The Catalog of Good Deeds

“For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard”
(Acts 4:20).

Apostle Peter, just like all the other apostles, was a simple and uneducated person. He did not know the Holy Scripture and was not taught public speaking. Nevertheless, on the day of Holy Pentecost, when the Lord sent the Holy Spirit from the Father to His beloved disciples, Peter acquired the great gift of preaching. According to the Book of Acts, after the Descent of the Holy Spirit, Apostle Peter addressed the Hebrews with an emotional speech and turned about 3,000 people to Christ.

In the Book of Acts we read that on their way to the temple, Apostles Peter and John healed a man who was limp from his birth and then “he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God” (Acts 3:8). When people recognized in that leaping man the beggar who had sat asking for alms by the doors of the temple, they “were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him” (Acts 3:10). Then Peter delivered another sermon quite familiar to us , in which he explained that the apostles healed the man not with their own power or holiness, but in the name of Jesus Christ – the Prince of Life, Who was killed and then resurrected, Who was preached by Moses and all the other prophets, Who was foretold by God to suffer for the redemption of the humankind; “through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Ref. Acts 3:12-16). Many people, who listened to the Supreme Apostle at that moment, believed in his words, and there were about 5,000 of them.

The Apostles and the beggar

As we can see from Peter’s sermon, it contained the whole Gospel in a short form, as well as all the main points of the Christian faith and apostolic teaching. Here the Lord Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Life and we know that only God, the Creator of all things, can be the Prince of Life. We hear also about the suffering and death of Christ, about which the ancient prophets foretold, who announced the resurrection of Christ and repentance and forgiveness of all the sins of the world in His name. Apostle Peter states also that “heaven must receive Christ until the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), about which God had told already through His prophets. In these words, we see the teaching stating that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father, and we are waiting for His great Coming in the end of times.

After that sermon, the apostles were taken into custody until the next morning. On the next day, they were brought to the rulers, elders, scribes and Annas the high priest as well as other people of the family of high priest, so that they answer for their words.

The arrest of the Apostles

What did Peter do? He, who was afraid of a mere servant, who could not handle the fear of death before the Lord and denied Him three times, is acting in a completely different way now. Now he is as tough as a stone, as a rock. His heart did not shake before the supercilious sights of the scribes and elders; he was not afraid, but full of the Holy Spirit. Peter bravely preached about Jesus Christ that He is “the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).

Apostle Peter was preaching the words of his Lord and Teacher for all his life. He converted thousands and thousands of people and became the Apostle for all Hebrews, as well as established many Christian churches that exist even today and that are preaching the Name of God all over the world. For many Christians, in his apostolic letters we find the living voice of the Good Shepherd comforting our hearts on this hard and narrow path to the Kingdom of Heaven.

What St. John Chrysostom says in his works:

“O blessed dyad, in which the souls of the whole world have believed! Peter, the beginning of orthodoxy, the great revealer of the Church, the needed counselor of Christians, the treasure of the powers from above, the apostle honored by the Master. Paul, the great preacher of the truth, the boast of the world, the man in heaven, and angel upon the earth, the glory of the Church, the eagle that soars in the heights, the lyre of the Spirit, the swallow and cicada (τέττιξ), the Master’s organ, the speedy servant of Christ. Paul and Peter, the yoked oxen of the Church, who passed through the world well in things, taking up the cross instead of a yoke, instead of a driver the Savior, instead of a furrow laid down the Scriptures, instead of the plow the grace of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Peter, who daily gladden the Church, the Master’s treasuries, the inns of the world, the receptacles of the Spirit, those who explain the Holy Trinity, those who relate the economy of the divine word. Peter, my spiritual love; Paul, the vessel of election, and my staff. Peter, the temple of God; Paul, the mouth of Christ, the lyre of the Spirit”.

Reflections in the Holy Church tradition:

Thou, O Lord, didst give the Church as good foundations and strong supports Peter’s firmness and constancy, Paul’s wisdom ablaze with light and his understanding, with the truthful preaching of each of them concerning God, which drove away godless error from the earth. And so, initiated by them both, we sing hymns of praise to Thee, O my Jesus, Almighty Lord, Thou divine Savior of our souls. (2nd sticheron on the “O Lord I have cried", Great Vespers on June 29)

To be continued…

Click here to see the full infographics.

