The Orthodox Question Why Catholic And Not Eastern Orthodox

At some point, many people considering the Catholic Church face this question: "Why become Catholic, and not Eastern Orthodox?"

"AFTER ALL, ORTHODOXY CAN LOOK MIGHTY APPEALING. You get a lot of the things that are desirable in Catholicism -- Apostolic Succession, visible authority, ecclesial unity, Tradition, beautiful Liturgy -- without having to accept the pope or some of the Marian dogmas. Sure, the Orthodox aren't quite" in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they're close enough that, in the past, we've celebrated in the same churches.

From a Catholic perspective, converting from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is a move deeper into full Catholic union, in a way that converting from one Protestant denomination to another is not. For that reason, I've been a bit hesitant to answer the "why not Orthodox?" question, for fear of making the perfect the enemy of the good. As far as I can tell, we affirm everything that they affirm. We just affirm" more", and often in different language. So let's look at a few of the things that the Orthodox affirm, and what the means for the question of being Catholic.

I. WHAT THE ORTHODOX AFFIRM

These are points that I've seen broadly conceded. Because Orthodoxy is significantly less cohesive than Catholicism, I can't guarantee that a given Orthodox believer will affirm these. But here goes:

(1) Rome was Founded by St. Peter and St. Paul

Constantinople claims Apostolic Succession through the Apostle Andrew. Rome has Apostolic Succession through both the Apostles Peter and Paul. Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church acknowledge each other's Apostolic origins, and express this in a particularly beautiful tradition. As Cardinal Se'an O'Malley explains:

"

DUCCIO'S CALLING OF THE APOSTLES PETER AND ANDREW" (C. 1310)

THE PATRIARCH [ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW OF CONSTANTINOPLE, THE HIGHEST RANKING MEMBER OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH] IS VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CAUSE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY. EACH YEAR HE SENDS REPRESENTATIVES TO ROME FOR THE FEAST OF STS. PETER AND PAUL. IN ADDITION, HE RECEIVES THE POPE'S REPRESENTATIVES ON THE FEAST OF ST. ANDREW. The brothers Sts. Peter and Andrew represent the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.This symbolic act already symbolizes an acknowledgement that Saints Peter and Paul founded the See of Rome (as countless early Christian sources attest). And Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has not been shy on this point. In 2007, when the pope's delegation arrived to celebrate the Feast of St. Andrew, he said:Today's celebration is an invitation extended to both our Churches to the unity of the Cross. Just as our Lord Jesus Christ stretched out his arms upon the cross, uniting all that was formerly divided, so also his apostle, in imitation of his Master, stretched out his arms, gathering us all today and calling us to stretch out our arms upon the cross spiritually in order to achieve the unity that we desire.

ELDER ROME HAS THE FOREMOST ST. PETER AS ITS APOSTLE AND PATRON. NEW ROME, CONSTANTINOPLE, HAS THE BROTHER OF ST. PETER, THE FIRST-CALLED OF THE APOSTLES, ANDREW. Both invite us to the fraternal unity that they shared with each other and that can only be acquired when the cross becomes our point of reference and experience of approach. Let us, therefore, beseech these two brothers and greatest of apostles that they may grant peace to the world and lead everyone to unity, in accordance with the particularly timely troparion (hymn) today of St. Symeon Metaphrastes, Archbishop of Thessalonika: "You, Andrew, were first-called of the apostles;"Peter was supremely honored among the apostles."Both of you endured the cross of Christ,"Proving imitators of your Lord and Master,"And one in mind and soul. Therefore, with him, "As brothers, grant peace to us." Amen.The Ecumenical Patriarch's recognition of his own See, Constantinople, as New Rome, leads to my second point.

