The Catalog of Good Deeds

But if we are sons, we are heirs also: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided, however, we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him. (Rom. 8:17)

Our Saviour and the God-bearing Fathers teach that our only concern in this life should be the salvation of our souls. Bishop Ignatius says: "Earthly life — this brief period — is given to man by the mercy of the Creator in order that man may use it for his salvation, that is, for the restoration of himself from death to life" (The Arena). Therefore, we must "look upon everything in this world as upon a fleeting shadow and cling with our heart to nothing of it...for we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (St. John of Kronstadt, Spiritual Counsels). For Orthodox Christians, the center of our life is not here, but there, in the eternal world.

How long we live, what disease or illness accompanies our death — such things are not the proper concern of Orthodox Christians. Although we sing "many years" for one another at Namesdays and other celebrations, this is only because the Church in her wisdom knows that we indeed need "many years" to repent of our sins and be converted, not because a long life has any value in itself. God is not interested in how old we are when we come before His Judgment, but whether we have repented; He is not concerned about whether we died of a heart attack or cancer, but whether our soul is in a state of health.

Therefore, "we should not dread any human ill, save sin alone; neither poverty, nor disease, nor insult, nor malicious treatment, nor humiliation, nor death" (St. John Chrysostom, On the Statues), for these "ills" are only words; they have no reality for those who are living for the Kingdom of Heaven. The only real "calamity" in this life is offending God. If we have this basic understanding of the purpose of life, then the spiritual meaning of bodily infirmity can be opened for us.

In the preceding chapter we learned how the all-wise God allowed suffering to enter the world in order to show us that we are but creatures. It is a lesson still not learned by the race of Adam which, in its pride, ever seeks to be like "gods": for every sin is a renewal of the sin of the first-created ones, a willful turning away from God towards self. In this way we set ourselves in the place of God, actually worshipping self instead of the Creator. In this way the suffering of illness serves the same purpose today as it did in the beginning: for this reason it is a sign of God's mercy and love. As the Holy Fathers say to those who are ill: "God has not forgotten you; He cares for you" (Sts. Barsanuphius and John, Philokal' ia).

Yet, it is difficult to see how sickness can be a sign of God's care for us — unless, that is, we understand the relationship that exists between body and soul. Elder Ambrose of Optina Monastery spoke of this in a letter to the mother of a very sick child:

"We should not forget that in our age of 'sophistication' even little children are spiritually harmed by what they see and hear. As a result, purification is required, and this is only accomplished through bodily suffering... You must understand that Paradisal bliss is granted to no one without suffering."

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain explained that since man is dual, made up of body and soul, "there is an interaction between the soul and the body" (Counsels), each one acting on the other and actually communicating with the other. "When the soul is diseased we usually feel no pain," St. John Chrysostom says. "But if the body suffers only a little, we make every effort to be free of the illness and its pain. Therefore, God corrects the body for the sins of the soul, so that by chastising the body, the soul might also receive some healing... Christ did this with the Paralytic when He said: Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto tbee. What do we learn from this? That the Paralytic's disease had been produced by his sins" (Homily 38, On the Qospel of St. John).

On one occasion a woman was brought to St. Seraphim of Sarov. She was badly crippled and could not walk because her knees were bent up to her chest. "She told the Elder that she had been born in the Orthodox Church but, after marrying a dissenter, had abandoned Orthodoxy and, for her infidelity, God had suddenly punished her... She could not move a hand or foot. St. Seraphim asked the sick woman whether she now believed in her Mother, our Holy Orthodox Church. On receiving a reply in the affirmative, he told her to make the sign of the Cross in the proper way. She said that she could not even lift a hand. But when the Saint prayed and anointed her hands and breast with oil from the icon-lamp, her malady left her instantly." Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee!

This connection between body and soul, sin and sickness, is clear: pain tells us that something has gone wrong with the soul, that not only is the body diseased, but the soul as well. And this is precisely how the soul communicates its ills to the body, awakening a man to self-knowledge and a wish to turn to God. We see this over and over in the lives of the saints, for illness also teaches that our "true self, that which is principally man, is not the visible body but the invisible soul, the 'inner man'" (St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, Christian Morality).