The term “dialogue” (along with its synonyms, “conversation” and “discussion” and “engagement”) seems to have taken its place alongside the proverbial terms “motherhood”, “apple pie”, and “the flag” as sacred and untouchable. It used to be that no one in their right mind would speak against this Trinity of American values, and now no one is allowed to suggest that anything bearing the sacred word “dialogue” should be viewed with suspicion. A commitment to dialogue is considered an essential part of civilization, and a sign of one’s tolerance, reasonableness, and open-mindedness. Anyone lacking a sufficient commitment to these modern virtues (the new Trinity of American values) is a fitting candidate for denunciation and insult. If you think this last sentiment is too strong, you probably do not own a computer or go online very much.

One could almost formulate a spiritual law that any site or online contribution which contains the D-word or its synonyms is pushing the same basic agenda. Take for example the site, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” (with D-word prominently displayed) or the site “Public Orthodoxy” (which says that it “seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity”). Like other liberal sites these are dedicated to the destruction of traditional Orthodox belief and praxis. Obviously no site hoping to gain traction among fellow-Orthodox will advertise this agenda and goal. Like all deconstructionist movements, other softer terms must be found—usually using multi-syllabic words, which is almost always a bad sign.

In the same way the Orthodox deconstructionists usually fudge or hide their actual agenda. I have seen this at work for quite a while. Take for example the work of the late and brilliant feminist Elizabeth Behr-Sigel. Like other Orthodox feminists of her vintage, she rarely came out and declared that her goal was the ordination of women priests. No. She was just asking questions, having a dialogue, promoting a conversation about a certain topic, engaging the modern world. In a paper given in 1976 entitled, “The Meaning of the Participation of Women in the Life of the Church” she ended with the plaintive cry, “[These] are questions on which some of us have already reflected deeply, while others are dimly aware of them, and they are questions which we Orthodox women gathered here wish to put before the Church, praying that the Spirit will guide her and will guide us in the right way. In the words of the psalmist we say, ‘Show us the way we must take!’” What humility and openness! She is not pushing towards a predetermined goal, only trying to discern the right way forward. Or consider her essay, “The Place of Women in the Church”: she ends her essay with the words, “On a problem like the ordination of women, might we not imagine different ‘helpful things’ that the local Churches could determine for themselves?…Would not such a pluralism of discipline [wherein some Orthodox churches ordained women and others did not] be compatible with the unity of faith and ecclesial communion?” She is just asking a question, after all, asking us to “imagine” certain things, not promoting an agenda.

From all this one might conclude that for Ms. Behr-Sigel the question was an open one. It is not so. She was as sure of her conviction that women should be ordained priests as I am sure (and as St. Paul was sure) that women should not. This is apparent from the rest of her writing, such as the place in the same essay in which she denounced St. Paul’s counsel in 1 Timothy 2 as “rabbinical exegesis”, and the Church’s “patriarchal” conceptions as “infecting Christian thinking”. The passages in St. Paul that meet with her approval (such as Galatians 3:28) she applauds (with exclamation marks) as “the Spirit clearing a new path through the thick forest of human prejudices!” Clearly Behr-Sigel had already made up her mind as to “the way we must take”, her disingenuous tentativeness notwithstanding. The posture of tentative questioning was not sincere or honest, nor was the proffered dialogue genuine. In this dialogue, all the retreat and reconsideration was to flow one way. Those holding to the historic Orthodox position would retreat from it, while those holding to the new reconstructed position would not retreat. The deconstructionists had no doubt of the truth of their convictions; the only question was how to advance their agenda. One is reminded of the aphorism of JFK: “You cannot negotiate with those who say ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable’”. As far as those committed to the reconstructed and revised order are concerned, their own convictions are not negotiable. It is the traditional Orthodox that are being invited to negotiate and to be willing to retreat from their positions.

One detects a certain common vocabulary in those inviting the retreat. Certain buzz-words recur: they speak of “patriarchy”, “sexism”, of the necessity of a “creative reimagining”. They speak (in the multi-syllabic terms mentioned above) of “an awareness of the multifaceted nature of truth that continues to be discovered and implemented over time through a process of prayer, creative reflection, and debate”, of “a pluralistic era which presents Christianity with new and unique challenges”, and attempt to “discern God’s hand in contemporary life”—as if the authors were not already sure of where God’s hand in contemporary life was to be found and were still trying to “discern” it. When one reduces the multi-syllabic rhetoric to words that a child could understand it translates as: “You must change your teaching to conform to ours. Our modern secular culture no longer accepts your views so you must change them to fit in with that secular culture”.

All this dialogue and open-mindedness to the secular values at odds with Orthodoxy is comparatively new. The Fathers did not open such dialogues with pagans or heretics. They did engage “the pluralistic era which presented them with new and unique challenges” of course, and the people who were in the forefront of this engagement are known by the name “the Apologists”. The Church did not withdraw from the secular society into a safe and holy huddle with the drawbridge pulled up behind them, but met the new and unique challenges head on, trying to convince and convert the world. They talked to pagans and even acknowledged that the pagans had got some things right. These things they were happy to claim as their own (one author called the process “plundering Egypt”). But the coincidence of agreement in some areas between Christian and pagan or between Christian and heretic did not make the Church open to learning from pagans or heretics. The Church was confident that (in the words of our contemporary Orthodox Liturgy) it had “found the true faith”, so that its task was to correct the world, not learn from it. When Justin Martyr used the term “dialogue” (such as his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”) he was not investigating to see what he could learn from Judaism, but trying to convert his Jewish friend to Christianity. For Justin and for the Fathers generally, “dialogue” involved not openness to changing or abandoning one’s convictions, but civil and respectful debate in an attempt to help someone else change theirs.

The essential dishonesty of the contemporary dialogues can be seen in their choice of dialogue partners. The deconstructionists are happy to dialogue with the LGBQT community, and with feminists keen to denounce patriarchy and to ordain women. I am not aware of any enthusiasm for dialogue with, say, White Supremacists. That is because our liberal friends agree with the agendas of the gay and feminist communities and (quite properly) abhor that of the White Supremacists. I suggest that this consistent choice of dialogue partners reveals that the true goal of the liberal Orthodox proffering dialogue is not real give and take, but simple capitulation on the part of the conservatives. And ask yourself: has our decades-long dialogue with the liberal Protestant WCC resulted in a substantial shift of the member churches towards Orthodoxy or slowed their accelerating drift into greater theological liberalism? Has the dialogue with the feminists resulted in the reduction of any of their cherished anti-patriarchal convictions or in a greater appreciation of the Church’s traditional praxis? Not a bit, which proves the wisdom of JFK aphorism quoted above. Those inviting us to dialogue are not interested in “discerning God’s hand in contemporary life”, but simply in changing our minds. That is quite acceptable; I am happy to enter into civil debate with anyone. But honesty should compel us to make our true intentions and goals known.

By Fr. Lawrence Farley

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/dishonest-dialogue/

In his On the Making of Man, St Gregory of Nyssa likened the human body to a kind of musical instrument, played upon by the mind of man. In the same work, he dismissed as pagan the idea of man as microcosm. Yet later, in his dialogue On the Soul and the Resurrection, Gregory espoused precisely this notion of microcosm in order to express the mediatorial role of the human being between intelligible and phenomenal realms. Finally, in his commentary On the Inscriptions of the Psalms, Gregory brings together both his musical analogy and the notion of man as microcosm and mediator, synthesizing and expanding these tropes in a more broad-ranging vision of man’s place within the angelic and visible creation.

According to Gregory, “man is a miniature cosmos and contains all the elements of the great cosmos. And the orderly arrangement of the universe… is a diverse and variegated musical harmony which has been tuned in relation to itself and is in accord with itself and never distracted from this harmony even though a great distinction of essences is observed in the individual parts.” Man is both a miniature of this musical cosmos, and an image of the one who made it. Being microcosm, the harmony of the whole world is reproduced in man himself: “For just as in a fragment of insignificant glass it is possible to see the whole circle of the sun reflected in the gleaming part, as in a mirror, as though the smallness of what is gleaming contains it, so also all the music perceived in the universe is seen in the miniature cosmos, I mean in human nature… Even the instrumental equipment of our body, which has been artfully devised by nature for the production of music, proves this.”