(2) Historically, Constantinople was Second to Rome

The four original Patriarchal Sees were all Petrine. Jerusalem is where Peter first preached on Pentecost (Acts 2). He then established the Church at Antioch. He then established the Church at Rome, along with St. Paul. His disciple, the Evangelist Mark, founded the Church at Alexandria. Constantinople was added as a fifth Patriarchate, a controversial move initially opposed by the pope (but eventually accepted). From Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople in 381:

LET THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, HOWEVER, HAVE THE PRIORITIES OF HONOR AFTER the Bishop of Rome, BECAUSE OF ITS BEING NEW ROME.But in the controversy over adding a fifth Patriarchate (and above Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria at that), one thing was clear. Rome was number one. Canon 3 only reaffirms this. Constantinople leap-frogs over Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, but it is explicitly "second to Rome". And its claim to fame for being one of the Patriarchates at all" is because of its connection to Rome". As the Protestant scholar Phillip Schaff noted:

IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT THE CHANGE EFFECTED BY THIS CANON DID NOT AFFECT ROME DIRECTLY IN ANY WAY, BUT DID SERIOUSLY AFFECT ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH, WHICH TILL THEN HAD RANKED NEXT AFTER THE SEE OF ROME. When the pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in reality defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in such matters the ancient customs should continue. EVEN THE LAST CLAUSE, IT WOULD SEEM, COULD GIVE NO OFFENCE TO THE MOST SENSITIVE ON THE PAPAL CLAIMS, FOR IT IMPLIES A WONDERFUL POWER IN THE RANK OF OLD ROME, IF A SEE IS TO RANK NEXT TO IT BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO BE "NEW ROME." Of course these remarks only refer to the wording of the canon which is carefully guarded; the intention doubtless was to exalt the see of Constantinople, the chief see of the East, to a position of as near equality as possible with the chief see of the West.So the entire controversy over Constantinople's place can't obscure a central fact: the Roman See was number one in the world.

So the Orthodox acknowledge that in the ancient Church, Peter was the first of the Apostles, and the Roman See was the first of the Church. Some sort of primacy existed. Any Orthodox denying this is denying what the Ecumenical Patriarch concedes, or what the First Council of Constantinople concedes.

II. HOW TO RESOLVE THE ORTHODOX QUESTION

"Both Catholics and Orthodox understand the laity as the sheep to be led by God's shepherds. The job of the laity isn't to settle all the world's theological disputes, but to have faith in what the Church teaches. BUT WHICH SHEPHERD DO THE SHEEP FOLLOW IF THEY START GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? "I see three possible ways of determining an answer:

* OPTION 1: Follow your local bishop
* OPTION 2: RESOLVE EACH DISPUTE ON YOUR OWN
* OPTION 3: Follow the See of Rome

Options 1 and 2 are very problematic. And all three of these point towards the Catholic Church.

(1) Follow your local bishop

With Option 1, if the Orthodox bishops of Australia and New Zealand broke off communion, accusing each other of schism or heresy, the Orthodox believers of those countries would divide along nationalist lines.

This is problematic for two reasons. First, regardless of which side was right, this approach would require laity on one of the two sides to embrace schism or heresy. Second, "Pope Benedict is Patriarch of the West". So if you want to follow Option A, and you live in the West, go with the pope.

(2) Resolve each dispute on your own

Option 2 is the knee-jerk response by both Protestants, and Westerners generally: asking, "What do "I "think?"

There are two problems. First, it's fundamentally inconsistent with the ecclesiology proclaimed by either the Orthodox or Catholic Church. In neither Church is the laity left as the final authority on theological disputes. This creates an immediate problem. If you should only follow the episcopacy if they're right, and it's up to you to determine they're right, who's leading who? If the laity are going to be left to figure theology out on their own, much of the purpose of the visible Church is thwarted.

Second, this points to Catholicism anyways. Given everything that the Orthodox admit about Rome being founded by Peter, and about it historically holding a global primacy, the only remaining question is this: WAS PETER MERELY "PRIMUS INTER PARES" ("FIRST AMONG EQUALS"), OR WAS HE TASKED WITH A MINISTRY OVERSEEING THE OTHER APOSTLES? An Orthodox priest, Fr. John Maxwell, put the argument this way:

If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

But look at the part Fr. Maxwell cites, in the broader context of Lk. 22:24-32:

A DISPUTE ALSO AROSE AMONG THEM, WHICH OF THEM WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE GREATEST. AND HE SAID TO THEM, "THE KINGS OF THE GENTILES EXERCISE LORDSHIP OVER THEM; AND THOSE IN AUTHORITY OVER THEM ARE CALLED BENEFACTORS. BUT NOT SO WITH YOU; RATHER LET THE GREATEST AMONG YOU BECOME AS THE YOUNGEST, AND THE LEADER AS ONE WHO SERVES. FOR WHICH IS THE GREATER, ONE WHO SITS AT TABLE, OR ONE WHO SERVES? IS IT NOT THE ONE WHO SITS AT TABLE? BUT I AM AMONG YOU AS ONE WHO SERVES. "YOU ARE THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED WITH ME IN MY TRIALS; AND I ASSIGN TO YOU, AS MY FATHER ASSIGNED TO ME, A KINGDOM, THAT YOU MAY EAT AND DRINK AT MY TABLE IN MY KINGDOM, AND SIT ON THRONES JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. "SIMON, SIMON, BEHOLD, SATAN DEMANDED TO HAVE YOU [PLURAL], THAT HE MIGHT SIFT YOU LIKE WHEAT, BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU [SINGULAR] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN."THIS LOOKS "VERY MUCH" LIKE PETER WAS GIVEN A MINISTRY TO THE OTHER APOSTLES. In fact, Jesus essentially says as much, using the language of commission. So Peter had a special place that wasn't merely honorary, but an additional commission. That's the Catholic argument.

Additionally, PETER HAS THE ABILITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE TWELVE, as he did in Acts 2, and Matthew 16:15-16, and so forth. In fact, I did a five part series on Peter's role in the early Church (starting here, with the passage I just quoted). So I think Catholics can makes a very compelling case for Peter's eclessial headship. In other words, I think option 2 points towards the Catholic Church, too.

(3) Follow the See of Rome

If the Orthodox are right that Peter is the first of the Apostles (in some sense), that Peter founded and was the patron saint of the Church of Rome, and right that Rome was the first of the Churches (again, in some sense), then it would seem logical that if there was a dispute, believers should follow Rome.

This is also the only option that doesn't guarantee Schism. Let me be more clear on that:

Benjamin West,

"St. Peter Preaching at Pentecost"

* UNDER OPTION 1, any time a bishop or group of bishops goes into schism, the laity are dragged along. The Body of Christ is torn apart, along juridical lines, into large chunks (which, of course, is exactly what happened with the Nestorian Schism and the East-West Schism).
* UNDER OPTION 2, the whims of each Christian justify schism, so the Body of Christ is torn apart, along individual lines, into really tiny chunks (which, of course, is exactly what happened in the aftermath of the Reformation)
* UNDER OPTION 3, the whole Church stays together, holding to the faith of Rome.

So if Christ's prayer for Church unity (John 17:20-23) is to be fulfilled, Option 3 appears to be "necessary".

I anticipate at least one objection: but what if the Roman See goes into schism? The answer is easy. If God can preserve the Church collective in the faith, preventing an Apostasy, He can certainly preserve the local Roman church in the faith. In fact, for His promises to be meaningful, the Truth must not just be out there somewhere, but must be capable of being found by Christian believers.

Read More

Right Reason

Due to a question presented in a comment, I am re-posting a two year-old essay.The question arose here on The Continuum as to what is meant by Right Reason, and how it has come to be placed alongside of Scripture and Tradition. Too often it has been assumed that these three, Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition have been placed as equal parts of an epistemological triad for discerning the truth, with the idea of a "three legged stool" that provides the Anglican concept of authority or a magisterium. As we have seen before, however, this concept is not quite correct. It is drawn from Richard Hooker, but is not exactly what he meant. Whereas he laid great stress on all three of these (though rarely together in any one passage), the "three legged stool" analogy gives the false impression of equality, as if our mind could reason anything that equals revelation. In fact, Hooker saw the Scriptures as possessing the greatest weight of authority, but only understood correctly with the aid of the Church- or as we say, Tradition. And, as we have seen, neither human reason nor the Tradition of the Church can be weighed against Scripture, nor Scripture against the Tradition, since these two things speak the same truth with one voice. They support each other, not by comparison, certainly never with contradiction, but in a way even stronger than complement. The Scripture and the Tradition are one and the same, so that we say the Creed with the same conviction and certainty as words from the Bible.How, then, do we understand Hooker's estimation of Reason?One: regarding Church PolityWhat does he mean when he speaks of Reason in connection to the Church? It must be remembered why he wrote The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. The Church of England faced a threat from the Puritans. They wanted to overthrow the Church of England and its episcopal structure, and replace it with the "Calvin's Geneva Discipline." Hooker argued quite persuasively that Calvin's form of church government was no fit basis for polity (he preferred to say "polity" since he thought of "church government" as an insufficient concept). It did not conform either to the scriptures or to anything that was practiced by the Church in its earliest generations. He especially mentioned, in more than one place, just how unwarranted he found their notion of "Lay elders.""So as the form of polity by them set down for perpetuity is three ways faulty: faulty in omitting some things which in Scripture are of that nature, as namely the difference that ought to be of Pastors when they grow to any great multitude: faulty in requiring Doctors, Deacons, Widows, and such like, as things of perpetual necessity by the law of God, which in truth are nothing less: faulty also in urging some things by Scripture immutable, as their Lay-elders, which the Scripture neither maketh immutable nor at all teacheth, for any thing either we can as yet find or they have hitherto been able to prove." BOOK III. Ch. xi. 20In short, he found the Calvinist discipline, as it existed in those Reformed churches, at best the result of necessity that drove men to create some kind of order where none had existed, and at worst he found Calvin's ideas to be, as he wrote, "crazed." For the Church of England, never deprived of bishops and due order, he would have none of it. One of the ideas that he refuted was the notion that the scriptures clearly set down everything that the Church was commanded to do, and how to do it, in exact detail. And, anything that could not be found in scripture should be forbidden. To this end, the Puritans imagined all sorts of interpretations to justify their own ideas, and condemned anything that did not fit their scheme. It was not at all difficult to show that the Bible did not contain detailed instructions about many things that the Church must do. Hooker acknowledged that the scriptures command the things that truly matter most in every generation, but that it does not give detailed rules about many particulars that must vary from time to time and place to place. These things can and must change to meet the needs of real people in real places and ages, unlike God's eternal and unchanging commandments that are always and everywhere the same. "The matters wherein Church polity is conversant are the public religious duties of the Church, as the administration of the word and sacraments, prayers, spiritual censures, and the like. To these the Church standeth always bound. Laws of polity, are laws which appoint in what manner these duties shall be performed." BOOK III. Ch. xi. 20He gives one obvious example:"In performance wher because all that are of the Church cannot jointly and equally work, the first thing in polity required is a difference of persons in the Church, without which difference those functions cannot in orderly sort be executed. Hereupon we hold that God's clergy are a state, which hath been and will be, as long as there is a Church upon earth, necessary by the plain word of God himself; a state whereunto the rest of God's people must be subject as touching things that appertain to their souls' health."He argued that the Scriptures teach the office we call "bishop," knowing that the other orders depend on this office. Having given this example of a permanent law of polity, from scripture itself, he goes on to mention those things that are necessary, but are not commanded in detail by the word of God:"A number of particularities there are, which make for the more convenient being of these principal and perpetual parts in ecclesiastical polity, but yet are not of such constant use and necessity in God's Church. Of this kind are, times and places appointed for the exercise of religion; specialties belonging to the public solemnity of the word, the sacraments, and prayer; the enlargement or abridgment of functions ministerial depending upon those two principal before-mentioned; to conclude, even whatsoever doth by way of formality and circumstance concern any public action of the Church. Now although that which the Scripture hath of things in the former kind be for ever permanent: yet in the later both much of that which the