The Catalog of Good Deeds

- Geronda, some parents force their children to choose the same profession as they did. Often they do it rather persistently.

- They are wrong. Parents must not push their children to do what they want them to do, if children do not like it. I knew a young man who wanted to go to theological academy and become a priest. However, his mother was against his decision. She insisted that he had to go to medical university.

The young men learned byzantine singing and began to sing in the church. He made his own musical instrument and played various church tones on it. He knew a lot of church chants by heart. He was a rather talented young man and could even compose troparions and entire services. When he finished school, he entered the theological faculty. When his mother knew about that, she suffered a breakdown. Later she came to me and asked to pray for her: “Father, pray for me to recover soon. May my son do what he likes to do”. But when she recovered, she began to prevent her son from learning theology again. Finally, he left theology, he put singing off and just wasted his life.

When I see that young people do not know what profession to choose, I give them the following piece of advice: just look what profession or science you like most. You should deal with something for what you have a natural bent. If they want to devote their life to something they do not consider their calling, I ask them not to do this. They need to devote their heart to something they have a bent for. It will be for their benefit. I mean, I try to help them choose the direction, which they like, and profession, which is not beyond their capabilities. The main thing is that their activity should be God pleasing.

Someone has a bent for music? Let him be, for example, a good musician or a church singer. Let him sing and help those people, who listen to his singing, to love our Church and prayer. Someone has a bent for painting? Let him become an artist or an icon-painter so that he can receive a blessing to paint icons, which will perform miracles. A knack for science? Then let him devote his life to science and work with all his diligence.

Elder Paisios. Words. Chapter IV

Translated by The Catalog of Good Deeds

Thy Resurrection, O Christ our Savior, the angels in heaven hymn.

Enable us also on earth to glorify Thee in purity of heart.

In trying to discern some of the truth about the phenomenon of Orthodox sacred music, it helps to start at the beginning. Where does sacred music begin? For Orthodox Christians who with a simple faith accept the authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, the true origin of sacred music is not to be discovered in ancient liturgical manuscripts or in passing references to psalmody in the New Testament and early Fathers, but is to be found in the singing of the angelic choir, those first-created beings who have been chanting fitting praises to God since before the beginning of the visible creation. Herein, according to the witness of Scripture and the Saints throughout the ages, lies the archetypal pattern of sacred music. It is as a participant in the angelic singing that mankind — by virtue of Christ’s Incarnation, whereby ‘the things of earth join chorus with the heavens, — becomes able once again to offer right worship (orthodoxia) to the Creator in purity of heart. I suggest, therefore, that we use the singing of the angels — and, specifically, three essential characteristics of it — as a starting point for our ‘small entrance’ into understanding the phenomenon of Orthodox sacred music.

One essential characteristic of angelic song that is evident in Scripture is that the music of the angels is exclusively vocal, that it is sung in some manner, usually with discernible words, and that it is thus a direct musical offering of the angels’ bodily and rational nature (according to the angelic sense of a ‘body’). The popular Western concept of angels accompanying their singing with harps and other instruments is unknown in Scripture and Orthodox tradition. This is important because, in exclusively singing the praises of God, the angels offer Him something essential to themselves rather than making an offering by way of a medium extrinsic to their nature. This is one key reason why Orthodox Christian liturgical tradition (including that of the West, until the Middle Ages) does not permit the use of musical instruments in the divine services.

For us humans, this exclusively vocal aspect of sacred music is all the more important, because the added dimension of our fleshly and fallen psychosomatic nature — i.e., ‘I’m tired;’ ‘I’m sick;’ ‘My voice isn’t warmed up;’ ‘I don’t read music;’ — makes it singularly difficult to sing well without the aid of instruments. Every church singer knows this. Thus, the concerted effort involved in uniting mind and body in order to praise God with the voice alone becomes an important ascetical labor, one which serves to purify and strengthen church singers in their work — provided they have the will to rise towards angelic perfection.

We can also see from Scripture and Holy Tradition that in addition to being vocal, angelic music is devotional in nature; it is a direct movement of the angels’ inner being towards God, an expression of their zeal, reverence, ardor, and love for their Maker. This means, among other things, that the angels do not offer praise to God mechanically or out of mere necessity (‘I just sing because there’s no one else to do it!’), but from a free and willing spirit. God may have created the angels to serve Him and praise Him — this is also why He created man — but He endowed them with the freedom to choose not to do this, as we will see shortly. In other words, the angels sing praises to God because they actively love Him and wish to honor Him, not just because it’s their job, or because they happen to like singing, or because it’s what they’ve ‘always done.’

It is a sad fact that, all too often, musicians in churches today fall far short of this heartfelt angelic devotion in their musical offerings to God, singing bland music in a mechanical, lackadaisical, and inattentive manner, doing what they do mostly out of habit or mere practical necessity, making but little effort to imbue their singing with zeal, reverence, divine ardor, and love. If our songs are to be truly sacred, we must struggle against this kind of spiritual inertia — both in the style of music we sing and the manner in which we sing it — offering to God instead the first-fruits of our energies with eagerness and warmth of heart.

In addition to the two aforementioned characteristics, angelic song possesses a third all-important quality which is deserving of our attention and emulation: watchfulness. For human beings, this watchfulness encompasses many aspects of music-making, from the proper composition of church hymns to being on guard against the inattentiveness and indifference that we were just speaking about before. We’ll explore some of these aspects in a more focused way in another chapter. However, in relation to the angels — and vital for us as well — the quality of watchfulness that must be mentioned here is watchfulness specifically against vainglory. Let us look for a moment at a passage from the Synaxarion for November 8, the feast of the Holy Archangels, that deals directly with this subject:

In the first moments of the creation of the invisible world, the whole celestial hierarchy, a number beyond all telling, was rejoicing in the divine light and leading a sacred round, simple and without end, while chanting with a mighty voice: Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts: heaven and earth are full of His glory (Is. 6:3). But then Lucifer, the heavenly spirit of highest rank who was nearest to God and all-shining with His light, became proud of the advantages he had been given and wanted to be equal to God. He said within himself: I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High (Is. 14:13–14). He was not evil by nature but, in his pride, chose to revolt against Him who brought him into being. He was the first to refuse the good and to choose evil. He turned away from the light to sink into the darkness of godlesseness. As soon as he uttered these words, he was cast down into the depths of Hell, tearing asunder the heavens as he fell and carrying down with him a multitude of angels of every order, whose chief he became. But the Archangel Michael, Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, was strengthened mightily in the divine light by reason of his humility and due deference to his Creator. On seeing the dreadful gap left in the heavens by the fall of so great a multitude, the Archangel leapt into the breach and rallied the faithful Angels with the cry: Let us attend! That is to say: ‘Let us be on our guard! Let us be vigilant; for we, who have been raised up to stand before God, are of His making! Let us remember that we are servants! Let us strive for self-knowledge, seeing what a fall those who wanted to be equal to God have had!

We see here that with the fall of Lucifer and his minions the angels learned the necessity of being watchful over their thoughts, of being on guard against pride and vainglory. Lucifer’s sin was that he chose to worship himself in place of God, to ascribe glory to himself rather than to Him that had endowed him with glory. Thus the angels learned that no matter how radiant and glorious they may be, no matter how perfect their song, they must always acknowledge that they did not bring themselves or any of their good qualities into being, and they are ever watchful against any thought that may distract them from this awareness. How vital this is for those whose duty it is to sing in church! It is a constant temptation for any church musician who enjoys even the smallest measure of apparent success in his musical endeavors to ascribe the glory to his own efforts. Such vainglory is a spiritual poison, and it will render our efforts useless more swiftly than anything else. The lesson of the Archangel Michael bears frequent and emphatic repetition: ‘Let us attend! Let us be on our guard! Let us be vigilant; for we, who have been raised up to stand before God [as every singer has been who offers praise in the divine services], are of His making! Let us remember that we are servants!’

The three essential qualities, then, that typify angelic song — and consequently the Orthodox Christian tradition of liturgical singing patterned after it — are:

- it is exclusively vocal, and is thus connected in an unmediated way with a creature’s bodily and rational nature;

- it arises out of a free and genuine devotion to God, and is not a product of indifference, self-interest, or mere necessity; and

- it is imbued with an all-pervasive spirit of watchfulness, lest the worship of God be distorted into idolatry and self-worship, becoming (at best) fruitless, and (at worst) spiritually harmful to oneself and others.

Aside from conforming to Orthodox Tradition in an external canonical sense (that is, for example, a hymn uses a canonical liturgical text), I assert that if any liturgical music is to be considered ‘sacred’ in the full spiritual sense — that is, God-pleasing and God-befitting, as well as possessing the power to ‘fan the spark’ of divine grace within the heart — it must possess all three of these qualities without exception, both in the style of its composition and in the manner of its execution. Any liturgical singing that purports to be sacred music and yet lacks or distorts one of these three essential qualities necessarily falls short of the archetypal primordial song of the angels. Such music, though it may possess many admirable qualities, must be considered a ‘song of men,’ and not in harmony with the true Orthodox tradition of angelic sacred music that has been resounding before the throne of God since the foundation of the world.

Source: https://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/a-small-entrance-into-orthodox-christian-sacred-music-the-song-of-the-angels/

She was born about 1730, and as a young woman married an army colonel named Andrei, a handsome and dashing man fond of worldly living. When she was twenty-six years old, her husband died suddenly after drinking with his friends, leaving Xenia a childless widow. Soon afterward, she gave away all her possessions and disappeared from St Petersburg for eight years; it is believed that she spent the time in a hermitage, or even a monastery, learning the ways of the spiritual life. When she returned to St Petersburg, she appeared to have lost her reason: she dressed in her husband's army overcoat, and would only answer to his name. She lived without a home, wandering the streets of the city, mocked and abused by many. She accepted alms from charitable people, but immediately gave them away to the poor: her only food came from meals that she sometimes accepted from those she knew. At night she withdrew to a field outside the city where she knelt in prayer until morning.

Slowly, the people of the city noticed signs of a holiness that underlay her seemingly deranged life: she showed a gift of prophecy, and her very presence almost always proved to be a blessing. The Synaxarion says "The blessing of God seemed to accompany her wherever she went: when she entered a shop the day's takings would be noticeably greater; when a cabman gave her a lift he would get plenty of custom; when she embraced a sick child it would soon get better. So compassion, before long, gave way to veneration, and people generally came to regard her as the true guardian angel of the city."

Forty-five years after her husband's death, St Xenia reposed in peace at the age of seventy-one, sometime around 1800. Her tomb immediately became a place of pilgrimage: so many people took soil from the gravesite as a blessing that new soil had to be supplied regularly; finally a stone slab was placed over the grave, but this too was gradually chipped away by the faithful. Miracles, healings and appearances of St Xenia occur to this day, to those who visit her tomb or who simply ask her intercessions. Her prayers are invoked especially for help in finding employment, a home, or a spouse (all of which she renounced in her own life). A pious custom is to offer a Panachida / Trisagion Service for the repose of her husband Andrei, for whom she prayed fervently throughout her life.

Saint Xenia was first officially glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia in 1978; then by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1988.

Source: https://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/los/September/11-10.htm

Why did Apostle Peter feel sad after hearing the Savior ask him "Do you love me?" for the third time? Why does the Greek original text change one word, which means "love", to another one? Why does the Lord ask Apostle Peter three times? What does this story from the Gospel teach us?

Orthodox fasting seasons are periods when we focus on repentance. The Church creates conditions that are the most beneficial for our purification and improvement. The fasting season that precedes the Day of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is no exception. Both apostles set an example of repentance for us. Apostle Paul had persecuted Christians prior to his conversion. Later, when he was called upon by God to become an apostle, he considered himself to be the worst of all sinners (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). Apostle Peter denied Jesus three times, but then he repented. Throughout his entire life, he would burst into tears every time he heard a rooster because it reminded him of his downfall.

Let's see what we can learn from Peter's repentance.

Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian who was the Lord's favorite disciple recounts how the Risen Lord Jesus Christ restores Peter into his apostolic status by asking him whether he loves him or not three times. The Holy Fathers usually explain that the Lord hereby forgives Peter's threefold denial of Christ.

This passage mentions that "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" (John 21:17) If you read most English translations of the Bible, you may think that the reason for the grief of the apostle who had denied Jesus was that the same question was repeated three times (with slight variations). Russian and Slavonic translations point to the same conclusion. However, if you read the Greek original, you will see this event in a quite different light. This is because there are several words for love in Greek. Here in this passage the Lord uses the word 'ἀγαπᾷς' in the first two questions(John 21:15–16), and then 'φιλεῖς' in his third question (John 21:17). To cut it short, we can say that the first of these verbs is normally used when they talk about spiritual love, whereas the second one is used to talk about love as friendly affection. That is, the Lord literally asks Peter in his last question, "Do you love me in any way?" Almost like, "Well, do you at least like me?"

This is why even in English this passage implicitly says that the reason for Peter's grief was not the fact that the Lord asked him "Lovest thou me?" three times but that he used a different verb in this case. The Greek text makes it even clearer because it is written that Peter was upset when he heard 'φιλεῖς με', not 'ἀγαπᾷς με' as in the first two cases. Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov) addresses this fact in detail when he points out, "There can be no doubt that the three questions follow each other in a descending order." First, the Lord asks Peter, "Do you love me more than they do?" Secondly, He simply asks, "Do you love me?" Finally, Peter hears a question about the kind of love that is called φιλία, which makes him desperate.

What is the key to this descending order of the Lord's questions? There is nothing accidental in the Gospel. The answer lies in the Gospel itself. As we read in the story of Peter's denial of Jesus, his three denials were different from each other. His first denial is almost like he didn't mean it. It looks like the apostle is in the state of shock, as we say it nowadays. He wants to be alone, to hide, to remain invisible, in order to comprehend the event, to absorb it, to agree with the fact that it is real and not a nightmare, to figure out its secret meaning and the ways out that it opens, so as to be able to go on living in this new distorted reality. "I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest," he replied to the maid of the high priest (Mark 14:68). The echo of his own words "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended" (Matthew 26:33) might still have been ringing in his ears. The question of the Savior, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15)– "Σίμων ᾿Ιωνᾶ, ἀγαπᾷς με πλεῖον τούτων?" — reminds him of his boastful assertion.

The second denial leaves no place for alternative interpretation. He confirms it with an oath, "And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man." (Matthew 26:72). This is why the second question of the Lord is shorter than the first one and apparently somewhat hesitant: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" – «Σίμων ᾿Ιωνᾶ, ἀγαπᾷς με?» (John 21:16).

During his third denial, Peter added curses to the oaths, thus completing his rejection of Jesus, "Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man" (Matthew 26:74). That is why the last question of the Son of God sounds like a verdict that made the First Apostle so upset, "Σίμων ᾿Ιωνᾶ, φιλεῖς με?" (John 21:17).

According to the Holy Fathers, one's repentance must correspond to the measure of his sins. If one returns to sinning, it proves that his repentance wasn't complete. We see in this passage how the Lord helps the fallen apostle to finally get rid of the weakness that had led him to the denial of God. The questions that the Savior asks make Peter sorry and heal his soul essentially by going over the steps of his denial.

We can add that the Lord does not ask Peter if he loves him one-on-one. He does it in public so as to make Peter respond publicly. The Holy Fathers pointed out the fact that repentance must correspond not only to the measure but also to the way of sinning. If we insult someone with words, our repentance must include verbal apology to the person whom we insulted. If we caused someone financial loss, our repentance will be incomplete if we don't make up for the losses. If we think bad of someone, we must repent in our thoughts, too (except the Sacrament of Confession, naturally). Apostle Peter denied Christ publicly, so his profession of love to the Lord had to be in the presence of other people.

Our exegesis of this passage did not touch on Peter's answers nor on the Lord's request nor on a lot of other things but I believe that even the aspects of this passage that we have mentioned may be useful for us. As far as other points that we haven't made are concerned, we'll try to justify ourselves with the words of Evangelist John himself, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25).

