#Apostolic principle

[mindfulldsliving]

The Beatitudes and Apostolic Guidance in 3 Nephi 12

As we explore this rich scripture, we find Jesus instructing the Nephites to heed His apostles, underscoring the vital role of these chosen leaders in guiding believers towards spiritual fulfillment.

Apostolic Authority and Teachings: Insights from 3 Nephi 12 In 3 Nephi 12, the teachings of Jesus Christ echo the profound messages of the Sermon on the Mount, highlighting the essential theme of Apostolic Authority and Teaching. As we explore this rich scripture, we find Jesus instructing the Nephites to heed His apostles, underscoring the vital role of these chosen leaders in guiding believers…

[thinkingonscripture]

The Apostle Paul: A NT Example of Submission to God

A New Testament person who exemplifies living in submission to God is the Apostle Paul. Despite his weaknesses and failures, Paul’s life demonstrates steady submission to God’s will. His transformation from a persecutor of Christians to a devoted apostle of Christ illustrates this submission. Unlike most Christians, Paul surrendered to the Lord very shortly after his conversion on the road to…

[biblepreacher]

War & Politics: Can Christians Serve in Political or Military Vocations?

Having argued that Jesus is Lord, which gives him alone the right to order his Kingdom, and that there is one authority over all to which we must answer, which means there aren’t different standards for “secular” and “religious” spheres, and having argued that God has both reserved vengeance for himself, now it’s time to ask the question that has divided how Christians engage with questions of…

[gnosisandtheosis]

Hermetic Spirituality with Dr M. David Litwa. Dr. M. David Litwa explores what Hermetic Spirituality can be in the present day by looking at its historic principles.

This talk was given at the 2023 Conclave of the Apostolic Johannite Church.

[tiny-librarian]

In the early morning hours of October 16th, having been condemned to death by guillotine, Marie Antoinette was led back to her cell in the Conciergerie. She wrote the following letter to her sister in law, Madame Elisabeth, but it would never reach her.

Here is a translation of the letter, images of the original are above.

16th October, 4.30 A.M. It is to you, my sister, that I write for the last time. I have just been condemned, not to a shameful death, for such is only for criminals, but to go and rejoin your brother. Innocent like him, I hope to show the same firmness in my last moments.

I am calm, as one is when one’s conscience reproaches one with nothing. I feel profound sorrow in leaving my poor children: you know that I only lived for them and for you, my good and tender sister. You who out of love have sacrificed everything to be with us, in what a position do I leave you! I have learned from the proceedings at my trial that my daughter was separated from you. Alas! poor child; I do not venture to write to her; she would not receive my letter. I do not even know whether this will reach you. Do you receive my blessing for both of them. I hope that one day when they are older they may be able to rejoin you, and to enjoy to the full your tender care. Let them both think of the lesson which I have never ceased to impress upon them, that the principles and the exact performance of their duties are the chief foundation of life; and then mutual affection and confidence in one another will constitute its happiness. Let my daughter feel that at her age she ought always to aid her brother by the advice which her greater experience and her affection may inspire her to give him. And let my son in his turn render to his sister all the care and all the services which affection can inspire. Let them, in short, both feel that, in whatever positions they may be placed, they will never be truly happy but through their union. Let them follow our example. In our own misfortunes how much comfort has our affection for one another afforded us! And, in times of happiness, we have enjoyed that doubly from being able to share it with a friend; and where can one find friends more tender and more united than in one’s own family? Let my son never forget the last words of his father, which I repeat emphatically; let him never seek to avenge our deaths. I have to speak to you of one thing which is very painful to my heart, I know how much pain the child must have caused you. Forgive him, my dear sister; think of his age, and how easy it is to make a child say whatever one wishes, especially when he does not understand it. It will come to pass one day, I hope, that he will better feel the value of your kindness and of your tender affection for both of them. It remains to confide to you my last thoughts. I should have wished to write them at the beginning of my trial; but, besides that they did not leave me any means of writing, events have passed so rapidly that I really have not had time. I die in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion, that of my fathers, that in which I was brought up, and which I have always professed. Having no spiritual consolation to look for, not even knowing whether there are still in this place any priests of that religion (and indeed the place where I am would expose them to too much danger if they were to enter it but once), I sincerely implore pardon of God for all the faults which I may have committed during my life. I trust that, in His goodness, He will mercifully accept my last prayers, as well as those which I have for a long time addressed to Him, to receive my soul into His mercy. I beg pardon of all whom I know, and especially of you, my sister, for all the vexations which, without intending it, I may have caused you. I pardon all my enemies the evils that they have done me. I bid farewell to my aunts and to all my brothers and sisters. I had friends. The idea of being forever separated from them and from all their troubles is one of the greatest sorrows that I suffer in dying. Let them at least know that to my latest moment I thought of them. Farewell, my good and tender sister. May this letter reach you. Think always of me; I embrace you with all my heart, as I do my poor dear children. My God, how heart-rending it is to leave them forever! Farewell! farewell! I must now occupy myself with my spiritual duties, as I am not free in my actions. Perhaps they will bring me a priest; but I here protest that I will not say a word to him, but that I will treat him as a total stranger.

[apilgrimpassingby]

This is a follow-up to this post (so read that first); also to talking to a mutual about it over DM and spending too much time looking at Christian Nationalist Twitter this morning.

The reason I reject the Christ against culture perspective is that the fruit of it - in my experience of and reading about groups who follow it - seems to be the opposite of the fruit of the Apostles and the Fathers.

At the Areopagus, Saint Paul had every right to tell the people of Athens "you people are a bunch of Devil-worshipping perverts living in an empire built on the back of violence and exploitation". And he certainly had the courage to say it; this is the man who said he wished his opponents would castrate themselves. But what he said instead was "in every way you are very religious" (Acts 17:22) and "what you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (17:23) and quoted their poets (17:28). His fire was always reserved for his Jewish kin, morally dissolute Christians and false teachers within the Church and not for pagans; indeed, he made this principle explicit in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

Later on, the Apostolic Fathers - St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna - all lived in a world where sex slavery, pederasty, blood sports, the worship of demons and so on where ubiquitous and died ghastly deaths at the hands of the Roman government: St. Clement was drowned by being chained to an anchor, St. Ignatius was eaten alive by lions and St. Polycarp was burnt to death. And yet, I don't remember anything in their works about how much the world hates Christians or how Christians need to retreat from it - which, as someone who grew up in a Christ against culture environment, is exactly what people of the Christ against culture school of thought tend to do.

[haggishlyhagging]

Paul, brought up in the strictest external principles of Judaism, did not lose his educational bias or primal belief when changing from Judaism to Christianity. Neither was his character as persecutor changed when he united his fortunes with the new religion. He gave to the Christian world a lever long enough to reach down through eighteen centuries, all that time moving it in opposition to a belief in woman's created and religious equality with man, to her right of private judgment and to her personal freedom. His teaching that Adam, first created, was not first in sin divided the unity of the human race in the assumption that woman was not part of the original creative idea but a secondary thought, an inferior being brought into existence as an appendage to man.

Although based upon a false conception of the creative power, this theory found ready acceptance in the minds of the men of the new church. Not illiterate, having received instruction at the feet of Gamaliel, Paul was yet intolerant and credulous—nay more, unscrupulous. He was the first Jesuit in the Christian Church, "becoming all things to all men." The Reformed church, with strange unanimity, has chosen Paul as its leader and the accepted exponent of its views. He may justly be termed the Protestant Pope. And, although even among Catholics rivaling Peter in possession of the heavenly keys, yet the Church of Rome has accepted his authority as in many respects to be more fully obeyed than even the teachings of St. Peter. Having been accepted by the church as the apostolic exponent of its views upon marriage, it was but to be expected that his teachings should be received as divine.

That Paul was unmarried has been assumed because of his bitterness against this relation, yet abundant proof of his having a wife exists. For the membership of the Great Sanhedrim, marriage was a requisite. St. Clement of Alexandria positively declared that St. Paul had a wife. Until the time of Cromwell, when it was burned, a MS. letter of St. Ignatius in Greek was preserved in the old Oxford library. This letter spoke of "St. Peter and Paul and the apostles who were married." Another letter of St. Ignatius is still extant in the Vatican library. Tussian and others who have seen it declare that it also speaks of St. Paul as a married man.

But tenderness toward woman does not appear in his teachings. Man is represented as the master, "the head" of woman. In consonance with his teaching, responsibility has been denied her through the ages, although the church has practically held her amenable for the ruin of the world, prescribing penance and hurling anathemas against her whom it has characterized as the "door of hell."

-Matilda Joslyn Gage, Woman, Church and State

[empirearchives]

Napoleon as the black angel and Tsar Alexander the white angel

This is from an excerpt about Madame de Krüdener, a religious mystic during the Napoleonic era, from the memoir of Leon Dembowski, Moje Wspomnienia, Volume 1. (Source)

A bit about her career:

“Her literary activity was followed by various writings and pamphlets about humanity, in which she plunged into mysticism and presented herself as a prophetess. From 1806 to 1814, despite poor health and exhausted strength, she began to walk through Russia, northern Germany, the Netherlands and France, gathering listeners around her, handing out money and pamphlets.”

Her teachings:

“The principles of her teaching, both repeated in writings and disseminated by living words, consisted in implementing the principles of the early Christian Church and abandoning battles and wars. Moreover, the abolition of the death penalty, the return of freedom to subjugated nationalities and the strict exercise of Christian mercy completed this philanthropic system.”

In which she finds her ideas to be at odds with greater geopolitical events and social currents of her time:

“These sublime and beautiful thoughts, which probably once prevailed in beliefs, had few supporters in the era of Mme de Krüdener’s activity. All Europe seemed to be one camp, and Napoleon, on the one hand, and English intrigues, on the other, were completely destroying it. Everyone was thinking about the marshal’s baton, principalities, subsidies that Napoleon lavished, and while some were longing for constant conquests, others were thinking about how to break Napoleon’s yoke. Therefore, her apostolate, which could only reach places where the French eagles had not reached, did not really reach her convictions. Seeing that the path of persuasion would not reach her goal, she began to prophesy and predict the fall of the black angel (Napoleon), who would be struck down by the white angel (Alexander).”

What’s interesting is that the duel between Britain and France is diagnosed as the source of Madame de Krüdener’s problems, so she turns to a third party (Russia) to be the savior.

Her influence over Tsar Alexander I:

“As a result, Alexander wanted to know her, and it must be admitted that this partly corresponded to his inclination towards mysterious things, because many similar examples can be cited in the life of this monarch. […] Throughout all these years, Mme de Krüdener constantly worked on Emperor Alexander, having established influence mainly over his mind, pushing him towards mysticism, religiosity and abandonment of liberal principles.”

The author makes note that Madame de Krüdener and Tsar Alexander died around the same time.

Bold letters by me.

Pages 180-182

[comeonamericawakeup]

What is Christian nationalism?

The ideology has no manifesto or single definition. But at its core is the belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws should be predicated on Christian values. While separation of church and state is thought by many Americans -Christian and non-Christian, religious and secular- to be a bedrock principle of the U.S., Christian nationalists reject the idea that this was the Founders' intention. The movement's most extreme believers adhere to dominionism: the belief that Christians are ordained by God to exercise dominion over all aspects of society. Americans who hold such views are a distinct minority.

Which lawmakers have ties to the ideology?

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is "the embodiment of white Christian nationalism in a tailored suit," said Robert Jones, president of the PRRI. Johnson has called America a "biblical" republic and railed against "earnest advocates of atheism and sexual perversion." He also has strong connections to the New Apostolic Reformation, a group whose followers believe they are called by God to seize the reins of the federal government and the media. Since becoming speaker, Johnson has been close-lipped about Christian nationalism, but a number of congressional Republicans have not. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has called herself a "proud Christian nationalist"; Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) has vowed to "take back our country" from those "intent on making us a godless nation." At the state level, a growing number of legislators have ties to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL), formed in 2020 to promote "biblical" legislation.

THE WEEK JULY 5/JULY 12, 2024

[mariana-oconnor]

The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax pt 1

Well, that title is a little different from the usual ones.

“The bath!” he said; “the bath! Why the relaxing and expensive Turkish rather than the invigorating home-made article?”

So Watson has been to the Turkish baths? As part of a 'alternative' lifestyle. Right. Got it. Okay then.

Nice to have an introduction of Holmes teasing Watson with deductions about him.

“One of the most dangerous classes in the world,” said he, “is the drifting and friendless woman. She is the most harmless and often the most useful of mortals, but she is the inevitable inciter of crime in others."

I'd like to congratulate Holmes here on giving such an incredible example of victim blaming. Just, beautifully done. Pure, unsullied victim blaming. And in such a way that it blames all single female victims. Bravo.

"There is one correspondent who is a sure draw, Watson. That is the bank. Single ladies must live, and their passbooks are compressed diaries."

I assume that this is specifically vs married ladies who would not have to handle their own money, but the way it's phrased does make me chuckle. Because no one else must live except Single ladies, and no one else uses banks.

"Besides, on general principles it is best that I should not leave the country. Scotland Yard feels lonely without me, and it causes an unhealthy excitement among the criminal classes."

Lestrade when Sherlock goes away.

So Holmes is just sending Watson on holiday? Is this just because Watson's feeling rheumatic and old? Is there even a case? Historically, though, Watson has never done all too well on his own - at least according to Holmes. He usually misses every piece of information Holmes would like him to get.

Marie Devine, the maid, was as popular as her mistress. She was actually engaged to one of the head waiters in the hotel...

That explains the money given to her, then.

He connected the sudden departure with the visit to the hotel a day or two before of a tall, dark, bearded man. “Un sauvage—un véritable sauvage!” cried Jules Vibart.

Do we have anyone else's word about this other than the maid and her waiter's?

Only one thing Jules would not discuss. That was the reason why Marie had left her mistress.

So it... wasn't to marry him? That seems like a reason to me, but I don't really know, I suppose. I would have assumed she just left because she wanted to get married to someone who loved in Lausanne. It would definitely be easier if she didn't have to leave Lausanne whenever Lady Frances wanted.

While there she had made the acquaintance of a Dr. Shlessinger and his wife, a missionary from South America. Like most lonely ladies, Lady Frances found her comfort and occupation in religion. Dr. Shlessinger's remarkable personality, his whole hearted devotion, and the fact that he was recovering from a disease contracted in the exercise of his apostolic duties affected her deeply. She had helped Mrs. Shlessinger in the nursing of the convalescent saint.

These people seem suspicious. But I can't say why. Maybe just because they seem too religious to be true. A disease contracted in the exercise of his duties? It just kind of feels like a scam to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

“None; but he was an Englishman, though of an unusual type.” “A savage?” said I, linking my facts after the fashion of my illustrious friend.

I mean... objection: leading the witness springs to mind. Don't give a person a description, ask them for a description, Watson.

Already the mystery began to define itself, as figures grow clearer with the lifting of a fog.

I'm pretty sure you're just creating a whole new smoke cloud to add to the fog so you can see even less, but sure.

I'm not 100% convinced this savage wasn't Holmes himself in disguise, but I am a very suspicious person.

In reply I had a telegram asking for a description of Dr. Shlessinger's left ear. Holmes's ideas of humour are strange and occasionally offensive, so I took no notice of his ill-timed jest...

I don't think that was a joke, Watson. I think he actually wanted to know about the guy's ear.

“You are an Englishman,” I said. “What if I am?” he asked with a most villainous scowl. “May I ask what your name is?” “No, you may not,” said he with decision. The situation was awkward, but the most direct way is often the best.

You've already been fairly direct, Watson. Running up to a random person and declaring their nationality without even stopping to say bonjour is kind of rude.

And now you're getting attacked.

“Well, Watson,” said he, “a very pretty hash you have made of it! I rather think you had better come back with me to London by the night express.”

I mean, I hate to say I told you so, Watson but I really did tell you so. Holmes, why do you let Watson go unsupervised when he never manages to do what you want? I know Lestrade would pine without you, but I'm sure he could cope for a few weeks. Probably.

Current theory is that Holmes only sent Watson so he could get some fresh Alpine air. As to what happened to Lady Frances, I have no idea. But I think maybe the 'savage' is on her side, not against her.

[guelphicreaction]

Ecclesiastical Matter and Form

The essence of the Catholic Church is:

Matter: the apostolic body into which members are legally incorporated. This body began with the evangelization of Greeks by Hebrew fishermen.

Form: salvation, justification, sanctification. The elevation of man's soul to unite with the Blessed Trinity.

As with all composites, the matter and form are united in the Catholic Church. To have sanctifying grace and save one's soul requires membership in the apostolic church that can trace itself back to the Twelve.

Now regarding the two largest separated branches, the Orthodox and the Protestants, it is curious to note that they each retain only one element. This element is what makes them appealing, and gives them material truth. But formal truth as well as subsistence require possession of both matter and form.

Orthodox: the Orthodox have material successors of the original churches. It is true, they have the episcopacies of Jerusalem, Antioch, and the churches of Anatolia. But, since the form of society is authority, they lack Rome, which is the formal principle of the ecclesiastical apostolic structure. Rome gives unity, that unity which the Orthodox lack. Therefore, they lack the integrity necessary to be the true Church.

The Protestants focus on salvation, which is the formal element of Christianity. But they overemphasize the fact that faith is the root of salvation, with faith alone. They overemphasize that one must have total confidence in God due to total depravity. They distort that we must love God above all things by claiming it to be impossible. In their literalist and pessimistic interpretation of Scripture and St. Augustine, they turn God's mercy into an extrinsic title. We are saved only if God chooses not to send us to hell, not because He washes us and clothes us with grace.

Of course, the Protestants left the true Church, the apostolic Church, and generally have no structure whatever.

Since all creatures have matter and form, so does the true Church, created by Christ in time and sealed with the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. Let us be thankful to God to be in the true Church, which has both elements, making it one complete entity. Let us pray for both separated sides to unite with the true composite, abandoning those obstacles which hinder union with Christ's Mystical Body.

[thinkingonscripture]

Ministering with Integrity: Trusting the Lord to Provide

The apostle Paul was committed to the Lord and to the ministry to which he was called. The Lord was faithful to provide for him and to meet his basic needs. Sometimes others supported Paul and his ministry, and in this way, were conduits of God’s grace. At others times, Paul’s needs were met when God opened doors for him to have employment. Either way, God provided. And Paul trusted the Lord,…

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Wednesday, March 27, 2024

march 14_march27

VENERABLE BENEDICT OF NURSIA, ABBOT (543)

Saint Benedict was born in Norcia around 480 AD. That historical time frame was quite difficult, as it was a mere four years before the Western Roman Empire formally fell by the deposition of the last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus. The only authentic life of Saint Benedict is contained in the second book of Pope Saint Gregory’s Dialogues, probably written between 593 and 594 AD. 

After attending primary schools in Norcia, Benedict went to Rome to broaden his knowledge of literature and law. However, since he was probably disgusted by the dissolute lifestyle of his peers and by Rome’s difficult political situation, he retired to Affile with a group of priests, taking his old nurse with him as a servant. 

At Affile, Saint Benedict worked his first miracle, restoring to perfect condition an earthenware wheat sifter that his man-servant had accidentally broken. This miracle's notoriety drove Benedict to withdraw further from social life. He took shelter in a cave in the ruins of Nero’s village, near Subiaco, where he began to live as a hermit. Immersed in loneliness, his only contact with the outside world was with a monk called Romanus, whose monastery was nearby. He gave Saint Benedict a monk’s habit and provided for his spiritual and material needs. Three solitary years followed. Some shepherds befriended Benedict. They began to follow his teachings and the pastoral and apostolic principles of the Benedictine Order took root. 

After resisting a strong temptation against chastity, Benedict prepared to live through a new experience, following the example of the ancient Fathers of Christian Monasticism. At first, the community of Vicovaro wanted him as its Abbot, but the failed attempt of a monk to poison him forced Benedict to return to his solitude. Afterwards, he founded twelve monasteries and assigned twelve monks to each of them. In addition, he founded a thirteenth monastery for novices and those needing education. Benedict’s fame spread so rapidly, even in Rome, that two illustrious men, Equizius and the nobleman Tertullus, entrusted him with their two sons, Maurus and Placidus. They were to become the first two gems of the Benedictine family. 

During his life, Saint Benedict performed many miracles. He found water on a desolate mountaintop to quench the thirst of his monks. He retrieved a bill hook’s iron from the bottom of a lake and rejoined its handle. He prevented a monk from leading a dissolute life through intervention. In addition, he made Maurus walk on water to save the young Placidus from drowning. 

Unfortunately, a priest called Florentius was envious of Benedict’s popularity and his envy forced the Saint to depart in spite of insistence from his disciples. After leaving Subiaco, Benedict went towards Cassino. In the period between 525 and 529 AD he founded the Abbey of Montecassino. It would become the most famous abbey in continental Europe. Under Benedict’s direction, the old acropolis-sanctuary towering above the declined Roman municipium of Casinum was turned into a monastery that was much bigger than those built at Subiaco. On the remains of the altar of Apollo he built a chapel dedicated to Saint John the Baptist, while the temple of Apollo itself was turned into an oratory for the monks which was dedicated to Saint Martin of Tours. 

  At Montecassino, Saint Benedict displayed prodigious activity. He supervised the monastery's building, established a monastic order, and performed many miracles. He brought back from death a youngster, miraculously supplied the monastery with flour and oil in its time of need, and displayed the gift of prophecy. In the autumn of 542 AD, while the Goth King Totila was passing through Cassino en route to Naples to attack it, he decided to test Saint Benedict because he had already heard of his gifts and charisms. Consequently, Totila sent his squire dressed as a king to greet the monk, but Saint Benedict soon unmasked him. When he finally met Totila, he warned him with a dire prediction: “You have hurt many, and you continue to do it; now stop behaving badly! You will enter Rome, you will cross the vast sea, you will reign for nine years; however in the tenth year, you will die.” And that is exactly what happened. Saint Benedict showed the same virtue as he cried bitterly when confronted with the vision of the first destruction of his monastery. Notwithstanding, he received from God the grace to save all the monks. 

Saint Benedict devoted himself to evangelizing the local population who practiced pagan worship. Shortly before he died, Saint Benedict saw the soul of his sister Saint Scholastica rising to heaven in the form of a dove. This vision happened a few days after their last talk together at the foot of Montecassino. In a vision, Benedict saw the soul of Bishop Germanus of Capua taken by angels in a fire globe. These visions, for Pope Saint Gregory the Great, showed a close union between Benedict and God, a union so intense that the Saint was given the share of an even more magnificent vision, the whole of creation as gathered in a sunbeam. 

In the end, a life so noble was justifiably followed by a much-glorified death. According to tradition, Saint Benedict died on March 21, 547 AD. He foresaw his coming death, informing his close and faraway disciples that the end was near. Six days before dying, he had the grave, which he was to share with his deceased sister, Saint Scholastica, opened. Then, completely exhausted, he asked to be taken into his oratory where, after taking his last Holy Communion, he died supported by his monks.

Source: St Benedict Church

SAINT ROSTISLAV-MICHAEL, GREAT PRINCE OF KIEV (1167)

Saint Rostislav-Michael, Great Prince of Kiev, was the son of the Kievan Great Prince Saint Mstislav the Great (June 14), and the brother of holy Prince Vsevolod-Gabriel (February 11, April 22, and November 27). He was one of the mid-twelfth century's great civil and churchly figures.

His name is connected with the fortification and rise of Smolensk, and both the Smolensk principality and the Smolensk diocese.

Up until the twelfth century the Smolensk land was part of the Kievan realm. The beginning of its political separation took place in the year 1125, when holy Prince Mstislav the Great, gave Smolensk to his son Rostislav (in Baptism Michael) as an inheritance from his father, the Kievan Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh. Thanks to the work and efforts of Saint Rostislav, the Smolensk principality, which he ruled for more than forty years, expanded and was built up with cities and villages, adorned with churches and monasteries, and became influential in Russian affairs.

Saint Rostislav founded the cities of Rostislavl, Mstislavl, Krichev, Propoisk, and Vasiliev among others. He was the forefather of the Smolensk princely dynasty.

In 1136 Saint Rostislav succeeded in establishing a separate Smolensk diocese. Its first bishop was Manuel, installed between March-May of 1136 by Metropolitan Michael of Kiev. Prince Rostislav issued an edict in the city of Smolensk assuring Bishop Manuel that he would provide him with whatever he needed. On September 30, 1150 Saint Rostislav also ceded Cathedral Hill at Smolensk to the Smolensk diocese, where the Dormition cathedral and other diocesan buildings stood.

Contemporaries thought highly of the church construction of Prince Rostislav. Even the sources that are inclined to report nothing more about it note that “this prince built the church of the Theotokos at Smolensk.” The Dormition cathedral, originally built by his grandfather, Vladimir Monomakh, in the year 1101 was rebuilt and expanded under Prince Rostislav. The rebuilt cathedral was consecrated by Bishop Manuel on the Feast of the Dormition, August 15, 1150. Prince Rostislav was a “builder of the Church” in a far wider sense: he endowed the Smolensk Dormition church of the Mother of God, and transformed it from a city cathedral into the ecclesiastical center of the vast Smolensk diocese.

Holy Prince Rostislav was the builder of the Smolensk Kremlin, and of the Savior cathedral at the Smyadynsk Boris and Gleb monastery, founded on the place of the murder of holy Prince Gleb (September 5). Later his son David, possibly fulfilling the wishes of his father, transferred the old wooden coffins of Saints Boris and Gleb from Kievan Vyshgorod to Smyadyn.

In the decade of the fifties of the twelfth century, Saint Rostislav was drawn into a prolonged struggle for Kiev, which involved representatives of the two strongest princely lines: the Olgovichi and the Monomakhovichi.

On the Monomakhovichi side the major contender to be Great Prince was Rostislav’s uncle, Yurii Dolgoruky. Rostislav, as Prince of Smolensk, was one of the most powerful rulers of the Russian land and had a decisive voice in military and diplomatic negotiations.

For everyone involved in the dispute, Rostislav was both a dangerous opponent and a desired ally, and he was at the center of events. This had a providential significance, since Saint Rostislav distinguished himself by his wisdom regarding the civil realm, by his strict sense of justice and unconditional obedience to elders, and by his deep respect for the Church and its hierarchy. For several generations he was the bearer of the “Russkaya Pravda” (“Russian Truth”) and of Russian propriety.

After the death of his brother Izyaslav (November 13, 1154), Saint Rostislav became Great Prince of Kiev, but he ruled Kiev at the same time with his uncle Vyacheslav Vladimirovich. After the latter’s death, Rostislav returned to Smolensk, ceding the Kiev princedom to his other uncle, Yurii Dolgoruky, and he removed himself from the bloodshed of the princely disputes. He occupied Kiev a second time on April 12, 1159 and he then remained Great Prince until his death (+ 1167). More than once, he had to defend his paternal inheritance with sword in hand.

The years of Saint Rostislav’s rule occurred during one of the most complicated periods in the history of the Russian Church. The elder brother of Rostislav, Izyaslav Mstislavich, a proponent of the autocephaly of the Russian Church, favored the erudite Russian monk Clement Smolyatich for Metropolitan, and wanted him to be made Metropolitan by a council of Russian bishops, without seeking the usual approval from the Patriarch of Constantinople. This occurred in the year 1147.

The Russian hierarchy basically supported Metropolitan Clement and Prince Izyaslav in their struggle for ecclesiastical independence from Constantinople, but several bishops headed by Saint Niphon of Novgorod (April 8), did not recognize the autocephaly of the Russian metropolitanate and shunned communion with it, having transformed their dioceses into independent ecclesial districts, pending the resolution of this question. Bishop Manuel of Smolensk also followed this course. Saint Rostislav understood the danger which lay hidden beneath the idea of Russian autocephaly for these times, which threatened the break-up of Rus. The constant fighting over Kiev among the princes might also lead to a similar fight over the Kievan See among numerous contenders, put forth by one princely group or another.

The premonitions of Saint Rostislav were fully justified. Yurii Dolgoruky, who remained loyal to Constantinople, occupied Kiev in the year 1154. He immediately banished Metropolitan Clement and petitioned Constantinople for a new Metropolitan. This was to be Saint Constantine (June 5), but he arrived in Rus only in the year 1156, six months before the death of Yurii Dolgoruky (+ May 15, 1157). Six months later, when Saint Rostislav’s nephew Mstislav Izyaslavich entered the city on December 22, 1157, Saint Constanine was obliged to flee Kiev, while the deposed Clement Smolyatich returned as Metropolitan. Then a time of disorder began in Russia, for there were two Metropolitans.

All the hierarchy and the clergy came under interdict: the Greek Metropolitan suspended the Russian supporters of Clement, and Clement suspended all the supporters of Constantine. To halt the scandal, Saint Rostislav and Mstislav decided to remove both Metropolitans and petition the Patriarch of Constantinople to appoint a new archpastor for the Russian metropolitan See.

But this compromise did not end the matter. Arriving in Kiev in the autumn of 1161, Metropolitan Theodore died in spring of the following year. Following the example of Saint Andrew Bogoliubsky (July 4), who supported his own fellow ascetic Bishop Theodore to be Metropolitan, Saint Rostislav put forth his own candidate, who turned out to be the much-suffering Clement Smolyatich.

The fact that the Great Prince had changed his attitude toward Metropolitan Clement, shows the influence of the Kiev Caves monastery, and in particular of Archimandrite Polycarp. Archimandrite Polycarp, who followed the traditions of the Caves (in 1165 he became head of the monastery), was personally very close to Saint Rostislav.

Saint Rostislav had the pious custom of inviting the igumen and twelve monks to his own table on the Saturdays and Sundays of Great Lent, and he served them himself. The prince more than once expressed the wish to be tonsured a monk at the monastery of Saints Anthony and Theodosius, and he even gave orders to build a cell for him.

The monks of the Caves, a tremendous spiritual influence in ancient Rus, encouraged the prince to think about the independence of the Russian Church. Moreover, during those years in Rus, there was suspicion regarding the Orthodoxy of the bishops which came from among the Greeks, because of the notorious “Dispute about the Fasts” (the “Leontian Heresy”). Saint Rostislav’s pious intent to obtain the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople for Metropolitan Clement came to naught. The Greeks believed that appointing a Metropolitan to the Kiev cathedra was one of their most important prerogatives. This served not only the ecclesiastical, but also the political interests of the Byzantine Empire.

In 1165 a new Greek Metropolitan arrived at Kiev, John IV, and Saint Rostislav accepted him out of humility and churchly obedience. The new Metropolitan, like his predecessor, governed the Russian Church for less than a year (+ 1166). The See of Kiev was again left vacant, and the Great Prince was deprived of the fatherly counsel and spiritual wisdom of a Metropolitan. His sole spiritual solace was the igumen Polycarp and the holy Elders of the Kiev Caves monastery and the Theodorov monastery at Kiev, which had been founded under his father.

Returning from a campaign against Novgorod in the spring of 1167, Saint Rostislav fell ill. When he reached Smolensk, where his son Roman was prince, relatives urged him to remain at Smolensk. But the Great Prince gave orders to take him to Kiev. “If I die along the way,” he declared, “put me in my father’s monastery of Saint Theodore. If God should heal me, through the prayers of His All-Pure Mother and Saint Theodosius, I shall take vows at the monastery of the Caves.”

God did not fulfill Saint Rostislav’s last wish to end his life as a monk of the holy monastery. The holy prince died on the way to Kyiv on March 14, 1167. (In other historical sources, the year is given as 1168). His body, in accord with his last wishes, was brought to the Kyiv Theodosiev monastery.

Source: Orthodox Church in America_OCA

ISAIAH 5:16-25

16 But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, And God who is holy shall be hallowed in righteousness. 17 Then the lambs shall feed in their pasture, And in the waste places of the fat ones strangers shall eat. 18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of vanity, And sin as if with a cart rope; 19 That say, “Let Him make speed and hasten His work, That we may see it; And let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, That we may know it.” 20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, 23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man! 24 Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, And the flame consumes the chaff, So their root will be as rottenness, And their blossom will ascend like dust; Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. 25 Therefore the anger of the Lord is aroused against His people; He has stretched out His hand against them And stricken them, And the hills trembled. Their carcasses were as refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this His anger is not turned away, But His hand is stretched out still.

GENESIS 4:16-26

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech. 19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah. 23 Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” 25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

"The explanation of Scripture forms the dominant feature and the organizing principle of the message. All preaching should be based on the apostolic kerygma and didache. Exegetical preaching is governed by the goal of expounding the meaning and significance of this “faith once-delivered” in terms of the actual way in which it has been delivered, namely the structure and content of the biblical revelation, in which truth is revealed not in the form of a series of theological or topical loci (God, sin, justification, sanctification; war, money, social ethics, etc.), but through history, parable, narrative, argumentation, poem, and so on. Exegetical preaching therefore sees as its fundamental task the explanation of the text in its context, the unfolding of its principles, and only then their application to the world of hearers." – Sinclair Ferguson