Scripture teacheth is not always needful; and much the Church of God shall always need which the Scripture teacheth not." (emphasis mine)Laws of ecclesiastical polity are necessary; everything from canon law to rubrics. And, it is obvious that many of these things cannot be drawn directly from scripture, even though they must be in accord with the teaching of scripture, never violating the principles and doctrine contained in it. To this end, he had opened the third book by extolling the high place of Reason, called also Right Reason, as a light given to man from God. The wisdom that is so highly praised in the Book of Proverbs is a light that also guides, even where no exact law of God is written in his sacred word.The simple fact is, this is one use of what is meant by Right Reason (or Reason for short). It is a source of authority, yes, but not equal to the authority of revelation. It gives wisdom needed to establish many details of Church polity. True doctrine, however, comes only from Scripture as known by the Church.Two: Subject to Scripture and the Tradition of the ChurchThe other proper use of Reason for Hooker, therefore, is when he speaks of it as subject to the Church, especially the testimony of the Church, by the Holy Spirit, that the scriptures are no less than the word of God. It is earlier, in chapter VIII of this same Book III, that we find the strongest of Hooker's statements to this effect."The question then being by what means we are taught this; some answer that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition; as namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessors and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all men's experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God's Church. For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries ther, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. If infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew, what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judged ther as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true."Wherefore if I believe the Gospel, yet is reason of singular use, for that it confirmeth me in this my belief the more: if I do not as yet believe, nevertheless to bring me to the number of believers except reason did somewhat help, and were an instrument which God doth use unto such purposes, what should it boot to dispute with infidels or godless persons for their conversion and persuasion in that point?" BOOK III. Ch. viii. 14.We see in this that Hooker did not shy away from such Catholic principles as the Church's authority, rooted in Tradition (and notice his positive use of the word "tradition" in this case, contrary to recent assertions made about him) teaching us that the Scripture is the word of God, and that this teaching is no less than "infallible." And, lest we charge him with insufficient appreciation of mystical religious experience, it is useful to notice what follows directly:"Neither can I think that when grave and learned men do sometime hold, that of this principle there is no proof but by the testimony of the Spirit, which assureth our hearts therein, it is their meaning to exclude utterly all force which any kind of reason may have in that behalf; but I rather incline to interpret such their speeches, as if they had more expressly set down, that other motives and inducements, be they never so strong and consonant unto reason, are notwithstanding uneffectual of themselves to work faith concerning this principle, if the special grace of the Holy Ghost concur not to the enlightening of our minds. For otherwise I doubt not but men of wisdom and judgment will grant, that the Church, in this point especially, is furnished with reason, to stop the mouths of her impious adversaries; and that as it were altogether bootless to allege against them what the Spirit hath taught us, so likewise that even to our ownselves it needeth caution and explication how the testimony of the Spirit may be discerned, by what means it may be known; lest men think that the Spirit of God doth testify those things which the Spirit of error suggesteth. The operations of the Spirit, especially these ordinary which be common unto all true Christian men, are as we know things secret and undiscernible even to the very soul where they are, because their nature is of another and an higher kind than that they can be by us perceived in this life. Wherefore albeit the Spirit lead us into all truth and direct us in all goodness, yet because these workings of the Spirit in us are so privy and secret, we therefore stand on a plainer ground, when we gather by reason from the quality of things believed or done, that the Spirit of God hath directed us in both, than if we settle ourselves to believe or to do any certain particular thing, as being moved thereto by the Spirit. BOOK III. Ch. viii. 16.We see in Hooker an appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit as a normal part of the life of every devout Christian who submits the mind to Scripture. He sees Reason as a tool to gather these things. The mind that comprehends and explains what we have learned from the Holy Spirit who enlightens us, expresses these things as things that have been learned and are evident. They are "gathered" by reason when reason is directed by the Scripture and the Church. Reason is not a source of authority for doctrine, but the receiver that gathers what it learns, orders it, and gives expression to the truth. Reason is placed along with Scripture and Tradition in these two ways. It provides wisdom whereby the Church in various times and places can establish polity, including those matters not directed by any permanent and unchanging commandment, and in forming ways to obey permanent and unchanging commandments, or do other necessary things, where changes of detail are permitted. Reason is also the servant of Scripture and Tradition, and indeed, of the Holy Spirit, for everything from teaching to apologetics. It is always subject to the authority of the Scriptures and the Church (with its infallible Tradition) and whatever we receive from the Holy Spirit is known and expressed by Reason as drawn and gathered from the Scripture.

Read More

The Witness Of The Saints

REVELATION 7:9-17 COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE (CEB)

9 AFTER THIS I LOOKED, AND THERE WAS A GREAT CROWD THAT NO ONE COULD NUMBER. THEY WERE FROM EVERY NATION, TRIBE, PEOPLE, AND LANGUAGE. THEY WERE STANDING BEFORE THE THRONE AND BEFORE THE LAMB. THEY WORE WHITE ROBES AND HELD PALM BRANCHES IN THEIR HANDS. 10 THEY CRIED OUT WITH A LOUD VOICE:

"Victory belongs to our God

who sits on the throne,

and to the Lamb."11 All the angels stood in a circle around the throne, and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, 12 saying,"Amen! Blessing and glory

and wisdom and thanksgiving

and honor and power and might

be to our God forever and always. Amen."13 Then one of the elders said to me, "Who are these people wearing white robes, and where did they come from?"14 I said to him, "Sir, you know."Then he said to me, "These people have come out of great hardship. They have washed their robes and made them white in the Lamb's blood. 15 This is the reason they are before God's throne. They worship him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them.16 They won't hunger or thirst anymore. No sun or scorching heat will beat down on them, 17 because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them. He will lead them to the springs of life-giving water,[a] and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

As it is All Saints Day it is fitting that we pause to remember all the saints of God, from whose labors, have rested. We stop today to remember service given to God -- especially in times of trial. The vision offered in this reading from Revelation 7 invites us to visualize the breadth and depth of God's people. From every nation they come. Speaking every language under the son. This is the realm of God -- deep and wide. Many have suffered and many continue to suffer, and so it is fitting to honor memory and hear a call to live lives of service. I would have us especially remember brothers and sisters living in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Syria, who are facing incredible persecution.

As we think of their ordeal, and the ordeal of all who suffer, I want to share these words form Gennifer Benjamin Brooks, as found in the lectionary reflections for All Saints' Day in "Preaching God's Transforming Justice: A Lectionary Commentary, Year A, "(WJK Press, 2013).

As the gathered community, the church triumphant, they offer a picture of divine love worthy of praise. The Lamb that was slain is their redeemer. The multitude consists of those who have been downtrodden, afflicted, hungry, thirsty, oppressed, and despised for being strangers in a strange land. Yet under the leadership of the Lamb, in a manner reminiscent of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, they offer extravagant praise to God for their experience of divine presence and saving grace. John's vision takes flesh in the pictures of children who have been abducted, abused, and killed. The martyrs in our day include the innocent ones who are stolen and sacrificed to the gods of power, privilege, and indulgence as sex slaves and child laborers. These have hope of ultimate redemption through the Lamb even as other faithful persons labor for their release. Their presence with the Lamb is testimony of their redeemed status and of the universality of the beloved community where there is no discrimination based on language, race, color, tribe, national origin, or any other social marker. The great ordeal through which they have come, unspecified in John's vision, is nevertheless representative of systemic oppression and injustice. Whether or not we consider these verses as prescient of John's impending martyrdom, the recall for us the continual worsening of racism, militarism, neocolonialism, warmongering, and ever-escalating violence to individuals, communities, and nations globally. (p. 467).

AS we consider this witness, may we offer our own as we stand in praise to the God who redeems.

Reference: witchnest.blogspot.com

Read More

Saints Barsanuphios And John As Models For Our Lives

Sts. Barsanuphios and John (Carnival Day - February 6)

By Protopresbyter Fr. George Papavarnavas

The venerable Barsanuphios and John lived in the sixth century. They were large ascetics, but plus alert of the Stock consign and theology. The venerable Barsanuphios lived for haunt time as a interloper in a abridged pit gather the Monastery of the venerable Seridus, wherever Abba Dorotheos lived in soberness. Offer he reaped the lush fruits of hesychasm and with his spiritual gifts, as well as the wisdom he acquired from upper by his settlement with God, he helped haunt personal by answering their questions and queries. At a unite stash his proponent, the venerable John, exercised hesychasm, and he too responded to questions occupational with the spiritual life. He plus was prepared impressive of haunt gifts of the Blessed Move and absolutely the gift of forethought and image, which is why he is called the Prophet.

The responses of these Saints were gathered in a book superior the "Size of Barsanuphios and John" and it contains 838 questions and answers. It was stamped in Venice in 1816 under the strictness of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, who in the Induction wrote a interpretation of the lives of these Saints. They moreover perfect their lives in peace.

Underneath we will quote and for the time being criticism on excerpts of the words of the Saints, which are unfailingly significant, illuminating and delightful.

1. "Know, MY BROTHER, THAT IF Band UPSETS THEIR Fellow MAN, EITHER Like ACTS OR Crack, After that HE HIMSELF Stimulus BE Put out A HUNDRED Period Above."

The venerable Barsanuphios refers state to spiritual law, according to which, what one does, whether good or evil, that they will find prior them. That is, the actual thing will extend to them depending on what they do, and even to a far great piece.

2. "YOU Want NOT Climb YOUR Surpass IN Tummy OF THE A great deal AT THE (Crop) Individual, Since THIS IS Inappropriate AND Alien TO THE Common Example."

The venerable John gives this element in the midst of other beat, which is linked to facade behavior, but it is not different to the inner information of man. Entirely, it is completely connected to it. Similar to a celebrate loves God, hence he loves his man man, and he conducts himself with improvement and harmony to all, even with personal he knows meticulously. Likewise, understanding does not subdue wholesomeness and preserve.

Whoever is embellish and virtuous on the interior, is nosy in their facade regulate, and is not specifically meticulous to not bring others to a question job, but cares in every way to service them and provide them.

3. "O COWARDICE, THE Girl OF UNBELIEF, HOW LOW IT HAS Flummoxed US! IT IS A Chum OF Manifold Harms, BLINDING THE Thoughts, FUDDLING THE Organism, EXTRACTING The upper classes FROM GOD; IT IS THE SISTER OF Doldrums, REMOVING The upper classes FROM THE Caution OF GOD Concerning THE Spike OF Loss."

He calls cowardice the youngster of unbelief and describes even its come to blows, namely the evils it produces. Still, the youngster of consign is spiritual nerve, which helps man to be droopy from the passions so that the nous can be illuminated by the uncreated Smartness of God and the heart can be a building place of the Blessed Move. Accordingly, in this information man knows God existentially, acquires fathom love which embraces even enemies, and dwells with daydream which never dies, to the same extent the true daydream of the perpetual is in the Blessed Triune God. Likewise, belief in the exclusive God of the Cathedral requires nerve and manliness, "for God has not agreed us a spirit of thing about, but of power and love and wisdom" (2 Tim. 1:7).

4. "Persist THAT No matter which THAT COMES FROM GOD IS FOR THE Positive... In anticipation THE Peer of the realm Stimulus Confer YOU Shrewdness AND Translate THE EYES OF YOUR Intelligence, BY THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS."

It is significant for one to inhibit payment in the love of God and to make up everything with good philosophy. That is, to deduce that God authentic loves them and allows a top-notch of temptations for their liberator. That which, highest of all, gives elegance to man and matures them spiritually is to suffer the sad actions of life with a expression of respect and admiration. Still, in the function of one considers the end of their calamities to be God and gush reluctant Him, hence they are driven to austerity and hurt. In anticipation we will become conscious and understand that God is our Shock, that He authentic loves us and that "everything that comes from God is for the good."

5. "TO DIE Short SIN IS NOT Departure, BUT A TRANSITION FROM Grief TO Collapse."

A solid cleric in a Coenobium became heavily laid up and the fathers asked the large Condescending (so they called the venerable Barsanuphios) to heal him. The Admirable One told them that he would not die. Of course, God is profession him towards Him, but this does not mean he will die. He will transition from death to life and from grief to rest. For that which we entitle death is not death, but a travel towards the Dazzling of eternal life and rest and joy, for all colonize who lived in apology and "stiff" with apology. Departure is a departure from the commandments of God and the loss of Forecast Smartness, having the status of of apology.

The large Condescending, in the function of he done his words he turned to the laid up man and said: "Go in peace, my child, to stand prior the Blessed Trinity, and referee for us." And the cleric bunged his eyes and "stiff" in peace.

The "Size of Barsanuphios and John" necessary consist of diet for all colonize who love God and warfare to amble the undeviating path of His commandments, which leads to the giving out from the restraints of the passions and the thing about of death, the eternal purity of eternal life.

Source: "Ekklesiastiki Paremvasi", , January 2013. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.

Read More