The Catalog of Good Deeds

BISHOP RAPHAEL HAWAWEENY

Born: Beirut, Lebanon, ca. November 20, 1860, to Mikha`il and Maryam Hawaweeny; raised in the Bab Tuma Quarter of Damascus, Syria

Educated:

Patriarchal School, Damascus, Syria School of Orthodox Theology, Halki Island (1879-86)

Theological Academy, Kiev, Russia (1888-89)

Ordained:

· Deacon, December 20, 1885, on Halki Island

· Priest, June 16, 1889, in Kiev, Russia

· Archimandrite, July 28, 1889, in Moscow, Russia

· Bishop, February 29, 1904, in New York, by Abp. TIKHON and Bp. INNOCENT (Pustynskii), becoming the first Orthodox Christian hierarch consecrated in the New World.

Ministry:

· Rector, Metochion of the Patriarchate of Antioch, Moscow, Russia (1889-92)

· Extraordinary Instructor in the Arabic Language, Theological Academy, Kazan', Russia (1893-95)

· Rector, St. Nicholas Church, Brooklyn, NY; simultaneously serving as Leader of the Syrian Orthodox Spiritual Mission in North America, traveling extensively in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, solidifying communities; serving as Censor of the Russian-language Russian Orthodox American Messenger (November 14, 1895-November 28, 1904)

· Bishop of Brooklyn (1904-15), overseeing founding and development of twenty-nine parishes; simultaneously serving as Second Vicar of the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America (1904-15); Administrator of the entire Diocese (1909)

· Benefactor of St. Tikhon's Monastery, South Canaan, PA, and St. Platon's Theological Seminary, Tenafly, NJ

· Vice-President, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union (1910-12)

Writings:

· al-Kalimat [The Word] (Edited: 1905-15)

· An Historical view of the errors of the Papal Church (Arabic)

· A Brief history of the Christian Church (Arabic)

· A Refutation of the Proclamation of Pope Leo XIII (Arabic)

· The Funeral service for children (translated into Arabic)

· A Guide to the services of the Consecration and Dedication of a church (translated into Arabic)

· The Kontakarion (translated into Arabic)

· The Great Euchologion (translated into Arabic)

· The Small Euchologion (translated into Arabic)

Died: Brooklyn, NY, February 27, 1915

Now buried: Antiochian Village, Ligonier, PA; his incorrupt relics having been translated from the Arab section of Mount Olivet Cemetery, Queens, NY (which he founded) in July of 1989.

Summary: Born in Beirut, Lebanon, and educated in Damascus Syria, Halki, Turkey, and Kiev, Russia, Raphael Hawaweeny found himself virtually exiled in Kazan, Russia, making himself of use on the faculty of the Anti-Muslim Missionary School, when he was summoned to the New World by the Syrian Orthodox Benevolent Committee in New York City. Immigrating in 1895 and serving under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Mission -- then the only established Orthodox hierarchy -- he was technically pastor of St. Nicholas Church (later Cathedral) in Brooklyn, NY, but was, in fact, the roving pastor of several dozen tiny, isolated communities spread thinly across the continent. As a priest he crossed the continent repeatedly in the course of nine years, and did so several more after being consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn -- the first such Orthodox consecration in North America -- in 1905. He established a journal, al-Kalimat, to spread "the Word" to places he could not himself be, and worked diligently at translating Greek liturgical books into Arabic. These he distributed at his own expense to communities throughout the Middle East and to émigrés in the Americas, Africa, and Australasia, greatly helped preserve Orthodox Christianity in those regions.

Bibliography:

1. Garrett, Paul D., "The Life and Legacy of Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," The First One Hundred Years (Englewood, NJ : Antakya Press, 1995).

2. __________., "Envoy from Antioch: the life and ministry of Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," Again (16.4), 6-9.

3. __________., "Pascha, 1901," Word (28.4), 15-16.

4. Issa, André, "The Life of the thrice blessed: Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," Word 39.2 (Feb. 1995), 5-7; 39.3 (Mar. 1995), 9-11; 39.4 (Apr. 1995), 5-7 ("Bishop Raphael and Orthodox/Episcopal Relations"); 39.5 (May 1995), 9-11.