But does this mean that the man who enjoys continual good health is in "good shape" spiritually? Not at all, for suffering takes many forms, whether in the body or in the mind and soul. How many in excellent health lament that life is not "worth the living"? St. John Chrysostom describes this kind of suffering:

"Some think that to enjoy good health is a source of pleasure. But it is not so. For many who have good health have a thousand times wished themselves dead, not being able to bear the insults inflicted upon them... For although we were to become kings and live royally, we should find ourselves compassed about with many troubles and sadnesses... By necessity kings have as many sadnesses as there are waves on the ocean. So, if monarchy is unable to make a life free from grief, then what else could possibly achieve this? Nothing, indeed, in this life" (Homily 18, On the Statues).

Protestants often "claim" health in the "Name of Christ." They regard health as something to which the Christian is naturally entitled. From their point of view, illness betrays a lack of faith. This is the exact opposite of the Orthodox teaching as illustrated by the life of the Righteous Job in the Old Testament. St. John Chrysostom says that the saints serve God not because they expect any kind of reward, either spiritual or material, but simply because they love Him: "for the saints know that the greatest reward of all is to be able to love and serve God." Thus, "God, wishing to show that it was not for reward that His saints serve Him, stripped Job of all his wealth, gave him over to poverty, and permitted him to fall into terrible diseases." And Job, who was not living for any reward in this life, still remained faithful to God (Homily I, On the Statues).

Just as healthy people are not without sin, so too, God sometimes allows truly righteous ones to suffer, "as a model for the weak" (St. Basil the Great, The Long Rules). For, as St. John Cassian teaches, "a man is more thoroughly instructed and formed by the example of another" (Institutes).

This we see in the Scriptural case of Lazarus. "Although he suffered from painful wounds, he never once murmured against the Rich Man nor made any request of him... As a result, he found rest in the Bosom of Abraham, as one who had accepted humbly the misfortunes of life" (St. Basil the Great, The Long Rules).

The Church Fathers also teach that illness is a way by which Christians may imitate the suffering of the martyrs. Thus, in the lives of very many saints, intense bodily suffering was visited upon them at the end, so that by their righteous suffering they might attain to physical martyrdom. A good example of this may be found in the life of that great champion of Orthodoxy, St. Mark of Ephesus:

"He was sick fourteen days, and the disease itself, as he himself said, had upon him the same effect as those iron instruments of torture applied by executioners to the holy martyrs, and which as it were girdled his ribs and internal organs, pressed upon them and remained attached in such a state and caused absolutely unbearable pain; so that it happened that what men could not do with his sacred martyr's body was fulfilled by disease, according to the unutterable judgment of Providence, in order that this Confessor of Truth and Martyr and Conqueror of all possible sufferings and Victor should appear before God after going through every misery, and that even to his last breath, as gold tried in the furnace, and in order that thanks to this he might receive yet greater honor and rewards eternally from the Just Judge" (The Orthodox Word, vol. 3, no. 3).

You who believe when you are well, see to it that you do not fall away from God in the time of misfortune.

St. John of Kronstadt

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

The primo uomo of the theological crisis, which would become known as Monoenergism and Monothelitism, was emperor Heraclius (610-642). His partner in the church-state symphony, Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius (610-638) played a role of an executive manager in the theological project, which was effectively emperor’s. This project was ecumenical and political simultaneously. After ascending to the throne, Heraclius faced numerous challenges from inside and outside of his empire: civil war and Persian invasion threatened its integrity. Disunity of his people on the grounds of attitude to Chalcedon worsened the situation. Therefore, to solve the problems he inherited, Heraclius had to address the issue of Chalcedon and to find ways of reconciling those who rejected the council with those who accepted it. Most emperors before Heraclius tried to tackle the same issue, without sustainable success however.

Heraclius’s own project of reconciliation was closest to the earlier attempts of Justinian. Like Justinian, Heraclius tried to construct a new formula of unity between divinity and humanity in Christ, which would not focus on the natures, but on the activity (ἐνέργεια) of Jesus. Justinian had elaborated such a formula through theopaschism, which became one of the foundations of his ‘Neochalcedonian’ project. Heraclius explicated the theopaschite doctrine and developed it to what we now call ‘Monoenergism.’ Heraclius’s Monoenergist Christological formula was composite: it included elements that were supposed to satisfy all the sides of the theological conflict. Thus, the Chalcedonians were expected to be pleased with the ‘two natures’ component of the formula. The nonChalcedonians, including eastern Syrians (‘Nestorians’) and western Syrians plus Egyptians (‘Miaphysites’), were to be happy with the ‘one energy’ element of it.

Before adopting the Monoenergist formula, Heraclius, sometimes personally and sometimes through his proxy Sergius, consulted all the interested target groups about whether they would be receptive of this formula. The most difficult and yet unavoidable side to deal with was Rome. Heraclius remembered the problems that Justinian faced when he had tried to sell his Neochalcedonian project to Rome. He was afraid that he would experience the same kind of resistance. To his surprise, however, no resistance followed, but Pope Honorius (625-638) expressed his understanding to the undertaking of Heraclius.

In response to the carefully-written letter of Patriarch Sergius1, Honorius did not reject the Monoenergist formula, but suggested what he believed to be a better alternative to it: “For we have not learnt from the Bible that Christ and his Holy Spirit have one or two energies; but that he works in manifold ways.” Honorius was not a Monoenergist, but rather a Polyenergist. Positive about his views on the activities of Christ was that he preferred to ascribe ἐνέργειαι to a single acting subject: “We must assert neither one nor two energies in the Mediator between God and men, but must confess that both natures are naturally united in the same Christ.” Honorius did not stop at the issue of activities, but made a step further - he suggested that Christ had single will: “Whence we recognise a single will of the Lord Jesus Christ, because our nature is truly assumed by the Divinity.” To prove his point, he suggested an argument, which would become popular among the eastern Monothelites: he identified Adam’s will with the sin belonging to his nature as a result of his transgressing God’s commandment: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” Unintentionally, the Pope triggered off a new phase in the development of Monoenergism, which in 638 was replaced by Monothelitism.

After the death of Honorius in 638, Severinus succeeded to the Roman see in 640. During his short pontificate, which lasted only around two months, he denounced the line of his predecessor regarding Monoenergism-Monothelitism. His successor, John IV (640 – 642), convened a council, which condemned Heraclius’s doctrine and anathematised those eastern Patriarchs who supported it. Rome eventually broke communion with Constantinople. The new emperor Constans II sent to Pope John two letters that survive in Arabic translation. Here he expressed intention to reconcile with Rome. Only six years later he made a half-hearted step to make this reconciliation possible, by issuing in 648 the Typos, a decree that prohibited any discussion on the issue of activity or will in Christ.

Maximus Confessor as Father of the Eastern and Western Churches

In the meantime, Rome started preparing a council, which would deal with this issue. The preparation work began under the auspice of Pope Theodore (642-649), but he died before the council could be summoned. The new Pope, Martin (649-655), inaugurated the council, which worked during October 649 in the Lateran basilica in Rome. The council of Lateran 649 was crucial in articulating theological argumentation against both Monoenergism and Monothelitism. The mind behind its acts was Maximus the Confessor’s, who had arrived in Rome in 646. One of the most productive parts of his life Maximus spent in the West. There, he found many supporters to his theological ideas, including Popes. The western church offered full support to his cause and to him personally. His life and his writing became interwoven into the life of the western church so closely that it would be incorrect to identify him as an ‘eastern’ Father. He was ‘western’ to the same extent. Even if he did not adopt a ‘western’ identity, he would definitely consider himself a φιλοδυτικός. He knew the church of Rome from within and he came to admire and to love it. Soon after the council of Lateran Maximus expressed his love and appreciation of the church of Rome in the most encomiastic words:

“All the ends of the inhabited world (…) look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines.”

Maximus made a clear reference to Math 16:18, when he praised the church of Rome “as the sole base and foundation” of theological truth. For him, this church “has the keys of the orthodox faith.” A few years earlier, Maximus wrote similar words, which were preserved in Latin by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, about “the apostolic see, which, from the incarnate Word of God himself, as well as, in accordance with the holy canons and definitions, from all the holy synods of all the holy Churches of God, which are in all the world, has derived and possesses dominion (imperium), authority and power to bind and loose.”

