The Catalog of Good Deeds

The Eastern Church considers "passions" as dispositions to sin. In the Western Church they commonly number seven and are called the deadly sins. One of these passions, envy, is many times hidden or concealed behind a facade of false joy for the good others have come upon, but at the same time there is great inner pain and resentment in the hearts of the envious towards those they begrudge.

Envy is actually the last listed of the 10 Commandments, but near first on the list of its evil consequences. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's." (Ex 20: 17). The writer of the Wisdom of Solomon tells us of the primal importance of envy. It led to the first ancestral temptation, sin and its consequences: "...but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it." (WSol 2:24).

The Western Church Father Blessed Augustine described envy as a "diabolical sin." Our Eastern Church Father St. John Chrysostom considered that "envy arms us against one another…" St. Gregory the Great tells us that envy engenders conflict: "From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity." Envy is a refusal of charity, which is to say, of love, and is itself is rooted in pride. The pious followers of Islam see envy as an evil and will seek out Allah to be protected "... from the evils of the envious when they envy." (Sura 113:5).

St. Isaac the Syrian informs us that the healing of this infirmity has to start with cultivating such a great love of God that it overflows from Him to all creation. St. Isaac tells us we must emulate God by first interiorizing the spirit of His love: "He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen."

St. Maximus the Confessor counsels us to follow the advice of St. Paul: " Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." (Rm 12: 15). For this to be sincere it must be done without narcissistic "self reference." In Buddhism true rejoicing is seen as developing mudita, "appreciative joy," which is one of the four Divine Abidings. It is accomplished by cultivating an appreciation for something that is blooming, such a flower or a developing child.

St. Maximus the Confessor tells us another aid to overcome envy is to realize that it is we who are responsible for any [spiritual] gifts we have received or not received: He tells us that "each of us is the steward of his own grace and, if we think logically, we would never envy another person the enjoyment of his gifts, since the disposition to receive divine blessings depends on ourselves."

In order to do this we must have a change of mind and heart, a metanoia. We must value the gifts of God's favor above the values of the world. Then we must see that God is willing to give us as much of His grace as we make ourselves available to receive. How? We must be God-focused, not 'others' focused. We must be guided by the writer of the Wisdom of Sirach (35:19): "[God] repays the man according to his deeds, and the works of men according to their devices." Doing this we will have no envy to conceal.

By Fr. George Morelli

Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/envy-the-concealed-passion

During the ninth century and the Byzantine Iconoclasm (destruction of the icons), in the reign of Emperor Theophilus, and in accordance with his command, the empire was pillaged by thousands of his soldiers, searching everywhere for hidden icons.

At this time, near the city of Nicaea in modern day northern Turkey, there lived a pious widow who had concealed an Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God in order to keep it safe. It wasn’t long, however, before it was discovered and a soldier thrust his spear into the sacred image. To his horror, however, his terrible deed rebounded on him as blood flowed from the wound he had made on the face of the Mother of God. On seeing this, the frightened soldier and his companions quickly fled, leaving the now damaged icon still in the possession of this pious widow.

That night the widow spent the whole night in vigil, praying before the Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God during which God revealed to her what she should do and so in the morning she took the icon to the sea and cast it upon the water. Legend has it that the holy Icon stood upright on the waves and it began to float westward towards the Aegean Sea.

Very many years passed during which nothing more was heard about the icon and then, one evening in the year 1004, the monks of the Iveron Monastery on Mt. Athos saw a pillar of light shining like the sun upon the sea. For several days the fathers of the Holy Mountain marvelled at this miraculous image until, finally, their curiosity got the better of them and they descended to the edge of the sea, where they saw that the pillar of light was over the Icon of the Mother of God floating some way out in the water. However, when they approached it to try and retrieve it, the icon drifted off a little further out to sea out of their reach.

Later, the Mother of God appeared to the fathers of the Holy Mountain and told them that, alone of all the monks on the Holy Mountain, only Gabriel, a Georgian monk working then at the Iveron Monastery, was worthy to retrieve the holy icon from the sea. She also appeared to Gabriel and told him, “Enter the sea, and walk out upon the waves with faith, and all will witness my love and mercy for your monastery.”

This was during the Paschal season that year and on Bright Tuesday the monks of Mt. Athos found Gabriel and lead him down to the sea whilst chanting hymns and censing with holy incense. Gabriel then walked out upon the water just as Our Lord had done on Lake Galilee. Taking the icon in his arms he obediently carried it back to the shore. Later, whilst the monks were celebrating a paraklesis of thanksgiving, a cold, sweet smelling spring miraculously gushed forth from the ground where the icon stood. Afterwards, they took the icon with great reverence to a church where they set it down in the sanctuary.

However, the next morning one of the monks, on coming to light a lamp in the sanctuary, discovered that the icon was no longer where they had left it but was now hanging on a wall near the entrance gate. They took it down from the wall and returned it to the sanctuary but again, the very next day, the icon was found at the monastery gate. This happened several times until, eventually, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to Gabriel and told him, “Announce to the brothers that from this day they should no longer carry me away. For what I desire is not to be protected by you; rather I will overshadow you, both in this life and in the age to come. As long as you see my icon in the monastery, the grace and mercy of my Son shall never be lacking!”

The monks were overjoyed at this announcement and erected a small church near the monastery gate to glorify the Most Holy Mother of God and placed the wonder-working icon inside where it came to be known (in Greek) as the “Portaitissa” (meaning“Keeper of the gate”). We, though, now know it as the Iveron Icon: this is because of its presence in the Iveron Monastery on Athos; the Monastery being so named because it was established by St Euthymius (955 - 1028), a Georgian national and “Iveron” (or Iberia) being the ancient name of his homeland, Georgia. Contrary to popular opinion, therefore, it does not relate to the Iberian (i.e. Spanish/Portuguese) peninsular.

The 1648 Russian Copy

In 1648 Russian pilgrims who had visited Mt. Athos brought news of this wonder-working Icon to the then Patriarch Nikon of Moscow who commissioned an exact copy of it to be made and sent to Russia. It arrived there on October 26, [Gregorian calendar – October 13th old style], and almost immediately the icon was glorified with numerous miracles attributed to it by the faithful. It is still The newly restored Iveron Icon Chapel, outside of the Kremlin in Moscow's Red Squarecommemorated on that day as the feast of the Translation of the Iveron icon to Moscow. A Chapel was built in 1669 next to the Kremlin walls in Moscow to enshrine the icon. The Iveron chapel, as it was called, formed the main entrance to Red Square and, according to tradition, everyone, from the Tsar right down to the lowest peasant, before entering the square, used to stop at the icon to venerate it. Sadly, the chapel was destroyed by the Bolsheviks after the Revolution of 1917 and the fate of the icon is still unknown. Recently a new copy was made on Mt. Athos and placed in the newly restored Iveron Chapel by the gates of the Kremlin. Here on a daily basis Akathists to the Mother of God are served regularly throughout the day.

The Montreal Myrrh Flowing Icon

Yet another version of the famous Portaitissa was in Canada. For fifteen years, from 1982 until 1997, myrrh continually flowed from this Icon. Owned by Br. Joseph, a Chilean convert to Holy Orthodoxy, he had converted to Orthodoxy in his youth and, though he never entered a monastery, he began, as best he could, to lead a monastic life in the outside world. He later moved from his native Chile to Canada where he continued to observe the monastic way of life.

In 1982 Br. Joseph made a pilgrimage to Mount Athos, the ancient bastion of Orthodox monasticism. An art teacher by profession he was also an iconographer and planned in his trip to visit some of the monasteries and sketes of Athos which specialise in icon painting. Whilst heading for the Danilov skete, where icons are painted in the ancient Byzantine style, Br. Joseph and a companion on his journey, became tired after climbing uphill for about eight hours and so decided to stop at a skete they had observed on the hillside below.

Fr. Klimentos, the abbot of the skete, dedicated to the Nativity of Christ, greeted them warmly, offering them traditional Athonite hospitality and then, after learning of their interest in iconography, took them to the skete's icon-painting studio. Hung on one of the walls was a copy of the Iveron Icon of the Virgin Mary. As soon as he entered the studio, Br. Joseph felt an overwhelming attraction to this particular icon. He later described how his heart felt as though it had 'leaped’ or ‘turned over’ on seeing it and so he asked repeatedly if they would let him buy this Icon, but was told, also repeatedly, that it was not for sale at any price as it was one of the first icons which had been painted at this skete.

During the singing of "It is Meet", the angelic hymn to the Mother of God, that night in the church of the skete he fell to his knees and begged the Virgin Mary to make it possible for him to buy the Icon and take it back with him into the world, where, he told Her, "we have need of You." He immediately felt assured that his prayer would be answered. The next morning, as he and his friend were about to depart, the abbot approached them holding the Icon and told him that it pleased the Virgin Mary for Her Icon to go with him to North America. As Joseph and his companion departed by boat to Daphne, a port on the western shore of the peninsula, Joseph heard an inner voice telling him to go to the Iveron Monastery and touch his Icon to the original wonder-working Iveron Icon.

They did so but on arrival at the Iveron Monastery they had to wait three hours before a monk came to open the church which houses the original "Portaitissa." Joseph asked the monk to open the protective icon case so that his copy could be placed upon the original Portaitissa so as to receive a blessing from the Blessed Virgin. Though somewhat surprised by this request, when it was explained to him that Joseph and his companion wished to take the blessing of the Virgin Mary to the West where Her intercession was much needed the monk readily agreed.

On his return to Montreal, Br. Joseph placed the Iveron Virgin Mary in his icon corner where he began to read a daily Akathist standing before his newly-acquired Icon.

Then, three weeks after his return home from Mt. Athos, on Nov. 24, 1982, at about 4:00am in the morning, Joseph awoke to the sensation of a very strong perfume. He at first thought that this fragrance emanated from the relics but later, when he stood before the Icon to say his morning prayers, he noticed that the hands of the Virgin Mary were streaked with some kind of oily substance. Assuming that his friend, with whom he shared his house, must have spilled some olive oil onto the Icon while adjusting the flame of the vigil lamp that hung before it, he asked his friend about it but the friend denied even touching the lamp.

Later, when Joseph wiped the Icon, he discovered that it was the icon itself that was the source of the wonderful fragrance, which had by now filled the whole house, and so he sought the advice of a local Orthodox clergyman who advised him to take the Icon to church where it was placed on the altar. During Divine Liturgy myrrh once again flowed, though this time from the hands of the Christ Child. Since then, except for several days each Holy Week when the Icon remains perfectly dry, the myrrh continued to flow almost uninterruptedly throughout the fifteen years.

Wherever the Icon goes questions and doubts surround it. In Miami a sceptical scientist was astounded when he checked over the Icon and discovered that the back of it remained perfectly dry even though myrrh was seen to be coming from the front. The flow of myrrh is not constant, sometimes in great abundance, at other times less so. Once, during the consecration of a bishop in Montreal, there was such an abundant outpouring of the myrrh that it streamed down onto the floor from the analogion where it stood. And once, in Florida, the myrrh was seen to rise up from the hands of both the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child, so much so that it seemed to be being pressed through from behind. Nobody has ever been able to regulate the flow of the myrrh, it appears by the will of God alone and His Holy Mother.

The Icon was kept in a frame measuring roughly thirty by forty five centimetres and about five centimetres deep. At first the myrrh only flowed from the hands of the Virgin Mary or from the star on Her left shoulder or, just occasionally, from the hands of the Christ Child. But then, in Great Lent 1985, myrrh was even seen to exude from both the frame and the glass of the Icon and in such quantities that the cloth of the analogion, which supported it, became totally saturated. Because of this a layer of cotton wool was always kept at the base of the Icon in order to absorb the myrrh. Pieces of this myrrh soaked cotton wool was then regularly distributed among the faithful.

Whilst several cases of physical healing as a result of praying before the Icon have been recorded among Christians of all denominations, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, it seems that the purpose of the Virgin Mary is rather for the healing of souls. Standing in front of the Icon many people have later testified to having experienced compunction, repentance and consolation.

On Holy Monday each Holy Week, as mentioned earlier, the flow of myrrh would cease altogether and then, after Divine Liturgy on the morning of Great Saturday, a light dew of myrrh would begin to form again, not just on the Icon itself, but also on its case and protective glass. Then, during Matins for the glorious Resurrection of Our Lord, when the clergy and faithful process around the church holding icons and banners, the Icon would start to exude myrrh in such quantities that the hands of whoever was carrying it become covered in the sweet smelling myrrh.

Such miracles have been witnessed many times in the Orthodox Church over the (almost) two millennia of its existence. Back in the 19th century in Moscow, for instance, the ‘Surety-of-Sinners’ Icon exuded myrrh which was used to anoint the sick that they may, and often did, receive healing. And in the Tolga monastery in Yaroslavl, there was a myrrh-streaming icon of the Virgin Mary. Of course, we have already heard of the miracles of the original Icon in the Iveron Monastery. Many such other cases have been known down through the years. It has been observed that such miracles tend to occur in the Church in times of great tribulation such as in the persecutions of Apostolic times and especially so in Russia recently where the Church for 70 years suffered cruel persecution under the Atheistic Communist Regime. It seems the miracles may be sent to strengthen the faithful and prepare them to endure future trials.

When asked why he thought he was chosen to receive the Icon, Br. Joseph replied that he was at a loss to explain this because of his many weaknesses, but that he felt it was perhaps because God often reveals himself through the very least of His servants. He felt that, as a convert to Orthodoxy, he was the "least among his brethren." He also regarded himself as merely the custodian of the Icon and not its owner, that it properly belonged to the entire body of the faithful. From his childhood his mother, who had been a devout Roman Catholic, had taught him to love the Most Pure Virgin, and so he always prayed to Her, though never asking Her for any signs or miracles.

In 1997. whilst making preparations to celebrate its 15th anniversary, the Church in Canada, the ‘Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia’, was shocked by the news of the tragic death of Brother Joseph, the icon's guardian and who had accompanied it on numerous trips to parishes all over Canada, the United States, South America, Australia, and Europe. On the night of October 31st 1997 Br. Joseph was found murdered in a hotel room in Athens. Somewhat ironically, he was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant from Romania whom he had tried to help whilst staying in Athens that year.

Round about the same time as Brother Joseph’s death the Montreal Icon itself mysteriously disappeared. Though widely rumoured to have been stolen it seems this is not the case, though its whereabouts are unknown. What is known is that Brother Joseph had not taken the Icon with him on his fateful trip to Greece. We can only trust to God and to Our Holy Lady that her Icon is safe and working to the good of those around it; after all, as She told the blessed Gabriel, her Icon does not need our protection but will protect those who look upon it.

A More Recent Mystery

October 26th is the commemoration of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God and so it is all the more surprising that on the eve of this year’s commemoration (2013), in the Black Sea coastal district of Sochi, on the border between Russia and Georgia, a 19th century copy of this very Icon washed up on the shore, reminiscent of the original Icon’s mysterious appearance off the coast of Mount Athos in the year 1004.

It was found by a female tourist who took it to the nearest Church, which turned out to be the Church of St. Nino, the enlightener of Georgia. You will recall that the original Iveron Icon is housed in a Georgian Monastery on Mount Athos after being brought ashore by St Gabriel, a Georgian monk. The Georgian link seems quite robust.

The icon, dating back to 1896 whence it was painted by Archpriest Alexander Smirnov, has carved insertions of silver, gilding and stones. Although slightly tarnished by sea water the image of the Mother of God can be clearly seen according to reports from the Sochi administration's press office. The icon is to be restored and will remain for a while in the chancel of the Church of St. Nino until it is decided what to do with it long term. It will be interesting to see whether or not any miraculous events are linked to this copy; it has a long and distinguished reputation to live up to.

“As long as you see my icon… the grace and mercy of my Son shall never be lacking”

Source: http://www.orthodoxdoncaster.org/index.php/articles-menu/other-articles/293-a-history-of-the-various-iveron-icons

Why is the candy and flowers phase of a relationship so important? What qualities are necessary for a future spouse—husband and wife? What must they discuss with one another? How to deal with the inadequacies of our chosen one?

Hello, dear friends! We are continuing our cycle of conversations on the family. Today’s theme will be familiarity and relationships before marriage.

A time of extraordinary happiness

The time of falling in love and of relationships until marriage is that amazing season hymned by many poets and authors. When psychologists ask people to imagine and demonstrate what a smitten man experiences, usually most people show on their faces a feeling of flying—as some soaring bird. Incidentally, when they ask people to imagine love, usually they call for their partner and hug him, to show that they are not alone and that love is precisely the desire to do something for another, to comfort him, to caress him. And falling in love is rather the sort of euphoria that a man experiences because it is pleasing for him to be eternally near the other.

Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain said this attraction—infatuation—is also created by God, and not accidentally, because two completely different people become as one whole in family life, and their differences, their dissimilarities, which will be especially manifested in the first years of marriage, should be overcome by just such a mutual attraction. Otherwise, without mutual attraction, the elder says, no one would be able to start a family, because this is a very, very complicated matter.

Thus, today we will be speaking about the most common questions connected with the theme of relationships before marriage, of falling in love.

These relationships are extraordinarily important. But today, regretfully, the majority of people (I don’t mean Orthodox people, thankfully) begin family life by living together. They are united in a common household, in common affairs, and of course, passion—the sexual attraction they feel for one another. But thereby they have skipped over a very important, very necessary period—the period of preparation for marriage, for the pre-marital period is the dress rehearsal, it is a “school for young soldiers” before entering into marriage. People have much to learn, and must discuss many important points with their future spouses, get used to another person, learn to build a mutual relationship with one another, learn more about one another, learn to forgive and endure and love and gently relate to one another.

This period is a period of courtship. We sometimes call this the candy-bouquet period. A young man says some sweet words to a young woman, gives her gifts, takes her hand when she is getting off the bus … And everyone wants to do something for another. And when a relationship immediately begins with cohabitation, everything is as if turned on its head: the man, the future head of the family is not taking care of the girl, but more likely the girl is taking care of the man, because she has a very serious motive for the relationship: to go, in the end, with her companion to the justice of the peace so that their common-law marriage would end with a real marriage. And what kind of family head will this man be, if everything from the very start of the relationship revolves only around him, if his companion does everything for him, gives him everything, and he has no obligations of any kind? He doesn’t even have the incentive or desire to do anything for her or to serve her in any way!

The period of courtship helps people to unite, and to overcome the difficulties of the first years of marriage. How we will then remember this time! They’re the most amazing memories! And with what pleasure we will peruse our wedding photo albums then, with photos of your first joint trip on your honeymoon! I remember every time in our first year marriage when guests went to see even our distant relatives they would watch our wedding video, even, I admit, exhausting their guests with it. But to them it was apparently very important, although to others it was a little funny.

This time, the period of courtship, is always recalled with great gratitude and with some kind of nostalgia. And it’s very important, because in family life people should not forget about tenderness, about affection, about nurturing one another, and serving one another. And those who don’t forget about it preserve their familial happiness for many, many years.

If there’s a question of faith

Thus, a guy and girl meet, they like one another, they’re now dating, and even, maybe, are beginning to think about marriage. What issues need to be discussed before setting out to sea under the name of marriage? What should be found out about one another before the relationship becomes really serious? It’s a big mistake when people think that their companion possesses some kind of telepathic gift and will understand by himself everything you need and want. And those who think that as soon as they get on on the tracks of family life their engine will drive itself, and everything will be good for them, are mistaken. I repeat that it’s a huge mistake, and that it’s necessary to discuss the important points of common life before marriage.

In the first place it’s necessary, of course, that there would be a unity of faith between the spouses. People somehow forget about it and often remember it in marriage only when conflicts have already arisen: to go to church on Sunday or on a picnic? Where to take our kids on Sunday? … Before marriage they didn’t discuss it, but this question—the question of unity of faith, the question of Church life—is most important, because seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (cf. Mt. 6:33). The rest is included if people look in one direction, if they walk to God together.

If there stands a question of faith, it is absolutely necessary to solve them before marriage. For example, if one of the future halves is an unchurched person, church him, and it’s necessary to go to church together, so that he might confess and commune for the first time in his life. It’s necessary to manifest some kind of missionary streak here to guide your chosen one to the Church, because if you don’t do it before marriage, then in marriage it’s unlikely that a person can change.

A real man, a real woman

What qualities should a spouse possess? For a girl it’s very important to see how her chosen one communicates not only with her—of course he will care for her and show her signs of attention. But how does he behave with other people? Is he able to make friends? Does he give up his seat on the bus, for example, to the elderly or pregnant women? It says a lot about a man. You have to see how he behaves with his parents. Why is this last point so important? Because we very often, in starting our families, act out our parents’ script. And if a man is rude with his parents, if he talks back to his parents, this conflict will find its way into your family, and after some time your spouse will address you just as rudely.

We need to look at the purely masculine qualities. Which are those? First of all, of course, is responsibility. A man must answer for his words, for his deeds, before God and before his family. Another critical quality for a man is diligence. Infantilism is a malady of many modern young people: they live off of their parents until they’re thirty, don’t want to receive an education, and don’t want to go to work. How will such a person feed and support a family?! But if we see a person constantly changing jobs, jumping from place to place—in Soviet times such people were called “drifters”—it’s also not good.

And now to talk about girls. Theodore Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky, when getting married after the death of his first wife, reasoned thus: which wife to choose—kind, beautiful, or smart? I will marry the kind one—she will love me and care for me. And kindness—it is the beauty of a woman’s soul—a very important feminine quality. It is in kindness precisely that femininity is found. Psychologists say that a woman is more inclined towards empathy and compassion. For her it’s natural to want to do something for her loved one.

What other qualities are important in a girl? Respect, and firstly respect for her parents. If a wife doesn’t respect her parents she won’t respect her husband either.

Love for children is another important feminine quality. Generally the question about how many kids to have—as many as the Lord gives, or two or three, should be discussed before marriage. Questions on the upbringing of the children are also necessary to discuss before marriage.

Don’t talk only about love

Much in marriage depends on what kind of family your future spouse grew up in: were they an only child, or, conversely, did they grow up in a large family. Because, as I already said, the script of your parents will be repeated in your families.

Let’s imagine that a man grew up in a large family, but the girl was an only child, and not having younger brothers or sisters, she didn’t learn how to speak with children. And generally, for example, she wants a career because she received a wonderful education and wants to progress on this path, to work, to create, and so on. She absolutely doesn’t want to sit at home and raise children, however many the Lord gives. Therefore the question of how many kids is absolutely necessary to discuss, as I already said, before marriage, because it will be very difficult to talk about it in marriage.

So, to discuss the question of faith (which I already spoke about), the question about children, the question of who to live with—with parents or separately—is also very important. Alas, spouses often put this question—and moreover put it bluntly—only after marriage. “We will live only with my mother because that’s what I want, because for me it’s very comfortable, because my mama has looked after me my while life …” And the other half, for example, absolutely doesn’t want that: she has her own mother, or she wants to live separately—to build their own nest.

It’s also necessary to discuss other serious and important questions, because if before marriage people have unity, if they are concerned about the same things, if they talk about those things, then, naturally, they will also have something to talk and chat about in marriage.

How long to date before marriage?

How long to date and how? Experienced spiritual fathers have said that you should date no less than a year before marriage. I remember when I was studying in seminary, Fr. Kirill (Pavlov) gathered us seminarians, and we posed this question. He answered: a year. And Fr. John (Krestiankin) also said that having observed a person for a year and communicating with him, you will know. And what’s more, you need to communicate not on Skype, not on the internet, but in person. Of course people can meet in social networks, but it’s necessary, of course, to talk in reality—going on trips together, doing things together. It’s also good to do some volunteering together, to see each other in different situations, not just when we go to the movies with him, or when he says some nice words, but in various situations, interacting with different people.

Of course, it’s very good to meet the parents. It’s also a very important matter. A young woman came to me recently with a very difficult family situation. She said the main reason for this trying family situation is that until marriage she couldn’t even enter her future spouse’s parents’ house. Her fiancée’s parents were dead set against her, didn’t want to talk with her, which should have alarmed her long ago. She never even saw her future mother-in-law before the marriage—the first time was at their wedding. And now the mother-in-law quite seriously interferes in their family life, setting her husband against her, and so on. Of course, such problems should be resolved before marriage.

Why is it necessary to date for a year before marriage? Within a year a person will usually show his true face, his true self in various situations … And we know that even his mood, even his psychosomatic condition changes in different periods, for example, climactically: there are the notorious springtime-autumnal periods of aggravation for people with some kind of borderline mentality … We have an inclement and heavy climate, and a lack of sunshine too, by the way, which impacts a lot of people. We can meet with someone in spring, he can present himself very positive, bright, and joyful. And then, when we talk with him in winter, in our Muscovite winter, in the slush and mud, it turns out that he has a completely different character. Maybe his serotonin level jumps around like that…

In a year, as I already said, a man reveals not only his good qualities, for which we started to love him, but also those that aren’t so good, and we should get used to it, because we marry not only his strengths, but also his flaws—qualities which we can endure, that we can tolerate in marriage.

Who to change: yourself or the other?

But how to live with another’s flaws? Is it alright, having noticed something in your future other half, to fix it? And what if there are there flaws that reveal themselves in all their might in marriage? I’ll answer the first part of the question. Generally, to fix someone is not our business, but that of the person himself. We can influence a person by love, affection, and patience, but we can change only our own behavior. If somethings goes wrong, probably it’s we who didn’t behave so well. I repeat: to change someone else is a very, very difficult task.

Before marriage you should understand your chosen one’s peculiar flaws and whether you can reconcile with them. The strongest feelings of infatuation shouldn’t completely rob of us our reason. They partially rob us of our reason, of course … But it happens that a person doesn’t notice such obvious things—doesn’t want to notice, even though everyone tells him that his fiancée is absolutely not for him, doesn’t match him, and that he will have great problems with her. I remember a girl who everyone dissuaded from marrying a divorced man—behind his back was a previous failed marriage, he was much older than her and had problems with alcohol … She rushed into the maelstrom of love anyways, got married, and after a while they split: he left her with the children. It all ended because of precisely what she was warned about. But infatuation didn’t allow her to see his serious flaws.

What flaws, in my view, are incompatible with marriage, that is, that make it absolutely impossible to get married to a person as long as he hasn’t fixed them, or to very seriously reflect upon whether it’s worth it to connect your life with him? The passion for wine drinking (alcoholism) and even moreso drug abuse. The passion of lust—if we know that a man has on his shoulders several previous marriages and that he is generally very avid for the opposite sex, this very serious passion of his will hamper your marriage. The passion of despondency, the passion of anger—if we see before marriage that a man can’t control flaring up and yelling, or inclines towards despondency, often finding himself in some kind of melancholy or depression.

Marriage is of course a school where a man learns many things. But, as I already said, the period before marriage is a dress rehearsal, a “course for young soldiers,” and we should, precisely in this period, with so many of our flaws do battle and fix them. Because when someone lives alone, he is very often quite egotistical, that is, he likes everything about himself. He can sit quite late, for example, behind a computer until two in the morning playing games … But he should understand that when he enters into family life it will seriously annoy and discourage the other person. So we must struggle with such shortcomings even though they don’t seem to bother us.

So, we must prepare for marriage, inwardly fixing our life, directing it already towards family living. And therefore the period preceding marriage is very important.

Again about chastity before marriage

I will say a few words about chastity before marriage. If people begin to prepare for marriage by cohabitation, it very negatively affects their future family life. I say that as a person who is constantly analyzing family conflicts. At their core, more often than not, lies, precisely, an improper relationship before marriage. For Orthodox people this is all obvious: such relationships are a sin, violating the commandments of God. And this sin lays an improper, putrid foundation for your future. Of course, if a person repents, if he corrects his life, the Lord will give him a chance to revive the feelings in his marriage, to amend their lives. But I emphasize again: such pre-marital relationships hamper us quite seriously later in life.

We must understand where the fashion of so-called “common-law marriages”—cohabitation—came to us, and when it arrived. It came after the sixties, when schools introduced sex education. And we know very well who did it, who is paying, and why they promote these free relationships before marriage. I think it’s simply a program meant to destroy Christian morals. After all, it’s known, and, by the way, it’s shown by American research, that after cohabitating, divorce, conflicts, and unfaithfulness are two times more likely. That’s first. Second: people who are cohabitating do not want children for a very, very long time, women have many abortions, they take handfuls of contraceptives, so that, in the end, many become infertile. I repeat: yes, it was a program aimed at destroying our families, at destroying our traditional foundations, at reducing the population of Christian nations. Why should we follow all of this? A man will never find happiness if he begins his life from sin.

