ORTHODIXIE ... Southern, Orthodox, Convert, Etc.

Have son.
Have lump in throat.

A must read.

| Link

MOSCOW, June 1 (RIA Novosti) - An electronic version of the Orthodox Christian Encyclopedia will shortly appear on the Internet.

A resolution was made on that score as three bodies of the Orthodox Christian Encyclopedia ecclesiastical research center-the Observation Council, the Council of Trustees, and the Public Council-held a joint session in Moscow, May 31, His Beatitude Alexis II the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia chairing.

Information, references and the latest news will make a greater part of materials from the encyclopedia to be offered for free access on the sedmitza.ru, Internet portal of the Orthodox Christian Encyclopedia ecclesiastical research center.

"The electronic versions will appear as the encyclopedia volumes come out in book form," said the Patriarch.

Offered to the conferees was an electronic version of Volume One, which concerns Russian Orthodox Church history.

Ten volumes of the Orthodox Christian Encyclopedia have come out of print for now. The edition is expected to comprise thirty or so.
| Link

From the Patriarchal Website


PATRIARCHAL MONASTERY OF THE VISION OF ST PAUL
His Beatitude Patriarch Theodosios VI was interested in a land parcel south of Damascus, at a site known as Kawkab. He intended to erect a gigantic building there after the old Roman or Byzantine style. It was a volcanic hill on which black stones spread. It was located to the left of the main road leading to the south, and through which a traveler passed, and cast only a careless look as there is nothing today that reminds us of St. Paul’s vision there and his guidance to Christianity nearly two thousand years ago.

“As he journeyed, he came near Damascus, and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven, and he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” (Acts 9:3 & 4)

The ancients knew the sanctity and importance of the place, therefore, they built a monastery known as St. Paul. Nothing has remained of it except traces, some polished stones (a Corinthian column head, two wells for collecting rain water) as there are trenches and uncovered foundations of a big building and some of those walls have still some chalk . There are also stone seats .There are remains of a church that lie between the volcanic hill and the Roman road. One may also see pieces of tiles which were used in the building. The inhabitants of the nearby villages mention that many of the rocky masses were extracted out of the walls and reused in new buildings of those villages. Thus almost nothing has remained of the ancient monastery. Some of the villagers found among the debris a golden censer. Finding it is a definite proof that the building was Christian and not a pagan temple. The existence of this monastery was substantiated by affidavits from Medieval centuries from the Crusaders’ period like the books "History of Jerusalem" and "Description of The Orient" and others. The inhabitants of the neighboring villages of Kawkab are still calling that place "the Hill of St. Paul." It is a holy place for them, and they visit it and vow to baptize their children at the top. This place has become very important, even the Russian Patriarch Alexis I, Patriarch of Moscow donated money for building a round church at his own expenses in 1965. Upon the recommendation of His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV, and due to his interest in this deserted monastery and renovating it, he has appointed Archimandrite Matthew Rizk abbot of the monastery, so as to be an Orthodox light-house out of which the light of Christ illuminates and manages his affairs by God's will, and to render spiritual and moral service to the faithful.
| Link

* The angel gave him twelve mandates:

1. Believe in God;

2. To live in simplicity and innocence; do not speak evil and give alms to all who beg;

3. Love truth and avoid falsehood;

4. Preserve chastity in your thoughts;

5. Learn patience and generosity;

6. To know that with every man, there is a good and an evil spirit;

7. To fear God and not to fear the devil;

8. To do every good and to refrain from every evil deed;

9. To pray to God from the depth of the soul with faith that our prayer will be fulfilled;

10. To guard against melancholy as the sister of doubt and anger;

11. To question true and false prophecies;

12. To guard against every evil desire.

Hermas, commemorated May 31st, was one of the Seventy Apostles. He is mentioned in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes and the brethren which are with them" (Romans 16:14). Hermas was a Greek by birth but lived in Rome for a long time. He was a bishop in Philippoupolis and ended his life as a martyr. He compiled a very instructive book called "The Shepherd" according to revelations from an angel of God. Hermas was a wealthy man but because of his sins and the sins of his sons, he fell into extreme poverty. Once while in prayer, a man appeared to him in white raiment with a staff in his hand and told him that he is an angel of repentance who was sent to be with him until the end of his life. *
| Link

They Must Be Celibate Episcopalians

I kid you not.
| Link

FROM THE RUSSIAN INFORMATION AGENCY NOVOSTI

DAMASCUS, May 29 - A monument to St. Paul the Apostle created by a Russian sculptor was unveiled in the suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus on Saturday. His Eminence GERMAN, Archbishop of Kursk and Rylsk, the head of the Russian delegation, said at a press conference in Damascus that the Russian and Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Churches came out for consolidation of spiritual links between the two nations. "The Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches have always maintained close relations. The history of Russian-Syrian links has deep spiritual roots," Archbishop German said. According to him, the unveiling of the monument to Apostle Paul created by a Russian sculptor will promote bilateral relations. "We hope that we shall visit each other more often after the unveiling of the monument to the Apostle Paul and other religious events in Damascus," the archbishop said. Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and All Russia is expected to visit Syria in 2007, he added.

According to His Grace Mousa al-Khouri of the Antiochian Patriarchate, representatives of the Antiochian and Russian Orthodox Churches can find mutual understanding although they speak different languages. "There is only one Orthodox Church in the world and its prayers are said in different languages," he said. The Antiochian Orthodox Church was founded by Ss. Peter and Paul the Apostles in 37 AD. The history of relations of the Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches dates back to the ancient times. For instance, the first Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev, Mikhail Sirin (or Syrian), was a disciple of Patriarch John of Antioch. The Russian Empire supported Orthodox Christians in the Middle East for centuries. Christians account for 10% of the Syrian population. Most of them are followers of the Orthodox Greek-Byzantine Church.

The Holy Apostle Paul is believed to be the first man who brought Christianity from the Palestinian territory to other countries. It was in Antioch that his disciples were called Christians for the first time. The five-meter monument to St. Paul was unveiled in a picturesque place south of the Syrian capital. This is a bronze sculpture of the apostle holding the New Testament in his hands. The sculpture stands on a bronze pedestal. It was made in Russia by the order of the Apostle Paul Spiritual Heritage international foundation. The patriarchs of the Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches approved the initiative.
| Link

Meditations are intended to be read sequentially, from 1 to 33.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

(28 of 33) ...

Again on the Hill ...

“He did not die.”

It was but a voice, a thought. One not invited, but present nonetheless.

Of course he died ... we’ve seen it. We continue to see it. It is somehow connected with love. Love for us.

“It is a lie. He did not die. It is a myth. In fact, he never even lived. It is wishful thinking. Nothing more.”

For days now, these thoughts -- little demons, they are -- have been on attack. At the same time, we’ve discovered that if we do not wish to stay, he does NOT die. Well, not exactly ...

We’ve discovered that when we say, “Lord I want to stay here always” -- he says, “I love you,” and dies.

However, if we simply gaze upon his loving death on the Tree, we are filled with awe and wonder. We are filled.

Then, if we say, “Lord, I want to follow,” the scene is transfigured. The Tree is replaced by an Empty Cave.

It is then that the little demons attack, just as we prepare to take our first step forward toward the new image.

“He died. He never lived. He died. He never lived. He died ....”


(29 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness ...

Once again, we’re uncertain of our location. We were on the Hill, preparing to enter the Cave, when all of a sudden our surroundings became hazy -- clouded judgment?

A voice behind us says “Turn back! You are lost!”

Ahead we hear, “Come.”

“He died. He never lived ....”

The familiar thoughts, doubts. We see a man dressed in white. He is very beautiful. “Whom do you seek?” he asks.

“The man. The man on the Tree .....”

“He died. He died. He died. He died. Dead.”

As if he, too, could hear our legion of doubts, he replies, “Why do you seek the dead among the living? He is not here. He lives.”

No.


(30 of 33) ...

In the Garden ...

We’re here only for a brief stay -- just till we can clear our head and move on.

In the Garden, things make sense. In the Garden, all is rational, relative. We know that the dead don’t live. We are smarter than that. Sure, we seek the truth. But truth must make sense! Truth should not -- does not -- contradict knowledge. Rational.

The fruit is particularly tasty today. The color is a deep dark red. In fact, the fruit of the Tree looks like blood.

For a moment, our minds reel back to the Hill. We see OUR fruit in the palm of HIS hands. Nails!

We see him. We are no longer in the Garden.


(31 of 33) ...

On the Way ...

A new path. The Wilderness reversed? The Garden is now to our right, the Hill to our left. We have turned around. We are following.

He did live. He did die. He now lives. We follow him ... out of the Wilderness.

We can go back to the Garden anytime.

We might be found under the Tree on the Hill from time to time.

He has warned us that the Garden leads to death. The beautiful creature is Evil Incarnate and a liar.

The Hill, though resembling death, leads to Life.

As we follow him, we are not alone. Others have gone on before.

Something is holding our hand. Or ... are we holding it?

A cross. It is a cross. Although comforting, it is never familiar.

(The cross is never familiar.)


(32 of 33) ...

On the Way ...

The blood doesn’t stain us. In fact, it seems to wash us. The fruits from the Garden are washed away by the Fruit of the Hill. The tree that we bear is our defense against the enemy, the evil one. We used to think him beautiful.

We now know ... better.

Knowledge. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Much of the experience of the Garden is knowledge. Where did it get us? Deeper into the Wilderness, farther from the Light, in the opposite direction of the Hill.

“Satan,” they call him. He is very beautiful. Very sincere. Very attractive.

Very disguised.

And the fruits? They’ve been there always ... in the Garden. The Tree, however, is not that of Life. For, the Life-giving Tree is on the Hill. The Tree in the Garden is the same one that tempted Adam & Eve. The same Tree tempts us all. For the Tempter can always be found thereon.

They are not actually “fruits” at all ... but, seeds.

Seeds of evil.

When planted within us, we bear fruit. We, too, are trees.


(33 of 33) ...

On the Way ...

Yes, we are trees, bearing fruit. Like the Tree in the Garden, we can bear sinful fruit: Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, Sloth. “Pale Gas” we call it. Fitting.

Or, if the seeds planted within us are done so by the Sower on the Hill, we bear fruit of a different kind: Humility, Patience, Chastity, Contentedness, Temperance, Liberality, and Diligence.

The knowledge gained in the Garden is self-serving and, therefore, self-condemning.

Deadly.

In the Garden, we learn how to place ourselves above others by putting them down. We are raised up at the expense of our neighbor.

On the Hill, we learn humility. This knowledge is God-serving. Therefore, it is life-giving. God is Life, God is Love. We learn how to serve our neighbor. In so doing, God is glorified. By our cross-bearing humility, we shall be raised up with Him at the Last Day.

There are still questions.

One has been entertaining us all the day long.

Was the Tree made for man? Or was man made for the Tree?

+ + +
| Link

| Link

"At this gathering [Council of Nicaea, 325] ... many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon -- the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments ..."

So far so good ...

"... and, of course, the divinity of Jesus ... "

Whoa! What??

"... until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet ... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal" ... "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea" (p.233).

Total. Utter. Can you hear me? Nonsense.

Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6

In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ." Christianity Today

Let's take a look at that word "Lord". Pious Jews would not even write, much less say,"Yahweh" for fear of taking the Lord's name in vain. They substituted the Hebrew word, Adonai -- Lord -- for the Tetragrammaton: YHWH (usually rendered Yahweh and translated "I Am" in English).

But the New Testament was written in Greek ...

The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios.

The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.

In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons. Christianity Today

Brown continually has his characters refer to the Council of Nicea as if it were some sort of Catechumen Constantine Controlled Country Club Kabal. Once again, he sounds like a misguided Chick-tract-hick. Here's the longish scoop from various sources:

The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical of the Church, made possible by the patronage of Constantine and his desire to end the disunity and controversy being caused by the Arian heresy.

Arius (b. c. 260-80; d. 336) was a priest from Alexandria who was noted for his preaching and ascetic lifestyle. Around 319 or so he began to gain attention for his teaching that Jesus was not fully divine, but was lesser than the Father. Arius held that the Son had not existed for all of eternity past, but was a created being begotten by the Father as an instrument of, first, creation and the, later, salvation. Put another way, Arius believed that Jesus, the Son of God, was not God by nature, but instead was a lesser god.

This belief was condemned by the bishop Alexander at a local synod held in Alexandria around 320, with ninety-eight of a hundred bishops voting against Arius’s views. But the priest’s teachings attracted interest and spread quickly, partially due to Arius’s clever use of catchy songs proclaiming his doctrinal beliefs and also due to the patronage of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea and one of the greatest scholars of his time. Arius’s beliefs were proving so popular and disruptive that Constantine decided to bring together the bishops and put an end to the controversy; his interest was most likely in unity over theological clarity, but he realized the former would defend in large part upon the latter.

On May 20, 325, a number of bishops, the vast majority of them from the East, convened at Nicaea (modern day Iznik, north of Constantinople); the council lasted until July 25 of the same year. The number of bishops in attendance has traditionally been listed as 318, likely a symbolic number (cf., Gen. 14:14); the actual number was probably around 220 to 250 (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1144). Due to poor health, the Pope did not attend, but sent two deacons to represent him. "The great bulk of the Council came from the Greek-speaking provinces of the Empire," writes A.H.M. Jones, "The bulk of the gathering were simple pastors, who would naturally resent any innovation on the faith which they had learned and would have little sympathy with the intellectual paradoxes of Arius. Many could boast of the proud title of confessor, having endured imprisonment, torture, and penal servitude for the sake of their faith" ( Jones, 131).

This rugged and tried character of most of the bishops is completely contrary to The Da Vinci Code’s implication that the bishops meekly accepted whatever the Emperor told them. Many of the bishops at Nicaea were veterans of the persecution of Diocletian. Is it reasonable to think that they would quietly allow Constantine to change the faith for which they had already suffered and were willing to die?

Constantine, while actively involved in the Council, knew that his place was not to be a theologian or scholar, but to help facilitate as structured and productive gathering as possible. After all, one of the strengths of Roman culture was organization; the Greeks, on the other hand, were more attuned to theological nuance and detail.

In The Da Vinci Code, Teabing states that at the Council of Nicaea Jesus was established as "the Son of God" (p. 233). This is false; it is also taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which states, "Most important of all, the Council of Nicaea decided, by vote, that Jesus was a god, not a mortal prophet" (Holy Blood, Holy Grail,, 368. The irony is that Arius believed that Jesus was a god, but not fully God). As already noted, the Gospels alone refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" over forty times and this description is used often by the early Church fathers. Thus, the Council of Nicaea actually ratified, even more clearly and definitively, the consistent belief of the Church. As we have already seen, the belief in Jesus’ divinity and Godhead goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. The Council of Nicaea focused on clarifying the unique relationship between the Father and the Son and condemning those ideas of Arius that would imply, or assert outright, that the Son was lesser than the Father, was a created being, and was a lesser god. The Catechism of the Catholic Church ably summarizes the basic issue: "The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is ‘begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father’, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God ‘came to be from things that were not’ and that he was ‘from another substance’ than that of the Father" (CCC 465).

As for the "relatively close vote," it is a figment of Teabing and Brown’s imaginations. Only two bishops out of some 250 voted in favor of Arius’s position–over 99% of the bishops upheld the belief that the Son was equal with the Father and of the same substance. Even Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which apparently provided much of Brown’s material for his comments on this topic, gets it right, acknowledging in a terse footnote: "218 for, 2 against" (Holy Blood, Holy Grail,, 473. It also adds, "The Son was then pronounced identical with the Father." Not quite. He was pronounced "one in substance"; he is a separate Person). Once again, Brown’s embellished version of the facts is not only incorrect, it is completely contrary to the truth." ENVOY

"... establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base" ... "... now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel -- the Roman Catholic Church" (p.233).

Again, the Vatican did not exist at this time. Also, technically, the "Roman Catholic Church" -- especially as Brown "understands" it -- did not exist until much later.

"Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned" (p.234).

Garbage. Constantine wouldn't know a new Bible if it bit him in the back. It won't on the Council's agenda. Besides, the earliest source of New Testament writings is from St Paul, shortly after the Ascension, during the Apostolic age. Someone should have clued Brown in -- or else Constantine and cohorts should have taken St Paul's writings out. But, of course, Brown's no dummy. My guess is he presumes you are. Here's some noteworthy quotes.

Also, there's St Polycarp. We have actual testimony of this Saint's martyrdom. (I'm sure that he would have been surprised to know that it was really all about Mary Magdalene and the Vatican's power grab. Lord. Have. Mercy.) St Polycarp died for the Faith around 155 AD.

His sole surviving work, the Letter to the Philippians, and an account of The Martyrdom of Polycarp form part of the writings usually collected under the title "The Apostolic Fathers". The latter is considered the earliest genuine post-biblical account of a Christian martyrdom, and one of the very few genuine such writings from the actual age of the persecutions. Source.

Here's an excerpt from the Martyrdom of Polycarp ...

Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me? Source.

Here's an excerpt from St Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians ...

If then we entreat the Lord that He would forgive us, we also ought to forgive: for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and we must all stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and each man must give an account of himself.

Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord; being zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from offenses and from the false brethren and from them that bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish men astray.

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan. Source.

This, along with the quotes from St Paul, just goes to show that the divinity of Jesus was a matter of firm belief long before the Council of Nicea. What an idea!

"The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy" (p.238).

Oh my! Sounds like Brown's reading from a Women Church playbook. What utter, forgive the repetitive word here: nonsense. But then, Dan Brown's got an agenda ...

The major theme of Brown’s novel is the pressing need to recover the "sacred feminine" and a revitalized worship of a goddess or goddesses. Brown states, in responding on his website to the question about his novel being "empowering to women," that,

"Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."