Source: http://antiochian.org/lifeofstraphael

St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), archbishop of Thessaloniki (1347-1359), was and is a controversial figure. His experience and teachings of the Uncreated energies of God was severely attacked by Barlaam the Calabrian (who accused him of following the supposedly innovative teachings of St. Nicephorus of Mt. Athos [d. c. 1300]),[1] Gregory Akindynos, Nicephoras Gregoras, and others in his own time. Although his theology was vindicated by several councils in Constantinople between 1341 and 1351, and he was canonized just nine years after his death in 1368, it remained a topic of disagreement. His theology and influence fell into nigh-obscurity from the late sixteenth century practically until the twentieth century, and today there is still disagreement within the Orthodox Church over how to understand his theology and interactions with his opponents, as well as continued debate from outside the Church.[2]

However, for the faithful Orthodox Christian there is no such question: St. Gregory Palamas is undoubtedly a great Father of the Church, fully within the Orthodox Tradition. His theology is a seamless whole with that of all the Fathers who came before and after him. Whereas the Church recognizes heretics to be such because they innovated, She recognizes St. Gregory Palamas to be one of the three great Pillars of Orthodoxy, and his hymns connect him with the three Theologians and the Three Holy Hierarchs.[3] His commemoration on the Second Sunday of Great Lent is understood as a continuation of the First Sunday’s celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. In placing him between the Sundays of Orthodoxy and the Cross, the Church “underlines the fact that, in his life and teaching, St. Gregory stands as an unsurpassable witness to the Orthodox Christian faith and a supremely skilled guide to the mystery of the Cross, the vision of Christ in glory.”[4] The Council of 1351 which proclaimed Palamite theology holds ecumenical status and is widely regarded as the Ninth Ecumenical Council.[5] And his troparion leaves no doubt as to his position within the Church: “O light of Orthodoxy, teacher of the Church, its confirmation/ O ideal of monks and invincible champion of theologians/ O wonder working Gregory, glory of Thessalonica and preacher of grace/always intercede before the Lord that our souls may be saved.”

However, it must be emphasized that St. Gregory Palamas was no mere “traditionalist” in the sense of one who simply repeats theological formulae that came before him, but rather he is one who truly entered into the living stream of the Orthodox Tradition, that is, into the Life of the Holy Trinity. Although his writings are replete with Scriptural and Patristics quotations, he did not intellectually develop his theology of the essence and energies in God from a synthesis of those who came before him. To theologize, even based on the great Fathers of the Church, apart from personal experience would ultimately be an exercise in philosophical speculation, but St. Gregory’s beginning point was precisely his own personal experience of the divinizing grace of God. Archbishop Basil Krivosheine makes exactly this point: “He was not a mere compiler if only because the starting point of his theologizing was his own spiritual experience and not only the study of the books of the holy Fathers.”[6] Commenting on the view that monastics must study secular wisdom because knowledge of God comes through the mediation of creatures, the great saint himself does not offer a rebutting philosophical argument, but speaks from a place of experiential intimacy: “I was in no way convinced when I heard such views being put forward, for my small experience of monastic life showed me that just the opposite was the case.”[7]

And not only did St. Gregory’s theology begin with his own experience within the Church, but it is the possibility and reality of this experience which he directly defended against the blasphemies of Barlaam, Akindynos, and Gregoras. Ultimately the very theology and life of the Church was at stake in the Palamite controversy—for theology is, at its height and center, not a collection of dogmatic statements, but it is the Person of Jesus Christ—our great God and Savior, Whom we may know by Divine illumination, to which dogmatic statements point the way. True theology, true spiritual life, is the vision of Christ in glory, and so at the heart of the Orthodox faith also stands the Cross-bearing Christian who has beheld Christ in glory. Of such, St. Gregory states: “We believe what we have been taught by those enlightened by Christ, which they alone know with certainty.”[8] His experiential theology is that of the saints preceding him because they experienced the same Christ. The centrality of such personal experience of the glory of God is underlined by St. Symeon the New Theologian’s statement that whoever does not desire to attain to the vision of Christ is possessed by the devil,[9]and St. Gregory’s own statement that the vision of God “is the only proof of a soul in good health.”[10]

Continue Reading: http://orthochristian.com/91867.html

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.

Continuing our commentary on the Beatitudes by Saint Gregory of Nyssa:

We have now climbed great hieghts. In this beatitude we are promised “for they shall see God.” But John says, “no man hath seen God at any time.”(John 1:18)

Gregory writes:

This is the slippery, steep rock that affords no basis for our thoughts, which the teaching of Moses, too, declared to be so inaccessible that our mind can nowhere approach Him. For all possibility of apprehension is taken away by this explicit denial, No man can see the Lord and live.(Exod 33:20) Yet to see the Lord is eternal life.

What does Jesus mean when he promises we will see God?

Gregory says,

Hence the man who sees God possesses in this act of seeing all there is of the things that are good. By this we understand life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude. With these we shall enjoy the everlasting Kingdom of unceasing happiness; we shall see the true Light and hear the sweet voice of the Spirit; we shall exult perpetually in all that is good in the inaccessible glory.

Jesus tells us here that seeing God depends on having a pure heart. But if the effort is impossible as Moses says, what’s the use, Gregory asks. The Lord surely would not tell us to do something that is impossible.

First Gregory reasons the Divine nature is beyond all mental concepts. Therefore the way to knowledge of Divine Essence cannot be through thought. So how doe we grasp what is not know by mental concepts?

Gregory writes,

Since such is He whose nature is above every nature, the Invisible and Incomprehensible is seen and apprehended in another manner. Many are the modes of such perception. For it is possible to see Him who has made all things in wisdom by way of inference through the wisdom that appears in the universe. It is the same as with human works of art where, in a way, the mind can perceive the maker of the product that is before it, because he has left on his work the stamp of his art. In this, however, is seen not the nature of the artist, but only his artistic skill which he has left impressed on his handiwork. Thus also, when we look at the order of creation, we form in our mind an image not of the essence, but of the wisdom of Him who has made all things wisely. And if we consider the cause of our life, that He came to create man not from necessity, but from the free decision of His Goodness, we say that we have contemplated God by this way, that we have apprehended His Goodness–though again not His Essence, but His Goodness. It is the same with all other things that raise the mind to transcendent Goodness, all these we can term apprehensions of God, since each one of these sublime meditations places God within our sight.

Hence it is clear through what has just been said that the Lord speaks the truth when He promises that God will be seen by those who have a pure heart; nor does Paul deceive when he asserts in his letters that no one has seen God nor can see Him. For He is invisible by nature, but becomes visible in His energies, for He may be contemplated in the things that are referred to Him.

But Gregory says there is more to the meaning of the Beatitude.

We have learned that even though in several places in Scripture it says we cannot see God, we see Him by inference in all that has been created by Him. We cannot see him with normal thought. We can grasp His Goodness. He can be grasped through His energies. This is the wonder and awe we experience when in nature.

But Gregory says there is more to the meaning of this Beatitude.

He says, The Lord does not say it is blessed to know something about God, but to have God present within oneself…. perhaps this marvelous saying may suggest what the Word expresses more clearly when He says to others, The Kingdom of God is within you.(Luke 17:21)

Gregory says

I think that in this short saying the Word expresses some such counsel as this: There is in you... a desire to contemplate the true good. But when you hear that the Divine Majesty is exalted above the heavens, that Its glory is inexpressible, Its beauty ineffable, and Its Nature inaccessible, do not despair of ever beholding what you desire. It is indeed within your reach; you have within yourselves the standard by which to apprehend the Divine. For He who made you did at the same time endow your nature with this wonderful quality. For God imprinted on it the likeness of the glories of His own Nature, as if moulding the form of a carving into wax.

But this image that God has implanted in each of us has been tarnished. It is coated with evil and remains hidden. Therefore, Gregory says, you wash off by a good life the filth that has been stuck on your heart like plaster, the Divine Beauty will again shine forth in you.

How do we wash off the filth, he asks next. This may seem to be impossible to many.

He writes

Our very birth has its beginning in passion, growth proceeds by way of passion, and in passion life also ends. Somehow evil is mixed up with our nature through those who first succumbed to passion, and by, their transgression made a permanent place for the disease. Now the nature of living beings is transmitted in each species by its descendants so that, according to the law of nature, that which is born is the same as that from which it is born. So man is born from man, the subject of passion from that which is subject to passion, the sinner from the sinner. Hence sin in some way comes into existence together with those who are born; it is born and grows with them, and at the end of life it also ceases with them.

Here he describes what we know today as the doctrine of ancestral sin or the Orthodox view of original sin. We are born with a tendency to sin. Therefore to acquire virtue requires much effort because of this human condition. This cleansing of the heart is not a simple matter making it hard fror most of us to attain virtue.

Gregory says,

Virtue, on the other hand, is hard for us to attain; even with much sweat and pain, zeal and fatigue, one can hardly establish it. This we are taught in many passages of the Divine Scriptures, when we are told that the way of the Kingdom is strait and passes through narrow paths, whereas the way that leads through a life of wickedness to perdition is broad and runs downhill with ease.

Yet we also know, he points out, that attaining virtue is not impossible according to Scripture. We find the stories of many holy men in the Bible.

The Gospel teaches us how to become pure.

Gregory has shown us that the way we see God is from within but it is hidden from our apprehension due to our sinfulness. Our heart is clouded with evil. He has also pointed out that attaining a pure state of virtue is difficult but not impossible. He now gives some advise on how to proceed.

The evil that clouds the heart comes from two sources: works and thoughts. He writes, The former, that is to say, the iniquity that shows itself in works, He has punished through the Old Law. Now, however, He has given the Law regarding the other form of sin, which punishes not so much the evil deed itself, as guards against even the beginning of it.

To get at this new kind of sin we need to remove evil from our will so we will no longer choose what is bad and choose instead what is good.

He tells us how the Lord set out to help us.,

Since evil has many parts and forms, He has opposed by His precepts its own remedy to each of the forbidden things. The disease of wrath is present everywhere all through life, so He begins the cure from what is most prominent, and first lays down the law to refrain from anger. You have learned, He says, from the Old Law, Thou shalt not kill. (Matt 5:21) Learn now to keep your soul from wrath against your neighbor. He has not forbidden wrath completely. For sometimes one may lawfully turn such an emotion also to good use; what the precept abolishes is to be angry with one's brother for no good reason–for everyone who is angry with his brother in vain: the addition in vain shows that the use of anger is often opportune, namely, whenever this passion is roused for the chastisement of sin.

He then passes on to the healing of the sins committed for the sake of pleasure, and, by His commandment, frees the heart from the vile desire of adultery. Thus you will find in what follows how the Lord corrects them all one by one, opposing by His Law each one of the forms of evil. He prevents the beginning of unjust violence by not even permitting self-defense. He banishes the passion of avarice by ordering a man who has been robbed and stripped to give up also what is left to him. He heals cowardice by commanding to scorn death. And, in general, you will find that by means of each of these commandments the Word digs up the evil roots from the depths of our hearts as if by a plough, and so through them we are purged from bringing forth thorns.

Gregory concludes, by asking us to consider what a way of life that does not pursue goodness of life would be like. This may keep you from being discouraged, but there is still the effort required to pursue goodness. The fear of hell can help us to seek goodness. He says, the fear that is present in the thought alone will suffice to chase away the passions.

He reminds us of the consequences

For if the clean of heart are blessed, those with sordid minds are altogether miserable, because they look at the face of the adversary. Further, if the Divine character itself is impressed on the virtuous life, it is clear that the evil life resembles the form and face of the enemy. Now, according to different concepts, God is called by those representing the good, for example, light, life, incorruption, and similar things. By contrast, everything opposed to these is dedicated to the instigator of evil, for example, darkness, death, corruption, and whatever else is like to these. Hence, as we have learned what is an evil life and what is a good one–for we have It In the power of our free will to choose either of these–let us flee from the form of the devil, let us lay aside the evil mask and put on again the Divine Image. Let us become clean of heart, so that we may become blessed when the Divine Image is formed in us through purity of life, in Christ Jesus Our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever.

Source: http://orthodoxwayoflife.blogspot.com.by/2009/09/6th-beatitude-continued-blessed-are_16.html

The Iveron Icon of the Mother of God (which is preserved on Mt. Athos) was kept in the home of a certain pious widow, who lived near Nicea. During the time of the emperor Theophilus, the Iconoclasts came to the house of this Christian, and one of the soldiers struck the image of the Mother of God with a spear. Blood flowed from the place where it was struck.

The widow, fearing its destruction, promised the imperial soldiers money and implored them not to touch the icon until morning. When the soldiers departed, the woman and her son (later an Athonite monk), sent the holy icon away upon the sea to preserve it. The icon, standing upright upon the water, floated to Athos.

For several days, the Athonite monks had seen a fiery pillar on the sea rising up to the heavens. They came down to the shore and found the holy image, standing upon the waters. After a Molieben of thanksgiving, a pious monk of the Iveron monastery, Saint Gabriel (July 12), had a dream in which the Mother of God appeared to him and gave him instructions. So he walked across the water, and taking up the holy icon, he placed it in the church.

On the following day, however, the icon was found not within the church, but on the gates of the monastery. This was repeated several times, until the Most Holy Theotokos revealed to Saint Gabriel Her will, saying that She did not want the icon to be guarded by the monks, but rather She intended to be their Protectress. After this, the icon was installed on the monastery gates. Therefore this icon came to be called “Portaitissa” or “Gate-Keeper” (October 13). This comes from the Akathist “Rejoice, O Blessed Gate-Keeper who opens the gates of Paradise to the righteous.”

There is a tradition that the Mother of God promised Saint Gabriel that the grace and mercy of Her Son toward the monks would continue as long as the Icon remained at the monastery. It is also believed that the disappearance of the Iveron Icon from Mt. Athos would be a sign of the end of the world.

The Iveron Icon is also commemorated on February 12, October 13 (its arrival in Moscow in 1648), and Bright Tuesday (commemorating the appearance of the Icon in a pillar of fire at Mt. Athos and its recovery by Saint Gabriel).

Source: https://oca.org/saints/lives/2001/03/31/100962-appearance-of-the-iveron-icon-of-the-mother-of-god

There is no canon, at least to my knowledge that teaches Christians should not get a tattoo. However, we do find the following in the Law of Moses:

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28).

Unfortunately, I do not have any patristic commentaries that address this verse, though they may be some out there. But if all we had was this verse, it could be argued that this is just a ceremonial law that no longer applies to Christians. However there are several reasons why that would be an incorrect conclusion:

1. With the exception of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Bosnian Croats, the Christian Tradition has universally rejected tattoos. And there are historical reasons why these Christian groups are an exception -- they tattoo their children with crosses so that if they are kidnapped by Moslems, they can later be identified as Christians; and given the intense level of persecution they have faced, this has also been a way of proclaiming their intention of remaining a Christian, no matter what may come (a tattoo being, by its nature, a very permanent statement). However, it is both interesting and instructive that Orthodox Christians living in the same circumstances never adopted a similar custom.

2. Most of the tattoos that people have in our culture are not modest and pious crosses designed to protect children from kidnapping or to testify to one's commitment to standing firm for Christ, but are all kinds of things that are usually frivolous at best, and often unwholesome. If you read what the Scriptures have to say about modesty, it is unlikely that the inspired writers would have spent so much time encouraging us to dress in ways that are not immodest, or draw unnecessary attention to ourselves, and yet would be O.K. with a tattoo just above the crack of your behind (just to cite one popular trend as an example).

3. St. Paul says that our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Imagine if someone took a spray paint can, and expressed themselves over the walls of a Church. We would all be shocked that someone would do such a thing, but it is no different to express yourself by defacing your body -- because you are bought with a price, and are not free to so whatever you want with your body... if indeed you are a believer.

Of course if someone already has a tattoo, it is certainly not an unpardonable sin. And when we see someone with a tattoo, we should not judge them, because they may have repented of getting that tattoo a long time ago. But those contemplating getting a tattoo should ask themselves why they want one in the first place, and they should ask whether this is really something that pleases God. Once you get a tattoo, they are not easy to get rid of, and what you think looks cool today, may not seem so cool to you in ten or twenty years.

Here are two replies to some comments this post has received on Facebook:

In response to a comment that saw a contradiction between acknowledging that there are no canons against tattoos, but my statement that the Christian Tradition has universally rejected tattoos:

The actual practice of the Church is a testimony to the Tradition of the Church. It is not as if tattoos were a recently discovered technology, They had tattoos when Moses wrote the Law. But aside from the unique cases of the Copts and Ethiopians, Christians have universally rejected tattoos. It is only in my lifetime that having a tattoo has gone from something those on the fringes did (sailors, soldiers, and marines -- away from home; gang members, and convicts) to something that young ladies from decent homes are doing.

In response to a catechumen who has religious tattoos, and similarly questioned whether the Church really has rejected tattoos.

Not all of the Tradition of the Church has been written out in the form of canons. We generally only have canons to guard against people doing something when there are some people in the Church who are doing it. Tattoos were something that no Christians (outside of the exception I discussed) did. Until only very recently, no Christian group of any kind would have suggested that such a practice was befitting a Christian. Now, in your case, your tattoos were probably very well intentioned, but people often do things in ignorance that they should not do. As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 11:16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

And on the authority of unwritten Traditions, consider St. Basil's words, which were specifically endorsed by the 4th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html

In response to some who have disputed whether Christians really have historically rejected tattoos:

It is not merely coincidence that the pagan Romans, Slavs, and Germans practiced various forms of tattooing, but when Christianity was established in those areas, these practices ceased. Even the word "tattoo" demonstrates that this was not part of the Christian culture, because it is a Polynesian word, that was not in use in English prior to the 18th century, and there is no record of any tattoo artists in either England or the United States prior to the 19th century.

Source: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com.by/2015/05/stump-priest-tattoos.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Quick Facts About the Life of St. Raphael of Brooklyn

Was St. Gregory Palamas a Traditionalist or an Innovator?

The Sixth Beatitude: Who are the Pure in Heart?

The Story of the Appearance of the Original Iveron Icon

What does the Orthodox Church say about tattoos?

Partners