These words at least partially reproduce the rhetoric, which started developing around the Roman see not long before Maximus. Through the allusion to Matt 16:18-19, Maximus’s words cohere with the statement of Pope Leo I (440-461) that Peter received from Christ precedence “over all the apostles and all the Fathers of the Church, so that, although there are many bishops and pastors among the people of God, Peter properly rules all those whom Christ originally also rules.” Not long before Maximus, another great Pope, Gregory I (590- 604) also identified the see of Rome with “the Church of the blessed Peter,” and its holders as successors of the “prince of the apostles.”

Nevertheless, it would be incorrect and anachronistic to conclude from this similarity of rhetorics that Maximus subscribed to the concept of papacy as it is known now. Thus, he was aware of fallibility of Popes in the matters of doctrine. There is a short letter, which he wrote on April 19, 658, to his disciple Anastasius. This is the last surviving piece of his writing. It was composed when even his ally, the church of Rome, succumbed to the pressure of the empire and the Pope Vitalian (657-672) restored communion with the Monothelite Patriarchs in the East. For Maximus, this was a moment of despair, which occurred in the year when he was tried in Constantinople for alleged treason and then exiled for four years. At that time the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople Peter (654-66) asked him, rather tauntingly: “What Church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See, all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them. If, therefore, you belong to the catholic church, be united, lest perhaps you devise a strange path by your way of life and you suffer what you don’t expect.”

Maximus replied to this taunting: “The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him. But let me learn the confession on which the unity of all the churches was effected, and if it was effected properly I shall not be estranged from it.”

He thus recognised that successors of Peter may err, but the faith of Peter cannot vanish from the church. Maximus did not subscribe to the infallibility of Popes in the matters of faith and, possibly, to other elements of papacy that developed into the medieval model of primacy. In this regard, I agree with the words of Andrew Louth that Opuscula and do not provide sufficient support for the posterior interpretation of Roman papacy. Maximus here does not speak about primacy of the bishop of Rome, but about the role of the Church of Rome in upholding Orthodoxy of faith. What Maximus appreciated about the church of Rome most was its firm hold of Orthodoxy of doctrine, as it was demonstrated by such great Popes whom he knew personally as Theodore and Martin. It may sound reductionist, but for Maximus theological truth was one of the most important criteria of the church. When during the trial he was accused of splitting the church, he made a remark: “If the one who states what is in Scripture and the holy Fathers splits the Church, what does someone do to the Church who annuls the teachings of the saints, without which the Church’s very existence is impossible?”

There was another point that Maximus probably appreciated about the Church of Rome - its resistance to the abuses of the church-state symphony. Monoenergism-Monothelitism was certainly such an abuse. It was a political project, initiated by a politician for political ends, and accomplished with the means of political coercion. The church and its hierarchs were used as decorations and instruments in this project, to give it an appearance of symphonic consent of the church. It seems that Maximus was not against symphony as such. But he certainly stood for some distinctiveness and self-sufficiency of the church in its relationship with the state. As Andrew Louth remarks: “For Maximos, the Church (…) is a sovereign body, with its own institutions. However deeply bound up with the Christian Empire it might be, it may not be confused with it.”

Maximus rebuked interference of the state to the sacrosanct domains of the church, including doctrine and liturgy. Remarkable in this regard was an episode during his trial, when he was asked about the role of the emperor in the church. Maximus, first, denied the emperors the right to interfere in the matters of doctrine: “No emperor was able to persuade the Fathers who speak of God to be reconciled with the heretics of their times by means of equivocal expressions.” This is because it was not the business of civil authorities “to make an inquiry and to define on the subject of the saving teachings of the catholic church,” but an exclusive responsibility and “the mark of priests.” Then he was asked if the Christian emperor had a responsibility over the doctrine on the pretext of being also a priest. He replied to this categorically that the emperor is not a priest - he does not perform sacraments and does not “wear the symbols of the priesthood, the pallium and the Gospel book, as [he wears the symbols] of imperial office, the crown and purple.”

This position of Maximus cohered with the famous dictum of Pope Gelasius (492-496) from his letter to the emperor Anastasius II (491-519), where the pope draw a demarcation line between “the sacred authority of priests and the power of kings.” This standpoint of Gelasius should not be understood exaggeratively, as if there was a radical difference between the attitudes of the western and eastern churches to the state: both parts of Christianity enjoyed more or less symphonic relations with the state. However, the western church certainly demonstrated more sensitivity to the violations of the demarcation lines between the church and state. Maximus shared these western sensitivities and witnessed to them in his own eastern context.

Conclusion

Maximus’s vision of the church, a vision that features sincere appreciation of the Roman see and its role in the universal church, should be appreciated by the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and those who seek reconciliation between the two traditions. His personality and his ecclesiology can help bridging the gap between these traditions. This gap emerged because both traditions deviated from the vision, which was articulated by Maximus and which was in fact shared by many in the church of the first millennium.

Source: http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT3.2015/Cyril.Hovorun.pdf

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

Orthodox parents are given by God the responsibility of raising their children as Orthodox Christians. This task to be sure, is a difficult one. Parents must make a commitment not only to become active in the Church but also make one to the religious education of their children.

The primary role models are the parents. Children’s beliefs, likes, dislikes and attitudes are usually learned from their parents and other adults to which, they look to for guidance. It is understandable when a parent has a distorted view or understanding of the Orthodox Christian life or of Orthodoxy in general, their children will usually make those views their own. Children see in their parents an example for their own Christian life later on. What the parent does, the child does. We all have heard, time and time again, that the primary responsibility rests on the parent. In my opinion the responsibility to bring up the child in the Orthodox faith not only rests on the parent but also on the parish community.

In a sense, every parish in the Orthodox Church is part of the child’s extended family. Every Orthodox Christian no matter what jurisdiction is part of that extended family. We are all God’s children, united in Him and Him in us. He is our Father, making every member of the Church our brothers and sisters. It is the responsibility of this extended family to make sure that all its young people become active members of that family. A positive and loving atmosphere must prevail. Like any family there will be differences, but those differences need to be worked out in a loving and peaceful way. It is the Church community’s obligation to share with the parents, in a joint effort the religious education of their children. All parish members are teachers be it as direct teaching, advisors, or role models. It is this support that parents need for the formation of an Orthodox Life Style for their children.

Children pick up clues and impressions from the environment on how to behave and what to believe. Parish communities that are unfriendly or are in battle arguing, squabbling is made up of unhappy families and children become turned off. They don’t see the Church as a nice place, so the children develop a lack of trust. Children eventually may leave the Church when they are old enough. Children see themselves in relationship to their parents, peers and community. A person’s self-concept is a very important part of how one grows, behaves, thinks and most important how they see God. As role models and religious educators parents and the Church community have an important task in front of them which will determine the spiritual life of their children. If children see God and Church as an important part of their parent’s life, it will make a great impact on them when they grow older.

It is their self-concept which helps them to perceive the world. Self-concept can be seen as two levels of mind, the conscious and subconscious. The conscious level works much like a judge, collecting and evaluating information. The subconscious level functions much like a computer it stores information and makes it available at a later date. The subconscious never attempts to sort out fact from fiction or truth from misperception. When information flows from the subconscious, it comes forth as fact. Therefore all misconceptions eventually become truth and are treated as fact by the conscious level of thinking.

The development of Orthodox Christian thinking is a serious undertaking for all of us to consider. The souls of our children deserve the full attention of all of us, parents, priests, community and religious educators. We all have an important role to play in the religious development of each child.

Children work very hard at trying to understand their parents as well as their environment. They are great observers, but horrible interpreters. This is understandable considering their immature brains and limited experience. This is why we as adult role models have to be aware of what images and concepts we are conveying to the children around us. The bad part is when we become adults and look back, all of our perceptions, both accurate and inaccurate becomes our reality. A child who has a perception that his parents prefer not going to church or does not go on a regular basis will say, “Church and God must not be important”

What was once his mistaken idea has now become his truth. How many Orthodox Christians do you know who have the same misperceptions about their church?

We must remember children are constantly observing, interpreting and storing information into the subconscious. These billions of thoughts and experiences later become the truth which runs and directs his or her life. The challenge is to help a child to interpret what he or she sees and hears in ways that can be used later as proof that he or she is capable, loveable and responsible. This is why it’s important that children attend Liturgy and religious education programs. This hopefully helps clear up misperceptions about the Church and God. In the home, as well as in the church community many adults have negative misconceptions about children. We consider them not old enough to have any responsibility. We are constantly telling them to keep quiet, we do not listen to them because we think they have nothing to say. The child stores this information in their subconscious: “I am not capable, lovable and responsible. I am not important, If I’m not important than God does not love me”.

A consequence for this lack of trust in the Church community is an intensification of anxiety in the individual child or adult. Whenever we become anxious we become self conscious. When our consciousness of self is too heightened, our awareness of others and their needs are greatly diminished. Change in an environment can have profound implication to a child’s self-consciousness and self-esteem. We are fortunate that in the Orthodox Church its Liturgy, icons, music and form of worship appeal to small children because it's unchanging. A child can identify can predict what will happen next. The sounds, smell and movements are all familiar. A child feels secure and has a trust in the Liturgy of the Church because after a time he/she knows what to expect and knows how to act. But again children are active learners and they are attuned to everything in the environment. Children are very social, they are aware of the smile, the frown, the friendly gesture, and the unfriendly, in the Church community. The children who do not feel secure and are anxious have developed untrustworthiness for the Church Community.

In the church school programs, parishes must find individuals who are loving, trustworthy and love children. Formal education and training should be a secondary concern the parish can help those individuals get the training that is necessary. One of the functions of the Department of Christian Education is to provide the necessary training. Not many parishes take advantage of the Departments resources and experts to train church school personal.

Church school teachers and parishioners will not love and should not love children as parents do. However there are different kinds of love. A child learns to love by being loved by others. Isn’t this the foundation of faith? How can a person love God if that person does not know how to love? Many children in our society lead very unhappy lives because their parents do not realize how important it is to satisfy their children’s need for love, for friendship, and for stimulation. A prime qualification for a church school teacher should be the ability to love. This requirement should stand above all others. They must love children unconditionally, to be able to communicate to them, without patronizing and without strings attached. A teacher, who commands because he is strong and expects a child to obey because he is weak, need to rethink why he is in the classroom. A teacher and parishioners should show themselves to a child as a loving and enlightened guide assisting the child along the way, leading to the kingdom of heaven.

Love, patience, understanding and respect are the key ingredients needed to develop a child’s self-concept. It is those who are in the child’s environment who have the greatest impact. Adults are the role models, which children will later emulate, as Christ is our role model and whom we strive to emulate. In the Gospel of St. Mark (10: 13-16), we are all reminded that Jesus Christ wants the children to come to Him.

I often wonder what mistaken beliefs and interpretations have been stored in the subconscious minds of youngsters who constantly make poor decisions, involve themselves in self destructive behaviors such as drugs or turning then from learning. It makes me wonder how many of these people have misinterpreted their parent’s love in the following ways:

Some parents show love by hovering over and rescuing their children from the harsh world. This is often interpreted by the child as, “My parents know that I could never handle the world without help. I am not capable”.

Some parents show love through control. These parents constantly tell children how to lead their lives. This is often interpreted as, “My parents know that I am not capable of thinking for myself of being responsible. I am not capable”. This sometimes results in the child rebelling against his parents, leaving home early, and developing a poor self concept about life, the church and God.

Some parents show love by always being available with advice. They allow their children to make many of their own decisions. This is often interpreted as, “My parents know that I can think for myself”. These children grow up to respect authority, the Church and God.

The Church community outside of the child’s immediate family can help strengthen a sense of trust in the children. The task is awesome as the children will often be coming in contact with the church community from situations which are not trustworthy. Some of the Church communities are not trustworthy themselves. How many of us have had the sad experience of closing down programs for children because of indifference, lack of interest or other priorities. We must realize the outside world is typically far less trustworthy than the family.

How many of you wondered why parents can’t control their child? How many of you can’t concentrate and say to yourself, “I cannot pray or pay attention to the Liturgy because this child is making noises or sliding across the pew in front of me. They should leave the child at home if they cannot control him”. Does this sound familiar? I’ve seen many parishioners literally pushed out of shape because children were making to much noise or were just fussy. I have heard complaints to the parish priest concerning fussy children. I’ve heard priest talking to parents about controlling their small child.

If I were a child I would say:

I can’t help myself if I make noise in church. I don’t understand what’s going on but I am learning. I cannot learn things by sitting still. I have to move. I have a lot of energy. I hear the prayers. I hear the music. I smell the incense. I see the priest and the people praying, but I don’t know what it all means but I am learning. My mind is like a sponge. I absorb things that are happening in the environment. I see, hear, smell, and sometimes touch things. I have a great capacity to learn. I don’t know what it means but I will someday. As any learner I will imitate what everyone else is doing but I don’t know what it means. My parents have not told me very much but I am willing to listen. I’m sorry that I am too young to understand. I am sorry that my parents and I are in a struggle. I need my independence but I still need my parents love and affection. I need to learn to trust my parents, the parish community and God. I need to develop a positive attitude towards the environment in which I live. If I am to trust that God loves me, I first must learn to love. I can only learn to love if I am loved. If you look at me with a frown on your face, if you scold me, if you pick me up and shake me, if you spank me, if your are impatient with me, if you are unpleasant toward me, if you argue in front of me, if you tell me to shut up, if you tell me children should be seen but not heard, if you do all those things, I will not like to go to church. I will not be learning what love is about. I will have no trust in you. How can I trust God? God does not love me.

If you see me looking at your smile, I will smile. If I am making too much noise pick me up and hug me and tell me what a fine person I am. I have a short attention span, you can show me an icon or show me what you are reading or tell me about it. I don’t understand what is going on but I want to learn. I am too small to see anything, pick me up and let me look at everyone. Give me something to occupy myself with like a book, especially one with lots of pictures. If I misbehave put your hand on my head and smile. I have difficulty in controlling myself. Sometimes I act the way I do because I want to be independent but you have to set the rules. You are in charge, but you must control me in a loving way. I need to be loved if I am to learn what love is about. When I learn to love I will love God, because I have learned to trust in Him. God loves me because I am a unique person who is loved by everyone in the church community. So please love me. Please give me the tools I need to love. Teach me what love is. I can only learn though your example. You are the role model. Please don’t teach me not to love. I need you for my salvation. I need you to teach me about Jesus Christ and his church. I need to be part of the community. Please don’t drive me away with your indifference and non-Christian behavior. I will follow your example. I have only two choices: Trust my parents, the church community and God or mistrust my parents, the church community and God.

An article by Joseph Tershay

Source: http://www.antiochian.org/christianeducation/ChildsCry

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

The Russian matryoshka (painted wooden dolls nestled into one another) is known far outside Russia and has a history of almost a century. During this comparatively short space of time it emerged as an all-embracing symbol of Russia, a symbol of Russian folk art.

There are at present several centers for the production and painting of matryoshkas. They include Sergiev Pasad near Moscow, the city of Semyonov and the villages of Polkhovsky Maidan and Krutets in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. Other known centers are in the Vyatka, Tver, Mariel and Mordovian areas. The art of matryoshka painting has spread from Russian to the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The art of authors’ matryoshkas has seen vigorous development.

The wooden panted doll appeared in Russia in 1890s, the period which saw burgeoning economic and cultural development. It was the time of a growing sense of national identity and interest in Russian culture and art. As part of this general trend a new artistic current called “Russian style” emerged. The so-called Mamontov circle was among the early centers which advocated the revival of Russian culture. It was presided over by Savva Mamontov (1841–1918), a Russian industrialist, patron and connoisseur of arts who had gathered around him а group of outstanding Russian artists including I.E. Repin, M.M. Antokolsky, V.M. Vasnetsov, M.A. Vrubel and others.

In his Abramtsevo estate near Moscow Savva Mamontov built art studios where folk craftsmen worked along with professional artists. The enthusiasts who formed the Mamontov circle engaged in education, art and collection with a heavy emphasis on reviving Russian culture, especially the national and folk traditions. Among the items of folk art the collected were peasant toys.

The development of the folk peasant toy was a major area of their efforts. To this end a Children’s Education workshop was opened I Moscow which began by making dolls to demonstrate the festive costumes of inhabitants of various gubernias and uyezds in Russia and were an accurate portrayal of ethnic features of peasant women’s dress. It was at this workshop that the idea of a Russian wooden doll was conceived. Sketches were made by S.V. Malyutin (1859–1937), a professional artist and member of the Mamontov circle, an active pioneer of the embroidered shirt, a sarafan ( a Russian national dress) and an apron, in a colored kerchief holding a black rooster.

The Russian wooden doll was called matryoshka. The name is not fortuitous. In provincial Russia before 1917 the name Matryona or Matryoshka was among the most common female names derived from the Latin root “mater”, which means “mother”. The name conjured up the image of a sturdy family matron.

Subsequently, it became a symbolic name and was specifically applied to describe painted wooden dolls fashioned in such a way that they could be taken apart to reveal smaller dolls fitting into one another. Yet to this day matryoshka remains the symbol of motherhood and fertility. A doll with a numerous off-spring of dolls is a fine metaphor for the oldest symbol of human culture.

The first Russian matryoshka manufactured from the sketches of S.V. Malyutin by V. Zvezdochkin, the best toy-maker of Sergiev Pasad, contained eight dolls. A girl with a black rooster contained a boy, which contained a girl again. No two figures were alike with the smallest, eighth, figure portraying a baby tightly wrapped in a diaper.

S.V. Malyutin borrowed the idea of a “take-apart” doll from a Japanese toy which S.I. Mamontov’s wife had brought from the Island of Honshu. That figure showed a sage by the name of Fukuruma, a good-natured bald-headed old man, a doll which contained several other figures nestled in one another. The Japanese, incidentally, claim that the first such doll on the Island of Honshu was made by a Russian monk.

Russian craftsmen who had a long tradition of making wooden objects which fitted into each other (for example, Easter eggs) mastered the matryoshka technology with ease. The basic technique of matryoshka-making remains unchanged and it draws on all the turning skills used by Russian folk craftsmen.

The most common kinds of tree used for matryoshkas are lime and birch. The trees chosen are usually cut in earl spring, stripped of their bark leaving a few rings to prevent the wood cracking when dried. The logs are arranged in piles with a clearance between them to allow aeration. The logs are kept in the open air for several years. It is essential not to allow the wood to be too dry or not dry enough. Only an experienced master can tell when the material is ready.

The logs are then cut into workpieces for matryoshkas. Every workpiece passes before being fashioned into a doll.

Fashioning a doll on a turning lathe requires a high degree of skill, an ability to handle a beguilingly small set tools – a knife and chisels of various length and shape. The first to be made is usually the smallest figures which cannot be taken apart. In the making of the next matryoshka the bottom part is fashioned first. Then it is processed to a necessary height and the top end is removed.

After that the upper ring is made on which the top part of the matryoshka will be fitted and then its lower part is made. Then the matryoshka’s head is fashioned and enough wood is removed from within the matryoshka’s head to slip on the upper ring. All these operations do not involve any measurements, and rely on intuition and require great skill.

The upper part of the matryoshka stuck on the lower part dries and tightens the ring so that it securely in place. The turning work done, the snow-white wooden doll is thoroughly cleaned, primed with starchy glue to make its surface ideally smooth and to prevent the paint making smudges and then dried. The matryoshka is now ready to be painted.

The pattern of the first Russian matryoshka was poked and it was painted with gouache and covered with varnish by S.V. Malyutin himself. Until the late 1890s matryoshkas were manufactured in the Children’s Education workshop in Moscow and after the workshop was closed the show-case and training works in Sergiev Pasad near Moscow, an old toy-making center, picked up the tradition.

It soon launched commercial production of the toy and developed the type of matryoshka that became known as Sergiev Pasad or Zagorsk matryoshka (in 1930 the city was renamed Zagorsk but its old historic name has been recently restored).

Source: http://matryoshka.co.id/about-matryoshka/?printable=1

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent