The Catalog of Good Deeds

From a letter of Archimandrite Irenei

to a mother and father (2012):

My dear N and A,

You are Orthodox parents raising Orthodox children in the loving embrace of the Church, and you have asked an important question relating to the cultural “celebrations” surrounding what has come to be known as “Halloween”. Let us start by saying, then, that you must put out of your mind these thoughts about “going with the culture” and permitting your children to take part in such customs “so that they won’t feel out of place with their friends.” Where secular people may feel they have the option to divorce the spiritual realm from the physical and do one thing with their bodies while believing another in their minds, we Christian people do not. We know that the actions of our bodies, and the things we do with our lives, affect our hearts and are directly connected to spiritual realms of which we are, on account of our weakness, not always immediately aware. Can you honestly think—you who gaze at and touch the holy icons in your home and in our temples, and know that the saints are present with you, and that you are drawn into their holy lives—that to be willingly surrounded by images of the demons (however childish and infantile their representation) will not also affect your heart, and your children’s hearts, and draw them closer to powers that none would call holy? And not just to gaze upon such images, but to fashion them into clothes and costumes and wear them on one’s body?

Some will say, “Ah, but it is only a bit of fun, these days. It’s just fancy dress. No one believes in these things!” But tell me, do you think the devil is so foolish that he does not see the opportunity that comes from something being perceived as “just fun and games”? Do you believe he does not understand that such circumstances cause us to let down our guard, to tease and toy with the very ideas of demons and spiritual darkness? That he does not rejoice precisely because such images become things of play, and therefore things that we do not guard against when the play is done? Yet others will say, “But it is not all macabre: children trick-or-treat in costumes of angels, of cartoon characters, of animals.” But this is to fail to see the point, that it is the very admixture of these two things—the playful and the demonic—that does such damage to the soul. The Scriptures say, What concord hath Christ with Belial? (2 Cor. 6.15), and yet modern man feels perfectly comfortable to join the demons to teddy-bears and unicorns; to mix the sinister with the trivial. This is because he has lost the sense of how powerfully our idle “play” affects the inner disposition of the heart. We think that if we don’t take something “seriously”, it cannot seriously affect us—but look how much woe and despair there is in the world, as the result of this delusion!

No, it is time to stand fast against this ridiculous trend. God has given you children; and now, in this very dilemma you are feeling in your heart, He is asking you how you will look after them. Will you, for the sake of “social norms”, start them at so precious and tender an age down the path of considering the spiritual world a realm of partying and jest, toying with images of evil as if they were of no consequence? Or will you spend this night teaching them of the joy of the spiritual life as it really is? “Halloween” (18th / 31st October) coincides with the eve of the feast day of our beloved pastor and illumined Father in the faith, St John of Kronstadt; and it is also the feast day of the pious virgin St. Frideswide of Oxford. Look, how God has planted for you two spiritual trees that can bear fruit in your family’s life on this very night. Take your children to the Divine Services; encourage them precisely in the fact of doing something that others are neglecting—that while the world outside plays about in the frivolities of delusion and mixes demons with daydreams, you will enter into the Holy Temple where the God of all spirits dwells, to receive the Holy Spirit and be joined into a life that turned a parish priest into a clairvoyant miracle worker and a meek young woman into a wonder-working healer! And teach your children that He longs to do the same for them, that He desires to make of them great saints whom the whole world will know, if only they, and you, will let Him.

May God give you strength to stand steadfast with joy amidst these worldly trials! May He bless you, and bless your children.

By Archimandrite Irenei (Steenburg),

now Bishop of Sacramento (ROCOR)

Source: https://orthodoxethos.com/post/a-brief-word-on-halloween-as-to-whether-you-ought-to-participate-or-not

There is disagreement among contemporary scholars and commentators about which of the Evangelists wrote first: Matthew or Mark. But it is safe to assert that Luke was the third in order. He certainly knew Mark’s text well, and possible Matthew’s; he also made use of other sources. These three are often called the “synoptics”; the Greek word means that these three authors “saw together.” Their texts are much more similar to one another than to the Gospel according to John, which was written much later and in an entirely different manner; he sought to supplement the synoptics by elaborating on that which they had remained silent about.