To be chaste and preserve purity before marriage is the norm. A bride is she who doesn’t “know yet”[1], as women were always called in Rus’, not yet having known her husband. She preserves purity and therefore she has a white dress.

Naturally, chastity before marriage is also the norm for the male side of humanity.

On that I would like to end today’s talk.

Peace, kindness, and love to you all, my dears. May the Lord save you.

An article by Archpriest Pavel Gumerov

Source: http://orthochristian.com/94004.html

The Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa has decided to restore the institute of female deacons, and has appointed a commission of Bishops “for a thorough examination of the matter.”

The expectations of widows in the New Testament Church are in most respects the same as those of the later Byzantine order of deaconesses:

"[A woman among the widows] trusts in God, and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. Not under sixty years old, having been the wife of one man. Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work" (1 Tim 5:5,9-10).

Deaconesses as a canonical order first appear in the third-century Didascalia. There we read that deaconesses should do the anointing of women at baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering. The deaconesses had supplanted the widows. The bishop may still institute widows, but they should not either teach or administer baptism, but only pray.

The Apostolic Constitutions, a collection that reached its final form about 380 AD, included deaconesses as part of the kliros, which we may be rather anachronistic in rendering as “clergy” but it’s close enough here. The AC made a distinction, however, counting deaconesses as clergy while the widows were excluded. The AC clarifies, “The deaconess does not bless, and she does not fulfill any of the things that priests and deacons do, but she looks after the doors and attends the priests during the baptism of women, for the sake of decency” (AC 8:28).

Beginning in the late fourth century there is an abundance of description of the deaconess’s ministry to women in the Byzantine Church. At this point the way of life of deaconesses was very similar to that of nuns. The woman in charge of a monastic community of women was called a deaconess, as is testified by St Gregory of Nyssa; St John Chrysostom’s correspondence with Olympias, the deaconess in charge of a women’s monastery, is preserved today. Ordained deaconesses or abbesses wore the maforion or veil.

After the tenth century deaconesses were only named in connection with charitable institutions. In the Pontifical of Patriarch Michael of Antioch (1166-1199) we read:

"In ancient times, deaconesses were ordained. Their function was to look after women so that they should not have to uncover themselves before the bishop. But when religion spread more widely and it was decided to administer baptism to infants, this function was abolished.”

When commenting on canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon [regarding widows], Theodore Balsamon, at the end of the twelfth century, observed:

"The topic of this canon has altogether fallen into disuse. For today deaconesses are no longer ordained, although the name of deaconesses is wrongly given to those who belong to communities of ascetics."

Meanwhile — on deaconesses (5th-12th century) in western Christianity:

Deaconesses do not appear until the fifth century, and then primarily in terms of condemnations. The Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua entrusted instruction of women catechumens to the widows and women ministers (ad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum.) Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries reject every ministerium feminae and forbid any ordination of deaconesses. According to the Ambrosiaster (Rome, late 4th century), the order of deaconess was associated with of Montanist heretics. In the sixth century, women admitted into the group of widows were sometimes referred to as deaconesses. To prevent any confusion the Council of Epaone (517 AD) forbade “the consecrations of widows who call themselves deaconesses.”

Deaconesses continue to appear in Western Christian sources well into the ninth century, where Carolingian texts generally assume they are identical to widows. The Pontificale Romano-Germanicum (Mainz, 10th century) contains separate blessings for abbesses, virgins, deaconesses, and widows, in that order (ordinatio abbatissae, consecratio virginum, ad diaconam faciendum, consecratio viduarum) This is the last mention of deaconesses found in the Latin rituals; the Pontifical of Guillaume Durand at the end of the thirteenth century speaks of deaconesses only with reference to the past.

To sum up: Deaconesses were a temporary phenomenon, largely parallel to, and eventually absorbed into the practical ministry of abbesses and nuns.

Source: http://silouanthompson.net/2016/12/deaconesses/