In an interview with CNN (July 17, 2003), Brown emphasized this point more than once, stating, "In the early days . . . we lived in a world of gods and goddesses. . . . Every Mars had an Athena. The god of war had the goddess of beauty; in the Egyptian tradition, Osiris and Isis. ... And now we live in a world solely of gods. The female counterpart has been erased." He continues: "It’s interesting to note that the word ‘god’ conjures power and awe, while the word ‘goddess’ sounds imaginary." Then, revealing his understanding of how his novel might affect "traditional" Christians, he remarks, "There are some people in the church for whom this book is a little bit shocking. But the reaction from the vast majority of clergy and Christian scholars has been positive." He adds: "Nuns, in particular, are exceptionally excited about the strong feminist message of the book." ENVOY

Brown furthers his agenda in the following passages:

"The Grail is literally the ancient symbol for womanhood, and the Holy Grail represents the sacred feminine and the goddess, which of course has now been lost, virtually eliminated by the Church. The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of ‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy" (p. 238).

"Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene" (p. 248).

"[The] concept of woman as life-bringer was the foundation of ancient religion. Childbirth was mystical and powerful. Sadly, Christian philosophy decided to embezzle the female's creative power by ignoring biological truth and making man the Creator. Genesis tells us the Eve was created from Adam's rib. Woman became an offshoot of man. And a sinful one at that. Genesis was the beginning of the end for the goddess" (p.238).

Folks, really. Whether you're Orthodox, Baptist, or Seventh Day Adventist, regardless of your pedigree ... really. I realize there are people who wish to make Brown's utterances true, but the above quote is just about the most asinine thing (tough competition) in his best-selling book.

"Ancient religion" must not include Judaism! As if there's a generic brand and divine "ancient religion". Far as I know, childbirth is STILL "mystical and powerful". Christian "philosophy"? Eve's being fashioned from Adam's rib does not negate the wonder of woman nor childbearing. Besides, God is the fashioner, not man. Okay ... woman is an "offshoot" of man and man is an "offshoot" of dirt. Point? Eve was not created sinful. Forgive me, I must move on, this is just beyond reason.

"That, my dear ... is Mary Magdalene" ... "The prostitute?" ... Magdalene was no such thing. That unfortunate misconception is the legacy of a smear campaign launched by the early Church. The Church needed to defame Mary Magdalene in order to cover up her dangerous secret -- her role as the Holy Grail" (pp.243-4).

For what it's worth, the Orthodox Church has never taught that the woman caught in adultery was Mary Magdalene. This, from Newsweek (no less):

Was Mary M. a prostitute?
This misperception probably began with a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in A.D. 591 in which he conflated several figures into one. In 1969 the Vatican officially overruled Gregory. Source.

"Although many people still picture the Magdalen as a sinful woman who anointed Jesus and equate her with Mary of Bethany, that conflation is actually the later work of Pope St. Gregory the Great. The East has always kept them separate and said that the Magdalen, “apostle to the apostles,” died in Ephesus." Source.

"Sophie was mesmerized. Sure enough, their clothes were inverse colors. Jesus wore a red robe and blue cloak; Mary Magdalene wore a blue robe and red cloak. Yin and yang" (p.244).

Former Catechumens, aka Orthodox Converts, will recognize the inverse colors scheme. However this is usually seen in icons picturing our Lord and his mother. That is, Christ the Pantocrator is normally portrayed wearing a red inner garment, symbolizing His divinity, and a blue outter garment, His assumed earthly humanity. On the other icon His mother, Mary, is portrayed wearing a blue inner garment, symbolizing her natural humanity, and a red outter garment, symbolizing her taking on the vocation of Mother of God. Incidentally, the image of the Christ that Mary holds is not of suckling babe, but of a little Man robed in Gold (symbolizing "truly God, truly Man").

I have no idea what Brown is trying to prove.

"The Last Temptation of Christ ... which was about Jesus having sex with a lady called Mary Magdalene" (p.26).

I read Kazantzakis's "Last Temptation" and only remember the imaginary fantasy -- not any actual ACT attributed to the main character. Not defending, mind you, Kazantzakis's notion, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but Brown is misspeaking here, isn't he?

"This is Saint Peter. The rock on which Jesus built His Church" ... The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene" (p.248).

Where did Christ ever give directions -- to Peter or any other individual -- with which to establish the Church? Smells, yet again, of anti-Catholic bias. If you're a traditional Protestant, you already reject the "Peter notion" anyway. Brown's kicking the envelope right over the edge is not, therefore, such a grievous foul. Of course the Orthodox -- nowhere on Brown's radar -- understand the role of the Prince of the Apostles differently. It's a foul worth crying about nonetheless.

"Magdalene was recast as a whore in order to erase evidence of her powerful family ties" (p.249).

Hogwash. See above.

"[T]he greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage, and the vine from which the sacred fruit sprang forth!" (p.249).

What was sacred about anything if Jesus was just a man and Mary just a woman? Here Brown seems to be mixing ingredients that have already been discarded.

"The Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene's power, perpetuated her image as a whore and buried evidence of Christ's marriage to her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet" (p.254).

To what end? Brown seems to envision an established Church, much like the current Roman Catholic establishment, with worldwide treasure and power. My goodness. In the days of the early church losing one's head -- literally -- ruled the day. We have countless stories of Martyrs and their horrific sacrifices for the Lord of Glory. Are we really to believe that this was all a ruse? Did the Church do nothing but fabricate tale after tale so as not to lose Her ... what? Virginity? What Brown is actually saying is that the Church is a whore. "The Church, the Bride of God, is a lying whore," suggests Dan Brown. And Christians by the millions buy it. The book, that is. At least I hope that's all they're buying.

"Langdon's Jewish students always looked flabbergasted when he first told them that the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses -- or hierodules -- with whom they made love and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH -- the sacred name of God -- in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah" (p.309).

Worst of all, in Brown’s eyes, is the fact that the pleasure-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating Church suppressed goddess worship and eliminated the divine feminine. He claims that goddess worship universally dominated pre-Christian paganism with the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as its central rite. His enthusiasm for fertility rites is enthusiasm for sexuality, not procreation. What else would one expect of a Cathar sympathizer?

Astonishingly, Brown claims that Jews in Solomon’s Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, via the services of sacred prostitutes—possibly a twisted version of the Temple’s corruption after Solomon (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Moreover, he says that the tetragrammaton YHWH derives from “Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.”

But as any first-year Scripture student could tell you, Jehovah is actually a 16th-century rendering of Yahweh using the vowels of Adonai (“Lord”). In fact, goddesses did not dominate the pre-Christian world—not in the religions of Rome, her barbarian subjects, Egypt, or even Semitic lands where the hieros gamos was an ancient practice. Nor did the Hellenized cult of Isis appear to have included sex in its secret rites." Source.

"Hold on! He thinks a cathedral's entrance represents a woman's" ... "Complete with receding labial ridges and a nice little cinquefoil clitoris above the doorway" (p.326).

Well I don't know about that entire anatomy lesson, but some of the above may be true. At least that's what I was taught. With Gothic Architecture, doors and cloister openings resembling the female "door", shall we say, symbolize the Church as our Mother wherein Christians are born anew. Descriptions of this kind of imagery may be found by googling "female symbolism" & "gothic architecture". Yet, this has nothing to do with carnal sex, as Brown would have one believe, but everything to do with the incarnational Reality of the Church and the new birth of redemption.

"Sophie, every religion in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove" (p.241).

Read carefully: Fabrication is the definition of faith. "The Church is a lying whore."

"Or that Jesus was not born of a literal virgin birth? Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical" (p.342).

Yep. See what I mean? If you are really faithful you'll understand that it's all made up, bunk, fairy tales ... metaphorical.

"My dear, the Church has two thousand years of experience pressuring those who threaten to unveil its lies. Since the days of Constantine, the Church has successfully hidden the truth about Mary Magdalene and Jesus ..." (p.407).

Do Roman Catholics read this book? I'm sure they do. Why is there no greater outcry? Because it's fiction? I don't know. It seems to me that the above sentence, among many, should give one pause. Then again ...

"Do you really wonder why Catholics are leaving the Church? Look around you, Cardinal. People have lost respect. The rigors of the faith, are gone. The doctrine has become a buffet line. Abstinence, confession, communion, baptism, mass -- take your pick -- choose whatever combination pleases you and ignore the rest. What kind of spiritual guidance is the Church offering?" (p.416).

Indeed.

Caution: Preachy mode on ...

Everyone considering themselves a member of the Church Catholic should be talking about this book, dissecting it, criticizing it. The scary part is I'm not sure many, relatively speaking, have bothered. Most are probably holding their breath waiting for the arrival of the next exciting book by Dan Brown.

We have become so gullible as a people -- Believers, that is. Christianity has been dumbed down to an emotional experience where the only sin is being judgmental. "As long as you're not hurting anybody." (Besides, the novel's only fiction. Right?)

We've become lukewarm. As in, "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).

But, you know St Polycarp, it is a thrilling read.

For further reading:
Planet Envoy 1
Planet Envoy 2
Crisis Magazine
Christianity Today
| Link

Meditations are intended to be read sequentially, from 1 to 33.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

(19 of 33) ...

In the Garden?

It is hard to make out all that has happened. Too much partying. Life's a blur. All is a blur. Our minds are clouded. Where are we?

Ahead, we see a shape. “Who’s there?”

No answer. Can’t be the creature -- for he has an answer for everything!

We slowly approach. If our eyes don’t deceive us, it looks like a tree.

Is it a tree?

Yes.

Is this tree, we now see, in the Garden? Or, is this the one on the Hill?

The calf only stares; the creature has disappeared.

There is no blood. There is no fruit.

Only a dead and barren -- lifeless -- tree in the Wilderness.

With great fear we look around us. We are truly alone. No fantasies, no gold, no friends, no hope.
It’s just us ... and a mirror.

A mirror.

We, the tree.


(20 of 33) ...

Again on the Hill ...

The longer we stay here, the less we ask. The longer we stay here, the less we ask. The longer we stay here, the less we ask.

The longer we stay here, the more we find ourselves looking into the eyes of our beloved, the man on the Tree. Our souls seem wedded to his -- and our bodies begin to obey our souls, his.

The question is: How is it that one is filled by emptying? How is it that one is happy yet crying? How is it that one is life-giving while dying?

The longer we stay here ...

The doubts. “If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross and save yourself,” a voice cries.

Our eyes must ask the question ... for he again, with love, dies.


(21 of 33) ...

Again on the Hill ...

It seems that there are less people on the Hill today. More in the Garden.

We’ve stopped looking at the Tree on the Hill.

Everyone is happy, laughing, dancing in the Garden. There rings shouts of joy! In the Garden, where all is knowledge, there are no questions. The Tree is not stained with blood. There is life in the Garden.

It is familiar.

We can never get used to this Hill. It is too hard a thing for us. We were created to be in the Garden.

What awaits us here? Were we created to die?

“No.”


(22 of 33) ...

In the Garden ...

Friends. Ah, glorious friends! How we’ve missed you! The betrayals are forgotten. Let us eat, drink, and be merry!

In the Garden are many whom we know. They have welcomed us back to paradise with open arms, a warm embrace, and sweet caresses.

Lust tastes good as we feast upon the Tree. You’d think gluttony was our end! Alas, all the fruit is good and plenteous. Thanks be to God!

(“No.”)

For a moment, we thought we heard ... a still small voice?

Must be the wine.

The homecoming is so overpowering that tomorrow we plan to eat of sloth.


(23 of 33) ...

Again in the Garden ...

Anger. Sometimes (do our eyes deceive us?) we seem to partake of anger by mistake. It often looks just like pride.

Since pride, we’re told, is the omnipotent remedy for all our ills -- we naturally reach for it daily.
Yet anger is found within.

“It is not anger. You are a god. You are in control. The world can be yours. Taste and see ....”

The creature. We no longer see him. He just seems to accompany our thoughts, doubts, and fears.

For this we are thankful. Because on the Hill there’s no answers ... only questions. Mystery. Frustrating.

[Chomp!]

Anger? Pride? We’ve eaten too much sloth to care.


(24 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness ...

Doubts. Funny. On the Hill our doubts are brought on by questions. In the Garden, they are due to answers received.

Whom to trust?

The more friends we found in the Garden, the lonelier we became. They became, like the fruit, too familiar. No mystery.

For the moment, we are content in the Wilderness. Someone holds our hand. We dare not look. Afraid.

“All will be well.”

“Trust me.”

We do not look. Mystery. For now, it is good.

“Yes.”

Who spoke?

... we are on the Hill.


(25 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

Our time on the Hill was very brief. We did not want to be there. But, because we trusted the voice in the Wilderness, there we were. But we did not want to be there.

We’d rather be alone. No one drove us into the Wilderness. We were not tempted. We made the decision all on our own. We are not headed back to the Garden. We just want to be alone.

Someone holds our hand. It is familiar ... it is okay.


(26 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness?

The Creature. What would we do? Where would we be without him? He is so full of encouragement and knowledge.

We may be moving soon ... to the Garden. The creature tells us that the Wilderness is actually part of the Hill.

“Unless you want to die, like him, you must flee the Wilderness. You belong in the Garden. You were created for the Garden, and the Garden for you. Yours is not to die, but to live! How can you live without the plenteous fruit of the Garden?”

We want so badly to trust.

Doubt. Friends. Betrayal. Sin?

We remember the past. Remorse.


(27 of 33) ...

On the Hill ...

An answer: “The key is not in the forgetting but in the forgiving.”

“This is too hard a thing for me, Lord. In the Garden, when I forget, I am able to live! Here, when I try to forgive, it seems that a part of me dies!”

Yes.

Patience. Long-Suffering. Peace. These live ...

It seems that, on the Hill, with death there is new life.

The more we give, the more we gain. Forgiving is for getting.

+ + +
| Link

"I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong," said Lovelace. "I knew that whenever we decided to put that sign up that there would be people who wouldn't agree with it, and there would be some that would, and so we just have to stand up for what's right."

"About Friday or Saturday we will have a new sign," he said. "It should state to some effect 'Where are your treasures? Are they at the flea market or are they in heaven?'"

Lovelace said that he does not have anything against the flea market that recently opened up down the street from the church.

"I enjoy a good flea market, but if people can be down there at eight o'clock why can't they be at church at 11," he said.

If you must, the whole tale.

Thanks: Drudge.
| Link

"Could a seashell bearing an image resembling the Virgin Mary bring a windfall to an Oceanside man? Stranger things have happened. On eBay last November a grilled cheese sandwich (with a bite out of it, no less) bearing a ghostly likeness of the Virgin Mary sold for $28,000; last March a pretzel twisted into the shape of Mother and Child sold for $10,600, and last month a Doritos chip resembling the Pope's hat was auctioned for $1,209."

Here's the scoop (incl quote from an Orthodox priest).

I, myself, have an old 70's album cover with an image on it ... wait. Oops, that's Bob Seger. Nevermind.
| Link

A reposting from last year, Part 3. Meditations are intended to be read sequentially, from 1 to 33.

Part One
Part Two

(13 of 33) ...

Again on the Hill ...

“Fear God and all will be well.” There it is again -- that thought. What does it mean to fear God? Why, how, is it that “all will be well?”

The man who brought us to the Hill has been gone for a long time. Perhaps it was all a dream? A hoax even? Maybe it would be better in the Garden. Had the man ever been to the Garden? Perhaps he led us the wrong way? Maybe he can be found in the Garden?

“No.”

He clearly said that he was on his way to the kingdom. He bid us come, did he not? What was his name? “Fear God and all will be well. Fear God and all will be well. Fear God and will be well ....”

“I fear that I am lost,” we say. There, off in the distance, is the Garden. So inviting. So familiar. We’ve spent so much time there, in the Garden. It looks like home.

It is home. “Leave your cross and receive your crown, your reward,” bids the creature.

So be it.

... it is so.

(14 of 33) ...

In the Garden ...

It is easier in the Garden. The Hill involves sacrifice. For love requires that one give up self for other. Joy necessitates suffering. Peace implies war. Patience is ultra-sacrificial. And kindness quite often makes us nauseous!

Our taste buds dance was we bite again into the fruit of pride.

Yes, we eat it for a remedy. We were a little queasy last eve after a bout with envy and greed. It seems that we just can’t get enough of the Garden. Now, here we sit partaking of the omnipotent medicine of pride.

From where we sit in the Garden we can see the weak and naked pilgrims ascend the Hill of Hell. Oh how our minds delight in hating them and their pitiful wasted lives. Wait’ll they get to the top and realize that death alone beckons and awaits them.

“He dies, you know!”

“He dies!”

Pride is abundant upon this Tree in the Garden.

(15 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness ...

“Who am I?”

Tears. It’s been long in coming -- and still longer since last we cried. Once again we seemingly had it all in the Garden. Now all is lost. Again we were betrayed. It wasn’t the fault of the creature, or the environment of plenty. It was the others who chose to inhabit the oasis of the Garden. Damn them!

“Did they not know that ‘I am?’”

“I’ll show them!”

It was all to no avail -- scheming and planning. They were too powerful. In fact, they’ve actually lived in the Garden a very long time. They KNOW more. They’ve not only eaten fruit, they’ve stockpiled it in their paradisal warehouses. They were too powerful. Had to leave ... but, shall return.

(16 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

“Don’t want to go to the Hill. Involves commitment.”

The Garden is much better. It requires nothing but your presence. The beautiful creature is a wonderful host. He is so smart, cunning, and encouraging. He makes us feel good, godlike.

We find the Hill generally depressing. "Except when there," whispers our soul -- but, we know better. What good is a soul? Does it feed you? Thrill you? Does the soul ever dance, sing, or laugh?

Doubt.

Doubting in the Wilderness. We're tired. Our memory races toward the past. The man who claimed to be king. The sinful pleasures of the Garden. The bitter deeds brought on by the beautiful fruit. The dying man. The blood. The Tree. Which tree?

(17 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

We are beginning to get accustomed to the Wilderness. It isn’t life. It isn’t death. It just is.

We can see the Garden; the fruits -- Life?

We can see the Hill; the Tree, the man -- Life?

The questions plague us ... (till death do us part).

No. It is better to just stay in the Wilderness. Here there is no salvation or damnation. No Satan, sin, and death. No faith, hope, and charity. No day. No night. Neither naked or royally clothed. We are alone and at peace. The beautiful creature has journeyed with us into the Wilderness. All is well.

(18 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

The beautiful creature is a wonderful guide, very intelligent. He has taught us that we can partake of heavenly fruit -- even in the Wilderness. All we have to do is think. “Bring the fruit to mind.” In so doing, we conjure up fantasy. Lustful fantasy. We can build palaces of gold and silver, filled with riches, in our minds.

“Must we go back to the Garden?” we ask.

“No my child, you can have it all in the Wilderness.”

No longer alone in the Wilderness ... thanks to the beautiful creature and the calf of gold.

+ + +
| Link

Churchgoers couldn't help clowning around inside Trinity Church in lower Manhattan yesterday. Morning services looked more like a big top carnival as the venerable venue kicked off what organizers believe is the first-ever "Clown Eucharist" service at 11:15 a.m.


Story stolen from Dawn, available HERE.
| Link

Though I didn't see it, I heard about it. The Resurrection, that is.

Not to be confused with New Skete ... New Monasticism.
Thanks Dcn Raphael.

Is there a Chalice at the end of the Rainbow?

Psssst! God doesn't need your help.

Evolution, more or LESS.

Speaking of Evolution ... there's THIS.
| Link

These Meditations were posted last year when this Blog was a babe and readership small. After this go-round they'll be retired so as to be recreated in another form. They're intended to be read sequentially, from 1 to 33.

Part One (1 - 5)

(6 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

We were too smart for the Hill. The dream must have worn off. Now, in the Wilderness, we are tired and hungry. O soul, where art thou?

Depression sinks in. It is lonely and arid in the Wilderness. We know that in the Garden there is an abundance of fulfilling things. In the Garden is fame, fortune, and power. In the Garden is sensual pleasures, passionate pastures, and delights for the eyes.

O, to be in the Garden.

As we enter the Garden, we again see the beautiful and inviting creature on the Tree. He assures us that we will not become sick. “Come, eat!” In an instant our soul cries out, “No!” Our bodies deny the hearing. Our bodies KNOW better.

Better me, O Garden Tree. Better me, I beg thee ...


(7 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness ...

The Wilderness is not where we want to be. Yet everyday finds us there with decisions to make.
We are in the Wilderness today with bruises. We were kicked out of the Garden. Did we kick ourselves out? Anyway, we didn’t want to leave. But our friends betrayed us.

There we were with all the powers one could ask for -- and WHAM! Betrayal. We lost all, in the Garden.

He’s on the Tree. The Hill that looks like Hell. Bruised and empty, we’ve had it with the Garden. Our soul sighs, “Lord, forgive.”

We are there, beneath the Fruit of the Tree on the Hill. Feeling betrayed from the bountiful, beautiful fruit of the Garden, we decided to partake of this food. It looks bitter, dying ... dead? Yet, behold, there is redemption thereon, for the fruits of this Tree are Humility, Patience, Chastity, Contentedness, Temperance, Liberality, and Diligence.

We look upon the Fruit, the man on the Tree. “May we stay here always, Lord?” With eyes of love he looks upon us and says, “I love you” ... and dies.

“No!” we cry.

Immediately we are transported to the Garden.


(8 of 33) ...

In the Garden ...

In the Garden there is only life. The hill of death and doom seems to us now like a bad dream. We are thankful to be in the Garden. The beautiful and inviting creature tells us that the Tree in the Garden is known as the Tree of Life. After what we saw on the Hill, we believe him.

We then sink our teeth into a good-sized bit of sloth and decide to give the Hill no more thought. We lust for more, proud of our new found life. We eat, and eat, and eat. A glutton never had it so good. It is easy, nay necessary, to be greedy in the Garden. Our avarice knows no bounds -- we envy all. “I want it all!” we shout in anger.

We are clothed as royalty.

The beautiful creature in nowhere to be found. Does this mean? Of course.

We are in charge!


(9 of 33) ...

Again in the Garden ...

Our soul alone in silence waits.

Something is not right. In the Garden, we think we have found Paradise. Yet why is our soul so unhappy? Can it not taste the fruit? Does it not feel the power? Is it not shining with the light of the Garden?

“No,” says the soul. For a moment, our brain -- even our body -- agrees. But we KNOW better.

“You have eaten of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” says the soul. “This, says God, is forbidden.”

Yet, we are in the Garden. “In the Garden, nothing is forbidden.” The beautiful creature said so. And, besides, we KNOW that the Tree in the Garden is the Tree of Life. It must be. For the man on the Tree on the Hill has died. A tree that ushers in death cannot bring life. This much we know. Therefore, this Tree, in the Garden must be ...


(10 of 33) ...

In the Wilderness ...

It seems that every day we awake in the Wilderness. Then we must choose to either spend our time in the Garden or on the Hill.

Decisions, decisions, decisions ...

“I cannot do it alone.” It was just a thought. Or did it come from deeper within? Whatever it was, it landed us on the Hill! But, immediately upon our arrival, we found that we were surrounded by blood. Just before we cried “No!” ... our souls fed on “faith, hope, love.”

At rest in the Garden, we put such things out of our minds as we bask ‘neath the Tree.


(11 of 33) ...

In the Garden ...

Knowledge.

Eating of the fruits of the Tree in the Garden, we find that we can’t get our fill. “More, more, more!” we passionately cry. Though we tire of anger, it seems to be a constant, consistent, emotion in our domain.

Lust, we find, leads to action. The deed being done, we lie alone wasted with grief and remorse. The cure for which we also seek upon the Tree in the Garden. For the beautiful creature claims to have a remedy for all our ills.

This day, as we shrink from the fruit of lust, we are offered an orb of pride. The beautiful creature tells us that this fruit is the chief remedy of all ailments. “Taste and see,” says he.


(12 of 33) ...

On the Hill we sit ...

How we got here, we’re not quite sure. Yet, we're thankful. For some odd reason, it seems that we’ve been sitting here ‘neath the Tree on the Hill ... staring off into space. And, oddly enough, this seems all right.

We remember that in the Garden we were clothed as royalty. Here, we sit in the shade of redemption -- naked -- with a cross. The man who led us here told us that we had to bear it if we were to find rest in him and his kingdom.

Funny, it seems that he met us in the Wilderness. We didn’t have to make the decision to either go into the Garden or to climb the Hill. Instead, we were met by a man who seemed to know us -- and, we him. He lovingly said, “Come, follow me.” And now, here we are.

Where did he go?

Where is his kingdom?

Why did he call us?

+ + +
| Link

I posted the following Meditations last year when this Blog was a babe and readership small. After this second go-round I'll probably remove them so as to recreate them in another form. They're intended to be read sequentially, from 1 to 33.

(1 of 33) ...

Let us travel into the Wilderness ...

Ahead, through the blinding haze, nothing appears. All is naught, all is night.

To our left is a garden, an oasis of calm tranquility. It is a beautiful garden. In the middle of the garden stands a tree. A most beautiful tree -- tall and strong with abundant fruit.

Ahead is the Wilderness. To our left, the Garden.

When we look opposite the Garden, to the right of the Wilderness, we see a hill, a dark vision of gloom and death. It is ugly and skull shaped. On the top stands a tree. A most terrifying tree. Bloody, cross shaped.

Our eyes cannot continue to look upon the hill. For a moment, we again look straight ahead into nothing. Then we find our eyes, slowly at first -- then in a flash -- returning to the beautiful garden. It looks like heaven. For this vision, we are thankful. For the Hill looks like Hell.


(2 of 33) ...

Again in the Wilderness ...

Our mouths are dry, our bellies empty. What shall we do to quench our thirst? To quell our appetites? To refresh our souls?

We stare into the abundant garden. Our eyes receive a feast, our mouths and bellies cry out, "Yes!" And our soul must follow as our feet move toward the Garden. We are hesitant. Yet, remembering the vision of the Hill, our pace is quickened.

The Garden, though seemingly far away, is under our feet in an instant. (Did we move toward it, or it toward us?) A stirring in our soul says, "No." Yet, with eager hands and greedy passion, we pluck from the Tree in the Garden. Our bodies are awakened. O fruit of passion ...


(3 of 33) ...

Again in the Garden ...

The fruit that looked so wonderful, so inviting, eventually turned bitter in our bellies. It appealed to our eyes, tongues, and senses. And although our souls said "No," we listened instead to our bodies. Now, with bellies full, we are still not satisfied.

For once, we understand our soul’s definition of the fruits of the Garden’s tree: Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth ... “Pale Gas.” To us, however, it is familiar fruit. The source of our nourishment. It all seems very natural.

Even silencing our soul seems familiar ... natural.


(4 of 33) ...

Again in the Garden ...

From where we sit in the Garden we see, off in the distance, the Hill, the Tree, and what appears to be a dying man hanging there. In the Garden, there is light. Yet, as far as we can see, the Hill looks dark and foreboding.

Again, we listen to our soul which seems to long for the Hill. We begin to make our way out of the Garden -- toward the Wilderness -- only to realize that the headway that we make seems to take forever. It seems that we are not moving. Our bodies, our senses, our bellies and tongues begin to scream at us “You hunger! You thirst! Eat!.” We begin to question our motives, our movement ... the Hill.

As we turn and look back toward the Tree in the Garden, we no longer see PALE GAS, but fruit -- ripe and inviting. There is a lovely creature upon the Tree in the Garden beckoning us to “Come, eat.” We glance toward the Hill -- a dying man upon a Tree covered in darkness. Our body begins to come alive, our soul withers. We turn back, back toward the Tree in the Garden.


(5 of 33) ...

Again in the Garden ...

Sick. Having eaten so much of the Fruit of the Tree in the Garden -- Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth -- we are sick. The Garden no longer seems so filled with light. We have once again discovered that the fruit which says “Come” speaks a lie.

If this is so, what of the Tree on the Hill?

It seems to be dark, Hell. What of it? Must we go and see?

The man hangs there. Is he dead? Why does he look upon us so?

There is pity and love in his stare. Before we have strength or ability to suppress it, our soul says “Yes!” -- we hear -- and suddenly, we are there, on the Hill, beneath the Tree.

Our eyes of Faith are opened and our spirit soars -- for here on this Tree is the Fruit of Redemption, the First Fruit of God. God Incarnate.

The refreshment of our souls overshadows our bodily lusts and passions. We are at peace.

+ + +
| Link

Blessing assured!

[T]here are days when, out of fatigue or illness, we cannot do everything the way we should. It is bad when duties are completely neglected because the enemy gains ground and conquers our heart. In such cases, we must do something, even if it is the least possible, like the good soldiers who when they are not able to mount an offensive, fire a few shots from their trench, thereby keeping the enemy at bay. Later on, when they find the first opportunity, they attack the enemy with heavy weapons and defeat him.

For example, when he brings us evil or blasphemous thoughts, we should start the Jesus Prayer and say to the devil: 'It's good that you pricked at me, for I had forgotten my Christ'. When we do this, even if we were to keep the devil near, he won't remain, since he is not so dumb as to work for free and to bring benefit to our soul.

When you examine your sinfulness and engage in this painstaking work on yourself, you should first of all have hope in God and hold on to this tightly so it never leaves. Whatsoever sins are not carnal you can analyse in detail, in order for you to be compelled to humility. Whatever sins, however, are of the carnal type do not analyse at all, except to consider yourself as a putrid sac full of filth. You should not take the liberty to pray for persons with carnal sins either, for, besides it being considered impertinence, since you are not yet reconciled with God, the enemy will also corrupt you with unclean thoughts during the day and perform indecent plays for you at night.

If something like this occurs in your sleep, do not examine it at all, for it is dangerous. The same applies to any incident in your life (of a carnal nature), which God rescued you from by covering for you and saving you, like a bird from the talons of a vulture. When a young man re-examines the sins of the flesh, he resembles a soldier who, after being saved by God from the enemy's grenade, takes it into his hand to examine it and, while he curiously inspects it, the grenade blows his brains off. Thus, it is a lot safer when we are wrapped up in our dirty sac.

We should be disgusted with ourselves and work only on our wretched self so we can first be reconciled with God. Afterwards, great love comes to the humble servant, and this divine love ignites the fire of his own love (as much towards God as towards his neighbor), and he casts his entire self into the service of others, believing that he is nothing but fertilizer, rejoicing that others will produce fruit.

For oftentimes it is egotism, pride and judging of others with a lack of love which drives God's Grace away, and the devil draws near and lights a fire even on our dry emaciated bones. Thus, we increase our fasting, spiritual endeavours, our prostrations, etc., in order to humble our flesh, but to no avail, for our flesh is not humbled, and our soul lacks humility and love.

Therefore, when war with the flesh approaches, if we have done a little fasting and vigil with prayer, and the war does not subside, then we must realize that the problem is elsewhere. We should immediately fall prostrate before Christ and ask for His forgiveness in advance and beg Him, at the same time, to enlighten us so we can realize our fault and who it was that we've hurt or wronged, and to ask his forgiveness. As soon as we humbly ask forgiveness from Christ, immediately the carnal flame departs and we recall the cause, which, in turn, helps us even more to be humble. Then God's grace comes in abundance.

[A] young man usually observes his spiritual condition in terms of his carnal temptations. If a young man has dispassion (i.e. no carnal enticements), he thinks he is doing well, when, in fact, he may be found in such a state of lethargy so that he will not be able to discern his other passions that lie in hiding. God then allows for the demon of fornication to humble him involuntarily and, thus, through humility God approaches him again. To put it succinctly, the demon of fornication, with the shock that he gives the young man, makes him realize that something has gone wrong.

We have no excuse, however, when we don't want to repent and confess, but rather we prefer to remain stuck in the mud. Some people do not confess because they have the impression that they will fall into the same sins. This means that they simply add more and more layers on top of the older layers of mud. Yet, when they stain their clothes, they wash them and take care not to soil them again, and when they are stained again, they clean them once again.

My thought tells me that the greatest enemy -- even greater than the devil -- for our soul's salvation is the worldly spirit, for it sweetly misleads us and in the end eternally embitters us. Yet, if we saw the devil himself, we would be terrified and forced to immediately resort to God and secure Paradise.

[W]e can see God's great simplicity spread over all of His creation, such as His heavenly lights (the stars), dispersed by His divine hand with such simplicity, without using a plumb line and a level, and yet they give such rest to people! On the other hand, worldly lights, neatly ordered in succession, are so tiresome.

Orthodox temperance, and spiritual asceticism in general, always aims at a superior spiritual goal, the sanctification of the soul. Worldly asceticism, on the contrary, such as that of the deluded practitioners of Yogi, is performed in order to acquire a resilient body be able to twist their hands and feet like paper puppets, be admired by foolish people and mocked by the ridiculous demons.

All those who accept impure thoughts while pampering the flesh with food and rest and then claim that the evil one wars against them out of envy, slander the devil.

At the outset of our spiritual life, God, out of love, does not permit us to come to know either our sinfulness or His great benevolence, so as not to despair, especially if His creature is sensitive.

We must not expect spiritual spring, unless we first pass through spiritual winter, in order that the spiritual parasites might die. We must not expect the divine to blossom within us, if the purely human does not die first. In other words, the worldly grass must be overturned through spiritual ploughing, and the seed of wheat planted, so as to bring the true verdure into sight, which also brings an abundance of fruits.

The monk who follows his own will is followed by delusion, while the layman who believes in his own thoughts usually ends up in a mental hospital.

Naturally, every person will be paid by the boss for whom he worked. Those who work for Christ shall receive a hundredfold now in this time and in the world to come, eternal life and those who work for the black boss will receive darkness even now.

Those who come close to people in pain, naturally draw near to God, because God is always by the side of His children who are in pain.

Those who suffer trials unjustly imitate Christ; and those who face hardships due to their sins are blessed, because they are forgiven their sins in this life.

He who seeks humility from God but does not accept the person that God sends him so as to humble him, doesn't know what he is asking for, for virtues are not purchased like groceries (as many kilos as we want). Rather, God sends us people for us to be tested, to exert ourselves, acquire virtues, and be crowned.

[W]here hope in God is absent, the devil's tail is present.

Hurried work done in distress is characteristic of very worldly people.

Of course, the person who is spiritually healthy seeks neither true lights in this present life, nor visions of the next, but only God's mercy, and God gives His creature whatever he needs.

Whoever thinks that he can come to know the mysteries of God through external scientific theory, resembles the fool who wants to see Paradise with a telescope.

Those who live simply, with kindness and good thoughts, and have acquired inner simplicity and purity, regard the supernatural very simply, as natural, for everything is simple to God. He does not use greater power for the supernatural and less for the natural, but the same power for everything. He Himself is very simple and His Son revealed it to us on earth with His holy simplicity.

We should neither create problems in the Church nor magnify the minor human disorders that occur, so as not to create greater evil and the wicked one rejoice.

He who is irritated about a minor disorder and abruptly rushes to ostensibly correct it ... resembles the light-headed sacristan who sees a candle dripping and abruptly dashes to fix it, stumbling over people and candlesticks, and thus creating an even greater disorder during the Divine Service.

It is well known to discerning spiritual Fathers that this demonic practice (namely, deriding the clergy and the Church) has turned many people into Jehovah's witnesses. It is also known to the whole world that not even one Jehovah's witness has become Orthodox in this un-orthodox way.

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul.

Let us not examine whether we were justly or unjustly embittered, out of love or viciousness, or whether we are at fault slightly or not at all. We should accept with joy the spiritual benefit that every trial leaves behind, glorify God for everything and be grateful to the people who wrong us.

The trials that God allows are in proportion to our tolerance level, but unfortunately many times the mockery and thoughtlessness of merciless people are added on and then we break down. Strong wind usually splits sensitive trees and uproots those with shallow roots, while it helps trees with deep roots to extend deeper into the ground.

All those who have within them a demon from birth receive a great reward when they do not murmur, until they are liberated with the Grace of God. Those, however, who were themselves the cause, must themselves do battle.

The thing that will move God more on the Day of Judgement is the work each one of us has done on his old man.

Certainly, we all have some discernment, but unfortunately most of us do not use it on ourselves but on our fellowmen ... and we contaminate it with criticism, condemnation, and the demand for others to correct themselves. We should, rather, demand this only from ourselves who do not resolve to struggle fervently, cut off our passions, liberate our soul, and fly to Heaven.

Many times, however, the devil mocks us in the following way: we venerate the icon of an angel with great reverence, whereas the angel in the flesh, our neighbour, who is the image of God, we hurt and insult.

To God, everything is excellent: the ten of the five talents, the four of the two talents and the two of the one talent. Divine justice has different mathematical terms: sometimes one plus one equals two, sometimes two million.

Be careful never to seek out lights and gifts of God ... but only repentance, which will bring humility. Then, the Good God will give you whatever is necessary.

If you want to tune in to God so He listens to you when you pray, turn the knob to humility, for on this frequency God always operates, and humbly ask for His mercy.


All quotes taken from "Epistles" by Elder Paisios of Mount Athos.
| Link

Should the Orthodox church be in dialogue with the Roman Catholic one? Yes. Will we reunite? It would take a miracle.

By Fr. Patrick Reardon

For example, it should be obvious that the Roman papacy is the major obstacle to our reunion. Make no mistake–we Orthodox do not miss the papacy, not in the least, because we never had it. Not for a minute did the pope of Rome ever exercise over the church of the East the level of centralized authority he has grown, over the past thousand years, to exercise over the Roman Catholic Church.

Read the whole article: H E R E


Somehow this seems too easy ... But it does give one pause.


No one wants to read an article entitled "The Sovietization of America" ... But everyone should. I've placed excerpts at the bottom of this post.


According to Agence France Presse, Prince Charles is on the Holy Mountain again. Then again, so is Fidel Castro.
THX: NeePeople

As for the newly-wed Prince ...

The heir to the throne has been a frequent pilgrim at the Mount over recent years and arrived at the rocky 35-mile-long peninsula in northern Greece by yacht on Thursday [last week], having travelled to the country by air.

The prince's spouse Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, whom he married on April 9, has been in the area since Monday.

He joined her on board the Paris, a luxury yacht belonging to Greek shipping magnate Spyros Latsis, for the journey to Mount Athos, state television channel NET reported.

The yacht moored at the small harbour of the 10th-century Vatopedi monastery, where the prince has been making regular pilgrimages at this time of year since the late nineties.

His wife remained on board the Paris for a cruise in the northern Aegean Sea, NET reported.

Charles is a leading member of the Friends of Mount Athos group, which helps open and maintain the celebrated tracks and pathways that link the Byzantine monasteries there.
Agence France Presse / Thx: Fr Victor Potapov

How embarrasing. I realized the other day that my Side Margin has, for months now, listed a Blog as "Cracker Mirror" instead of Cracked Mirror. With a moniker like "Orthodixie", and a popular article entitled "The 'N' Word", visitors were probably sure to click on the "Cracker Mirror" site to see what was up. So sorry. If there is a site named "Cracker Mirror", you'd probably find out H E R E.

And ... if you're going to the Southeast Blogfest, be sure and take along a couple bags of Kudzu. You never know when you might need it.
Thx: Thunderstruck

I'm not quite sure what to make of this "honour".


Here's those excerpts from "The Sovietization of America":

"The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself as our guide, did not admit the existence of evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshipping man and his material needs . . . . gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address, 1978

Many Americans are puzzled and alarmed by the drastic changes taking place in America. Two recurring questions I hear are, "What's going on?' and "How come it feels as though our world is turning upside-down?" The short answer is this: Our nation is in a state of purposely induced tumultuous transition. America is straddling two fundamentally opposed worldviews. One of them is her founding worldview based in Christian-Judao moral ethics and principles wherein our Creator is sovereign and human life sacred since man is created in the image of his Maker.

The other is godless humanism/socialism according to which 'elite' man is sovereign and arbitrary maker of all rules and human life has no particular value or worth because 'elite man' has reduced human beings to mere chance-met protoplasm . So essentially, what is deemed to be truth in one worldview is a lie in the other. In one, human life has intrinsic value and is endowed with a natural right to life and liberty. In the other, human protoplasm has no more worth than dung beetle protoplasm and is therefore not deemed worthy of liberty, let alone life.

The slow transformation of America from her Judeo-Christian culture of life and individual freedom to godless atheism, culture of death, and collectivized and mind-conditioned protoplasma-genderfree beings began many years ago ...

Our Founders wrote that if obedience to God were removed from America, a wave of crime would be unleashed that would eventually bankrupt the nation's treasuries in our frantic efforts at containing it. More than just crime has been unleashed. America is reeling under the combined destructive forces of the disunifying effects of multiculturalism, the near collapse of traditional marriage, sexual debauchery, sex crimes, perversion. plagues of STDs costing billions of dollars every year, broken homes, violent gangs, lawless jurists, legislators, and mayors; kids killing and raping other kids, adults rutting upon children, children being locked in closets and cages and starved and beaten, the elderly and disabled being coldbloodedly euthanized, and the killng of the unborn, which continues unabated.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin

America is quickly degenerating into a tribalized land of lawlessness and casually practiced barbarism where once she was a unified, law-abiding nation of families, children, safe neighborhoods, great civility and humanity.

The architects of this primal chaos knew these things would happen before they ever began to apply their social change-making schemes to America. How did they know? The Soviet Union and its people provided them with their first 'laboratory." Remember that these odious tricksters are the ideological seed of madmen like Lenin, Marx, and Nietzsche, and in their morally insane minds, they believe they are applying science-based revolutionary theories to America in a cause of the highest humanitarian considerations. Sheer madness and self-delusion is more like it. These lunatic 'pseudo-scientists' view human beings as though they are nothing but dumb animals upon which they can test their maleficient theories.

Edmund Burke observed that man's attempts at building secularized states was irrational. He said, "We know . . .that man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against not only our reason, but our instincts and that it cannot prevail long."

Atheism is against our reason and instincts. And then Solzhenitsyn: "They do not believe in evil."

Atheism has put them on the 'looking glass' side of reason and instinct, hence it makes a bizarre kind of sense that these foolish ones, made blind by their self-pride, believe that evil is but a social construct. As a result, they become the 'useful fools' of and the conduits for the malevolent forces they profess not to believe in, which is why atheists have exterminated in excess of 100,000,000 human beings.

Read the whole thing H E R E.
Thx: Fr Victor Potapov
| Link

From the St Paul "Pioneer Press" ... by Kay Harvey
In state for award, he blesses faithful at local church

The excited congregation of St. George Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church in West St. Paul filled the pews Saturday to greet and pray with one of the highest-ranking leaders of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

A long stream of men, women and children moved through a receiving line to kiss the hand of Ignatius IV, the patriarch of Antioch, and receive his blessing during an afternoon reception at St. George. They then gathered for a prayer service.

"It is such an honor to have him here," said church member Vicky Michaels of Apple Valley. "Most people go their entire lives without being in the presence of a patriarch."

And so likely would members of St. George parish, if the visiting patriarch hadn't traveled to Minnesota for another kind of honor. Today Ignatius IV will receive the prestigious Pax Christi Award from St. John's Abbey and University in a ceremony on the Catholic school's campus in Collegeville.

The 83-year-old patriarch, who hails from Damascus, Syria, is to Antiochian Orthodox Christians the equivalent of a pope, parishioners said. He is the spiritual head of thousands of Christians throughout the United States, Canada, South America, western Europe and the Middle East. The Orthodox church also believes the religious leader is the 170th successor to St. Peter, the apostle of Jesus who became the first bishop of Antioch.

Ignatius IV's visit to this 400-member parish, where almost everyone takes on some volunteer role and where bake sales and ethnic dinners help stretch the operating budget, is indeed an anomaly, said John Chagnon of St. Paul, a church deacon.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime event," he said. "That's why you see all the hubbub and the pictures."

Church leaders called the visit unprecedented.

Eight-year-old T.J. Perry of Eagan, wearing a suit, posed for a picture with the patriarch and church pastor the Rt. Rev. Archimandrite John Mangels before donning his altar-boy vestments to serve at an evening prayer service.

People arrived in a celebratory mood and wearing their Sunday best. Rami Jubran, 17, sported a pink tie and matching rose stuck in his lapel. That's because he was later headed for his prom. But the church reception, he said, was his top priority.

"I had to come here," he said. "The prom takes second place. This is a big, big thing."

Ignatius IV wore a black robe, a dangling red pendant and black headgear — an alousi, Arabic for a round headpiece, from which flowed a latti, Arabic for a monastic veil denoting celibacy. He sat at the center of the event's head table, flanked by other clergy clad in black. They included the Rt. Rev. Bishop Mark Maymon, bishop of Toledo, Ohio, and the church's Diocese of the Midwest.

Along with more than 300 others gathered in the church social hall, the priests dined on tabouli, pita bread, stuffed grape leaves, kibbi and baklawa, all prepared by the men and women of the church. Many parishioners are descendants of the Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who founded the church, one of a handful of Antiochian Orthodox churches in the upper Midwest, in 1913.

Parishioners then filed into wooden pews in the church's ornate sanctuary for a candlelit vespers service led by the visiting patriarch.

Ignatius IV was chosen for the award he will receive today for helping pave the way for preservation of religious manuscripts the university is collecting, particularly in places where access is hindered by war or other strife, said Mag Patridge of St. John's.

"He has really been helping us in the Middle East, and that's where we're concentrating right now."
| Link

Mrs Allen was my 8th grade science teacher. She often let it be known that she did not believe in God. She also taught Evolution. Perhaps these two facts have tainted me. That is, I've always believed in God and, barring some days of college-fog, have always disbelieved in Evolution. Ol' Mrs Allen done made a Creationist outta me.

Recently, 30 years later, I blogged some questions about Evolution that today's students are asking in science classes. I knew this would spark debate, it always does. But in the South, where we can argue for hours about BBQ sauces, Evolution is pretty much a dead issue. Face it, there are benefits to living in the Bible Belt. The Internet's a different story.

Upon converting to Orthodoxy I was pleasantly surprised to learn that it was OKAY to disbelieve Evolution and OKAY to believe in revealed Creation. Gosh, that's not very Episcopalian! And while the views of Fr Seraphim Rose might be a bit extreme for some Orthodox, I have found that taking the Theory of Evolution with a grain of salt -- or paying no heed to it at all -- to be the Orthodox norm. (I mean, we do sing about a created Adam & Eve at almost every single service.) True, I also know that Orthodox academicians at colleges and seminaries may differ. But remember, not everyone is perfect.

Any way, after posting the Evolution piece, I received a private email from an Orthodox scientist who took exception to my post. Here, in part, is his email:

Your recent post on Darwin and the strange ascientific crusade among so-called evangelicals against teaching kids the facts about palaeontology and archaeology was, in my humble opinion, just the sort of persiflage that distracts people from the ongoing nature of scientific revelation. As an Orthodox Christian for thirty-five years and an archaeologist for over thirty, I have yet to find a contradiction between my Orthodox faith and my scientific inquiries, even when excavating in Greece where controversies about the past are seen as living arguments that must be pursued by all citizens to the death.

It seems to me the real problem is that we have such a tiny, minute amount of all prehistoric material brought to light, that we don't really know enough to make as many definitive judgements as many people would like so whenever new knowledge contradicts what we have speculated about in the past, this is used as ammunition to say, "Hah! The miserable frauds were lying all along!"

As scientists, we try to present our views in a prudent and balanced manner. This doesn't make for the political polemics that our enemies in the Willful Ignorance Community are constantly throwing at us, but it is based on verifiable facts, however, errant our speculations made from those facts. Many of the contentions made by Creation Science (a painful oxymoron) are also speculations but speculations not anchored in peer reviewed journals and painstaking accuracy. Rather, jumbled nonsense about texts that were published over half a century ago is used to malign today's scientists who are struggling painfully to make sense of the past with only the tiniest fragments of actual material. Science is difficult, painstaking, and requires oftentimes going down many blind alleys and often admitting to various prior errors before before we approach the light of the fullness of truth. This is somewhat analogous to the spiritual life as well. Propaganda is a quick and painless way to get feeling scientific without actually having to do science, as drugs are a quick and painless way to get spiritual without having to actually address the hard work of spiritual development.

The discovery of therizinosaurus falcarius is just the latest miniscule slice of the fossil record to reveal itself to us and it IS a transitional fossil, just in case you were still looking for such things.

As stated earlier, my aversion to the Theory of Evolution and its many agnostic proponents was formed in my grade school years. I am not versed enough in the scientific realm (stunted, perhaps) to make a good argument on the topic, nor do I plan to learn. It just doesn't interest me. I am delighted and highly entertained, however, by the use of the word "persiflage" and plan to use it the next time folks are arguing about BBQ. But I digress ...

What I gleaned from the email was that the writer disagreed; not much more. So I asked some friends for comments. As with the scientist, I have not listed the respondents' names, but have suggested that they may do so in the Comments.

This kindly fellow is possibly mistaking all the scientific and non-scientific critiques of evolutionism as being creationist. Frogs have legs; Socrates has legs = Socrates is a frog.

I love archeology, palaeontology and the rest; and while evangelicals may need to do more solid theology about creation and the evidence, Darwinians need to puzzle out why the evidence doesn't add up for one theory to rule the roost. Also, Darwinians need to be reminded that atheism and scientific materialism are-- like Darwinianism-- theories that don't account for all the evidences.

My kids, especially my dinosaur-loving son, like to watch science shows. I hate it when the "earth is millions & millions of years old" and Evolution -- not stated as theory but fact -- is presented within every narrative paragraph. But it does give me opportunity to also teach my children what has been revealed in Scripture. If that makes me a Fundamentalist, so be it.

Well, I don't find much disagreeable about your friend's reply, but he does need to recognize one aspect of science of which he is in denial or at least honestly ignorant: Science itself is a religion. Proof? OK. Science has its doctrines and dogmae, and if a member of Science should have the temerity to dispute a Holy Dogma of Science, he is excommunicated by the Synod of Ruling Bishops, those august gents (of both sexes) who divide the Word of Science, and who are Infallible when speaking from the Chair of Academic Enlightenment.

Example? Ancient human remains discovered a few years back in Washington are, to paleontological eyes, certainly not Indian, but pre-date Indian habitation of this continent. Orthodox Science is joining with some groups of American Indians to deny, obscure, and destroy this evidence at any cost because it simply isn't palatable to either group's taste. Is it the truth? Well, that doesn't matter, does it? Pure science is a noble thing, but the sheer willfulness and religious zeal for the preservation of the moment's scientific orthodoxy that is found among too many scientists holds back discovery and mimics a medieval dark age for a system of gathering knowledge that is supposed to enlighten us all.

I'm sure that our current age did not invent agendas but with vested interests starting at Point Z and asking science to prove that destination correct by filling in Points A thru Y, it is frustrating.

The best reply from a purely theological stance came from an Orthodox priest:

On the one hand, for [the author of the email], truth is something that can be discovered by the uncovering or accumulation of data; but he also speaks of the "ongoing nature of scientific revelation" as if the data procured by a scientific method is something that is revealed to man who cannot come to it (that which is revealed) of his power.

This is the fundamental issue. For him, it seems, data and its accumulation can "reveal" Truth, that is that which transcends human reason can be obtained by human reason. Data, as we know, must be interpreted. It is bound to its level, the level of the reason. But whenever we speak of the origins of the Created order, we speak not in the realm of physics (on the level of reason and created things), but in the realm of metaphysics (that which transcends the level of the physical and created things). The faculty that "interprets" on the "metaphysical" level is the Nous. Whenever we engage in questions related to the nature of God in His energies and His creation, we must, to "apprehend" them aright, have a noetic approach.

Thus, the question of the origins of the Creation is not strictly a mechanical and physical question, but a noetic question (if we could put it such). As such, all scientific methods by definition fall short because what is required to prove these kinds of theories is observation from the start. In other words, we must be there with God "at the beginning" to observe the mechanics of the how of Creation was created in order to prove any of the theories. That, obviously, is something that reason -- the human faculty -- cannot do! Noetically, on the other hand, we "know" that God created and is creating. In other words, the "divine" faculty in man is required to know the Divine. (When we men are "led" by the Nous, the Nous then "informs" the reason and it is applied spiritually...but that's a different discussion entirely.) But reason can only work with data. Reason can be appropriately applied if it can see the beginning and end of the data and observe a process to test a theory. Because of this limitation of the reason, we are never going to be able to know the mechanics of creation; we are never going to be able to determine which fossil is "transitional" and, the bigger question, we are never going to be able to prove a transformist macro-evolution. Rather, we are going to always have competing scientific theories that contradict each other. (That is, until scientists become metaphysicians.)

None of this is to refute the reality of micro-evolution; ie that species adapt to their surroundings to survive. The created order that we can observe is amazingly beautiful and complex and to the scientist who is in way a metaphysician, it can only strengthen his faith! But the fundamental issue here is epistemological; that is to say, a matter of knowing and knowledge. The faculty of the reason, which is the faculty that is deployed for scientific research, is limited and cannot, by definition, ever give us the "big picture" related to the "why" and even the "how" of Creation.

So there, Mrs Allen!

(Speaking of whom ... One day in class, she flatly stated that there was no God because no one had ever seen Him, I disagreed. She said that if I could show her, in the Bible even, where anyone had ever seen God, she would rest her case. The next day I took a Bible to school and Mrs Allen allowed me to read to the class how Moses was allowed to see God's back. I'm not certain if it was vindication or placation, but I don't remember her ever bad mouthing God again. I do regret however that I never saw her in church nor got to witness to her about Lexington style BBQ.)
| Link