The Catalog of Good Deeds

Forty days after Christ’s resurrection, He was taken up into the Heavens before the disciples, and so forty days after Easter, is the Feast of the Ascension. The icon for this feast shows the events as described in the Book of Acts, though as with all Holy Icons there is more revealed than just a straight retelling of the story in pictures.

Based on the accounts written by St Luke in his Gospel (Luke 24:36-53) and the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-12), the icon of the Ascension is correspondingly ancient. One of the earliest surviving images of the Ascension, a full-page illustration from the 6th century Rabbula Gospels, is remarkably similar to all subsequent icons, with precious few variations. Icons from St Catherine’s monastery in Sinai, for example, show little change between images of the Ascension made in the 6th century with those painted almost 600 years later. Regardless of age or location, the Icon of the Ascension seems to have been “canonized” early on in the Church’s history.

The image itself is characterized by colour: the robes of the Apostles, the Mother of God, the Angels, and Christ Himself surrounded by light; all this is suitable for the Feast itself, which is one of the Twelve Great Feasts and a joyous celebration.

The icon contains both confusion and peace: the former is borne of worldly reasoning, whilst the latter comes from divine, heavenly, order.

In the Scriptures, Jesus is described as being merely “taken up” into the skies and disappearing from sight behind a cloud. Seemingly contrary to this, the icon of the event shows Christ in glory: surrounded by a mandorla (or circle) of light, flanked by angels, and arrayed in brilliant golden robes. Indeed, the similarity between the appearance of Christ at His Ascension, and the appearance of Christ at His Second Coming are striking:

The image of Christ in glory, seated upon a “rainbow”, comes directly from the Book of Revelation, regarding the Last Judgment and Second Coming of Jesus Christ:

Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. (Rev 4:2-3)

The reason Christ ascending into Heaven is depicted the same as Christ’s Second Coming is because of the words of the angels present at the Ascension:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

And so the Icon depicts Jesus’ Ascension and Second Coming “in like manner”. Not that the disciples below Christ fully understand these words yet.

The distinction between heavenly peace and worldly confusion is most apparent upon the Mount of Olives. The Apostles look up in a combination of fear and wonder, their arms waving like the olive trees on the mount. In the centre, the two angels “in white apparel” exhort the men to cease their gazing into heaven and return to Jerusalem to receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Between the two angels stands Mary the Mother of God, hands raised in prayer, not staring up, but peacefully toward us. Already overshadowed by the Holy Spirit since Christ’s conception, Mary appears to understand the deep mysteries of her Son’s birth, death, resurrection and ascension, already hoping on Christ’s return. This hope brings her the divine peace shared by Jesus Christ and the angels: they all have halos signifying the grace and glory of God, whereas the disordered Apostles do not.

An Icon of the Church Before Pentecost

The Ascension, as well as showing the historical event of Christ’s ascension, also symbolically depicts the Church. This is most evident by the Apostle Paul being present in the icon, despite the Ascension occurring before Paul’s conversion (recounted later in the Book of Acts).

This ahistoric depiction is not uncommon in holy icons: the icon of Pentecost also shows Paul, as it too is an icon of the Church. The differences and similarities between the two festal icons (the feasts only being separated by 10 days) are deliberate. Before the coming of the Holy Spirit the Church is put into a certain amount of confusion by the physical absence of Christ. At Pentecost – by the power of the Holy Spirit – the Church, again represented by the Apostles, is shown in order. And the Apostles get their halos.

But amid the confusion of the Church before Pentecost there is the Mother of God, prayerfully and peacefully entreating God, and hoping upon His promised return. Gazing out, she exhorts us, whilst still amid the confusion and disorder of the world, to do the same: spiritually gazing to the heavens in prayer, awaiting the return of Our Lord.

Abandoning on earth the things of earth, leaving to the dust the things of ash, now, let us come to our senses and raise on high our eyes and minds.

Mortals, let us make our sight together with our senses fly to heaven’s gates.

Let us imagine we are standing on the Mount of Olives and that we bend our gaze on the Redeemer, as he rides up on a cloud.

For, from where the Lord has hastened back to heaven, there too the One who loves to give has distributed his gifts to his Apostles,

Cherishing them as a father and confirming them, guiding them as sons and saying to them,

‘I am not parting from you. I am with you, and there is no one against you.’

(Hymn by St Romanos the Melodist for the Ascension Feast)

Source: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/ascension-icon-why-stand-ye-gazing-up-into-heaven/

On May 24 the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the Equal-to-the-Apostles and teachers of the Slavs, who are considered the creators of the Slavonic alphabet and literary language. Much from the history of their lives and mission remains unknown to this day. For more on these holy brothers, we present the following interview with Anatoly Arkadyevich Turilov, Senior Researcher at the Department of Medieval History at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Anatoly Arkadyevich, what exactly did Sts. Cyril and Methodius do in educating the Slavic peoples?

First of all, they created the literary Slavonic language on the basis of Bulgarian dialects, as well as the Slavonic written language, although this wasn’t the same alphabet we use now – it wasn’t the modern Cyrillic alphabet. They also translated Holy Scripture into Slavonic and laid the basis for both Slavonic divine services and Slavonic literature.

What kind of people were they? What do we know about their characters and personalities?

The brothers came from the family of a mid-ranking Byzantine military official living in Thessalonica. It was a fairly well-to-do, educated family. Methodius was the eldest, a good bit older than Cyril. According to the life, Cyril was the youngest, the family’s seventh child.

In character, to the extent that we can deduce from their lives and other materials, they were fairly different people.

Cyril was, as they say, a God-given philologist. He learned languages well and loved doing so. Moreover, Cyril probably knew quite a few languages. Apart from Slavonic, he knew Hebrew. During one of his journeys, when he accompanied a mission to the caliphate as an interpreter, he became acquainted with Arabic. It’s obvious that, to some extent, he knew Latin as well as Syriac. St. Cyril’s knowledge of Syriac is the key to his subsequent creation of the Slavonic alphabet. It’s worth noting that not many people then knew Syriac, which again testifies to how highly educated he was. Building thereon, St. Cyril was subsequently able to model a literary language based on the spoken Slavic languages – because, as you know, literary language differs from spoken language. It had to be normalized and oriented on some model and, since Cyril was Greek, the orientation came from Greek.

Methodius followed the typical career of a Byzantine official from the beginning. In those days military and administrative service were not, in principle, separate things. He was appointed to oversee a certain district inhabited by Slavs. He clearly proved himself to be a good administrator. After the loss of his family, however, he was tonsured to monasticism and settled in Asia Minor, on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara. It was from there that he later began to accompany his brother. Thus, the combination of a learned philologist with an administrator was a very successful one, leading to good results.

It’s also worth stating that the brothers were successful educators and teachers: they were able to leave an entire generation of disciples behind them. In this case, the activity of their disciples was as important as that of the brothers themselves. The holy brothers’ disciples, who came to Bulgaria in 885, created a large range of translations and new literary texts. It can be said that, without this generation of disciples, their mission wouldn’t have had the results that were eventually attained.

How reliable is the information about the saints that has come down to us? What is historically accurate and what is legendary?

The historical evidence in this case is fairly limited.

Apart from their lives, there are very few other sources, nearly all of which are Latin.

On the one hand, little information from Byzantium has come down to us. Judging from the surviving historical evidence, no one was particularly interested in the mission. For example, Cyril was a disciple of Patriarch Photius, but there is no mention of either Cyril himself or of his mission in either the epistles or sermons of Photius. Therefore, the information here is limited.

On the other hand, from the moment that the hagiographies began to be studied, practically all researchers noted their high degree of reliability. Of course, some doubts can arise here. So, for example, Cyril’s life dedicates a great deal of space to his polemics with the heterodox and heretics. Whether this took place as described can be called into question. It’s more likely that the life made use of separate polemical treatises by Cyril, but that he didn’t actually speak like this as an orator.

As for legends, as a rule they arise later. So, for example, while the later hagiographical tradition calls Cyril an archbishop, this isn’t borne out by anything. It’s known that he didn’t hold the episcopal rank.

Another example: during the “nationalization” of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria in the twelfth century, it began to be claimed that they were Bulgarian through their mother. This is also a legend, not borne out by anything. In principle, the mechanism behind these versions is clear: “only one of our own could’ve created a written language for our people.”

On the whole, the ancient hagiographical tradition – that is, the lengthy lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius – are texts of very great historical authenticity.

What role did the brothers play in creating an alphabet for the Slavs?

In fact, it was only after the middle of the nineteenth-century that the view became established that, despite the modern alphabet being called “Cyrillic,” it wasn’t invented by Cyril. As you know, there are two Slavonic alphabets: Cyrillic and Glagolitic.

What is the evidence that Cyril created Glagolitic? Glagolitic is an artificial alphabet, patterned on Eastern alphabets. Given that Cyril knew Eastern languages, this isn’t surprising: if he knew the languages, he also knew the alphabets. It’s this artificiality that suggests that a single person invented it.

There is other evidence as well. For example, the numeral system in Glagolitic is completely independent, inasmuch as letters in Glagolitic also serve as numerals. In Cyrillic, however, the numeral system follows the Greek: letters missing from the Greek alphabet (for example, the Cyrillic letter “Be”) don’t have a numeric value. The presence of this numeral system is further evidence of the primacy of Glagolitic, because if Cyrillic had existed earlier, Glagolitic would’ve followed it in this regard.

Cyrillic is the result of the prolonged use of the Greek alphabet in Bulgaria from before that country’s acceptance of Christianity. Its formalization as a Slavonic alphabet took place at the turn of the ninth-tenth centuries AD. It amounted to the simultaneous joining of the Greek alphabet with the philological and linguistic principles that form the basis of Glagolitic.

Cyril’s genius as a philologist consisted in the fact that he created a very successful alphabetic system that takes into account the many particularities of any Slavic language and even some of its neighbors. The particularity of his Glagolitic, and then of the Cyrillic that adapted its principles, consists in the fact that no supplementary signs are needed in representing the letters – as, for example, in reproducing Slavonic letters into Latin. The letters are sufficient to reproduce the particularities of all sounds.

Cyril was able to take into account all the particularities of the different Slavic dialects. This has been subsequently confirmed by the fact that wherever various regional variants of the Cyrillic alphabet have been used, their creators have been able to make use of St. Cyril’s alphabet without changing hardly anything. Cyril succeeded in penetrating the formation and phonology of Slavonic so thoroughly that a universal alphabet with enormous reserves of potential was created. Moreover, these particularities were incorporated not only into Glagolitic, but also into Cyrillic.

Was there an alphabet before them? Could Slavic culture have arisen without the involvement of Christianity?

Before Glagolitic, the Slavs had only various oral dialects, but there was no single literary language. These dialects were similar in many ways, which allowed the Greek and Latin contemporaries of the holy brothers to speak of the Slavs as a single people with a relatively uniform language.

Legend has it that when Cyril was on a diplomatic mission to Khazaria, he found a certain book written in “Russian letters” in Chersoneses (the site of today’s Sevastopol). For more than 150 years now, there’s been a debate about what these “Russian letters” were. Most likely, it was a matter of transposed letters: russkii [Russian] instead of sur’skii, that is, Syriac. As follows from the subsequent description, the language in question is Syriac. Already in the twelfth century, on the basis of this reading [of “Russian” rather than “Syriac”], the “Tale of Russian Letters” was born, which asserted that Russian letters were not invented, but rather sent by God to a certain Rusyn, who showed them to Cyril. This, of course, is a legend. We don’t have any real evidence of independent writing among the Slavs before the creation of Glagolitic.

As for the question of the emergence of Slavic culture without the persons of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, this would’ve been possible in principle. However, this wouldn’t have been possible without the Slavs’ acceptance of Christianity. The fact is that all alphabets created after the Birth of Christ necessarily arose on the basis of preceding ones, and this was connected with the Christianization of peoples. Thus, for example, the creation of the Gothic language and alphabet in the fourth century was connected with the Christianization of the Goths. The creation of the Ethiopian language was connected with the baptism of the Ethiopians, and so forth. Therefore the Christianization of peoples, the creation of indigenous literary languages, and the creation of alphabets are all part of a single inseparable process. This concerns the Slavic peoples above all, because with them we can visually compare the seeds sown by their holy first teachers with the mighty tree of Orthodox culture that has grown from them.

Of course! There is the Slavs’ acquisition of their own literary language, which in Rus’ survived as a single entity in all spheres of life until the beginning of the eighteenth century. There is also the acquisition of Slavonic liturgical and independent literatures. And, it goes without saying, the main thing was the translation of the Gospel into Slavonic, since the coming of Christianity to the Slavs in their own language was of such global significance that we’re probably incapable of fully recognizing its scale, inasmuch as we’re looking back at it from within after more than one thousand years. This was better understood and sensed by the authors of the lives of the holy brothers and their disciples, who characterized this event in the words of the Bible: “Following the word of the prophet, the ears of the deaf were opened, that they might hear the words of Scripture, and the tongue of stammerers spoke plainly” (Life of Cyril the Philosopher, chapter 15 [cf. Isaiah 35:5-6, LXX]). Here it should be noted that Sts. Cyril and Methodius saw their mission as apostolic and themselves as, in some sense, heirs of the Apostle Paul, since they were carrying the light of Christ’s teaching not to any single people, but to the Slavs in general.

How did the Greek East (Constantinople) and the Latin West (Rome) react to the brothers’ activity?

It’s difficult to say how Constantinople reacted, since – as I’ve already mentioned – practically no information about this has survived. In the lives it’s stated that they were sent to Moravia (the border of today’s Czech Republic and Slovakia) by request of the local prince, but other Byzantine sources are silent about them. We shouldn’t, however, regard such silence as anything special, since the Byzantine sources generally say very little about any kind of mission, wherever they may have been sent, so in this sense the mission of Cyril and Methodius is no exception, but rather a confirmation of the rule. There is a certain reticence about the history of the mission itself, since the Moravian prince had asked for a “teacher and bishop,” but was sent only a teacher, not a bishop.

As for Rome, there are many difficulties here. It’s necessary to distinguish two things: the position of Rome itself and the position of the German bishops, since the holy brothers’ mission unfolded on lands on which German missionaries from the neighboring East Frankish kingdom, who had used Latin liturgically, had operated. Therefore, the question of competition was keener with regards to the neighboring German dioceses, while Rome continually maintained a floating policy. At times it supported the mission of Cyril and Methodius, while at other times it forbad the performance of services in Slavonic, ultimately banning it in 885. As has often happened in history, the mission became a card in a complicated political game. At an early stage, it was advantageous to Rome to support it and even to create a separate archdiocese (formally reviving an old one, centered in the city of Sirmium, north of today’s Belgrade). By agreement between the Papal See and the Moravian princes, Methodius was assigned to this cathedra in 869 (Cyril had died six months earlier in Rome).

In some sense, this option suited everyone. The Moravian princes got their bishop. The situation was also good enough for Constantinople, because no one there doubted Methodius’ commitment to the values of Byzantine Orthodoxy and the Emperor. The Papal See, on the one hand, restricted the influence of the German bishops, who carried out policies that didn’t always agree with Rome. On the other hand, perhaps even more importantly, the establishment of the cathedra of Sirmium with services in Slavonic opened up the possibility of spreading Papal influence among the many Balkan Slavs and, potentially, for returning to the authority of the Pope the entire diocese of Illyricum (the Balkan Peninsula excluding Constantinople and its environs), which had been transferred to Constantinople’s jurisdiction back in the first half of the eighth century. However, with regard to the Slavonic services, Rome’s position – as has already been stated – changed frequently (it was dictated by the political situation of the given moment): from permission for the partial use of Slavonic in divine services as a second language (after Latin) to a total ban. After the death of Methodius in 885, there came a final ban, accompanied by the expulsion and sale into slavery of the archbishop’s disciples. But the apparent defeat in the lives of the holy brothers in Moravia was almost immediately replaced by the triumph of their disciples’ joyful acceptance in Bulgaria.

Interview conducted by Sergei Milov.

Translated from the Russian

Source: http://www.pravmir.com/the-unknown-mission-of-sts-cyril-and-methodius/

By Fr. Andrew Lemeshonok

We may find it difficult to be agile but we can at least wake up. The Lord is near. He gives us even more strength than we need. We should not waste it on sins, on bad thoughts, bad words, or daydreams, but use it to do good instead. Doing good means that we should serve and help the people around us with good words and thoughts. This is what a God-pleasing life is about. I would like to wish all of us to lead a God-pleasing life like that. If we want to do it, we have to be on the lookout for the enemy’s tricks. The sin can be cunning. It may tell a person that “that’s the way to go, it would be the right thing to do.” Does God have anything to do with justice? God only has love. I would like this Bright Easter Week to last forever but we will have to die for the sin and come alive for God for this to come true. I believe we will be able to do it because Christ has gathered, purified, sanctified all of us and gave us his love that had trampled down death. It is this love that we should be carrying with us all year round but let us begin today by not uttering a bad word, not thinking a bad thought, and by thanking God for everything and for all. (Sermon after the Divine Liturgy on April 17, 2017)

***

The Resurrection of Christ is our hope. It is more than a mere distraction; this is something that will be with me for real. My life on this Earth won’t last forever. Sooner or later my last day will come. I am blessed to have the experience and the knowledge about the fact that there is no death but there is the true life which overcomes death. Easter is not just a holiday; this is really the joy that we have and that we should live with in spite of all problems that we might have in our lives. This is why I would like all of you to go to your homes rejoicing with your Easter cakes. I wish all of us to come home from church being filled with grace and love which is so hard to find in this world. The true love does not seek anything. It does not demand anything in response. This is the simple love of Christ that we all have now. It is for this reason that the Lord has established our Church and built our Convent, so that we could learn to love one another. Certainly, this is a very difficult subject. However, our mark for the final exam that each of us will have to take when she dies and her soul comes to God, depends on how we study today. The Lord will simply ask, "Do you love Me?" We have a lot to change in our lives in order to be able to say “I love you, I want to learn to love you,” like Peter who also sinned by betraying Jesus. In order to do that we have to struggle with egotism and all the sins that dwell in us and prevent us from loving each other. I would like to wish all of you to abide in love during these Easter days. (Sermon during the consecration of Easter food April 15, 2017)

***

There’s no law against living a good life. We Orthodox have a good and enjoyable life. Have you ever seen such beauty and sweetness anywhere? Have you ever heard chants like these? We have reached the most important point where there is no more death and where we will live forever. How will we live? If we lead a bad life, can you imagine what our eternal life will be like? It will be eternal death. This is why we should lead a good life. In order to do so we must never offend anyone, always respect other people, not judge anyone, never make anyone unhappy, and see only good things. It would be nice if we had inner peace and stood our ground. When we are led by feelings, when we are worried, anxious, and go to extremes, we lose strength and start to live badly.

We live as we deserve. Someone taught his children to love and respect him, and as a result, there is peace, love, and not a single rude word in his household. On the other hand, there are people who are rejected by everyone because no one can endure them. That is why, my dear friends, we mustn’t blame anyone else for our failures. Let’s correct our lives and change them. Christ accepts each one of us into his embrace, regardless of whether we fasted or not, whether we prayed or not, whether we are good or not. He loves everyone. How can we say anything against such love?

***

Do not lower the bar of love to a mere “justice”. Do not reduce the expectations to the point where we begin to say who owes whom. I owe everyone. Do not trust this world that tricks you into believing that everyone lives like that and that you should conform to them. Do not follow suit. You must seek Christ and follow him. This will be the surest and the most correct path.

***

We have thirty-nine days of Easter ahead of us. We must rejoice during all these thirty-nine days. You hurt all over, you are deceived, no one needs you — but you must rejoice because Christ is risen. This is where the power lies. I would like us to be very strong because our Lord is strong. He is strong in his love, which does not act like human love. Humans could say, “Who deserves communion? No one.” However, God allows everyone to take communion because He loves all of us very much. Where sin abounds, grace will much more abound (cf. Romans 5:20). (Sermon after the Divine Liturgy on April 16, 2017)

By Fr. Valery Zakharov

The Great Lent and the Resurrection of Christ are a sequence of sorrow and joy. They are the real life, the road that we have to walk here on earth in order to get prepared for the eternal life. Of course, this road is not easy and smooth, and we are not as astute as we would like to, but each one has her own measure. The measure of God’s love is infinite. We lay our hopes on this love, and we hope that it will give us the chance to make our way, to stumble along, to crawl into the Kingdom, which we anticipate as the Promised Land and the source of eternal bliss, no matter what. It would be great if we learned to share this joy with those who are around us here. I think that learning to share is the key to success. We have already learned to receive, now we should try to share what we’ve got, but be prudent in doing so. The gifts that the Lord gives are priceless. You should not cast pearls before swine but if you see that a certain person can accept what we have to say, we should say the word that will awaken her. It doesn’t even have to be a word: you can support someone, raise their spirit, and help them to get better and look at God by simply looking into their eyes or thinking or praying about them. (Sermon after the Divine Liturgy in the Boarding Home for Children with Special Needs on April 16, 2017)

By Fr. Andrew Malakhovsky

Every person is called to the Kingdom of God. Every person must try to take off and get closer to the heaven – the Kingdom of God – as his spiritual practice. This is a difficult task because one must always be like a bird. A bird cannot fly with folded wings. A bird flies until it flaps its wings. As soon as it folds its wings, it goes down. Similarly, human beings have to toil in their spiritual life all the time. May the Lord help us to realise that we cannot just fold our wings because we will fall down immediately, and the earthly cares will swallow us up and cover us entirely. Let’s remember that we are destined for the Heaven. (Sermon after the All-Night Vigil on February 1, 2017)

St. Elisabeth Convent

April 21, 2017