Matthew and Mark were eyewitnesses of many events of the Gospel, but the same cannot be said of Luke. Tradition calls him one of the Apostles of the seventy, but the Gospels do not mention him; it is certainly not apparent from his own text that he spoke as an eyewitness. We encounter him only in Acts, not even at the very beginning, where he accompanies the Apostle Paul (who, incidentally, also did not participate in any way in the Gospel narrative). He is mentioned in several Pauline epistles as his most faithful and intimate companion and even as his personal physician. We know from the same sources that Paul suffered from some sort of serious illness, for which Luke’s help was necessary. Incidentally, a doctor’s perspective can also be seen in the pages of his Gospel: when describing the healing of the sick, Luke specifies the illnesses from which they were suffering.

But, one might wonder, what right did such a person have to talk about Jesus when immediate eyewitnesses to these events were still alive and known to all? Yet even today we rarely know about past events from eyewitnesses; we more often hear about them from historians. Luke was such an historian. As he himself says in the introduction to his Gospel, many had already told the life of Jesus (and, most likely, not always fairly), so it was worth carefully questioning eyewitnesses, comparing all available sources, and compiling a fuller and more trustworthy account. And this is just what he did. The text was apparently composed in Rome in the beginning of the 60s, most likely under Paul’s guidance.

As with the other synoptics, we know relatively little about Luke. He was born, according to tradition, in Antioch, Syria; this was one of the largest cities of the time, where a Christian community arose immediately after the Resurrection. He was most likely not a Jew, but a Greek (the only one of all the New Testament writers!); in any case, he received a fine education and wrote in excellent Greek. Tradition calls him a doctor and an artist (an iconographer, as it is called in church tradition); it was he who painted the first portrait, or icon, of the Theotokos. There is nothing unusual about this: in those days there was not the same kind of narrow specialization as exists today; someone well versed in the healing arts could well delve into art and historiography.

In any case, it is only this Gospel that relates the story of the Nativity in such detail and even an episode from the childhood of Jesus: how He went with His family to Jerusalem for the feast day and later lingered in His Father’s house, that is, the Temple. Joseph had by then long since died, so only the Virgin Mary could have told Luke about this. Might she have told him about this while he was painting her portrait?

Accuracy and attention to detail are characteristic of Luke. For instance, he alone tells of the wise thief who turned to Christ when already on the cross. There is nothing surprising about this: almost all of Jesus’ disciples had fled and whoever remained at the Cross would likely not have heard the words of the thieves crucified with Him. But Luke found an eyewitness who had heard and remembered the conversation of Jesus with the repentant thief, who was promised an immediate encounter in Paradise.

Just as Matthew cites Old Testament prophecies in detail and Mark emphasizes Jesus’ power and majesty, Luke speaks with special thoroughness about His sacrificial death and its salvific meaning for humanity. This is why the ox, a sacrificial animal, was chosen as his symbol.

But the primary distinction of this Gospel from the others is its literary elegance. Luke combines different styles (which, unfortunately, is normally lost in modern translations): here we see refined Greek prose, poetic hymns (the only in the entire New Testament), grand narrative in the style of the Old Testament, and aphoristic sayings. Luke clearly wrote for the discerning and educated Hellenistic public, which did not need to be simply surprised by new ideas, but to have these ideas presented in an elegant form in order for them to listen.

The parables are likely the peak of his literary craftsmanship. It is in Luke that we find stories that even people who have never opened the Bible know well: for instance, the parables of the prodigal son and of the rich man and Lazarus. Parables make up a significant part of his book: these are little stories that one can understand without any deep knowledge of history or Palestinian geography; indeed, one hardly need know anything in order to grasp their general meaning. But to penetrate their depths is no simple matter. A series of easily remembered everyday events pass before us, but it is not always possible to reach unequivocal conclusions concerning them. Why, for instance, did Christ praise the unjust steward who wrote off part of the debt of his master’s debtors? To this day, interpreters offer different responses.

Luke, as we see, is not aspiring towards didacticism (do good and do not do bad), but rather expresses his thought in metaphors. Take, for instance, the parable of the prodigal son. Is the son its main hero? A dissolute youth who affronts his father, squanders his money, and then returns to him – this is a clear picture, one that indeed happens in real life. There is nothing in particular to say here. But this parable compels us to marvel at something else: the father’s behavior seems completely illogical. He does not hinder his insolent son from leaving; he patiently awaits his return; and he accepts him as soon as he sees him. He has the right to punish him severely, but he forgives him; he does not even allow him to finish speaking, but returns him to his former dignity. Is this not how the Heavenly Father awaits our repentance? Thus it turns out that this parable is not in fact about the prodigal son, but about the patient and endlessly loving father.

Or perhaps it is also about the elder brother? He diligently fulfilled all instructions; he was a model son. And he, of course, was not at all happy that his father showed mercy to this dissolute young man, whom he did not want to call his own brother. Was this fair? But it turns out that you can be your father’ son only when your most dissolute brother remains a brother to you. Indeed, one could say much more about this parable; it does not resemble the sort of fable in which there is only one obvious moral. This story gives us several lessons at once, revealing different layers depending on how we look at it.

Luke is also a master of artistic detail. He describes how Jesus healed ten lepers, who went to the Temple in order to live henceforth among other healthy and happy people. Only one returns to thank the Healer: and he was a Samaritan (Luke 17:16). A despised alien, an outsider! Perhaps the remaining nine tolerated him only so long as they were all leprous outcasts, but now they are going to the Temple, which the Samaritan cannot enter, and he has no choice but to part from them? Or perhaps he thought of simple human gratitude precisely because he was not able to perform the rite? Thus it happened that the person who was most distant, the Samarian, suddenly became the one who was closest – just as in the other parable about mercy. There is something worth pondering here.

Luke accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys, which he describes thoroughly in Acts, constantly using the pronoun “we” while never saying anything about himself personally. This, too, is a vivid personality trait! The level of detail in the depiction of Paul, his unfailing teacher and companion from the moment they left to preach, is matched only by the inconspicuousness of the author himself.

After the death of the Apostle Paul, Luke continued his missionary work in Italy, Gaul, Dalmatia, Greece, and Africa. He preached the Gospel in these countries, established Christian communities, and healed the sick – not only as a physician, but as an Apostle. He was martyred in old age in the Greek city of Thebes, where he was crucified on an olive tree for lack of a prepared cross. His body was buried there; later, in the fourth century, it was taken to Constantinople. His relics remained there until the Turkish conquest, after which they, like many other sacred objects, fell into the hands of the Venetians. Today they are preserved in the Italian city of Padua; a portion of these relics was returned to Thebes in the 1990s. The Apostle’s memory is celebrated on April 22 and October 18 (Old Calendar).

It was stated above that nothing about Luke himself is mentioned in the Gospels. While this is the case, there is still one clue. At the very end of his Gospel, Luke mentions a nameless disciple of Jesus who, along with his fellow disciple Cleopas, travelled from Jerusalem to a village called Emmaus shortly after the Resurrection (about which they still knew nothing). On the way they spoke about everything that had taken place in Jerusalem: their hope that Jesus would establish His Kingdom here and now had not proven true. They suddenly met a stranger who began to ask them why they were so downhearted. Then he began to explain to them, beginning with the prophecies of the Old Testament, that this was how Christ was to suffer for people’s salvation.

They continued their learned conversation along the way; when evening had arrived, they invited their companion to share a meal with them. When he blessed and broke the bread, they recognized His voice, His hands, His face – this was their risen Teacher! Their hearts burned while they were talking on the road, but their minds were too occupied with difficult theological questions simply to recognize Him. This required accepting the bread broken by Him, participating in a meal with Him.

It appears that this story was indeed told by an eyewitness – he cites so many details and is so captivated by his narration. Perhaps the second disciple, who is not named in the account, was indeed named Luke? In any case, this account tells the story of all who have received a good education, who have gathered a multitude of historical facts, and who have given thought to their interpretation – but for whom the primary, decisive conclusion required a living and immediate encounter with the Teacher. This lesson of the Apostle and Evangelist Luke is especially dear and intimate to me.

By Dr. Andrei Desnitsky

Source: http://www.pravmir.com/the-evangelist-luke-historian-and-literary-genius/

We Orthodox Christian hear this question quite often. In fact, it strikes a much deeper issue, namely, the issue with the Holy Tradition, which incorporates the works by the Holy Fathers. Here is a 101 on the Holy Tradition and why, according to the Church, you can’t understand the Bible without it.

Is the Bible Enough?

The correlation between the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition has been hotly contested between the Orthodox and the Protestants for centuries. It was as early as the 16^th century that Protestants proclaimed their famous doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Latin for “only the Scripture”), claiming that the text of the Bible is enough for proper Christian living.

They declared that the Bible contains just enough information for our salvation and that the Tradition was a later and useless invention, which Christians had to get rid of as quickly as possible.

Orthodox theologians radically oppose this approach.

The Church teaches that the Holy Tradition is the earliest way of transmission of the Divine Revelation.

The Holy Tradition existed before the Holy Scripture and served as its basis. It isn’t hard to grasp it: even during our everyday lives we experience something first and then express our experiences in written form, if necessary. Aside from that, even the Bible admits that the Holy Tradition comes first.

Thus, we learn from the book of Genesis that God talked with Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses directly. We see that Abel already knows how to make a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof to God (Gen. 4:4). Noah knows which animals are “clean” and which are “unclean” (Gen. 7:8). Abraham knows the tradition of tithing when he gives tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:20). It is worth pointing out that none of them read the Scripture because there weren’t any written Scriptures at those times.

Old Testament characters lived without the sacred texts of the Scripture for many centuries. Likewise, early Christians did without the written New Testament because they tuned their spiritual and everyday lives in accordance with the oral Tradition of the Church.

Therefore, the Scripture is essentially the recorded part of the Tradition, which is why the former cannot exist without the latter.

Furthermore, the very fact that the Divine Revelation had to be put to paper, according to Saint John Chrysostom, indicated a steady decline of morals and spiritual deafness, which was spreading among people:

“In fact, we shouldn’t need the Scriptures; instead, we should lead a life so pure that we could use the grace of the Holy Spirit instead of books; and to the extent that books are written with ink, our hearts should be written on by the Spirit. Given that we have rejected that grace, let’s at least use the second way [i.e., the written Scripture—Translator’s Note].

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

Interestingly enough, if we “remove” the Holy Tradition from the Divine Revelation, there will appear “blank spots” in the biblical text immediately—and it’s impossible to fill in those gaps without additional sources.

For example, Jacob tells his son Joseph in Genesis: “Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” (Gen. 48:22). However, nowhere in the Scripture (in the book of Genesis) do we find any mention of military actions that Jacob undertook against the Amorite with his “sword” and his “bow”.

Apostle Paul matter-of-factly writes to Timothy, “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2 Tim. 3:8) Again, here is the question: Where did Paul read about it if there isn’t any mention of a Jannes and a Jambres and their conflict with Moses in the Bible?

Archdeacon Stephen informs the Jews, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.” (Acts 7:22-23) And again, There is no mention of Moses’ age when it came into his heart to visit his brethren. There are plenty of similar examples in the Bible.

Moreover, there is a more fundamental problem, too. Readers of the New Testament must have faced it when they read the entire biblical corpus but could not find a detailed doctrine regarding certain basic tenets of Christianity, such as Sacraments. The question is: Why is the Bible silent about all those matters? This question can’t be resolved within the Sola Scriptura mindset.

Besides, the structure of the New Testament without the Holy Tradition appears vague due to discrepancies and incomprehensible passages. For example, what does Jesus Christ has in mind when He refers to the Heavenly Bread, to the grapevine, and to the water that flows into the eternal life? What does Apostle Paul urge us to do when he says, “[L]et a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:28-29)? What do the grapevine, the water, the bread, and the cup refer to? The New Testament text doesn’t provide us with a clear explanation.

However, all those questions disappear as soon as we put the Scripture into its original context, i.e., the Tradition.

Archpriest John Meyendorff stresses that the aforementioned words of Jesus “cannot be fully appreciated without knowing that Christians of the 1^st century performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist.” Sayings about the cup, the grapevine, and the bread become clear as soon as we put them in the context of the Tradition. Again, it shows that the Scripture and the Tradition are reciprocally connected and inseparable. Their unity is the prerequisite for the conceptual completeness of the Divine Revelation.

The Holy Tradition is the prerequisite for true understanding of the Scripture, the point of reference based on centuries-long reading and analysis of the Bible, which allows every Christian to read God’s Revelation without the risk of distorting its meaning.

Remember the story from the book of Acts where Apostle Philip asked the Eunuch who was reading the Old Testament, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The eunuch replied, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (cf. Acts 8:30-31)? It is the Holy Tradition that “guides” a believer. It instructs us not only how to read the Scripture but also how to get saved.

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

Both the Holy Tradition and the Holy Scripture exist only for the Church and only within the Church. There is neither the Holy Scripture nor the Holy Tradition outside of the Church.

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) emphasizes that the Holy Scripture is part of the general grace-filled life of the Church. There is no Scripture, in the real sense of this word, without the Church.

Alexei Khomyakov pointed out that people who stay away from the Church are unable to comprehend the Scripture, the Tradition, and the practice of the Church.

At first, these statements might appear too straightforward and alienating. Yet, if we put them in the right context, all misunderstandings will be resolved.

Let’s imagine that I want you to discover Stravinsky’s music. I know a lot about his works; I can even give you a lecture on them, and then equip you with several good scholarly papers for additional reading. You will listen to my words, read the papers, and learn the facts, but you won’t discover Stravinsky’s music for yourself. The most important factor is missing: your personal encounter with his music, full immersion, and direct interaction with live performance of Stravinsky’s music.

Same with the Scripture and the Tradition. You can speak about them for as long as you wish and read hundreds and thousands of scientific papers about the Scriptures and the Tradition. Sadly, without a personal encounter and the unmediated experience of building your own life on the Scripture and the Tradition, they will merely remain curious artifacts of human history.

You can encounter them and discover them only in the Church, which lives and breathes the Scripture and the Tradition for several millennia already. The Church has an uninterrupted succession of those who dedicate themselves to preserving the Scripture and the Tradition, i.e., the saints.

Holiness means that a certain person lives according to the Tradition and the Scripture, that the fullness of Divine Revelation is fully embodied in the lives of certain people but first of all in the life of Jesus Christ. Stravinsky’s music is revealed to us only if we listen to it live; similarly, the Tradition and the Scripture are fully revealed to us only if we are in the Church, if we participate in Her holiness. The most profound experience of the Tradition is possible only through the Sacrament of Eucharist. The Eucharist is the crossroads where the Tradition and the Scripture meet.

The fullness of the Divine Revelation was given to the Church only once, on the Day of Pentecost. The Christians of the subsequent centuries merely unveiled and gradually explained this diverse Tradition.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, doctrines of the Church, works by Holy Fathers, iconographic canon, church architecture, and the biblical canon—all of those are parts of the Holy Tradition.

Therefore, Church doctrine doesn’t evolve or develop in any way. It is expressed in the history of the human race and in the lives of holy people.

Saint Augustine who discovered the Tradition and the Scripture only after he met Saint Ambrose of Milan, wrote the following paradoxical words: “I wouldn’t believe the Gospel if not for the authority of the Orthodox Catholic Church.” We can rephrase the saint’s words and declare, “I wouldn’t believe the Tradition if not for the authority of the Orthodox Catholic Church.”

The authority in the Church is the Holy Spirit who dwells in it.

By Tichon Sysoev

Translated by The Catalog of Good Deeds

Source: https://foma.ru/chto-peredaet-svyashhennoe-predanie.html

1. You should always be meek with everybody. You shouldn’t annoy anyone or be envious. You shouldn’t satisfy the lust of flesh that seduces one with gluttony and then leads to other passions.

2. There is no greater virtue than love; and there is no worse vice and passion than hatred, which appears to be insignificant in the eyes of those who are careless but in fact, it is similar to murder in the spiritual sense (cf. 1 John 3:15).

3. Mercy, condescension, and forgiveness of your neighbour’s shortcomings is the shortest route to salvation.

4. There is no other virtue as pleasing unto God as humility. Humility is more easily achievable for an imperfect ascetic than a strict and perfect ascetic, which is clear from the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

5. Envy, rage, and hatred originate from pride and lack of love of one’s neighbours. Here is a remedy against all those: First, a humble and honest acknowledgement of your inadequacy in front of God and your spiritual father; secondly, the Gospel-driven motivation not to act according to those passions but to do the opposite of what they urge you to do; thirdly, seeking God’s glory and the praise from God; fourthly, asking for God’s help humbly, using these words from the Psalms: O Lord! Who can understand his errors? cleanse Thou me from secret faults. Let them not have dominion over me. (Cf. Ps. 19: 12-13). The fifth remedy is self-reproach.

6. What should those who cannot live according to the law of Heaven yet and who still live according to the law of the earth, with the various weaknesses and attachments that it entails, do? That is what we, the weak and sinful ones, can do: we should repent of our weaknesses and infirmities honestly, humble ourselves down before God and people with all sincerity, and endure various sorrows and illnesses, which are caused by our sins, quietly and patiently. This is how we can obtain God’s mercy without any doubt.

7. All Christians are willing to inherit the blissful fate in the afterlife. In order to achieve it, we will inevitably have to endure some troubles and illnesses, according to the Word of God, “[W]e must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14: 22)

8. The All-Loving Lord bestows various sorrows and afflictions upon the righteous ones, primarily to prevent them from diminishing their pious efforts and from becoming lazy, going astray, and dying. Secondly, He wants them to be completely free from passions and sins and to receive an enormous reward in the age to come, for it is written, As gold in the furnace He hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust He hath received them (Wisdom 3:6). On the contrary, the Lord sends various troubles and illnesses to the sinful ones so as to make them repent.

9. Given that every virtue isn’t acquired in just a day and it takes a lot of effort and hard work to finally master it, it is even more rightfully said of love, which is the beginning and the end of all virtues. It calls for a lot of time, effort, hard work, and prayer but first of all, learning to love requires deep humility before God and people.

10. Repentance and humility are more necessary and greater than all other virtues. They do not stop until you die. Saint John Climacus paraphrases King David when he writes “I didn’t fast, nor did I stay awake, nor did I sleep on the ground, but I humbled myself, and the Lord saved me.”

11. Some people are affected by the sin of judgement out of habit, others out of rancour, but most frequently, we are affected by this sin due to our arrogance and conceit; in spite of our irreparable sinfulness, we still believe that we are better than many others. If we wish to get rid of the sin of judgement, we must coerce ourselves to be humble before God and people as much as we can, and ask God for help, remembering the Gospel words, [T]he kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matthew 11: 12), and the exhortation of the Lord who rose from the dead three days after he was buried, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11: 29-30).

12. Those who deserve it receive the Kingdom of Heaven in the afterlife after they die. However, those who firmly believe and are watchful, receive the Kingdom of God in this current life within them, as promised in the Gospel: [T]he kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17: 21).

13. How exactly do we acquire the Kingdom of God that should be within us? Apostles say that it is acquired, first of all, thanks to righteousness that consists of observing God’s commandments and dealing with our neighbours mercifully and compassionately; secondly, it is achieved by maintaining peace with our neighbours and staying away from passions, being in harmony with our conscience, and remaining loyal to God through repentance and humility.

14. The primary way to lead a pious and holy life consists of the fear of God and the fear of the future judgement and the eternal suffering. Only with help of this fear and with God’s help do people follow the commandments, according to the Psalms: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. (Ps. 112: 1).

15. The love of God is proven by love and mercy towards one’s neighbour. Mercy and kind-hearted attitude towards one’s neighbour and forgiveness of his wrongdoings is achieved through humility and self-reproach, when we blame ourselves and not someone else in all distressing and unpleasant occasions; when we find faults with ourselves because we didn’t know how to act the right way, which led to the trouble that we have to face now. If we look at things this way, we will be less upset and angry, for anger does not do what is right before God.

Prepared by The Catalog of Good Deeds

October 23, 2018

Source: Selected Letters of Holy Optina Elder Schema-Hieromonk Ambrose to Monastics.

Question: What does the following phrase from the First Catholic Epistle of St. John the Theologian mean: “All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death” (1 Jn 5:17)?

Answer: Every departure from the commandments of God and breaking of the law of God (in deed, word, and even thought) is a sin. In another place in the same catholic epistle the Apostle writes: “sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn 3:4). Sins are conscious and unconscious, committed by ignorance and carelessness. Among conscious sins mortal sins are given special place. To them belong: conscious and intentional apostasy from faith, obstinate denial of God, hatred and ill-will to people (“The one not loving his brother abideth in death,” 1 Jn 3:14), bold condemnation of the commandments of God. They are committed in the deep inculcation in man of sin and attachment to evil. Mortal sins exterminate in man love for God and make man dead to the reception of Divine grace. The greatest sin is that against the Holy Spirit (c.f., Mt. 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-30; Lk 12:10). It is not forgiven.

The Holy Apostle John the Theologian is saying that one should pray for those who have not sinned unto death. For those who have sinned unto death, he does not give instruction, but also does not immediately forbid it. Their stubborn rejection of the truth, disbelief, obduracy and hardness in sin makes prayer for them, as a rule, fruitless. The most effective medicine for them is affliction. The question is appropriate: why not send all sinners such afflictions? The Lord, Who knows the condition of every heart, knows to whom to send afflictions, and who would sin even more if sent afflictions. And Divine love is extended unto such people. Since the lot of such unrepentant sinners is not identical, their punishment will be according to the degree of transgression, since God does not want that their afflictions to increase. For those, who are capable of spiritual growth, afflictions are a great and salvific act of God’s mercy.

Source: http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2010/06/sins-unto-death.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

A Brief Word on Halloween in a Letter to Orthodox Parents

Evangelist Luke: The Path of a Historian and Literary Genius

Why Do Orthodox Christians Need Holy Fathers? Isn’t the Bible Enough?

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

15 Quotes of Guidance from St. Ambrose of Optina

Parable of the Day: What Can We Learn from a Mountain Stream?

"A Sin not unto Death": What Do These Words Mean?

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

A Brief Word on Halloween in a Letter to Orthodox Parents

Evangelist Luke: The Path of a Historian and Literary Genius

Why Do Orthodox Christians Need Holy Fathers? Isn’t the Bible Enough?

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

15 Quotes of Guidance from St. Ambrose of Optina

Parable of the Day: What Can We Learn from a Mountain Stream?

"A Sin not unto Death": What Do These Words Mean?

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners