Christ Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.   (Ephesians 2:14-22)

St. Paul’s argument in Chapter 2 of his Epistle to the Ephesians is that the coming of the Messiah has meant the end to the distinction between Jew and Gentiles, between the Nation of Israel and the nations of the world.  God has overcome all human divisions through the cosmic salvation brought about in Jesus the Word of God become flesh.  Even “the middle wall of separation” – that wall which prevented the Gentiles from entering into the Jerusalem Temple sanctuary which was by Jewish custom reserved for male Jews only – has been broken down, making it possible for all people of the world to have access to God and to salvation in the Church.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.   (Galatians 3:27-28 RSV)

Strangely in Orthodox history, the Church eventually reconstructs a dividing wall not only between believers and non-believers, but also between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians, and then even between the ordained Orthodox and the non-ordained.    For ultimately the iconostasis is built as a re-established dividing wall of separation to keep all but the elite away from the altar; this, despite the clear references throughout the New Testament to the dividing walls being ended by Christ (see for example Matthew 27:51 or Hebrews 8:1-6, 9:6-11, 10:19-25).

George Fedotov in his THE RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS MIND writes critically of what happened to Christianity in its early history because of its success in converting the Roman Empire to the faith:

“The ancient Church was the heir of the cult of both the Synagogue and the Hellenistic mysteries. … The mysteries were destined for the few, for the initiates only.  Yet since the whole Empire belonged to the initiates, the mysteries were brought forth to the masses.   The danger of this vulgarization was met by a retroactive process.  The Church now tried to protect and to hide the mysteries again, particularly the Eucharist, which is the core of the Church life and its cult.  Hence the tendency, and afterward the rule of pronouncing secretly the prayers of consecration as well as many others; the development of the altar railing into the high Iconostasis, completely hiding the sanctuary from the lay people.  Hence also, under the use of late neoplatonic theurgical language, the new verbal vestment of mysteries, which made them sublime and inaccessible, even dangerous for the unworthy…”  (p. 52, Volume 3 of his collected works). 

The solid and high Iconostasis was the rebuilding of the middle wall torn down by Christ.  Though some in the Orthodox world would defend it saying the wall merely holds the Icons which are windows into heaven.  But it would be strange to erect a solid wall where none existed just to place a window in it.   And we are allowed to look into heaven but not into the altar?

We are baptized into Christ – this is the fulfillment of the theological notion that God became human so that humans might become God.  We are united to God in the mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist, but then separated from one another by a wall which seems to declare that for some the mystery of Baptism was not all that effective and leaves them still on the other side – the wrong side – of a wall which Christ supposedly had torn down according to St. Paul.

The oneness of the Body of Christ though is preserved in the words of the Liturgy in which we continue to pray in the “we” and “us.”   Let us lift up our hearts, let us give thanks to the Lord.   All the baptized faithful participate together in

Christ Liberating Prisoners at Dachau Concentration Camp

the elevation and consecration of the gifts.    “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”   (Romans 8:38-39 RSV).

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself  being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The parish is the place where we live out our relationship to Christ and to our fellow Christians within the Body of Christ.  St. Paul’s very description of a Christian is that we are part of the household of God.  One Christian is no Christian.  We can only be a Christian in relationship to all other Christians but especially in relationship with the Christians in the local community where we both receive and become the Body of Christ.

In his latest blog post entitled “Thoughts on Bulgakov, Apollinarius, and Ourselves,” Fr. Gregory Wassen enters into a conversation with the late Fr. Sergius Bulgakov on the role of Apollinarius in the formulation of orthodox Christology in the early Church. Fr. Gregory writes:

Our lives are a mixture of sin and holiness but equally a mixture of truth and heresy. Both are a human condition which needs healing. Origen had already spoken of saving doctrines in his On First Principles (refering to scriptural doctrines concerning Jesus Christ) because he understood that, as sin is a result of a sickness in our soul, so is heresy—and we all of us have it.

Some bold statements here, I think—of the kind I’m afraid is true but am less willing to confess.

Fr. Gregory’s post got me wondering about the nature of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Is truth—the defining criterion, so to speak, of orthodoxy—something we “have” or “possess”? In both Orthodox and Catholic communions it is common to say that each Church believes itself to “possess” the fullness (pleroma) of that truth which has been revealed by God. I wonder, however, if this language of possession is not more a matter of polemics than of faith. After all, who among us “possesses”—even if only in part—the Truth who is God Himself? Do we really believe that the One who is Truth can be contained in the makeshift crib of the human mind?

I submit that it is more helpful to consider our relationship to truth as one of participation rather than possession—in other words, to think of truth as something in which we “participate” rather than something we “have”. This appears to be more consistent with the language of deification in which Scripture and the Fathers express the goal of the Christian life. Rather than speaking of our “possession” of God, they seem to prefer to speak of theosis as the deepening of our participation or sharing in the Trinitarian life:

The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (John 17.22-23)

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers [κοινωνοὶ] of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1.3-4)

To try to discover the meaning of the commandments through study and reading without actually living in accordance with them is like mistaking the shadow of something for its reality.  It is only by participating in the truth that you can share in the meaning of truth.  If you search for the meaning without participating in the truth and without having been initiated into it, you will find only a besotted kind of wisdom. (St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines 22, in The Philokalia, Vol. IV)

Through this hermeneutic of participation, it is easier to see how it is that, in the words of Fr. Gregory, “our lives are a mixture of sin and holiness but equally a mixture of truth and heresy.” It also becomes clearer why, according to him, Origen held that “as sin is a result of a sickness in our soul, so is heresy—and we all of us have it.”

Perhaps orthodoxy is not an either/or phenomenon—for then one is either orthodox or one is not—but rather something like a continuum. To the extent that we participate in the Truth who is God Himself, we are “more” orthodox; and to the extent that we move away from Him, we become “more” heterodox (i.e. tending toward some “other” [hetero-] kind of glory rather than the “right” [ortho-] glory). And so, the drama of heterodoxy and orthodoxy in the life of the Church becomes fundamentally bound to the drama of sin and grace which plays itself out in the soul of every man and every community in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. This being the case, the true remedy for heresy or heterodoxy in the Church is not polemics, polarization or politicization but the therapeutic regiment of grace. As Fr. Gregory writes:

What we need is a healer and a place of healing—the Church. What we don’t need is more temptation and more accusation. This is why Jesus Christ is both the Healer and the Medicine for sin and heresy alike…. The way we treat and look at heretics could almost be said to be a good indicator of our spiritual health. For the heretic and the orthodox both find a home in us as much as do the sinner and the saint.

Let me conclude with a strange fact that struck me in the case of the Council of Ephesus in 431. The “arch-heretic” at Ephesus, Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople, in mid-council asked to be released from his duties and returned to his monastery in Antioch. He had, in the words of Henry Chadwick, “had enough.” I wonder if his journey from Ephesus to Antioch might not hold symbolic value for us. Even if we grant that Nestorius did in fact hold the errant ideas attributed to him then and now, I don’t think we can deny the basic merit and the orthodox impulse in his response: to return once again to that place where the Divine Physician can be found in the mystery of worship and the flesh-and-bone of brotherhood.

Профессор Московской духовной академии: С фото антихриста будет течь миро

С изображений антихриста и с экранов телевизоров, показывающих его, будет течь исцеляющее от болезней миро, говорит профессор Московской духовной академии Алексей Осипов в книге «Чудеса истинные и ложные», которую издал Данилов монастырь.

«Уже сейчас идет активная подготовка сознания народа, в том числе и вполне православных («избранных») людей к исканию чудес, погоне за ними, – говорит Осипов. – Посмотрите, сколько литературы посвящено им. И, увы, многие православные уже хорошо знают, в каких нуждах каким иконам молиться, к каким святым обращаться, и к каким мощам прикладываться. Мысль о спасении от страстей и греха, от зла, неприязни, зависти, блуда, воровства постепенно отходит на второй план».

По словам Осипова, «через искание земных благ, чудес, прозорливцев» люди придут к тому, что примут антихриста, который будет совершать поражающие воображения чудеса.

Осипов цитирует святителя Игнатия Брянчанинова, который в XIX веке писал: «С течением времени, с постепенным ослаблением христианства, и повреждением нравственности знаменосные мужи умалялись. Наконец, они иссякли окончательно. Между тем человеки, потеряв благоговение и уважение ко всему священному, потеряв смирение, признающее себя недостойным не только совершать знамения, но и видеть их, жаждут чудес более, нежели когда-либо… Мы приближаемся постепенно к тому времени, в которое должно открыться обширное зрелище многочисленных и поразительных ложных чудес, увлечь в погибель тех несчастных питомцев плотского мудрствования, которые будут обольщены и обмануты этими чудесами».

Алексей Осипов говорит, что истинные чудеса, совершаемые силой Божией, происходят редко. Но многие чудеса совершаются благодаря демоническому воздействию, в том числе через колдунов и экстрасенсов. По словам Осипова, мироточение не всегда производится Божией силой. Известно множество случаев, когда мироточили не только православные иконы, но и статуи католических святых, которые, находясь в прелести, принимали бесов за ангелов, а также статуи языческих богов.

По мнению Алексея Осипова, легковерие и заблуждения по поводу чудес «при полном сохранении внешнего православия грозит сползанием нашей веры к прямому язычеству».
Книга «Чудеса истинные и ложные» является сборником статей, в которых объясняется, о чем говорит увеличившееся в последнее время число чудес и знамений, всегда ли полезной бывает встреча с таинственным явлением, и как отличить истинное чудо от ложного.

Источник:

http://xsense.ru/news-00059750/

МОСКВА, 30 декабря (Корр. АНН Алла Тучкова).

Currently in Orthodoxy, we have churches divided over which hierarch has jurisdiction over which country. We have issues of whether a calendar devised or approved of by a Roman Pope could be acceptable or adjusted for calculating feasts and fasts. The issues which divide jurisdictions and arguments between so-called Traditionalists and so-called Modernists are matters of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

The Orthodox Church as well as all Christians worldwide have been brought face-to-face with challenges to the fundamental concepts of life and the very nature of the family. I would suggest that these challenges are at least as significant and perhaps of farther reaching implications than the doctrinal challenges facing the Church of the first eight centuries.

Both of these go straight to the heart of who we are as humans. Both of these are at the foundation of the created order.

The Councils of the Church debated much finer details than these. That the matters facing the Church today even raise questions would have been unthinkable to the Church Fathers. Neither the Arians, nor the Monothelites, nor the Monophysites, nor the Nestorians, nor the Docetists, nor the Donatists, nor the Pelagians, et al., ad nauseum, would have considered, not to mention condoned, abortion or same-sex “marriage”.

This can be put into Christological terms. If we condone abortion because we say the unborn child is not human, we deny the humanity of Christ in the womb of Mary.  To condone abortion is to deny the Incarnation.  That is heresy.

If we say affirm the humanity of the unborn, but say it is permissible to wilfully take the life of an innocent human – neither a military combatant nor a criminal – we condone murder. To say that murder is not a sin is heresy.

Any Christian who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to willfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic. Any priest, bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to wilfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic.

So if a hierarch says that Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, “generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,”but that the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples,” and further that “We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples. We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion,” is this heresy?

Any layman or deacon or priest who is under the omophorion of a bishop and any bishop who is under obedience to a hierarch that is a heretic should take appropriate action. Any bishop who is in communion with a heretical bishop should take appropriate action. It could be argued that any heretical bishop is not in the Church. It could be argued that any priest who is obedience to any bishop not in the Church is also not in the Church.

I leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

With regard to purported same-sex marriage, there is also a Christological issue. “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Marriage is based in the relationship of Christ to the Church. Just as the Church cannot have two heads, neither can the marriage. To allege that a marriage can have two husbands or two wives is to deny that Christ alone is the head of the Church. It is to deny the very nature of the Church. It is heresy.

It is also a denial of the image of God. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…’ ” God’s blessing of His image is based in His command to be fruitful and multiply. It is not based in heterosexuality – rather is it impossible without heterosexuality. The sexual aspect is such a given that it need not even be mentioned. To deny it is to deny man as the image of God.

So if a bishop is asked if same-sex unions are a threat to the traditional family, and he says, “Absolutely not. I don’t see that at all…. I would say God bless you,” is this heresy?

I also leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

Με τις ευλογίες του σεπτού Πατριάρχη Αλεξανδρείας και πάσης Αφρικής Θεοδώρου Β΄, και τη χάρη του Θεού, πραγματοποιήθηκε επίσκεψη του Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίτου Ζάμπιας και Μαλάουι, κ.κ. Ιωακείμ, στο Μαλάουι, από τις 8 Νοεμβρίου μέχρι τις 11 Νοεμβρίου 2009.

Αυτή ήταν η πρώτη επίσκεψη του νέου μας Αρχιεπισκόπου στη χώρα, αφού η επίσημη ενθρόνισή του αναμένεται σύντομα. Η αγάπη και η έγνοια του νέου μας ποιμένα δεν μπορούσε να τον κρατήσει μακριά από την Ιερά Πανήγυρη του Ιερού Ναού του Αγίου Νεκταρίου, όπου έσπευσε να παρευρεθεί και να συνεορτάσει μαζί με όλο τον ελληνισμό του Μαλάουι στον Μεγάλο Πανηγυρικό Εσπερινό στις 8 Νοεμβρίου και στην Αρχιερατική Θεία Λειτουργία με Λιτανεία, ανήμερα στην εορτή του Αγίου μας Νεκταρίου, στις 9 Νοεμβρίου.

Την επόμενη ημέρα εορτασμού, ο Σεβασμιώτατος, την αφιέρωσε στην Ιεραποστολή. Έτσι, την Τρίτη 10 Νοεμβρίου πραγματοποιήθηκε επίσκεψη στο Ιεραποστολικό Κέντρο Αγίου Γεωγίου στο Καμπότζι, όπου ο Σεβασμιώτατος ενημερώθηκε από τον ιθαγενή ιερέα π. Νεκτάριο για το έργο που επιτελείται εκεί. Ο Σεβασμιώτατος μοίρασε δώρα στα παιδιά του Νηπιαγωγείου και καλαμποκάλευρο στους ενήλικες ιθαγενείς, που σε ένδειξη ευγνωμοσύνης τραγούδησαν και χόρεψαν στους παραδοσιακούς τους ρυθμούς.

Μετά τη λήξη της επισκέψεως, όλο το Ορθόδοξο ποίμνιο, Έλληνες και ιθαγενείς του Μαλάουι, αναμένουμε να υποδεχτούμε και επισήμως τον νέο μας πατέρα στην ενθρόνισή του στον Ορθόδοξο Αρχιερατικό θρόνο της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας στο Μαλάουι.

Από το γραφείο στο Μαλάουι της Ιεράς Μητροπόλεως Ζάμπιας και Μαλάουι

( http://www.iersyn.gr/news56.html )

ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΕΙΟ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΗΣ ΑΦΡΙΚΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΟ ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΜΑΛΑΟΥΙ

Μπλαντάιρ, 13 Οκτωβρίου 2009

Αγαπητοί εν Χριστώ αδελφοί και εκλεκτά μέλη του συλλόγου «Άγιος Κοσμάς ο Αιτωλός» χαίρετε εν Κυρίω πάντοτε.

Σας γράφουμε και σας ενημερώνουμε για το έργο που χρηματοδοτείτε. Με τη χάρη του Θεού οι εργασίες προχωρούν πολύ καλά. Ο Ιερός Ναός της Αγίας Άννας των 250 τ.μ. στην περιοχή του Μουλάνζι υπολογίζεται να μας παραδοθεί ολοκληρωμένος τους επόμενους 2 με 3 μήνες. Οι Ορθόδοξοι Χριστιανοί της περιοχής παρακολουθούν με χαρά την εξέλιξη του μεγάλου έργου για την περιοχή τους. Είναι καλοί και ευλαβείς και πολύ ευγνώμονες προς τον Σύνδεσμό σας που ανέλαβε αυτή τη μεγάλη δωρεά προς την περιοχή τους.

Ήδη συνεχίζονται οι κατηχήσεις και σε λίγο καιρό θα γίνουν περισσότερες βαπτίσεις σε αυtη την περιοχή. Τα καλά νέα δεν τελειώνουν εδώ! Από καιρό είχαμε πόθο να βοηθήσουμε τους κατοίκους αυτής της περιοχής και σε μια άλλη τους ανάγκη σχετικά με το πρόβλημα που αντιμετωπίζουν. Το πιο κοντινό τους νοσοκομείο είναι αρκετά μακριά και οι άνθρωποι πραγματικά υποφέρουν. Πόθος μας είναι να χτίσουμε μια κλινική δίπλα στον Ι. Ναό της Αγίας Άννας.

Στις επαφές μας με τις υπεύθυνες κρατικές υπηρεσίες για την περιοχή, οι υπεύθυνοι μας υποσχέθηκαν ότι εάν εμείς χτίσουμε το κτίριο, δίπλα στο Ναό, αυτοί θα το επανδρώσουν με το κατάλληλο ιατρικό προσωπικό και θα το εξοπλίσουν με ανάλογο φαρμακευτικό υλικό. Εάν η Εκκλησία μας προχωρήσει σ’ αυτό το έργο, οι ιθαγενείς θα είναι πολύ ευγνώμονες, διότι, όπως μαθαίνουμε δεν υπάρχει τόσο μεγάλη έλλειψη ιατρών ή φαρμάκων, όσο έλλειψη κτιρίων. Τα κτίρια στοιχίζουν ακριβά και η Κυβέρνηση δεν μπορεί να ανταποκριθεί και σαν αποτέλεσμα οι άνθρωποι υποφέρουν.

Σύμφωνα με την έρευνά μας μια κλινική σύμφωνα με το σχέδιο που μας δίνει το κράτος, κοστίζει 25.000 ευρώ.

Σας παρακαλούμε πολύ και προσευχόμαστε να βρεθεί ένας δωρητής από εσάς που θα καλύψει αυτό το ποσό. Με αυτό το έργο καταλαβαίνετε πόση αξία θα πάρει η ενορία της Αγίας Άννας, η οποία σιγά-σιγά θα εξελιχθεί σε ιεραποστολικό κέντρο που θα βοηθάει στην ψυχή και στο σώμα εκατοντάδες γηγενείς.

Περιμένουμε με ανυπομονησία νέα σας. Σας στέλνουμε την αγάπη μας και ζητούμε τις προσευχές σας.

Μέ αγάπη Χριστού

π. Ερμόλαος Ιατρού

( http://www.iersyn.gr/letters.html#km )

Στείλτε την αγάπη σας στο ιεραποστολικό κλιμάκιο του Μαλάουι μέσω του Ιεραποστολικού Συνδέσμου Άγιος Κοσμάς ο Αιτωλός Θεσσαλονίκης. Πληροφορίες ΕΔΩ και ΕΔΩ.

Ευχόμαστε και προσευχόμαστε να ευλογήσει ο Θεός τον νέο Μητροπολίτη Ζάμπιας και Μαλάουι και να του χαρίσει πλούσιες πνευματικές και ιεραποστολικές ευλογίες.

SS Peter and Paul

Some modern Christians like to believe that the early Church was constant charismatic experience with no order to it.   However, history shows a different reality:  along with charismatic experiences, there was an order emerging in church life.  Leadership and order were part of the gifts of the Spirit to the growing Christian communities.

“Despite the increase of the number of local churches, the unity of the Church remained undisturbed, for they did not have different eucharistic assemblies but one and the same…No single church could separate itself from the others for it could not separate itself from Christ. All were united to one another through love…The historical direction of ecclesial organization went from internal toward external universalism…The opposition between the Spirit and order in modern theology stems from a false conviction that it is human will that serves as the organizing principle in the Church. Rather, it is the Spirit who serves as the guiding principle of organization and order in the Church…The gifts of the Spirit are given not for their own sake but for ministry in the Church and for its building up. This Spirit in the Church is a principle not of anarchy but of organization. For this reason it is hard to imagine anything that would contradict the basic principles of ecclesial life as much as the hypothesis that distinguishes charismatic from no-charismatic ministries…We readily acknowledge that the Church possesses the fullness of grace but we flatly refuse to recognize that in the primitive Church there were no principles other than grace.”          (Nicholas Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit)

I was pleased to learn about the coming together of Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian clergy and lay persons to sign the Manhattan Declaration. Among the Orthodox signatories were Metropolitan +Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America, Bishop +Basil of the Antiochian Archdiocese, Fr. Chad Hatfield and Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. Given that I tend not to care too much about formal ecumenical relations and dialogues between Christians, its important for me to note that it is in this kind of cooperation on social, moral and political matters which Christians of all stripes should be fully engaged. Ecclesial lines makes little difference when it comes to defending the lives of the unborn, elderly and disabled; or to upholding traditional marriage; or to safeguarding the religious liberty of all against the prevailing cultural winds.

From the document:

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths.  We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.  It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.   May God help us not to fail in that duty.

In essence, this is a declaration that we will, if it becomes necessary, defy the law and engage in civil disobedience in order to obey and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope all Christians will join in this spirit and sign the document, which you can do at the site to which I linked above.

I will be posting this letter along with the letter to Rep. Dina Titus:

His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
245 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

Your Eminence

As an American member of the Greek Orthodox Church currently living abroad, I was appalled when I learned that a member of your diocese serving in the United State House of Representatives, Dina Titus, publicly declares that she supports ethics of which Orthodox Christians would be proud and uses her position in Congress to look out for Orthodox issues.

Rep. Titus’ ethics are in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Rep. Titus openly supports the federally sponsored killing of the unborn. By her words and actions she is declaring that support for abortion is compatible with Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America boldly declared in Washington, D.C. in January of this year, “…the unqualified opposition to abortion that is at the heart of the Orthodox Christian Tradition and is unarguably the teaching and the dogma of the Orthodox Church.” As Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh has said, “It is our obligation as Orthodox to speak up and not remain silent on this issue.”

Rep. Titus has voted in favour of using tax dollars to fund abortion, in House Roll Call No. 571 (the District of Columbia funding bill, H.R. 3170), in House Roll Call No. 643 (the Pence amendment to H.R. 3293), and in House Roll Call No. 884 (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to H.R. 3962). Such votes unarguably stand in opposition to the ethics of the Orthodox Church. She is openly an accomplice to what the Orthodox Church clearly and unequivocally regards as murder.

As a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, I urge you to fulfil the obligation to speak up and not remain silent. I ask you to call upon Rep. Titus to repent of publicly rejecting the teaching and dogma of the Orthodox Church and Holy Tradition in the Congress of the United States. I call upon you to fulfil your duty to Christ and His Church to guard the holy, life-giving sacraments and demand that Rep. Titus refrain from receiving the Most Precious Body and Blood of our Lord so long as she spends the public purse to rip the bodies of the innocent unborn from their mothers and pours out their blood upon the altar of convenience.

In Christ,

Με ευλάβεια στεκόμαστε μπροστά στο Νεομάρτυρα της Ορθόδοξης Χριστιανικής πίστης, τον 34χρονο έγγαμο Ορθόδοξο ιερέα μακαριστό π. Δανιήλ. Τώρα βρίσκεται μπροστά στον αληθινό Θεό, τον οποίο αγάπησε και υπηρέτησε πιστά και άφοβα, παρά τις απειλές που δέχονταν.

Οι διώκτες του νομίζουν ότι “πέθανε”, εμείς ξέρουμε ότι τώρα αρχίζει για τον π. Δανιήλ η αληθινή ζωή κοντά στον Ιησού Χριστό. Οι διώκτες του νομίζουν ότι τον “απενεργοποίησαν”, αλλά εμείς ξέρουμε ότι οι προσευχές του από την Βασιλεία των Ουρανών θα κάνουν πιο δυνατούς όλους τους Ορθόδοξους ιερείς και πιστούς, σε όλο το κόσμο

.Η σκέψη μας, η προσευχή μας είναι στην οικογένεια του Ρώσου Νεομάρτυρα π. Δανιήλ : ο Θεός να τους δίνει την εν Χριστώ παρηγορία. Τα παιδιά του και η γυναίκα του να είναι περήφανες για τον πατέρα τους – ιερέα, ο οποίος έπεσε θύμα της ΑΓΑΠΗΣ και της ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΑΣ του προς τους ΝΕΟΥΣ της Μόσχας που κίνδυνευαν από τα ναρκωτικά, το αλκοόλ ή από πνευματικούς κινδύνους ( ψευτοθρησκείες, αιρέσεις,ψυχοναρκωτικά, αθεϊα ).

Εμείς, από την Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Ελλάδα, εκφράζουμε τα συλληπητήρια μας ( και τα συγχαρητήρια μας ) στη Ρωσική Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία, η οποία μετά τα πάνω από  50.000.000  Ορθόδοξους  νεομάρτυρες του 20ου αιώνα , ανέδειξε έναν ακόμα μάρτυρα του Ιησού Χριστού, και ευχόμαστε να αναπαυθεί η ψυχή του εν σκηναίς δικαίων, να έχει καλό Παράδεισο και καλή Ανάσταση.

Ο Θεός να συγχωρέσει τον δράστη ( ή τους ηθικούς αυτουργούς ) και να τους χαρίσει μετάνοια εν Χριστώ.

Πηγές : Ρομφαία, τροκτικό, BBC, interfax

Ένας ένοπλος μασκοφόρος εισέβαλε σε εκκλησία και δολοφόνησε εν ψυχρώ έναν ρώσο ορθόδοξο ιερέα, γνωστό για το ιεραποστολικό του έργο με τους νέους, ανακοίνωσαν σήμερα οι αρχές.

Ο ένοπλος πλησίασε τον 34χρονο ιερέα Δανιήλ Σισόγιεφ στην εκκλησία του Αγίου Θωμά, στα νότια της Μόσχας, χθες το απόγευμα στις 22:45 ώρα Μόσχας.

Τον ρώτησε το όνομά του και στη συνέχεια τον πυροβόλησε με πιστόλι τέσσερεις φορές, ανακοίνωσε εκπρόσωπος της Εισαγγελίας που έχει αναλάβει την υπόθεση.

“Το επικρατέστερο σενάριο είναι ότι το έγκλημα έχει θρησκευτικά κίνητρα”, είπε ο εκπρόσωπος Ανατόλι Μπαγκμέτ μιλώντας στην τηλεόραση Rossiya.

Ο Σισόγιεφ υπέκυψε στα τραύματά του κατά τη μεταφορά του στο νοσοκομείο, ενώ κατά την επίθεση τραυματίστηκε και ο διευθυντής της εκκλησιαστικής χορωδίας, είπε ο Μπαγκμέτ και πρόσθεσε ότι ερευνώνται και άλλα πιθανά κίνητρα της δολοφονίας.

Ο Σισόγιεφ ήταν γεννημένος το 1974 και είχε έντονη ιεραποστολική δραστηριότητα, με στόχο να βοηθήσει τους νέους να έρθουν κοντά στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία.

Επίσης ο π. Δανιήλ ήταν έγγαμος ιερέας με τρία παιδιά και τα τελευταία χρόνια είχε κάνει πολύ μεγάλο ιεραποστολικό έργο, όπως την ίδρυση σχολείων στην Μόσχα.

Τέλος, σύμφωνα με ρωσικά πρακτορεία ειδήσεων μετέδωσαν ότι πριν από τη δολοφονία του ο ιερέας είχε δεχτεί απειλές για τη ζωή του με e-mail.

Ο Πατριάρχης Μόσχας κ. Κύριλλος για την δολοφονία:

Ο Πατριάρχης Μόσχας και Πασών των Ρωσιών μόλις πληροφορήθηκε την δολοφονία του π. Δανιήλ δήλωσε: «Είμαι βαθύτατα θλιμμένος για τον τραγικό θάνατο του π. Δανιήλ Σισόγιεφ. Σήμερα προσευχήθηκα στην Θεία Λειτουργία, υπέρ αναπαύσεως της ψυχής του».

«Εκφράζω τα συλλυπητήρια μου προς την γυναίκα και τα τρία παιδιά του π. Δανιήλ, στους γονείς του – ιερέα Αλέξιο, στους συγγενείς και φίλους και σε όλα τα πνευματικά του παιδιά. Ο π. Δανιήλ ήταν ιερέας με πολύ ζήλο για έργο, πολλοί πιστοί έτρεχαν κοντά του, επιδιώκοντας την πνευματική του καθοδήγηση και τις συμβουλές του σε πολύ δύσκολα προβλήματα», συνέχισε ο Πατριάρχης Κύριλλος.

Επίσης ο Πατριάρχης Μόσχας τόνισε: «Η δολοφονία ενός ιερέα μέσα στο ναό, είναι μια πρόκληση για το νόμο του Θεού και εγώ ελπίζω στη δικαιοσύνη του Θεού. Τα ονόματα των δραστών είναι άγνωστα ακόμη, έτσι ζητώ απ΄ όλους να απέχουν από βιαστικές κατηγορίες και σκληρές αποφάσεις εναντίον προσώπων».

Τέλος, ο Προκαθήμενος της Ρωσικής Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας τόνισε: «Πρέπει να έχουμε πάντα στο μυαλό μας, ότι όταν υπηρετείς τον Χριστό και την Εκκλησία Του, αμέσως η διακονία μας αυτή συνδέεται με την ομολογία, ακόμη και με το μαρτύριο. Ο τραγικός θάνατος του π. Δανιήλ, δεν πρέπει να δημιουργήσει φόβο και δειλία στις καρδιές σας, ούτε να αποδυναμώσει το ζήλο που έχετε για έργο στην εκκλησία, εσείς θα ακολουθείτε σταθερά την πορεία του Ιησού Χριστού».

( http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3484&Itemid=2 )

Ο 35χρονος πατέρας Δανιηλ ήταν γνωστός στη Ρωσία για τη θέση του για το Ισλάμ και το πως προσπαθούσε να εκχριστιανίσει μουσουλμάνους. Χθες το απόγευμα ένας άγνωστος με κουκούλα μπήκε στην εκκλησία που…

βρισκόταν ο ιερέας. Αφού τον ρώτησε το όνομα του τον πυροβόλησε στο κεφάλι και στο στέρνο. Ο πατέρας Δανιήλ εξέπνευσε λίγη ώρα αργότερα στο νοσοκομείο. Γενικά πάντως ήταν ένα άτομο που δεχόταν πολλές απειλές για τη ζωή του.

( http://troktiko.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_5031.html )

A masked gunman armed with a pistol has shot dead a Russian Orthodox priest in his Moscow church, police say.

The gunman walked into St Thomas Church in southern Moscow, asked priest Daniil Sysoyev his name and then opened fire, investigators said.

The church’s choirmaster was also injured in the attack.

A police spokesman said they believed the gunman had “religious motives”. Reports said Father Sysoyev, 35, had received threats via e-mail.

Russian media said he had been involved in missionary activities aimed at encouraging young people to choose the Orthodox Church.

A statement on the website of Father Sysoyev’s missionary training centre said he had been threatened by Muslims, AFP reported.

Anatoly Bagmet, a spokesman for the prosecutor general’s office, said Father Sysoyev died of his wounds on the way to hospital.

“Investigators are looking at all possible versions, but we are inclined to think that the main motive of the crime was hatred on the basis of religion,” Mr Bagmet told the Interfax news agency.

The choirmaster, named as Vladimir Strelbitsky, was treated in hospital but his injuries were not believed life-threatening, officials said.

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8370111.stm )

Moscow priest Daniil Sysoyev most likely has been killed for his missionary activity among the non-Orthodox Russian population, a source at law enforcement agencies told Interfax.

“He had recently received constant death threats from some extremist organizations. Daniil Sysoyev complained about it several times to the Federal Security Service,” the source said.

Fr. Daniil said he received anonymous phone calls and e-mails promising to “have his guts for garters,” he said.

“Sysoyev received the last threat in early October. Someone called him and said he had been sentenced to a death penalty,” the source said.

Rev. Daniil is known as an experienced theologian who had been in constant dispute with the extremist branches of Islam. He began receiving threats four years ago after holding a public debate with Vyacheslav Polosin, the former Orthodox priest who converted to Islam.

Fr. Daniil might also have been killed by members from the so-called sect of Rodnovers (Slavic Neo-pagans), the source told Interfax.

Investigators are following all lines of inquiry but this theory remains the main one, he said.

This is evidenced by the fact that the perpetrator did not leave the weapon at the crime scene, he said. “Rodnovers are not professional killers, which is why they count every barrel,” he said.

The Rodnovers organization mainly consists of young pagans.

Earlier Rodnovers staged an explosion at one of Moscow’s churches.

( http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6655 )

Ιστορίες από τους Ορθόδοξους νεομάρτυρες της Ρωσίας

(  http://clubs.pathfinder.gr/xristianos/8592…40989&read=1443?read=1205&forum=40989 )

Outspoken Russian Orthodox priest Daniil Sysoyev was shot in his own church by a masked gunman. Picture shows a typical Orthodox church interior. Photo by wikimedia.org

A masked gunman burst into a Russian Orthodox church in Moscow late on Thursday night, and shot the priest Daniil Sysoyev in the head.

The gunman approached Sysoyev and asked him to confirm his name, before opening fire. He also severely injured the choirmaster.

The priest died of several gunshot wounds on his way to hospital. The choirmaster is now in a stable situation, according to the Prosecutor-General’s office.

Daniil Sysoyev, who was in his mid-thirties, and originally from the mainly Muslim Russian republic of Tatarstan, was well known for his missionary work among Russian youngsters, and for attracting them into the Orthodox church.

The likely theory is that the shooting is related to the priest’s religious activities. He had been frequently criticized by Muslims and non-Orthodox Christians alike for his outspoken views on religion and politics.

"Investigators are looking at all possible versions, but we are inclined to think that the main motive of the crime was religious hatred," a spokesperson said.

“I received at least ten threats over email that they’ll cut my head off,” Sysoyev had said in a TV program in February 2009. The missionary center he established officially confirmed these threats.

The dominant Orthodox Church has become an important political force in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Orthodox bishops have complained that other religious and occult sects have tried to make converts in their territory.

Officials of the Russian Orthodox Church have also complained in recent years about violence directed against churches and priests.

Bulgaria: Masked Gunman Kills Russian Priest in Moscow Church – Novinite.com – Sofia News Agency

The Honorable Dina Titus
319 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Dr Titus,

As an American ex-pat member of the Greek Orthodox Church, I was appalled when I read Andrew Manatos’ article on the home page of your website entitled “Congresswoman Dina Titus Sworn-In on Grandfather’s Greek Bible.”

In this article, he claims “Orthodox Christians would be proud of the ethics Congresswoman Titus brings to politics.” Manatos, in an article clearly endorsed by you, equates this to a lack of negative campaigning in the 2008 elections. He also claims that you are looking out for Orthodox issues in Congress.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America boldly declared in Washington, D.C. in January of this year, “…the unqualified opposition to abortion that is at the heart of the Orthodox Christian Tradition and is unarguably the teaching and the dogma of the Orthodox Church.”

Inasmuch as you have voted in favour of using tax dollars to fund abortion, in House Roll Call No. 571 (the District of Columbia funding bill, H.R. 3170), in House Roll Call No. 643 (the Pence amendment to H.R. 3293), and in House Roll Call No. 884 (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to H.R. 3962), you are not looking out for Orthodox issues in Congress. Such votes unarguably stand in opposition to the ethics of the Orthodox Church.

As a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, I am embarrassed that someone of such public prominence would claim to not only be a member of the Church, but claim to bring Orthodox ethics and look out for Orthodox issues, and yet make just as publicly and prominently a stand in absolute opposition to the same.

As a fellow Orthodox Christian, I am obligated to urge you to repentance in rejecting the teaching and dogma of the Orthodox Church and Holy Tradition. As by your votes in the House of Representatives you have publicly stood against the Church, I urge you to publicly repent and declare you intention to conform your ethics to teaching of the Church. Otherwise, do the honest and ethical thing and remove yourself from the membership and communion of the Church.

I would never suggest that you should not vote in accordance with your conscience. However, if your conscience is opposed to the unarguable teaching and dogma at the heart of the Orthodox Tradition, please do not claim to be Orthodox.

Respectfully yours,

Photo: Corneliu Coposu, Romanian former political prisoner and democratic opposition leader, with Pope John Paul II

In “Saint Ursula” Church from Sibiu, Romania, a Greek-Catholic mass begins at 11.15 am. The church is quite crowded; the people take their seats humbly, still wearing their winter jackets because of the low temperature in the building. The church is rather long than wide, making the altar seem quite distant from the last rows. Two priests and a small boy helping them. A choir composed of 3-4 young women. There are very few decorations. The choir sounds very distant, while the priests seem a bit out of place. The whole arrangement looks rather provisional, hasty, modest.

But as the priest walks among the rows sanctifying the people and the objects with incense, all the people stand up from the seats and cross themselves repeatedly. Everybody is looking towards the priest as he moves farther and farther towards the last rows, while the whole scene steps more and more in the mystery of the cloud of incense. The priest is barely visible now, while the choir, as distant as it seemed, sound more like voices of the beyond, similar to the voices which saved Faust from eternal damnation. Under a cloud of modesty, you see Glory. Under the humble and provisional appearances, you see a group of humble pilgrims battered by a storm but in the light of their Shepherd. And when the priest evokes in his prayers the 20th century martyrs (“We pray for Cardinal Iuliu, for Cardinal Alexandru, for Corneliu Coposu, for Iuliu Maniu, Ion Mihalache, Vasile Lazar, for those who suffered in cell no.14 from Jilava prison”) and his voice brakes and crumbles under the weight of memory, you finally discover what your proud and full of prejudice soul did not realize in the beginning: the presence of Christ among his pilgrim Church.

Truly the Greek-Catholic Church is a pilgrim Church. For those who do not know, Saint Ursula Church is primarily a Roman-Catholic one. The Greek-Catholics are allowed to have their Mass here because… there is no other building left for them in Sibiu. There used to be one, but now it belongs to the Orthodox Church. Ah, the waves of history… such were the times!… What was to be done? Indeed. That building was confiscated in 1948 by the Communists and then offered to the Orthodox Church. Throughout the country a massive campaign of extermination was unleashed against the Greek-Catholics, with the result that most priests were killed or arrested and the properties nationalized or given “back” to the Orthodox Church.

This was to reward prepared for a Church which from the beginning, around the year 1700, was engaged in the gradual improvement of the political and social situation of the Romanians in Transylvania. Admittedly, the Austrian authorities pressed for the union with Rome in exchange for political rights, permission to be educated and to work for the imperial administration. And although they accepted what is still a problem today- papal infallibility- they did preserve the Byzantine rite. And after all, and this should be said boldly- the Pope truly was from the beginning and will continue to be the first bishop of the Church and no Orthodox denies that. What the Eastern Christians want is that he preserves an honorary role and allow for greater influence of the Synods.

But this “grave sin”, “this bowing to Pope the Antichrist, to the heretics, to Catholic propaganda in our Orthodox lands” was immediately felt as bearing that specifically Western characteristic: attention to the interval. It is no secret that in the West and the Roman-Catholic spirituality, history, this world, is engaged more fully, sometimes with responsibility, sometimes with abuse. But this category does exist, the interval is conceptualized and taken into account. So while in the Orthodox realm, the monks of Mount Athos still continued to denounce the sacking of Constantinople from 1204 (and they still do that today, a friend once said to me), while Peter the Great was enslaving the Russian Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church continued to be a passive witness to the Ottoman barbarism, the Greek-Catholics tried to move something in the realm of mentalities, society, politics, however gradually. Already in the 18th century a powerful movement of Transylvanian intellectuals initiated a complex program of rediscovering the Latin origin of the people, of articulating a Romanian identity, of establishing an Enlightenment-inspired agenda asking for modern liberties and rights.

Gradually, the attitude of Vienna changed. In 1848, the Romanians were even more favorable to imperial authority, but with equal rights, than the Hungarians who managed to alienate all their potential allies with their stupefying  and arrogant nationalism. After the defeat of the Revolution, although in a time of absolute imperial rule, the Romanians managed for the first time in their history to achieve substantial political equality and proportional representation. After 1867, however, the happy times were gone and Transylvania was subjected to direct Hungarian authority, which led to the reduction of ethnic rights. Still, that Western influence was felt again, as Romanians developed more and more small businesses which led to the formation of a fairly substantial bourgeoisie. Again, a large part of the political elites which contributed to the 1918 unification were Greek-Catholic, while the population was divided in almost 50%-50% Greek-Catholics and Orthodox.

This mainly positive record was to be completely destroyed and forgotten in Communism. They intuited well that the Greek-Catholic church and political elites (mainly grouped in the National Peasants Party) were tough nut to crack and would not collaborate so easily- or at least as easily as some Orthodox hierarchs did. So extreme violence was chosen.

The attitude of some Orthodox hierarchs and believers towards the stolen properties which they refuse to return and in general, towards the existence of this Church can be explained, but hardly justified. The rejection of the Union can be discussed, but the obsession looks suspicious. That the positive, historical record of the Greek-Catholic elites is either rejected, not known or even mocked is certainly dubious. That some people dare to invoke, in response to the questions about the Communist repression and the Orthodox silence, some distant, controversial, supposed abuses comitted 300 years ago can be explained mainly through the categories of hatred and lack of information.

The argument goes like this: “Yes, but we should remember that we also suffered 300 years ago…” Even if this is confirmed by documents (and I admit that I never heard of these abuses), so what?? Is any type of evil justifiable or repaired by another evil? This stubborn, outrageous insistence on their “original sin” and the relativization (if not secret approval) of the Communist evil is stupefying.  Horia-Roman Patapievici wrote once about the example of Nae Ionescu, (a hysterical fascist and anti-Semite, but “true Romanian”); Ionescu had written that Petru Maior, 18th century intellectual, that he could be named only as a “good Romanian” but not a “Romanian”. He meant that he barely acted as a good citizen, for Romanian interests and values, more like joining a cause or NGO. But to be a “Romanian” was something organic, ineffable, perennial; you can only be born a “Romanian” and not become one. And a Romanian is synonymous with being Orthodox, while poor Petru Maior was Greek-Catholic.

To this type of argument, H.-R. Patapievici replied in a cold and neutral manner that it is a manifestation of stupidity. The example of Western Ukraine is strikingly similar. Here too we have a Greek-Catholic community which is known as one of the centers of Ukrainian identity and Western values, but eternally regarded with suspicion by the millions of “saints” in the eastern regions. What these armies of “Pravoslavnic” fanatics and defenders of the “true faith” do not understand is that you cannot accuse a pro-Western agenda as not being patriotic or even Christian. On the contrary, one of the most efficient ways to prove the love of your country is exactly to wish the implementation of a free market, human rights, political plurality. These are common sense values which are the most tangible proof that one loves his community and that he is Christian (because liberal democracy has its origins in Christian values), not anti-papist, anti-capitalism, anti-EU hysteria.

Not by developing instant allergy to “Western scholasticism”, “reason without faith” or “theologians who do not live as true Orthodox Christians” is one able to make good theology; seminars and conferences go on and on with the same endless quotes like “According to the Church Father…”, while the Romanian, Ukrainian or Russian public spaces lose the world competition and descend into an eternal but proud backwardness. Rather by engaging in a dialogue with modern achievements, from the philosophical tradition to the empirical aquisitions of the social sciences can a 21st century national public space hope to make sense of our age. Not by retreating from the world and taking pride with the richness of the liturgy can the Church hope to prefigurate the Heavenly kingdom, but by being able to ensure a balance between the mystical core and the engagement with history and society.

Rome has been for the past 150 years elaborating a superb social doctrine, articulating a theology of economy, society, family, political community and above all of the personal dignity. Where is the East (I know the answer: the social doctrine is already there. According to the Church Father….) ? Where are the monasteries as centers of spirituality and culture? Where are the flexible organisations able to entertain a dialogue with the trained laity? Where are the funds for young scholars? Where are the academic exchanges, the competitive ph.d. programs? Where is history as a moral category for an Orthodox?

Where are all of you proud and full of resentment people, the silent ones, the believers of the “true faith” instead of being here, in Saint Ursula Church and see this old priest starting to cry during his sermon, as he recalls his first night spent in cell no. 14, Jilava prison, Romania?

The Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple celebrates not an event recorded in Scripture, but rather calls us to contemplate the very process by which God brings us to salvation.  Metropolitan St. Philaret of Moscow  said on the Feast Day, “In man in a sinless state, ‘the image of God’ was the source of blessing; in fallen man, it was (only) the hope of blessing.” 

The Feast of the Entrance recognizes the hope of blessing – the beginning of salvation.  For humanity no longer lilved in the original sinless state, and the image of God in man had become distant from what humanity experienced in the world.   The process by which God brings humanity to salvation is beginning with the Virgin standing in the temple giving hope that “God with us” of which the temple was but a sign, might now actually be fulfilled.   We come to understand what purpose the Temple served in the process of salvation – for it was meant to be a type of the reality, but not the reality itself.  It was to prepare God’s people for how God would be with His people – how Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) is the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.   When the Virgin Mary came into the Temple, the Temple now encountered the one who would be Theotokos (the God bearer), the one who would realize that of which the Temple was but a type.   The Temple was not unimportant; it was an essential preparation for what God was going to do to save His people.  But in the encounter with the Theotokos the Temple became part of the OLD Covenant, that which fulfilled its purpose and was passing away as the New was being revealed.

În aceste vremuri de adâncă îngrijorare faţă de agresiunea tehnologiei electronice şi biologice actuale asupra omului, care ameninţă nu numai libertatea de gândire şi acţiune, garantată de Dumnezeu încă de la crearea protopărinţilor noştri, Adam si Eva, ci şi întraga lui fiinţă ca entitate biologică, îndemnăm pe oamenii de cultură, în special pe scriitori, poeţi, ziarişti, artişti plastici, să se integreze noii direcţii literare şi artistice prin angajarea creaţiei lor în sprijinul susţinerii mişcării de opoziţie iniţiate de dreptmăritorii creştini, care au sacrificat din liniştea cotidiană şi din stilul de viaţă duhovnicesc pentru a se implica intr-un proces de trezire a conştiinţelor, printr-un demers legal, civilizat şi paşnic, pentru ca noi şi urmaşii noştri să nu cădem victime maşinilor, dictaturii electronice, consecinţelor unor aventuri biologice, care constau în clonări, mutaţii genetice ale speciilor existente, inserări de gene umane în genotipul plantelor şi animalelor, crearea de specii animale şi vegetale noi, de fiinţe umanoide.
De asemenea, mai îndemnăm pe scriitorii şi pe artişitii, care cu bună credinţă, dar îndrumaţi greşit, şi-au pus talentul şi energia în cauze care sunt exterioare învăţăturii Sfinţilor Părinţi ai Răsăritului, să se reorienteze spre această nobilă şi binecuvântată cauză a zilelor noastre, singura demnă de a-i sluji în aceste vremuri apocaliptice.
Îngrijorarea omului in faţa imprevizibilităţii creaţiei omeneşti a existat întotdeauna, dar s-a accentuat în epoca modernă. Progresul ştiinţei şi a tehnicii a provocat de-a lungul timpului optimism, dar a stârnit şi o legitimă îngrijorare. Semnalul de alarmă tras de o serie de scriitori în faţa utopiei conform căreia omul, folosindu-se de cuceririle ştiinţei şi tehnicii, ajunge sa-l concureze pe Dumnezeu, dovedeşte ca aceştia nu au rămas pasivi, ci s-au implicat într-o problemă care ne priveşte pe noi toţi. Astfel, scriitoarea Mary Shelley ( 1797- 1851) atragea atenţia asupra pericolului ca la un moment dat savanţii să izbutească să creeze artificial un om şi să-l însufleţească. Scriitoarea vorbeşte, în romanul ei ” Frankenstein sau Prometeul modern ” (Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, 1831), despre visul lui Victor Frankenstein, un savant anormal, acela de a crea un om, asemenea lui Dumnezeu. Proiectat iniţial ca un colaborator al omului, devine, printr-o eroare, un monstru care terorizează omenirea. Semnificativ este faptul că acest savant a existat în realitate şi se pare că a fost un ilustru alchimist.
Aceeaşi temă, având motivul mitului umanizării artificiale a animalelor, a stat la baza sinistrei nuvele ” Insula doctorului Moreau ” (The Island of Doctor Moreau) de H.G. Wells ( 1866-1946). Doctorul Moreau, chirurg celebru, face pe demiurgul şi, prin transplantarea şi modificarea unor organisme, creează noi specii de animale, convins fiind că le poate în mod artificial umaniza. În realitate, creează o colonie de monşti cu instincte animalice, de-o bestialitate ieşita din comun.
Mihail Bulgakov ( 1981-1940) reia acest motiv şi scrie piesa de teatru de mare succes ” Inimă de câine ” (Собачье сердце, 1925).
Savantul Preobrajenski, asemănator doctorul Moreau, face concureţă lui Dumnezeu, jucâdu-se de-a creaţia şi umanizează un câine, grefându-i hipofiză de om. Operaţia reuşeste, dar savantul ajunge victima propriei sale creaţii.
O altă temă este aceea a creării artificiale a unor indivizi umanoizi din materia neînsufleţită. Amintim aici despre mitul Olympiei, frumoasa femeie automat a lui Ernst Hoffman ( 1776 -1822), care a stat la baza operei „Povestirile lui Hoffman” de Jacques Offenbach, precum şi mitul robotului din romanul lui ‘Karel Čapek ( 1890-1938).
O temă mult speculată este aceea în care omul, imitând pe Dumnezeu, creează inteligenţă artificială şi îşi încredinţează destinele acestor circuite elctornice, oferindu-le toate datele despre el. Căpătând conştiinţa de sine şi devenind atât de inteligente încât nu mai au nevoie sa fie programate de om, folosindu-se de toată informaţia stocată, conexiunile electronice se răzvrătesc împotiva acestuia. Numeroşi autori contemporani au dezvoltat aceasta temă.
Pe lângă aceste voci singuratice, atitudinea civică s-a manifestat şi sub alte forme. Atunci când scriitorii şi artiştii au aderat la programme, au luat naştere mişcările, curentele şi direcţiile estetic-literare şi artistice. Este cazul să amintim aici semănătorismul , un important curent, care a fost un adevărat străjer al Ortodoxiei şi tradiţiei spirituale româneşti. Constituit la începutul veacului al XX-lea, când Ortodoxia avea de înfruntat puternice presiuni ideologice, străine neamului nostru, care se voiau surogate ale Creştinismului, precum religia liber-cugetătorului, a ştiinţei, a evolutionismului, a proletarului, a coducătorului, a solidaritaţii, a muncii, a naturismului, a frumosului etc., sămănatorismul a fost o trâmbiţă profetică care, din păcate, nu a fost ascultată. Aşa se face ca nici peste o jumatate de secol, acest politeism de “religii” moderne avea să ajungă singura religie de stat în timpul dictaturlor, care nu vor ocoli nici ţara noastră. Amintim că la programul semănătorist au aderat nume de rezonanţă din cultura noastră : Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940), Mihail Sadoveanu (1880-1961), B.Şt. Delavrancea (1858-1918), Alexandru Vlahuţă (1858-1918), Ovid Densusianu (1873-1938) George Coşbuc (1866-1918).
Gândirismul a fost un curent interbelic a carui direcţie continua de fapt semănatorismul . În faţa noilor agresiuni ideologice, în special cele comuniste, gândirismul a fost un al doilea străjer al tradiţiei spirituale româneşti. A fost, de fapt, un neosemănătorism adaptat situatiei geo-politice interbelice : “Peste pămantul pe care am învăţat să-l iubim din Semănătorul, noi vedem arcuindu-se coviltirul de azur al Bisericii ortodoxe “.
Iniţiatorul şi animatorul lui a fost Nichifor Crainic (1889-1972), teolog, eseist, scriitor, ziarist si poet de marcă, profesorul de teologie al lui Constantin Galeriu, pentru care acesta din urma avea un adevărat cult. Dintre gândirişti mai putem aminti pe Lucian Blaga (1895-1961), Adrian Maniu (1891-1968), Ion Pillat (1891-1945), Mateiu Caragiale (1885-1936), Mircea Eliade, precum şi pe ziaristul vizionar Pamfil Şeicaru (1894-1980), cel care a prevăzut cu o exactitate aproape mistică evenimentele politice care vor urma. Din păcăte, revista ” Gândirea” a sfârşit prin a se pleca sub vremi, lăsându-se prea uşor folosită de unele cercuri politice. Desigur, a fost o greşală, căci politica însemnă compromis, iar Ortodoxia nu poate face compromisuri. Oricum, greşala a fost plătită scump de gândirişti, unii dintre ei făcând ani grei de închisoare. Cu toate luminile şi umbrele lui, gândirismul rămâne un reper important în cultura romanească.
Un curent şi totodată o mişcare duhovnicească de rezistenţă în faţa agresiunii comunismului a fost şi “Rugul Aprins “. Acesta a fost iniţiat intre anii 1945-1948 de un grup spiritual care a funcţionat la mănăstirea Antim. Aici, se întâlneau periodic teologi, dar şi oameni de litere care îşi propuneau să regăsească adevărata trăire a Ortodoxiei prin meditarea asupra scrierilor Sfinţilor Părinţi şi practicarea “Rugăciunii inimii “. Grupului era format din nume grele, precum intelectualul de marca Sandu Tudor, cunoscut si sub numele ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău ( 1896-1962), părintele arhim. Benedict Ghius, părintele arhim. Vasile Vasilachi, stareţul de atunci al Mănastirii Antim, părintele prof. univ. Dumitru Staniloae, prof. univ. Alexandru Elian, prof. univ. Alexandru Mironescu, scriiorul Paul Sterian, scriitorul Ion Marin Sadoveanu, poetul Vasile Voiculescu. Convorbirile din cadrul ” Rugului Aprins ” au continuat până pe la jumătatea anului 1948, când au fost interzise. S-a declanşat o anchetă, care s-a soldat cu arestări şi întemniţări. Ca lider al grupului, părintele Daniil Sandu Tudor a fost condamnat la 25 ani de temniţă grea şi 10 ani degradare civică. După Revoluţia din 1989, asistăm la încercări de reinviere a mişcării . ”Rugul Aprins” nu a fost o mişcare politică şi ar putea fi un posibil model pentru o viitoare literatură angajată, care să militeze pentru o lume mai morală, mai ortodox – creştină şi mai bună.
Nu putem încheia mai bine acest apel decât cu cuvintele teologului de vrednică pomenire, părintele Constantin Galeriu :
« Ce a făcut ştiinţa atunci cînd s-a despărtit de religie ? Omul era pe cale să fie distrus de propria lui creaţie, de propriile lui cunoştinte. Numai religia şi morala pot direcţiona ştiinta spre folosul omului şi da un sens creator, o finalitate pozitivă. “Somnul raţiunii zămisleşte monşti ” este titlul unui tablou de Goya. Fără raţiune, nimic pozitiv nu se poate realiza. De aceea şi Sfîntul Ioan Evanghelistul identifică pe Dumnezeu cu Raţiunea Supremă : “La începult era Cuvîntul (Logos) şi Cuvîntul era la Dumnezeu şi Dumnezeu era Cuvîntul.” (Ioan 1,1). De aceea, e aproape ridicol cum ştiinţa despre Raţiunea lumiii, a cărei expresie este ordinea, armonia şi măsura, a fost considerată de unii “iraţională “. Iraţiunea a zămislit monştri ca Hitler, Stalin, Ceauşescu şi toţi aceşti monştri au fost produşii ateismului. Fără raţiune, pe ce temei constuieşti lumea? Pe forţă oarbă şi hazard. Pe aceste temeiuri, nimic nu durează şi, în final, se va merge inevitabil spre haos. Pentru a zidi ceva durabil, este nevoie de un model. Modelul nostru este Hristos. Pe temeiul acestui model vrem sa construim lumea de mîine, viitorul ţării noastre. Viziunea Ortodoxiei este viziunea unui realism integral. Ea vede toate disciplinele într-o perfectă armonie cu ele însele şi intr-o perfecta armonie cu omul (…) »
(Cuvîntul liber –
Periodic independent al judetului Giurgiu, anul II, nr. 28, joi 5 aprilie 1990 )