By Andrey Gorbachev

As the school year is set in motion, many parents are questioning the public school system for their children. Is “teaching to the test” working? Is society too secular? Is this the best education we can offer our children? There is a trend to homeschool. But how do you know if homeschooling is the answer? We recently asked Adam Lockridge, the Director of the St. Raphael School, an Orthodox and classic Good and Great Books online school, to get an insight to the homeschool experience.

Why are many Orthodox families turning towards homeschooling their children?

As the Director of an online school for homeschooling families, I talk with many parents of homeschoolers, and I also work directly with their children, so I have a unique window into the lives of these families.

It’s important to recognize that families across the nation and the world choose homeschooling for a multitude of reasons.

Military families that regularly move may desire more consistency in their children’s schooling, and homeschooling offers an attractive way to stabilize their educational program.

Parents with children who have special needs often find that school districts simply can’t or won’t accommodate their unique needs.

Children who are gifted in a particular way–musically, academically, artistically, or athletically–may need a more flexible educational schedule in order to advance to their highest potential.

Some schools are unsafe of feel threatening to the child. Students who can’t escape a threatening situation at school, such as bullying, may find escape by learning in the peace and quiet of their own home.

Religious families–and this is an increasingly common reason–often feel that the public schools have broken their trust by training their children in ways that overtly contradict the core values of the family.

There are probably some homeschool families who reject the idea of institutionalized schooling altogether, but I’ve never heard that cited as a reason to homeschool. The common denominator in the homeschooling movement, as I see it, seems to be a highly responsible, independent, do-it-yourself attitude. Abuses exists, as they do in schools. The overwhelming majority of families, however, seek customization, choice, and quality which can only be obtained by setting upon the task themselves. Most do not see this arrangement as ideal, but it is often the only acceptable choice that families have available.

As an Orthodox school, you probably see many families who are choosing homeschooling for religious reasons. Can you tell me more about what motivates them in particular?

I do hear from many Orthodox families who feel that public schools are no longer a viable option. Although I can’t speak for all of them, I do observe patterns.

From the perspective of many religious families, public schools have become functionally atheistic. While parents may not use this language to describe their dilemma, I think the phrase gives a name to a specific and widespread concern. Schools may not openly advocate for atheism as a philosophy (although many do exactly that), but it is undeniable that the adults who spend the most time with our children–teachers, coaches, and other school faculty–engage in a systematic omission by neglecting the everyday spiritual and moral needs of children. Under the banner of inclusiveness and pluralism, this unbreakable code of silence in moral and spiritual matters amounts to child neglect in the core facets of their being.

Children learn by imitation. In public schools, students daily observe and imitate adults who are required by the state to act as if God does not exist. Public school teachers may “love” children with a kind of natural affection, but functionally they are forced to neglect them. Teachers and faculty must refrain from prayer, eliminate all displays of religious piety, and strictly avoid advocating moral or spiritual principles. This is particularly unacceptable in the humanities, such as history and literature, but this functional atheism extends into science, art, music, and even athletics.

Children spend vast amounts of time at school. Longer school hours, demanding extracurricular activities, huge homework loads, and the looming threat of competitive college admissions, have conspired to pressure parents to relinquish opportunities to meet the spiritual and moral needs of their own children.

The overextension on the part of schools, combined with pervasive functional atheism, forces many religious families, including Orthodox Christians, to opt out of the system entirely.

What do parents need to homeschool their children?

The resources available for homeschooling are vast, and parents will find no lack of options for creating a plan that works for their kids. Free online resources abound, and many high quality products–online courses, curricula, and books–can be purchased at a tiny fraction of the price of private school.

The largest obstacle for most families is making choices within the vast arena of options. Connecting with other families who are homeschooling through friendships, churches, and co-ops can be an important source of experience and encouragement.

Finally, it is worth noting that parents do not need to be experts on any given subject to successfully homeschool. Any skillful and experienced teacher will tell you that the most important skill in teaching is relational rather than intellectual. Getting to know your child and intentionally cultivating a good relationship with him or her is the only required discipline of a homeschool parent. Fortunately, on the job training will happen naturally with the attentive and engaged adult.

Are kids isolated when they aren’t in public school?

I speak with homeschooling students every day, and I am constantly amazed at their ability to engage in thoughtful discussions and interact with one another and adults. I’ve taught in school environments, and by and large the students were far less mature and socially adjusted.

One reason for this, I believe, is that homeschool students often spend significantly more time with a wider variety of relationships. They learn not only how to be peers, but also how to interact with children of other ages; they constantly speak one-on-one with adults (impossible for teachers with twenty, or thirty, or even more students); and they face fewer pressures to conform to passing fads and fashions.

Isolation can happen in a crowd probably more easily than in a smaller group of family and friends. In this respect I would say that social isolation could possibly be a bigger problem in the crowded public schools than in the more personal and intimate society of family and friends found in homeschools across the country.

Are homeschooling students successful?

The most well-documented fact, and the one most often ignored, is that homeschooling students perform significantly better than their public school peers in academics, including standardized testing. But performance and perceived performance are not the same thing. Some schools and even employers look with skepticism on a homeschool diploma. As homeschooling becomes more widely accepted and understood, the risk of being denied opportunities as a result of homeschooling has faded, and now homeschooled students are sometimes preferred to their public school counterparts.

But academic metrics miss the most important motivator for many homeschooling families. Families who choose to homeschool almost always have a different measure of success than economic incentives such as college admissions and career advancement. Success for these families would include practical concerns such as getting a good job, but they would also consider less objective but equally important emotional, moral, and spiritual measures of success. On this level, it is not even possible to compare the success of public school and homeschooling as they differ in their aims.

Are there any drawbacks or common pitfalls of homeschooling?

The most common drawback, which is true of any counter-cultural do-it-yourself option, is an inevitable periodic crisis of confidence that homeschool parents face–mothers in particular. Many of us who were raised in a different educational system face worries that we will fail. This desire to succeed is a healthy concern, but it needs to be managed by frequent intentional reminders of the motivation for homeschooling and a balanced perspective on expected outcomes. This long view of homeschooling is difficult to maintain, but it is absolutely essential.

Another drawback is the financial sacrifice. Most homeschooling families must be or become single-income families, as one parent must stay at home and teach the children. States offer huge incentives to enroll in public schools by funding tuition through taxes, so families are also leaving on the table a monetary value of sometimes $10,000 or even $15,000 per year in schooling expenses. This economic loss could total hundreds of thousands of dollars over the life of the family, and this is a price many families are unable or unwilling to pay.

One common mistake I see homeschooling families make is modeling their homeschool on the curriculum of the public school system. The public school is structured to treat all students the same, which means that variety and customization are impossible in most cases. It is the “fast-food” schooling option. Homeschool families have an opportunity to create a beautiful, homemade, and fully customized curriculum, but they often resort to trying to replicate what is being done in the local public schools. Families who do this are still likely better off than their peers in public schools, but this pitfall is a lost opportunity for more.

What is the most common fear of families who are considering homeschooling as an option?

The fear of failure. When it comes to children, none of us feel like we can afford to fail.

I try to remind parents that the joy of homeschooling comes through learning alongside the students. The best teachers are the ones who always want to know more about the topic or improve their own skill. As a parent, your kids will learn by watching you. Be curious. Be attentive. Show reverence for classic literature and revel in the beauty of the natural world. If you do so in sincerity of heart and not in a spirit of control or manipulation, your love of learning will be contagious, and your kids will begin to feel that inner compulsion to learn all that they can about God’s glorious world. This makes learning not only easy, but it becomes a natural by-product of a healthy sense of wonder and a confidence that understanding is the true reward of sustained independent learning.

Source: http://myocn.net/orthodox-christian-families-homeschool-children/

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

St. Paisios the Hagiorite: Advice When Choosing a Profession

The Phenomenon of Orthodox Christian Sacred Music

Canonization Service of St. Xenia of St. Petersburg

Steps of Repentance, or What Made Apostle Peter Sad?

Why are many Orthodox families turning towards homeschooling their children?

Parable of the Day: Why to Obey without any Reward?

Partners