Gregory likens the whole of the original creation to a dance and chorus, which looked to the one choirmaster, interpreting his song in harmony. Yet sin introduced disharmony, and removed human beings from this chorus. Only through Jesus Christ, and after trials of purifying hardship, are human persons restored to the chorus and the dance. Thus, the “cymbals” which close the book of Psalms (Ps. 150:6) – representing the final stage of spiritual ascent – indicate the unity of angelic and human natures in divine praise. This unity is accomplished through the work of Jesus Christ, who unites all things separated by sin and exalts human nature to a glory comparable to that of the angels.

The music which reflects the wisdom of God in creating the cosmos is expressed in moderation and good order. The concord of creation is a harmony of opposites which produces a hymn of glory to God. “The accord and affinity of all things with one another which is controlled in an orderly and sequential manner is the primal, archetypal, true music. It is this music which the conductor of the universe skillfully strikes up in the unspoken speech of wisdom through these ever occurring movements.” Such polyphonic music of creation is a pattern of intelligible meaning unheard by the senses, but discerned by the mind when it transcends the limitations of the flesh. It is this music, Gregory says, which the psalmist David heard when he described the heavens as declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19:1).

Human existence is a kind of music. The question is what kind of music – whether it is in accord with God and the nature of the cosmos or not. This question for Gregory has to do with the proper ordering of daily life. For Gregory, the good life is kata physin: in accord with nature. The Psalms also are a music in accord with nature. The Word of God “admonishes that your life be a psalm which does not resound with earthly sounds, but by sounds I mean thoughts, but which produces a sound from the upper and heavenly realms which is pure and audible.” Man’s life becomes a well-ordered psalm precisely through praying the psalms and putting into practice their divine teachings. The rhythms of their words and music heal the rhythms of human life, bring it to harmony and moderation:

“In this singing nature reflects on itself in a certain manner, and heals itself. For the proper rhythm of life, which singing seems to me to recommend symbolically, is a cure of nature. For perhaps the very fact that the character of those who live virtuously need not be devoid of the Muses, unharmonious and out of tune, is an encouragement to the more sublime state of life. Neither must the string be drawn taut beyond measure, for that which is well-tuned certainly breaks when it is strained beyond what the string can bear, nor on the contrary must one slacken the tension immoderately through pleasure, for the soul which becomes relaxed in such passions becomes deaf and dumb. In all other matters we must tighten and relax the tension at the right time, looking at this, that our way of life in the customs may continue always melodious and rhythmical, being neither immoderately slack nor strained beyond measure.”

As evidence of the healing power of music, Gregory cites the example of David’s healing Saul’s mental disturbance with song. This example, says Gregory, shows that the symbolic value of music is for the healing of the passions. This is not true of all music, but rather of sacred songs composed by those who are not “outside our wisdom.”

The goal of man’s life, however, is expressed not only in music, but music combined with words. “Psalm” for Gregory means music, whereas “song” means words with music: music whose meaning is made outwardly intelligible. “When we hear a song, we learn in an enigmatic way of the decorum of life concerning the visible world.” This, according to Gregory, would not be the case with purely instrumental music. Gregory associates pure “music” with speculative philosophical theory concerning the good, while “words” indicate the life of praxis. “The psalm of a song” (Ps. 92:1 LXX) indicates the combination of “music” and “words,” signifying the perfect unity of theory and praxis, thought and action, which is the Christian ideal. “‘A prayer with a song’ enjoins us equally to be zealous about our life first, so that nothing unrhythmical or out of harmony should occur in our daily pursuits, and then to approach God though prayer. Only if our life is in accord with David can we then have the boldness to “praise” God with a prayer like his.

