the married. Very
few real life marriages reach the levels of bliss and personal
fulfillment that we have come to expect – yea, to demand – from
marriage. This can become a source of frustration. We think:
Something must be wrong with my marriage. It doesn't measure up.
Contrary to what society has promised, contrary even to what the
Church has promised, it's not making me happy right now, and maybe it
never will. We want our marriage and family to be as warm and fuzzy
as what we found while watching Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to
Beaver. What we get is Married with Children.

We do a disservice to the world – to the world of Friends, to the
world in which we ourselves must work out our salvation – if we put
forward a glossy, idealized, unrealistic and unattainable picture of
marriage as the ultimate end of human life. If we really want to
challenge the world of Friends, we cannot simply rely on what those
around us may regard as "traditional marriage." We need to offer a
different perspective – the perspective that we find, first of all,
in the New Testament. There, as I suggested earlier, we find the
importance of both marriage and family relativized. Marriage was
good, but so was celibacy – and neither was an end in itself. Both
marriage and celibacy were ordered to a higher good. Both therefore
could be considered as being instrumental in nature – as leading to
this higher good, as means of bringing us closer to God, who is good
in Himself and the source of all goodness. The goodness of marriage –
or of celibacy – in a given case depended on how well it served a
higher purpose, the purpose of salvation.

We find this perspective set forth most clearly in the epistles of
St. Paul, and particularly in I Corinthians chapter 7, where marriage
is treated at length. Other presentations will examine this important
text more closely. Right now I would simply like to review some
points in it that are particularly important for our theme. The
chapter begins by considering whether it is better to marry or not to
marry. Here Paul gives counsel but no command. He wishes that all
were as he himself is, i.e., in a single state, but he recognizes
that "each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one
of another." Ultimately it doesn't matter if you are married or
unmarried, as long as you don't fall into immorality. The text goes
on to consider divorce and the special case of believers who are
married to unbelievers – sections that we have no time to discuss at
this point. Paul then comes to what I would regard as his "bottom
line": "Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned
to him, and in which God has called him." Are you Jew or Gentile,
circumcised or uncircumcised? It doesn't matter, "for neither
circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the
commandments of God." Paul then repeats: "Everyone should remain in
the state in which he was called." He continues immediately "Were you
a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom,
avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord
as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when
called is a slave of Christ." Note here how both slave and free are
encouraged to view their status from a new perspective. And then Paul
repeats yet again: "So, brethren, in whatever state each was called,
there let him remain with God."

Why is it so important to remain in the state in which you were
called, to lead the life which the Lord has assigned to you? Paul
isn't arguing for maintenance of the status quo. He certainly isn't
defending the abusive domination that characterized social patterns
in his day. Rather, he is urging his readers to view all their
relationships – marriage, family, ethnic background, social status -
in an eschatological perspective – that is, in light of the ultimate
destiny or purpose of mankind and the world. We see this in the
verses that immediately follow:

Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I
give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I
think that in view of the impending distress (i.e., the End Time that
is coming upon us), it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are
you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a
wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if
a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have
worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I mean, brethren, the
appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have
wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though
they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not
rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those
who deal with the world as though they had no dealing with it. For
the form of this world is passing away."

The form of this world – with all its empires and self-serving power
structures and abusive relationships – is passing away. What is
important in this penultimate chapter in human history, is – as Paul
says a few verses later – "your undivided devotion to the Lord." So
"lead the life which the Lord has assigned you" – as Jew or Greek,
slave or free, married or unmarried – but always keep your eyes on
the prize, look to the coming End. Orient your life - and all its
relationships - to this End. Live out your life in anticipation, hope
and expectation of an Ultimate beyond the institutions of the present
age, marriage included. Let all aspects of your life, all your
relationships, serve this End and lead to this End - the complete
fulfillment of God's plan for His creation.

This eschatological perspective was important for the Corinthian
Church to keep in mind. It also is important for us to keep in mind
today. We are called as we are - conflicted, weak and sinful human
beings, with an incredible range of gifts and an even more incredible
range of hang-ups. But we are called to a life of wholeness and
holiness. We are called to participate in God's holiness, to become
holy ones, even as God is THE Holy One. We are called to love in ways
beyond our own limited human capacities, to freely accept the self-
sacrificing love that God has revealed in Jesus Christ and to express
this love throughout our own lives, in whatever state the Lord has
assigned to us.

This eschatological perspective may also be helpful as we try to
address concrete issues related to marriage and family today.

First of all, marriage itself in real life is not a static
phenomenon, contrary to the idealized picture so often presented to
us (e.g. in those advertisements that promise great sex till you're
70). Ideally marriage involves growth. Inevitably it involves change;
it goes through stages, just as human beings themselves go through
stages in life. Certainly a major change comes with the birth of a
first child, when wife becomes Mommy and her attention is largely
diverted from her husband to the baby that he has fathered. Another
major change comes when Mommy and Daddy finally become empty-nesters,
their attention no longer on carpooling for the kids' soccer matches.
Will they rediscover each other in a new way at this new stage in
their married life? And for more and more married couples these days,
another change occurs when one or both eventually becomes
incapacitated, by Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, for example. What are
billed as the "golden years" can be very difficult indeed for even
the happiest married couple. The basic question at each of these
stages is whether they will be seen in instrumental terms, as
pointing to an End beyond this or that immediate situation, beyond
this or that relationship – whether each stage will be greeted as a
fresh opportunity for growth in holiness. Or will each new stage
become a source of frustration because right now this particular
relationship doesn't measure up to our idealized picture of what
married bliss should be. (Ironically this was often less an issue in
past times. Not only was life expectancy shorter. There was a sharper
delineation of the stages of life: infancy, childhood, youth,
adulthood, old age. After social obligations of adulthood had been
met, after children had been begotten and reared and sent off on
their own, husband and wife had reached old age, when they were free
to retire to a monastery or lead comparable life at home. They were
not expected to behave like newly-weds.)

Let's consider children and family life. What does an eschatological
perspective have to offer here? We often idolize our children, do
everything for our children. In fact this may simply reflect our own
egotism. Children are a great source of pride! We should keep in mind
that childbearing and nurture is not an end in itself. A fortiori, it
is not for our own gratification. We often worry excessively about
how our children will "turn out," to the point that this can become
our sole preoccupation. This shouldn't be the case. Raising children,
like other aspects of married life, should be viewed in instrumental
terms: It should point us to an End beyond how the children
themselves turn out. Don't put your children first. Put God first.
Your love of God, your trust in Him, your orientation of the whole of
life toward Him, will not diminish your love for your children.
Rather, this will purify your love for them, turning it from self-
gratification into an expression of Christ's own self-sacrificing love.

And children are not the only possible instrument in our pursuit of
holiness in marriage. St. John Chrysostom addresses the subject of
childlessness with great sensitivity. Within childless marriage,
other instruments of virtue can be cultivated: hospitality, service
to others, common creation. In any case, we must resist the
temptation to live simply for each other, without concern for growth
in holiness, without concern for God and for our fellow human beings.

What about alternatives to marriage? In the developed and developing
world generally, unmarried persons are a growing percentage of the
population. In the United States approximately 50% of adults are
unmarried. The profiles and concerns of these unmarried persons are,
of course, diverse. Some are deferring marriage until certain
personal goals - educational, professional, economic, emotional - are
met. Some will never marry. Some are divorced or separated - and not
always in anticipation of divorce - e.g., they may be separated
because of imprisonment. Some are widowed. The problems that
unmarried people face are also diverse. The problems of an elderly
widow or widower - health care, for example - will not be the same as
the problems of a younger divorced woman trying to get into - or back
into - the labor market while at the same time managing children and
other responsibilities. And these will not be the same as the
problems and concerns of a never-married person of whatever age. But
there are some common concerns. In surveys and interviews, loneliness
is often mentioned – the loneliness of the prepackaged meals for one
that now are so common in our supermarkets. And singles of whatever
profile and category often suffer other anxieties, many of them
culture-induced. There are a lot of pressures for "singles" to fit
into the expectations and values of a culture that continues to
idealize and idolize the family model of husband, wife, two kids,
three cars and a dog. (This may be one of the reasons behind the
current push for same-sex marriage. Gay and lesbian couples want to
"fit in.")

The unmarried are, as I said, a very diverse group. But often we take
"unmarried" as synonymous with the swinging single presented in so
much advertising. Certainly there are many people who might be
described as "pre-married" – people who expect to get married (or
remarried) someday, but who are now deferring marriage for a variety
of reasons: fear of commitment, waiting for the "right" person to
come along (a delusion, of course!), concern for a career, possibly
even a very noble career. We shouldn't assume that these people are
real-life versions of the cast of Friends. But single life in America
today is spiritually treacherous. With young and not so young
singles, we find a kind of protracted adolescence. They have to make
many more decisions than was the case in pre-modern societies –
decisions about education, career, employment, location, living
arrangements, life-style. In the past most people had no choice
whatsoever in such matters! But young people often lack a sense of
responsibility for their decisions, a sense of their ultimate
significance. Sex, for example, can easily become a recreational
activity, alongside dining out or going to the movies, altogether
unrelated to self-giving love. This makes it very difficult for young
people ever to settle down, in marriage or in any other state.

How can the Church minister to unmarried people? How in particular
can it minister to young singles? For much of Church's history, this
has not been an issue. Today it is. We no longer live in the
traditional societies of the past. We live in the world of Friends.
In certain respects the answer is simple. Whether ministering to
married people or unmarried people, the Church must present the
eschatological challenge that St. Paul posed to the Corinthians. "In
whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God…. For
the form of the world is passing away." In this perspective, each of
us is called to ascetical struggle, whatever our state in life may be
– struggle against self-gratification, for example, which can be as
much a temptation for the married as for the unmarried, struggle to
find ways to grow in God's love in all the diverse situations and
relationships in which we find ourselves. At any rate, we cannot
assume that being single is an impossible obstacle to growth in
wholeness and holiness any more than we can assume that being married
is a guarantee of wholeness and holiness.

All of us are weak and broken human beings, damaged in one way or
another by sin. This is the state in which we are called, to be saved
by God's grace. But we sense a need for healing and wholeness. The
message of the Church on this point is simple and direct: We will
find this healing and wholeness in God and only in God. This is not a
message that we hear very often. More often we are encouraged to
believe that we will find healing and wholeness in other ways – and,
high among these, by getting married. "The single state is
treacherous," we tell young people. But we then imply or even come
out at say: "Marriage will solve your problems." Is this true? Many
people believe it. Consider the following statement, typical of what
those who are involved in premarital counseling hear all too often:
"Yeah, I get jealous and lose my temper, and maybe I get a little
physical if I think she has been looking at other men, but when we
get married that won't be happening." Hearing something like this,
you know that this guy's violent behavior is not going to improve.
Likely it will get worse. Or consider this: "There are things that
bother me about Brad's behavior, but I know that when we get married
my love will change him." You know that isn't going to happen! We
have reached the final TV season of Friends. They've paired up,
married off. But you know that this isn't going to insure fidelity
and endless married bliss. Marriage is not going to cure everything
that‘s wrong with these people - or with any of us. Marriage may be
the context in which most of us will find healing and wholeness. But
marriage itself is not the source of healing and wholeness. Marriage,
just like the single state, can be spiritually treacherous –
particularly when it becomes a false god. As we consider the
challenges currently being posed to Christian marriage – challenges
that we hear about in the media practically every day – , let us keep
in mind that even "traditional" marriage can pose a challenge to our
Orthodox understanding of salvation – by offering a false sense of
security, by making false promises, by suggesting that marriage
itself, and not God, is what can give us wholeness in a broken world.
Some may find wholeness in marriage. Some may find wholeness in the
single state. But they will not find this unless they turn first to
the source of all healing, the source of wholeness, to the Holy One.

-------------------------------------------
Prof. Erickson is Professor of Church History at Saint Vladimir's Theological Seminary

Edited by Fr. Michael of St. Petroc's Monastery (ROCOR) in Tasmania.

Heavenly Friends

2006-08-13T23:19:00.000-05:00

St. James the Brother of God, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and patron of the first Orthodox Church I visited regularly

St. John the Baptist and Forerunner of Christ. I helped build a little chapel dedicated to the Feast of his Beheading, commemorated August 29.

St. Gerasimos of Kephalonia, whose relics I venerated and whose church I happened upon while in Athens

St. Elijah the Prophet, patron of my little godson Elias

St. Joseph the Old Testament Patriarch, patron of my godson Joseph

St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki, whom I venerated on pilgrimage to Greece in March

Thoughts on Conversion

2006-05-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

When people start talking about "converting" to Orthodoxy, I begin to wonder: "What does that really mean?" Most so-called "converts" to Orthodoxy are Christians, former Roman Catholics and Protestants. As such, they are merely returning to the true Church. Quite unlike pagans, Hindoos, Mohammedans, etc., who are embracing the revelation of Christ. Roman Catholics and Protestants already know Christ, even if nominally. I don't like it when all the non-Orthodox are thrown into one category: either Orthodox or not. There are degrees of Orthodoxy because the Roman Catholics and Protestants have their roots in Orthodoxy. These Christians have forgotten their roots, but the others had no Christian roots in the first place. Thus, I don't see that other Christians being received into the Orthodox Church have to undergo a process whereby they are converted to Christ (one can argue whether or not conversion in Orthodoxy is to Christ or to an idol of Orthodoxy), rather they simply come into the fullness of the Christian faith. I'm not sure that such a thing really calls for the inner change that conversion to Christ does.

Converting our hearts to Christ is, however, something which we all should be doing every moment of our lives. It is a process we go through as we recall God's love for us--all the things which He has done for us and given us because of the free gift of His love. God is the Lover of Mankind! What joy that simple thought should give us at even the darkest moments of our lives. How much sin and the fear of death cause us to forget God's love.

Joy at the rememberance of God is a choice we make. Yes, we choose to be joyful. Joy is not happiness. Happiness, as Mother Angelica says, is a happening--it comes and goes. But joy can stay with us at all times. Our joy at the rememberance of God is heaven itself, while having a lack of joy because we forget God or become bogged down in "problems"--which, like happiness, are here today and gone tomorrow--this lack of joy is an experience of hell.

So, how can you know if your heart is really "converted?" Well, do you experience joy when you call to remembrance God's existence, His creation, His work for your redemption, His promise that He would be with you always unto the end of the ages, His merciful love for you which will never end? Or have you set up idols to replace God? (Your insubstantial "problems," your passions, your "identity," or some kind of narrow relgiosity which neither saves nor brings joy to the heart?)

Any thing, material or immaterial, whether it be a burden or a blessing, an aid or a source of agony, can become an idol, something which preoccupies all our thoughts, actions, and worship instead of the living God. Idols enslave us, whereas God gives us true freedom. So, throw away the idols which keep you from choosing joy, and run to God Whose arms are open to embrace you and Whose love is freedom and everlasting life.