This unity of thought and bodily life, of theoria and praxis, is related to man’s role of mediator. At the height of virtue and divine vision, of imitation of the invisible God, man nevertheless retains a bodily visibility, a face with which he relates to the visible world of men. The person who achieves the vision of God such as Moses enjoyed “stands as a kind of boundary between the changeable and the unchangeable nature and mediates, as it is appropriate, between the two poles. He offers supplications to God on behalf of those who have been converted from sin, and he transmits the mercy of the supreme power to those who need mercy.” It is precisely unity with, and imitation of, the changeless divine that tunes and orders the rhythms of this changing earthly life, making of it a harmonious music — in concord with the angels.

Source: http://myocn.net/music-mediation-st-gregory-nyssas-commentary-inscriptions-psalms/

The Divine Liturgy is truly a gift of the Holy Spirit to humanity. It is an initiation into the mysteries of the Spirit, a mode of the revelation of God and of all things heavenly. There is nothing in the Liturgy which is not revelatory of the Godhead and of the energies of the Holy Trinity.

Because we know and believe that God is our Father, we view the church, especially when we celebrate the Liturgy, as our true home. We come in and go out freely, we are happy to be here, we make the sign of the cross, we light our candles, we speak with our friends, and it is easy to see that the Orthodox feel that the church is their home… The Liturgy is our family our gathering, our house. And what a spacious house it is! Together with us are those who are absent, along with sinners, and with the wicked, and the dead, indeed, even those who are in hell, but who may yet remember something about God….

So we come to church, to our true home, and we are truly glad. This is the greatest privilege which a Christian can have. Here we experience the grace of God. We experience our salvation, the results of the redemptive work of our God, of Christ, the great “High Priest.”… Christ lives for us, he prays for us, and raises his hands to the heavenly Father… He has not ceased to urge our saints — and particularly His Mother of God — to intercede for us to the heavenly Father, for our hearts, for our sins, for our pains, for the disappointments of our life…. So don’t think that when we go to church, we are simply entering and exiting an ordinary building. Instead, we go up to, and make our entrance into, the Holy of Holies, into the heavens themselves…

When we enter church, then, we are traversing the distance from church to heaven… We see the bread and wine, but who among us does not believe they are Christ? We inhale the fragrance of wine and bread, but who among us does not believe this to be the body and blood of he Savior?…This is a sacrament. This is what a “mystery” of the church means…

Our liturgy is an exceeding great gift. No one is worthy of such greatness. No one can do anything without God. He alone makes these magnificent blessings real, and places them in our hands and hearts.

…And for this we say: Thank you, Lord our God, because you have brought down the ranks of angels and raised us up to heaven. We are found worthy to stand before the heavenly Father. What blessedness! What happiness!

But let each of us ponder how great and rich God has made us; how highly he has exalted us, dispite the fact that we are sinners! “Woe is me,” said Isaiah the prophet, for God himself has descended upon me, and I am afraid I will die. And this is what we should also say when we come to church. We should be afraid, but we should also rejoice. We should tremble, but our hearts should also leap for joy, because we are embracing God, and God is embracing us.

So we have come to church, to the Liturgy! Let nothing disturb the tranquility of your soul. God is present. Wherever we look, God is before us! If we don’t see Him, this doesn’t mean He isn’t there, but only that our eyes are not used to seeing Him…

With the eyes of our mind, let us see the king for whom we sinners opened the way, and let us say with the Psalmist: “Come let us worship and fall down before Him and cry to the Lord… for He is our God.” (Ps 94.6-7) Let us open the depths of our hearts to the Lord, who is present here with us, and let us advance more each and every day, so that we will be able to discover everything that God, our redeemer, has done for us.

By Archimandrite Aimilianos of Simonopetra

Source: http://orthodoxwayoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-divine-liturgy-is-gift-of-holy.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Apostle Peter: The First Catch of the Fisher of Men

The Danger of Dishonest Dialogues

Parable of the Day: Telling Reliable People from Dangerous Ones

St. Gregory of Nyssa on Music and Mediation in a Christian's Life

The Divine Liturgy as a Gift of the Holy Spirit to Humanity

Can a Laymen Give a Blessing?

Partners