#first ecumenical council

[apenitentialprayer]

Maybe I should be asking an Orthodox person this, but I do not understand the hubbub with the Filioque. To me it is hair splitting, could you explain why it would not be hairsplitting? Or if there is an aspect I am missing as to why it was the final straw for a schism?

Okay, ah, I think there are two aspects that need to be addressed here. The first deals with the simple fact of its inclusion in the Creed, and I'm going to come off as a traitor here, so let me clarify my personal position; I believe the filioque best represents the reality of the Spirit's procession, but I think it was bad that the Western Church inserted it into the Nicene Creed.

As Henri de Lubac talks about in The Christian Faith, the Church allows for many theologies, spiritualities, customs, and liturgical traditions to coexist; "from one country to another and from one century to another there are many differences in emphasis." What connects all these elaborations and practices of the Christian faith is that they are all anchored in that faith, as revealed by God and distilled in the Creed. That faith is the unity of all Christians everywhere.

And what convinced me that the inclusion of the filioque was not a good move actually came from another Catholic thinker, Karl Rahner, who wrote "the inevitable pluralism met with in theology cannot and must not cause the unity of the creed of faith to disappear from the Church, even in its verbal expression." Except.... that's exactly what the Western Church did. It took the Creed as articulated by two separate ecumenical councils, and unilaterally added words to it. And while there are historical reasons for that inclusion, and while I think the theology behind its inclusion is true, I think modifying what was meant to be the unifying symbol of the Christian faith was not a good move. And I can see why the filioque inclusion seems like a rupture from the Orthodox tradition. Because... we have caused the unity of the creed of faith in its verbal expression to disappear.

And I think that's a bigger problem than the content of the filioque clause itself, to be honest. But, as far as the content goes, let's talk about that, too.

In the Orthodox perspective, the three Persons of the Trinity share a common nature, and there's a kind of symmetry where the traits of any given Person is either held in common by all three, or is reserved for one of Them. So, for example, the state of being uncreated and eternal are traits shared by all Persons in the Trinity, as is the fact that They are almighty and infinite. Those are traits derived from their divine nature. But in terms of traits distinctive to Their individual Personhoods, well: the Father is seen as the Source of the other two, while the Son is the only begotten Member of the Trinity, and the Spirit is the only spirated Member. An Orthodox Christian may argue that the filioque ruins this symmetry of Persons; if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the distribution of Personal traits is no longer equal (two Persons have a trait that one Person does not have). This can be seen as a kind of ontological inferiority on the Spirit's end.

From the perspective of the Roman Church and Her western descendants, the articulation of the Trinity doesn't really involve this "common to All or particular to One" logic. Instead, we tend to use a sacramental logic that assumes that how the Persons of the Trinity operate within Their creation also tells us something about how They relate to each other from all eternity. So, the Father sends the Son into the world (John 17:1-4); hence the Father begets the Son. But the Father sends the Holy Spirit to the disciples "in [Christ's] name" (John 14:16-17, 26). So, the Father sends the Spirit, but the Son is somehow involved. The Holy Spirit is believed to still have one origin, but this one origin is the joint act of Father and Son. Part of this may have to do with different starting assumptions. Eastern Christians tend to start their thinking on the Trinity as Three existing in Unity, while Western Christians tend to start their thinking on the Trinity with One existing in Multiplicity.

But this is a super complicated subject, so if someone wants to correct me about either of the perspectives I tried to lay out, please feel free to do so.

[slotumn]

Rhea attending the first ecumenical council after War of Heroes: this is so boring man I just wanted to bring my mom back and now I have to debate doctrine with a bunch of religious nerds. I shouldn't be here I should be at the (remembers the war is over and she can't be at the frontlines anymore) basement laboratory

[orthodoxydaily]

SAINTS&READING: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

november 8_november 22

SYNAXIS OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL AND THE OTHER BODILESS POWERS;  ARCHANGELS GABRIEL, RAPHAEL, URIEL, SALAPHIEL, JEGUDIEL, BARACHIEL, AND JEREMIEL.

The Synaxis of the Chief of the Heavenly Hosts, Archangel Michael and the Other Heavenly Bodiless Powers: Archangels Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Selaphiel, Jehudiel, Barachiel, and Jeremiel was established at the beginning of the fourth century at the Council of Laodicea, which met several years before the First Ecumenical Council. The 35th Canon of the Council of Laodicea condemned and denounced as heretical the worship of angels as gods and rulers of the world but affirmed their proper veneration.

A Feastday was established in November, the ninth month after March (with which the year began in ancient times) since there are Nine Ranks of Angels. The eighth day of the month was chosen for the Synaxis of all the Bodiless Powers of Heaven since the Day of the Dread Last Judgment is called the Eighth Day by the holy Fathers. After the end of this age (characterized by its seven days of Creation) will come the Eighth Day, and then “the Son of Man shall come in His Glory and all the holy Angels with Him” (Mt. 25:31).

The Angelic Ranks are divided into three Hierarchies: highest, middle, and lowest.

The Highest Hierarchy includes: the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.

The six-winged SERAPHIM (Flaming, Fiery) (Is 6:2) stand closest of all to the Most Holy Trinity. They blaze with love for God and kindle such love in others. The many-eyed CHERUBIM (outpouring of wisdom, enlightenment) (Gen 3:24) stand before the Lord after the Seraphim. They are radiant with the light of knowledge of God, and knowledge of the mysteries of God. Through them wisdom is poured forth, and people’s minds are enlightened so they may know God and behold His glory. The THRONES (Col 1:16) stand after the Cherubim, mysteriously and incomprehensibly bearing God through the grace given them for their service. They are ministers of God’s justice, giving to tribunals, kings, etc. the capacity for righteous judgment.

The Middle Angelic Hierarchy consists of three Ranks: Dominions, Powers, and Authorities:

DOMINIONS (Col 1:16) hold dominion over the angels subject to them. They instruct the earthly authorities, established by God, to rule wisely, and to govern their lands well. The Dominions teach us to subdue sinful impulses, to subject the flesh to the spirit, to master our will, and to conquer temptation. POWERS (1 Pet 3:22) fulfill the will of God without hesitation. They work great miracles and give the grace of wonderworking and clairvoyance to saints pleasing to God. The Powers assist people in fulfilling obediences. They also encourage them to be patient, and give them spiritual strength and fortitude. AUTHORITIES (1 Pet 3:22, Col 1:16) have authority over the devil. They protect people from demonic temptations, and prevent demons from harming people as they would wish. They also uphold ascetics and guard them, helping people in the struggle with evil thoughts.

The Lowest Hierarchy includes the three Ranks: Principalities, Archangels, and Angels:

PRINCIPALITIES (Col 1:16) have command over the lower angels, instructing them in the fulfilling of God’s commands. They watch over the world and protect lands, nations and peoples. Principalities instruct people to render proper honor to those in authority, as befits their station. They teach those in authority to use their position, not for personal glory and gain, but to honor God, and to spread word of Him, for the benefit of those under them. ARCHANGELS (1 Thess 4:16) are messengers of great and wondrous tidings. They reveal prophecies and the mysteries of the faith. They enlighten people to know and understand the will of God, they spread faith in God among the people, illuminating their minds with the light of the Holy Gospel. ANGELS (1 Pet 3:22) are in the lowest rank of the heavenly hierarchy, and closest to people. They reveal the lesser mysteries of God and His intentions, guiding people to virtuous and holy life. They support those who remain steadfast, and they raise up the fallen. They never abandon us and they are always prepared to help us, if we desire it.

All the Ranks of the Heavenly Powers are called angels, although each has its own name and position by virtue of their service. The Lord reveals His will to the highest ranks of the angels, and they in turn inform the others.

Over all the Nine Ranks, the Lord appointed the Holy Archangel Michael (his name in Hebrew means “who is like unto God”), the faithful servitor of God, as Chief Commander. He cast down from Heaven the arrogantly proud Lucifer and the other fallen spirits when they rebelled against God. Michael summoned the ranks of angels and cried out, “Let us attend! Let us stand aright before our Creator and do not consider doing what is displeasing unto God!”

According to Church Tradition, and in the church services to the Archangel Michael, he participated in many other Old Testament events.

During the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt he went before them in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Through him the power of the Lord was made manifest, annihilating the Egyptians and Pharaoh who were in pursuit of the Israelites. The Archangel Michael defended Israel in all its misfortunes. He appeared to Joshua Son of Navi and revealed the will of the Lord at the taking of Jericho (Josh 5:13-16). The power of the great Chief Commander of God was manifest in the annihilation of the 185,000 soldiers of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib (4/2 Kings 19:35); also in the smiting of the impious leader Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3: 24-26); and in the protection of the Three Holy Youths: Ananias, Azarias and Misail, thrown into the fiery furnace for their refusal to worship an idol (Dan 3:22-25). Through the will of God, the Chief Commander Michael transported the Prophet Habbakuk (December 2) from Judea to Babylon, to give food to Daniel in the lions’ den (Dan. 14:33-37). The Archangel Michael disputed with the devil over the body of the holy Prophet Moses (Jude 1:9). The holy Archangel Michael showed his power when he miraculously saved a young man, cast into the sea by robbers with a stone about his neck on the shores of Mt Athos. This story is found in the Athonite Paterikon, and in the Life of Saint Neophytus of Docheiariou (November 9). From ancient times the Archangel Michael was famed for his miracles in Rus. In the Volokolamsk Paterikon is a narrative of Saint Paphnutius of Borov with an account of Tatar tax-gatherers concerning the miraculous saving of Novgorod the Great: “Therefore Great Novgorod was never taken by the Hagarenes... when... for our sins the godless Hagarene emperor Batu devoured and set the Russian land aflame and came to Novgorod, and God and the Most Holy Theotokos shielded it with an appearance of Michael the Archangel, who forbade him to enter into it. He [Batu] was come to the Lithuanian city and came toward Kiev and saw the stone church, over the doors of which the great Archangel Michael had written and spoken to the prince his allotted fate, ‘By this we have forbidden you entry into Great Novgorod’.” Intercession for Russian cities by the Most Holy Queen of Heaven always involved Her appearances with the Heavenly Hosts, under the leadership of the Archangel Michael. Grateful Rus acclaimed the Most Pure Mother of God and the Archangel Michael in church hymns. Many monasteries, cathedrals, court and merchant churches are dedicated to the Chief Commander Michael. In old Kiev at the time of the accepting of Christianity, a cathedral of the Archangel was built, and a monastery also was named for him. Archangel cathedrals are found at Smolensk, Nizhni Novgorod, Staritsa, at Great Ustiug (beginning of the thirteenth century), and a cathedral at Sviyazhsk. In Rus there was not a city where there was not a church or chapel dedicated to the Archangel Michael. One of the chief temples of the city of Moscow, the burial church in the Kremlin, is dedicated to him. Numerous and beautiful icons of the Chief Commander of the Heavenly Hosts are also in his Cathedral. One of these, the Icon “Blessed Soldiery,” was painted in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The saintly soldiers, Russian princes, are depicted under the leadership of the Archangel Michael. We invoke Saint Michael for protection from invasion by enemies and from civil war, and for the defeat of adversaries on the field of battle. He conquers all spiritual enemies.

Holy Scripture and Tradition give us the names of the Archangels:

Gabriel: strength (power) of God, herald and servitor of Divine omnipotence (Dan 8:16, Luke 1:26). He announces the mysteries of God. Raphael: the healing of God, the curer of human infirmities (Tobit 3:16, 12:15) Uriel: the fire or light of God, enlightener (2 Esdras 5:20). We pray for him to enlighten those with darkened minds. Selaphiel: the prayer of God, impelling to prayer (2 Esdras 5:15). He prays to God for mankind. Jehudiel: the glorifying of God, encouraging exertion for the glory of the Lord and interceding for the reward of efforts. Barachiel: distributor of the blessings of God for good deeds, entreats the mercy of God for people. Jeremiel: the raising up to God (2 Esdras 4:36)

On icons the Archangels are depicted in according to the character of their service:

Michael tramples the devil underfoot, and in his left hand holds a green date-tree branch, and in his right hand a spear with a white banner on which is outlined a scarlet cross, or sometimes a fiery sword. Gabriel with a branch from Paradise, presented by him to the Most Holy Virgin, or with a shining lantern in his right hand and with a mirror made of jasper in his left. Raphael holds a vessel with healing medications in his left hand, and with his right hand leads Tobias, carrying a fish for healing (Tobit 5-8). Uriel in his raised right hand holds a naked sword at the level of his chest, and in his lowered left hand “a fiery flame.” Selaphiel in a prayerful posture, gazing downwards, hands folded on the chest. Jehudiel holds a golden crown in his right hand, in his left, a whip of three red (or black) thongs. Barachiel is shown with a white rose on his breast. Jeremiel holds balance-scales in his hand.

Each person has a guardian angel (Matt 18:10), and every nation also receives its own guardian angel from God (Dan. 10:13). When a church is consecrated, it also receives a guardian angel (Palladius, Dial. Ch. 10).

Hebrews 2:2-10

2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? 5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying:"What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Luke 10:16-21

16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me. 17 Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." 18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven. 21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

[honeybeezgobzzzzz]

Ψ M is for Maraclea: Chapter Ten

M is for Maraclea: Following an accident you had over summer break, you find yourself in limbo after being legally dead for several minutes. Now an outcast at boarding school, you end up finding comfort in a strange boy named Nigel. As winter draws near and tragedy strikes, your only reprieve from madness comes from a mind much like your own.

Warnings: Murder Mention.

To Note: Nigel Colbie x Fem!Reader, NAMED Reader for Plot Reasons, There Are A Lot of DARK Themes.

Word Count: ~2.9k

Previous | Masterlist | Next

You sit in your Christian History class, your mind wandering. The warmth from the intimate night you shared days past still lingers, a constant, comforting presence. Nigel's promise echoes in your thoughts, a steady hum beneath the droning lecture on medieval church reforms. You feel different, more grounded yet oddly buoyant. Warm.

"Mary?" Mrs. Thompson's voice cuts through your reverie.

You blink and refocus on her stern face. "Yes, Mrs. Thompson?"

"Could you tell us about the significance of the Council of Nicaea?"

You clear your throat, the answer surfacing from somewhere in the back of your mind. "It was the first ecumenical council held in 325 AD to address the Arian controversy and establish uniform Christian doctrine."

Mrs. Thompson nods approvingly before returning to her notes. You let out a quiet sigh of relief, sinking back into your thoughts of Nigel and that intoxicating warmth that now wraps around you like a second skin.

You try to focus on the lesson, but your mind drifts back to that night in Nigel's crawl space. The ache between your legs, a raw reminder of losing your virginity, pulls at your concentration. You shift in your seat, feeling the burn of discomfort mixed with the memory of warmth. It’s hard to ignore, a constant whisper in your body.

"Mary, are you all right?" Mrs. Thompson's voice slices through your haze again.

You snap back to the present, realizing you've been squirming in your seat. "I'm fine," you reply, though it sounds unconvincing even to your own ears.

"You're agitated and can't seem to sit still," she presses, her gaze sharp. "Are you ill?"

"No," you respond with a blink, but her eyes narrow, studying you with that mix of concern and suspicion teachers always seem to have.

"Perhaps you should visit the nurse," she suggests, her tone leaving little room for argument.

"I shall be fine," you insist, forcing yourself to sit still. The ache flares again, but you grit your teeth and focus on the blackboard.

Mrs. Thompson looks like she wants to say more but returns to her lecture. You let out a slow breath, trying to push Nigel and that night out of your mind. But the memory clings to you like those damp clothes, impossible to shake off.

You stare at the notes on the board, each word blurring into the next. Your fingers drum against the desk as if playing an invisible piano piece only you can hear. The classroom feels stiflingly warm now; every second stretching into an eternity.

"Mary!" Mrs. Thompson's voice is sharper this time. "If you're not feeling well, it's best you see the nurse."

You nod stiffly and gather your books, aware of the eyes following you as you leave the room. Once outside, you breathe deeply, letting the cooler air clear your head slightly. It does the job but the warmth in your stomach persists.

You walk down the hallway, the weight of Mrs. Thompson's concern pressing on you. Each step echoes in the quiet corridor, your mind a whirl of Nigel, cold water, and the lingering ache from that night. Delicious warmth you now craved…The cool air does little to calm the storm inside you.

The loudspeaker crackles to life. "Attention all students," Headmistress Carlisle's voice booms through the hall. "There is an emergency assembly in the great hall immediately."

Your steps falter. You pivot, heading towards the great hall instead of the nurse’s office. As you enter, students are already filing in, their chatter a low hum of curiosity and anxiety. You find a seat near the back, wondering what could have happened to warrant the assembly of the entire school.

The room fills quickly. Girls cluster together in tight knots, their whispers growing louder as more seats fill. The air is thick with tension, and every minute feels like an hour. Your bullies were missing, had been since the prior night. Perhaps an investigation into their whereabouts is to be issued?

Headmistress Carlisle stands at the podium, her usual stern demeanor even graver than usual. The room falls silent as she adjusts her glasses and clears her throat.

"It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you of a tragedy," she begins, her voice steady but solemn. "This morning, Jane Peterson, Charity Langford, and Victoria Clark were found dead."

Gasps ripple through the hall, yet in the wake of that news you feel nothing but relief. They won't be bothering you anymore. You let out a deep breath, an unknown tension releasing from your body.

"They were found floating in the lake," Headmistress Carlisle continues, her voice tight with barely restrained emotion. "The circumstances are under investigation, however given current evidence, it is presumed that they were murdered."

Around you, girls start to sob or whisper frantically to each other. You stay silent, staring straight ahead at Headmistress Carlisle who struggles to maintain composure.

"We ask that everyone remains calm," she instructs. "Counselors will be available for those who need support, and we ask that you refrain from going anywhere outside school grounds alone."

The room around you erupts in a cacophony of whispers and gasps. You sit still, your mind elsewhere. Nigel’s warmth, his touch, and the comfort of his crawl space blanket your thoughts, drowning out the collective shock around you. Your fingers curl into your plaid skirt, twitching for his fingers to slide into yours.

Headmistress Carlisle’s voice breaks through the noise. “Detectives will be speaking with a number of students,” she announces. “If your name is called, please remain in the hall.”

You watch her lips move, but it’s as if she’s speaking from underwater. Your heartbeat echoes in your ears, each thud a reminder of that night with Nigel.

“Jessica Warren, Emily Sinclair…”

You barely register the names being listed. Your mind is a swirl of Nigel’s fingers tracing your skin, the sensation of his breath against your neck. The assembly fades to a dull background hum.

“Mary Forbes…”

Your name jolts you back to the present. You glance around, seeing eyes turn towards you, but their stares barely penetrate the haze enveloping you.

Headmistress Carlisle continues listing names. You try to focus, but your thoughts keep drifting back to Nigel and that intimate night. The warmth he gave you feels more real than the cold dread spreading through the hall.

Finally, Headmistress Carlisle finishes reading names. “Those called will stay here,” she instructs. “The rest may return to their dorm rooms for the day.”

Students begin to shuffle out, some crying softly, others whispering frantically to one another. You remain seated as instructed, watching them leave without really seeing them.

The hall empties until only those named remain. You glance at the others who were called but feel no connection to them, only an odd detachment. Your mind remains with Nigel and that secret warmth he ignited within you. That warmth you now crave.

Headmistress Carlisle approaches you and the other remaining students. “Detectives will be here shortly,” she says firmly.

You nod absentmindedly and shift in your seat, feeling the ache from that night flare again—a reminder of something tangible amidst all this chaos. You focus on the sensation and cling to it for comfort.

You sit stiffly on the wooden bench, eyes fixed on the door as Detective McKenzie strides into the great hall. His presence commands attention; the room falls silent. His steely gaze sweeps over you and the other girls, landing momentarily on each one before moving on.

"Good morning," he says, voice deep and authoritative. "I am Detective McKenzie. I’ll be questioning each of you about the recent incidents. I ask for your full cooperation."

He moves to a makeshift table set up at the front of the room, where a chair waits. You can feel the eyes of the other girls darting towards you, whispers buzzing around you like gnats. You focus on your breathing, steadying yourself for what's to come.

"Mary Forbes," he calls out.

You stand slowly, every muscle in your body tensed. As you walk towards him, you can feel the weight of suspicion pressing down on you. You take a seat across from him, and his eyes bore into yours with an intensity that makes it hard to breathe.

"Mary," he begins, flipping through a small notepad. "I remember you were Susan Mueller's roommate?"

You state. "That is correct."

His eyes narrow slightly as he leans forward. "And I’ve been informed that Jane Peterson, Charity Langford, and Victoria Clark had... issues with you?"

"They bullied me," you reply pragmatically.

He studies your face for a moment longer before glancing at his notes. "Where were you last night?"

"In the library," you answer with an arched eyebrow. You were nowhere near the lake, you hadn't even left the academy. "I was studying for an upcoming exam."

He raises an eyebrow. "Can anyone corroborate that?"

"Mrs. Thornton, our librarian," you say. "She saw me leave just before closing time."

He scribbles something in his notepad and then looks up again. "Did you notice anything unusual last night? Anyone acting strange or out of place?"

You shake your head slowly. "No, I did not."

He leans back in his chair, tapping his pen against the notepad thoughtfully. "Mary, considering your history with those girls and Susan’s recent death, can you understand why there might be suspicion cast upon you?"

Your heart pounds in your chest as you meet his gaze steadily. "Quite clearly, however, I have long since decided that they are not worthy of my time nor energy. I wouldn't have retaliated."

He nods slightly, eyes softening just a fraction as he regards your frail appearance and tired eyes. You looked worse than he had last seen, perhaps even coming down with a cold. “We’ll double check your alibi, but you're in the clear,” he says finally. You nod and rise from your seat.

You walk back to your seat, the weight of Detective McKenzie's questions still pressing on you. The eyes of the other girls follow you, their whispers like a constant buzz in your ears. In their eyes, you are the culprit.

You step into your dorm room after studying in the library, the door closing behind you with a soft click. The afternoon light filters through the curtains, casting long shadows across the floor. You move to your closet and pull out a warm sweater and jeans, slipping them on quickly. The memory of the cold lake water still clings to your skin, an echo of that numbing chill. Now you need warmth.

You grab your coat and scarf, wrapping them around yourself before heading for the door. As you open it, Ms. Eliza, the dorm monitor, stands there with a concerned look on her face.

"Mary," she starts, her tone firm but gentle. "I don’t think you should be going out alone right now. It is quite late."

You pause, meeting her gaze with a steady look. "I’m meeting my brother, Alex. I’ll be with him."

She hesitates for a moment before nodding reluctantly. "Alright, but please be careful."

You give her a small nod in return and step past her, making your way down the hallway and out of the dormitory building. The crisp air greets you as you walk across the campus towards the train station.

The train station is eerily empty as you approach the ticket booth. The lone attendant behind the glass gives you a weary glance as you slide money across the counter.

“One ticket please,” you say, your voice sounding hollow even to your own ears. You'd take the short loop.

The attendant hands you the ticket with a nod, and you make your way to the platform. The train arrives with a screeching halt, and you step aboard, finding an empty car near the back. You sink into a seat by the window, staring out at the darkening sky. The world outside blurs into shades of gray and black as the train starts moving.

Minutes pass in silence, broken only by the rhythmic clatter of the train on the tracks. You close your eyes, letting the motion soothe you. The door at the end of the car slides open, and footsteps approach. You glance up to see Nigel and Alex entering.

Nigel's eyes light up when he sees you. He takes a seat across from you, while Alex sits beside him. They exchange a look before turning their attention to you.

"Mary," Nigel begins, his voice soft but firm. "We heard about what happened at school."

You nod slowly, unsure where this conversation is heading.

Alex leans forward, his expression serious. "Those girls... Jane, Charity, Victoria—they won't be bothering you anymore."

Nigel's gaze never wavers from yours. "We made sure of it."

Your heart skips a beat at their words, but outwardly you remain calm. You are surprised that they are even getting along now. Your eyes flicker between them, searching for any hint of hesitation or regret. You find none.

Nigel reaches out and takes your hand in his, his grip warm and reassuring. "They won't be hurting anyone anymore."

Alex watches you closely, his eyes filled with an intensity that matches Nigel's. "You’re safe now," he adds. "I'm heading off, see you later sis."

You and Nigel sit on the train, the rhythmic clatter of the tracks beneath you creating a comforting backdrop. The world outside the window blurs into a blend of shadows and faint streetlights, but here in this small, moving space, you feel a sense of tranquility.

Nigel's fingers intertwine with yours, his thumb gently brushing over your knuckles. "I’m glad we have this time together," he murmurs, his eyes softening as they meet yours.

You nod, a small smile tugging at your lips. "Me too," you whisper, leaning into him slightly. His presence is warm, grounding you in the moment.

The train loops around, bringing you back to where you started. The screeching halt signals your stop, and you both rise from your seats. Nigel's hand remains in yours as you step off the train and onto the platform. The night air is crisp, biting at your cheeks as you walk towards the dorm building.

Nigel's grip on your hand tightens slightly as you near the dark corner by the entrance. He pulls you gently into the shadows, his eyes gleaming with an intensity that sends a shiver down your spine. "Mary," he breathes, his voice low and husky.

You tilt your head up to meet his gaze, feeling the warmth of his breath against your skin. His fingers brush aside your collar, revealing the faint love bite lingering on your collarbone. His eyes darken with appreciation as he traces it with a gentle touch.

"My Maraclea," he whispers before capturing your lips in a fervent kiss.

You melt into him, your hands finding their way to his shoulders as he presses you against the cold brick wall. His kisses are hungry, desperate, each one searing a trail of fire throughout your body. Your fingers tangle in his hair as he deepens the kiss, pulling you even closer.

Nigel's lips are warm against yours, a stark contrast to the cold brick wall pressing into your back. His hands roam over your sides, pulling you closer until there’s no space left between you. Each kiss grows more fervent, more demanding, as if he wants to consume every part of you.

Your hands slide under his jacket and shirt, fingers grazing over the hard lines of his muscles. His breath hitches, and he deepens the kiss, his tongue exploring your mouth with a hunger that sends shivers down your spine. You respond in kind, matching his intensity, losing yourself in the heat and urgency of the moment.

Nigel’s hands find their way under your own coat, sliding up your back and leaving a trail of fire in their wake. His touch is possessive, almost desperate, as if he’s afraid you might slip away. You arch into him, needing to feel every inch of him against you.

He breaks the kiss only to trail his lips down your neck, nipping and sucking at the sensitive skin there. You gasp, tilting your head back to give him better access. His name escapes your lips in a breathless whisper, and you feel him smile against your skin.

“Mary,” he murmurs between kisses, his voice low and husky. “You drive me crazy.”

You tug at his shirt, pulling him even closer as he continues his assault on your neck. His hands move to your hips, gripping them tightly as he presses his body against yours. The world around you fades away until there’s nothing but the heat between you and the cold night air.

Nigel pulls back slightly, just enough to look into your eyes. His gaze is intense, filled with a raw desire that sends another shiver through you. He leans in for one more searing kiss before resting his forehead against yours.

“I should let you go,” he whispers reluctantly.

You nod, though every part of you screams to pull him back in. “Goodnight,” you manage to say, your voice barely above a whisper.

He gives you one last lingering kiss before stepping back. The cold air rushes in between you, but the heat of his touch remains imprinted on your skin.

“Goodnight,” he says softly, eyes never leaving yours as he turns and walks away into the night.

You watch him until he disappears from view before turning towards the dormitory door. The warmth from his kisses lingers long after he's gone, a comforting reminder that you're not alone.

Date Published: 7/21/24

Last Edit: 7/21/24

Previous | Masterlist | Next

[empirearchives]

Political gains & contents of the Concordat of 1801

Agreement between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pope Pius VII on 15 July 1801 in Paris.

Rome seems to have made immense sacrifices. The first advantage won by the First Consul was to seal, by the very act of signing an agreement, the recognition of the French Republic by the Holy See, and hence the rupture of the traditional alliance between Rome and the legitimate monarchies. It was a disastrous blow to French royalism in exile, for it freed the faithful in the interior from scruples about the regime of the Year VIII.

The second advantage was to confirm a church of salaried public servants, amenable to the State and having mainly sociological functions. Here we see a continuation of the Gallican tradition, but also of the thought of philosophes who had urged both the submission of the clergy to the State and its integration within it. The refusal to reestablish the religious orders meant also the rejection of any ecclesiastical life that might escape the authority of the bishops. Even the cathedral chapters were reduced to decorative functions.

Thirdly, no question was raised about the sale of the former Church properties, a matter of great importance for strengthening the prestige of Bonaparte in the eyes of the property-owning segments of French society.

Pius VII, for his part, failed to obtain the recognition of Catholicism as the state religion. He agreed to use his authority for what Consalvi called “the massacre of a whole episcopate,” by requiring the resignation of all French bishops, both constitutional and refractory, since Napoleon judged such a step to be indispensable for effacing all traces of the revolutionary schism. It is right to see in this operation an encouragement to ultramontanism, for it affirmed the powers of the Pope over the French Church. But it also encouraged a tendency in the French episcopate, that is, a whole ecclesiological movement for appeal to an ecumenical council in matters of discipline.

Among the numerous provisions of the Articles we may point out those that legalized all forms of worship in France, and those that strictly subordinated the lower clergy to the bishops (“prefects in violet robes”): only a fifth of the parish priests received the title of curé, and with it secure tenure; all others became simple desservants of succursales, that is assistant pastors.

This is what the Church got out of the deal:

What then did the Pope gain in this Concordat, “more likely to raise difficulties than to solve them” (Bernard Plongeron). Maintenance of the unity of the Roman Church, which a consolidation of the schism in France might have ruined forever; recognition of canonical investiture, which allowed the Pope to overcome the zelanti among the cardinals who opposed the Concordat but favored a reinforcement of spiritual authority; and resumption of regular pastoral life in France, where the new administrative and social status of the priest encouraged a growing number of ordinations, which reached several hundred by the end of the Empire.

Pius VII in any case remained attached to the results accomplished, a fact that deprived the small “shadow church” opposed to the Concordat of the possibility of resistance. His continuing attitude was shown later in his willingness to come to Paris for the Emperor’s coronation.

Source: Louis Bergeron, L'Episode napoléonien. Aspects, intérieurs: 1799-1815

English: France Under Napoleon, tr. R. R. Palmer

[kaiasky]

ecumenical council of genders. first council of gender nicaea decides that ariagender is NOT VALID

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Today in Christian History

Today is Monday, September 16th, 2024. It is the 260th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar; Because it is a leap year, 106 days remain until the end of the year.

681: The Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth Ecumenical Council) adjourns, having condemned Monothelites as heretics for believing Christ’s human will was lost in the divine.

1179: Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa rewards Bishop Henry of Berchtesgaden, a loyal supporter, with rights, such as minting his own coins, that make the Austrian see of Brixen into essentially an autonomous state.

1498: Death of Tomás de Torquemeda, head of the Spanish Inquisition. He had burned at least two thousand victims (some say ten thousand) and tortured thousands more.

1672: Death from consumption of Anne Bradstreet (pictured above), the first poet of New England’s Puritans.

1863: Robert College (now Bogaziçi University) opens in Constantinople with Cyrus Hamlin as its first President. Hamlin—educator, inventor, architect, and missionary—had gone to Turkey eighteen years earlier where he worked with the Armenian minority and established a seminary for pastors and teachers.

1995: Death of Tulinawo Luhomano Msinjili. He had been the first provincial chairman of the Moravian Church in Southwest Tanzania, known for his hard work and patience.

[noelcollection]

Blessed Feast! Happy Saint Nicholas Day!

We are familiar with the tradition of Father Christmas in some regards, the more common name is Santa Claus in the United States. How familiar are you with Saint Nicholas of Myra, the real person that would be known as Father Christmas/ Santa Claus? Did you know that his feast day is December 6th?

Saint Nicholas of Myra was of Greek descent and early Christian bishop, he became the Bishop of Constantinople. It was while he was Bishop that the first ecumenical council was held, also known as the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The discussion over the divinity of Christ became so heated that Saint Nicholas is reported to have physically struck a fellow priest, Arius, for heretical theology.

This is far different from the man we are familiar with as a Wonder-worker. He was known as a secret gift giver, and there is held the tradition of leaving out children’s shoes for Saint Nicholas to fill with tokens. It is said that he was born into a wealthy family, and after the death of his parents he gave up his wealth for his faith. Saint Nicholas is often attributed to children, this is because many of his miracles centered around children. One of his earliest incidents recorded was when he rescued three girls from being forced into prostitution by dropping bags of gold in their homes for their dowry. Other stories mention calming storms, saving soldiers from a wrongful execution, and destroying a demonic tree. It was after his pilgrimage to Egypt and Palestine that he became Bishop of Myra and was imprisoned by Diocletian but was released with the accession of Constantine.

Saint Nicholas was best known for his generosity and kindness, especially to children and the poor. The action of leaving out shoes or placing out stocking is a long standing Christmas tradition to be filled by the patron saint of sailors. Saint Nicholas is venerated in Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopal churches. However, the image of Saint Nicholas is recognized by many winter season traditions throughout Europe, America, and other parts of the world.

[orthodoxadventure]

At the Third Ecumenical Council there was firmly and clearly confessed the teaching of the Church concerning the Mother of God. Previously the Holy Fathers had accused those who had slandered the immaculate life of the Virgin Mary; and now concerning those who had tried to lessen Her honor it was proclaimed to all:

"He who does not confess Immanuel to be true God and therefore the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because She gave birth in the flesh to the Word Who is from God the Father and Who became flesh, let him be anathema (separated from the Church)" (First Anathema of Saint Cyril of Alexandria)

-- Saint John Maximovitch, On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (November 12)

Today, on the day of his martyrdom, November 12, Roman Catholics and some Eastern Catholics remember St. Josaphat Kuntsevych, a bishop and monk whose example of faith inspired many Eastern Orthodox Christians to return to full communion with the Holy See.

Other Eastern Catholics, including the Ukrainian Catholic Church, celebrate St. Josaphat's feast day on November 25.

Born in 1580 in the western Ukrainian region of Volhynia, John Kuntsevych did not become “Josaphat” until his later life as a monk.

He was also not initially a full member of the Catholic Church, born to Orthodox Christian parents whose church had fallen out of communion with the Pope.

Although the Eastern churches began to separate from the Holy See in 1054, a union had existed for a period of time after the 15th-century Ecumenical Council of Florence.

But social, political and theological disputes caused the union to begin dissolving even before the Turkish conquest of Byzantium in 1453.

By John’s time, many Slavic Orthodox Christians had become strongly anti-Catholic.

During this time, Latin missionaries attempted to achieve reunion with the individual eastern patriarchs.

The approach was risky, sometimes politicizing the faith and leading to further divisions.

But it did yield some notable successes, including the reunion of John’s own Ruthenian Church in the 1596 Union of Brest.

John was trained as a merchant’s apprentice and could have opted for marriage.

However, he felt drawn to the rigors and spiritual depth of traditional Byzantine monasticism.

Taking the monastic name of Josaphat, he entered a Ukrainian monastery in 1604.

The young monk was taking on an ambitious task, striving to re-incorporate the Eastern Orthodox tradition with the authority of the Catholic Church in the era of its “Counter-reformation.”

Soon, as a priest, subsequently an archbishop, and ultimately a martyr, he would live and die for the union of the churches.

While rejecting the anti-Western sentiments of many of his countrymen, Josaphat also resisted any attempt to compromise the Eastern Catholic churches’ own traditions.

Recognizing the urgent pastoral needs of the people, he produced catechisms and works of apologetics, while implementing long overdue reforms of the clergy and attending to the needs of the poor.

Josaphat’s exemplary life and zeal for the care of souls won the trust of many Orthodox Christians, who saw the value of the churches’ union reflected in the archbishop‘s life and works.

Nevertheless, his mission was essentially controversial, and others were led to believe lurid stories and malicious suggestions made about him.

In 1620, opponents arranged for the consecration of a rival archbishop.

As tensions between supporters and opponents began to escalate, Josaphat lamented the onset of attacks that would lead to his death.

“You people of Vitebsk want to put me to death,” he protested.

“You make ambushes for me everywhere, in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, and in the marketplace.

I am here among you as a shepherd, and you ought to know that I would be happy to give my life for you.”

He finally did so, on a fall day on 12 November 1623.

An Orthodox priest had been shouting insults outside the archbishop’s residence and trying to force his way inside.

Josaphat had him removed, but the man assembled a mob in the town.

They arrived and demanded the archbishop’s life, threatening his companions and servants.

Unable to escape, Josaphat died praying for the men who shot and then beheaded him before dumping his body in a river.

Josaphat’s body was discovered incorrupt, five years later.

Remarkably, the saint’s onetime rival - the Orthodox Archbishop Meletius - was reconciled with the Catholic Church in later years.

Josaphat was beatified by Pope Urban VIII on 16 May 1643. He was canonized by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1867.

He was the first saint of the Eastern Church to be canonized by Rome. He is the patron saint of Ukraine.

[apenitentialprayer]

May 11, 2023

Earlier today, Pope Francis declared that 21 Coptic Orthodox Christians, who were beheaded by Islamic militants in Libya in 2015, would be added to the Roman Martyrology. Francis made the announcement during an audience with Pope Tawadros II, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The “21 Coptic New Martyrs of Libya,” as they are called, were martyred on February 15, 2015. Less than a week later, they were declared saints in the Coptic Orthodox Church by Pope Tawadros. The Copts celebrate their feast on the anniversary of their death, February 15, and it appears that this will also be their feast day on the Roman calendar.

The world was shocked in February 2015, when a 5-minute video was uploaded to the internet by ISIS militants. The video showed the 21 kidnapped men in orange jumpsuits being beheaded on a beach near the Libyan city of Sirte. 20 of these martyrs were Egyptian Copts who had gone to Libya to do construction work. The last member of the group, Matthew Ayariga, was a fellow worker from Ghana. It is said that he told the executioners, “Their God is my God. I will go with them.” There has been some question over whether he was already Christian or whether the witness of his 20 coworkers led to his conversion, but nevertheless, his Christian witness and solidarity are inspiring. It was reported that as they died, they chanted hymns and prayed aloud.

The deaths of these men as Christian martyrs is undeniable. The extraordinary photos of Blessed Miguel Pro, a Catholic priest who was executed by the Mexican government in 1927 during the Cristero War — taken just moments before the he was shot by the firing squad — are perhaps the only other photographic images recording a Christian martyrdom as it happened. And yet the recognition of the 21 martyrs as Catholic saints is unprecedented for several reasons.

The primary reason, of course, is that the Coptic Orthodox Church is not in full communion with Rome. The Copts are Oriental Orthodox (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox), because they split from the other Christian churches in the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon due to differences over the nature of Christ. They are also referred to as “Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.” This means that they recognize the first three ecumenical councils, whereas the Eastern Orthodox recognize seven, and the Catholic Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils.

After more than 15 centuries, our hope of reunion may seem remote. After all these years, the two Churches have independently developed their own traditions, theologies, forms of worship, and prayers. Yet some things have remained the same. Both Churches have maintained apostolic succession and the sacraments: Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter and Pope Tawadros is the successor of St. Mark. In recent decades, the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church has become closer. For example, in 2017, Popes Francis and Tawadros made a joint statement indicating mutual acceptance of the validity of baptism in both Churches.

Pope Francis has praised the Martyrs of Libya many times, and today he recalled our shared baptism, as well as the blood of martyrs that enriches the Church. He said, “These martyrs were baptized not only in the water and Spirit, but also in blood, a blood that is the seed of unity for all of Christ’s followers.” In the past, the pope has discussed how we must realize that we, the baptized, have much more in common than what divides us. This shared recognition of sainthood between the two Churches is a significant step towards Christian unity.

This sets a new precedent. In 1964, when the Ugandan Martyrs were canonized by Pope Paul VI, St. Charles Lwanga and the other 21 Catholics among his companions were declared saints. The 23 Anglicans who were martyred alongside them were mentioned briefly in the pope’s homily, when he said, “And we do not wish to forget, the others who, belonging to the Anglican confession, met death for the name of Christ.”

Another reason why today’s announcement is unique was that Pope Francis did this by an official act. The Roman Martyrology is the official list of saints officially recognized by the Latin Church. Many Eastern Catholic Churches have their own processes for canonizing saints according to their traditions. Historically, when groups of Eastern Catholics have come into full communion with Rome, they will bring along their saints and prayers and traditions. Many of these saints aren’t officially canonized by Rome, and they are usually only venerated in their own tradition. By inscribing the names of these martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, Pope Francis has made it clear that these martyrs are to be venerated by Roman Catholics as saints.

Finally, in declaring them saints today, Pope Francis sidestepped the typical canonization process. They are saints, without having passed through the usual stages of Servant of God, Venerable, and Blessed. This “skipping” of steps is commonly referred to as “equipollent canonization.” Essentially, when a pope declares someone a saint by an official act, that person is recognized as a saint in the Church. This is not the first time Francis has moved a case along in this way. For example, when he canonized Popes John XXIII and John Paul II in 2014, he waived the requirement of a second miracle for John XXIII so that the two popes would be canonized on the same day. In 2013, he elevated the Jesuit Peter Faber, whose status had lingered at “Blessed” since 1872.

Perhaps the most interesting case is that of St. Gregory of Narek, an Armenian monk venerated as a saint in the Armenian Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Unexpectedly, Pope Francis named him the 36th Doctor of the Church in 2015. Living from in the mid-10th century through the early 11th, St. Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church was not in communion with Rome. After several failed attempts at reunion, the Armenian Catholic Church was officially recognized as an Eastern Catholic Church in 1742. Interestingly, the Armenian Catholic eparchy of Buenos Aires (established in 1989 by Pope John Paul II) is called the Eparchy of Saint Gregory of Narek. Perhaps this is how Pope Francis became familiar with the saint.

We Christians are blessed with a wide variety of saints from all sorts of backgrounds. They help make up the beautiful tapestry of the people of God — praying for us, interceding for us, and inspiring us. This is something worth celebrating.

21 Coptic New Martyrs of Libya, Pray for Us!

Mike Lewis. Bolded emphases added.

[flowerandblood]

My husband, instead of going to bed with me, spent several hours last night reading the correspondence of the Third Ecumenical Council of the First Church to point out to the guy in his comment that he wrote complete nonsense. He told me about it today, complaining that the guy didn't reply to him.

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in Irish History | 18 February:

In the Liturgical calendar, today is the Feast Day of Colmán of Lindisfarne, also known as St Colmán (he was Bishop of Lindisfarne from 661 until 664). Colman resigned the Bishopric of Lindisfarne after the Synod of Whitby called by King Oswiu of Northumbria decided to calculate Easter using the method of the First Ecumenical Council instead of his preferred Celtic method. After his resignation…

[orthodoxydaily]

SAINTS&READING: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2024

september 28_december 11

MARTYR STEPHEN THE NEW OF Mt StAUXIENTUS (767)

The Monk Martyr and Confessor Stephen the New was born in 715 at Constantinople into a pious Christian family. His parents, having two daughters, prayed the Lord for a son. The mother of the newborn Stephen took him to the Blachernae church of the Most Holy Theotokos and dedicated him to God.

During the reign of the emperor Leo the Isaurian (716-741) there was a persecution against the holy icons and against those venerating them. With the support of the emperor, the adherents of the Iconoclast heresy seized control of the supreme positions of authority in the Empire and in the Church. Persecuted by the powers of this world, Orthodoxy was preserved in monasteries far from the capital, in solitary cells, and in the brave and faithful hearts of its followers.

The Orthodox parents of Saint Stephen, grieved by the prevailing impiety, fled from Constantinople to Bithynia, and they gave over their sixteen-year-old son in obedience to the monk John, who labored in asceticism in a solitary place on the Mount of Saint Auxentius. Saint Stephen dwelt with the venerable monk John for more than fifteen years, devoting himself totally to this spirit-bearing Elder, and learning monastic activity from him. Here Stephen received the news that his father was dead, and his mother and sisters had been tonsured as nuns.

After a certain time his teacher John also died. With deep sorrow Saint Stephen buried his venerable body, and continued with monastic effort in his cave by himself. Soon monks began to come to the ascetic, desiring to learn from him the virtuous and salvific life, and a monastery was established, with Saint Stephen as the igumen. At forty-two years of age Stephen left the monastery he founded, and he went to another mountain, on whose summit he dwelt in deep seclusion in a solitary cell. But here also a community of monks soon gathered, seeking the spiritual guidance of Saint Stephen.

Leo the Isaurian was succeeded by Constantine Copronymos (741-775), a fiercer persecutor of the Orthodox, and an even more zealous iconoclast. The emperor convened an Iconoclast Council, attended by 358 bishops from the Eastern provinces. However, except for Constantine, the Archbishop of Constantinople, illegitimately raised to the patriarchal throne by the power of Copronymos, not one of the other patriarchs participated in the wicked doings of this Council, thus making it less likely to style itself as “ecumenical.” This council of heretics, at the instigation of the emperor and the archbishop, described icons as idols, and pronounced an anathema on all who venerated icons in the Orthodox manner, and it described icon veneration as heresy.

Meanwhile, the monastery of Mount Auxentius and its igumen became known in the capital. They told the emperor about the ascetic life of the monks, about their Orthodox piety, about the igumen Stephen’s gift of wonderworking, and of how Saint Stephen’s fame had spread far beyond the region of the monastery, and that the name of its head was accorded universal respect and love. The saint’s open encouragement of icon veneration and the implied rebuff to the persecutors of Orthodoxy within the monastery of Mount Auxentius especially angered the emperor. Archbishop Constantine realized that in the person of Saint Stephen he had a strong and implacable opponent of his iconoclastic intentions, and he plotted how he might draw him over to his side or else destroy him.

They tried to lure Saint Stephen into the Iconoclast camp, at first with flattery and bribery, then by threats, but in vain. Then they slandered the saint, accusing him of falling into sin with the nun Anna. But his guilt was not proven, since the nun courageously denied any guilt and died under torture and beatings. Finally, the emperor gave orders to lock up the saint in prison, and to destroy his monastery. Iconoclast bishops were sent to Saint Stephen in prison, trying to persuade him of the dogmatic correctness of the Iconoclast position. But the saint easily refuted all the arguments of the heretics and he remained true to Orthodoxy.

Then the emperor ordered that the saint be exiled on one of the islands in the Sea of Marmora. Saint Stephen settled into a cave, and there also his disciples soon gathered. After a certain while the saint left the brethren and took upon himself the exploit of living atop a pillar. News of the stylite Stephen, and the miracles worked by his prayers, spread throughout all the Empire and strengthened the faith and spirit of Orthodoxy in the people.

The emperor gave orders to transfer Saint Stephen to prison on the island of Pharos, and then to bring him to trial. At the trial, the saint refuted the arguments of the heretics sitting in judgment upon him. He explained the dogmatic essence of icon veneration, and he denounced the Iconoclasts because in blaspheming icons, they blasphemed Christ and the Mother of God. As proof, the saint pointed to a golden coin inscribed with the image of the emperor. He asked the judges what would happen to a man who threw the coin to the ground , and then trampled the emperor’s image under his feet. They replied that such a man would certainly be punished for dishonoring the image of the emperor. The saint said that an even greater punishment awaited anyone who would dishonor the image of the King of Heaven and His Saints, and with that he spat on the coin, threw it to the ground, and began to trample it underfoot.

The emperor gave orders to take the saint to prison, where already there were languishing 342 Elders, condemned for the veneration of icons. In this prison Saint Stephen spent eleven months, consoling the imprisoned. The prison became like a monastery, where the usual prayers and hymns were chanted according to the Typikon. The people came to the prison in crowds and asked Saint Stephen to pray for them.

When the emperor learned that the saint had organized a monastery in prison, where they prayed and venerated holy icons, he sent two of his own servants, twin-brothers, to beat the saint to death. When these brothers went to the prison and beheld the face of the monk shining with a divine light, they fell down on their knees before him, asking his forgiveness and prayers, then they told the emperor that his command had been carried out. But the emperor learned the truth and he resorted to yet another lie. Informing his soldiers that the saint was plotting to remove him from the throne, he sent them to the prison. The holy confessor himself came out to the furious soldiers, who seized him and dragged him through the streets of the city. They then threw the lacerated body of the martyr into a pit, where they were wont to bury criminals.

On the following morning, a fiery cloud appeared over Mount Auxentius, and then a heavy darkness descended upon the capital, accompanied by hail, which killed many people.

Source Orthodox Church in America_OCA

NEW HIEROMARTYR SERAPHIM (CHIGAGOV) , METROPOLITAN OF St PETERSBURG (1937)

Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) was a man of extraordinary gifts and achievements. An authoritative Church hierarch, a steadfast defender of Orthodox traditions, an eloquent preacher, a profound theologian, a philosopher, a brilliant military officer, a skilled healer, a historian, writer, musician, painter, and tireless public servant — his life encompassed a wide array of vocations, all united by his unwavering dedication to God.

In 1886, few could have foreseen that the accomplished officer Leonid Mikhailovich Chichagov would one day become a Russian bishop and martyr. A descendant of two distinguished admirals — great-grandson of Vasily Yakovlevich Chichagov, one of the first Arctic explorers, and grandson of Pavel Vasilyevich Chichagov* — Leonid was well-educated, fluent in several languages, and steeped in the cultured life of his era. At 30 years of age, his life mirrored that of other young men of his social class: a tastefully appointed home, impeccable manners, a beautiful wife, and evenings spent at theatres and balls. His impeccable military service had earned him ten prestigious Russian and foreign orders, and his future seemed destined for the highest government ranks.

Leonid’s deep religiosity had been evident since childhood. Orphaned at a young age, he often sought solace in prayer and faith. As an officer in the elite Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, he served as the warden of the Transfiguration Cathedral on Liteiny Avenue in St. Petersburg, where he generously supported the church financially. Yet, in 1891, just after being promoted to colonel, Leonid shocked St. Petersburg society by retiring from the military to dedicate his life to serving the Russian Orthodox Church.

This decision profoundly impacted his wife, who struggled to accept the sudden change. However, Saint John of Kronstadt, Leonid’s spiritual father, offered her comforting counsel: “Your husband must become a priest, and you must not hinder the path your husband has chosen, for in this field he will reach great heights.”

Thus began Leonid Mikhailovich Chichagov’s transformation from a decorated officer to a servant of God, embarking on the path that would ultimately lead to his martyrdom.

From Priesthood to Monasticism: Father Leonid’s Journey to Metropolitan Seraphim

After retiring from his military career, Leonid Mikhailovich Chichagov moved his family to Moscow, where he immersed himself in theological studies and began his preparation for ordination. On 28 February 1893, he was ordained a priest in the Kremlin Dormition Cathedral and assigned to serve at the Synodal Church of the Twenty Apostles within the Kremlin. Two years later, Father Leonid was appointed to provide spiritual care for soldiers of the artillery division in the Moscow Military District.

Demonstrating his characteristic energy and commitment, Father Leonid restored the Church of St. Nicholas in Old Vagankov, which had been closed for 30 years. Drawing on personal funds and public donations, he revitalized the church and resumed regular services there. However, this year also brought a profound personal trial: his wife, Natalia, fell gravely ill. Despite his efforts to care for her, Matushka Natalia passed away in 1895, leaving behind their four daughters, the youngest of whom was just ten years old...Continue reading at St Elizabeth Convent

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Luke 20:1-8

1 Now it happened on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel, that the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him 2 and spoke to Him, saying, "Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?" 3 But He answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: 4 The baptism of John-was it from heaven or from men? 5 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 So they answered that they did not know where it was from. 8 And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

[xgenesisrei]

Bibimbap Missiology

This is perhaps that closest pair of words I can think of to describe what just happened at the 4th Congress of the Lausanne Movement in Incheon, South Korea. The conference in itself is a very interesting theatre of so many tensions at work today in the evangelical community which includes the 'speech that shookt the L4' delivered by Dr Ruth Padilla DeBorst from Latin America.

But for those looking beyond the veneer of what was seen on stage, one of the critical aspects that needs attention is the tension arising from the push and pull of missiological perspectives. The theme of the congress itself is very telling: "Let the church declare and display Christ together." Three tarpaulins were put up, one emphasizing the word 'declare', the other 'display,' and the third one 'together.' Immediately, I thought, these visuals reveal where the movement is at in 2024:

Within Lausanne, there are those who wished to see that 'proclamation' will be emphasized more so that evangelical churches will not lose their fervent for evangelism and be markedly distinguishable from the mission trajectory of the World Council of Churches (WCC). They are the people who remembers the first Lausanne in 1974 as the necessary antidote to the waning evangelistic energy among the ecumenical circle. They celebrate the UPGs and other 'strategies' developed as the core strength of what Lausanne is and hope that the movement will continue to be at the cutting edge of coming up with similar 'strategies' to 'finish the task" of evangelizing the world. While some of them believe that the Gospel has to be and cannot afford not to be 'holistic', in practical and even theological sense, still yet 'priority' has to be given to finding ways of 'telling the Gospel' clearly and effectively (aka 'Prioritism). Ed Stetzer, regional director of Lausanne in North America, wrote' a post-conference reflection that articulates exactly this conviction.

But also within Lausanne are those who hope to see 'demonstration' to finally get the legitimization it deserves as a missional expression of what it means to be a witness of the Gospel. They come in many names and don different hats, e.g., faith-based development agencies, justice initiatives, social workers, community organizers, climate activists, among many others who are working to ensure that more people will experience the "fullness of life" in the here and now, aside from, of course, getting assured of 'eternal life' in the world to come. They are the people who remember the first Lausanne Congress in 1974 as the struggle of Majority World voices in disrupting the narrow, truncated, model of mission that developed in the West, or to recall a phrase that René Padilla used in his speech, the need for a more 'integral' mission as an antidote to the dominance of "a Gospel with no teeth." A younger leader from Sri Lanka, Nathanael Somanathan, member of Lausanne's current Theology Working Group, wrote a penetrating post-conf analysis that articulates this perspective.

50 years later, the tension between these two missiological camps remain, and the L4 congress is where they needed to discover how to share the same space, be together as brothers and sisters, talk with each other, and also find ways to work together. The big push for this in the congress is framed around the call for 'COLLABORATION'. The sessions and activities of the weeklong event were designed around this objective. The many tensions that transpired behind the scenes throughout the week are but indicators of how the movement is grappling with what happens when you ask advocates of justice & peace to share the same stage with heralds of justification & church planting. Bibimbap is only as good as the choice of side dishes to mix and how well everything will be tossed happily in the bowl. It cannot be truly enjoyed by eating the rice separately and each side dishes on its own as one would normally do with a rice and viand meal.

And this is where I guess the conference failed.

'Bibimbap' could have been a good metaphor for the congress to capture the changing landscape of today's Christianity that is going more and more global. But it turned out to be a missed opportunity. What the congress tried to do is to get different camps together, toss them in a single bowl, with the hopes of arriving at a dish that will be good for everyone, everywhere, and perhaps, for all time. The delegates heard of talks about resolving the tensions, managing the fractures, and finding a happy resolution. Together. Maybe the three tarpaulins were illustrative of how to make sure everybody will find their own happy space under the big tent of Lausanne.

However, for both sides, the feeling is mutual in terms of disappointment. The 'declare' camp remains worried that the Seoul Statement has not gone far enough to ensure that evangelizing the lost, the last, and the least, while not the only task of God's people, shall, at the end of the day, be on top of everything else. The 'display' camp, on the other hand, were frustrated that not much space were given to articulate the cause of justice, peace, and reconciliation, and the very few times it was forcefully articulated on stage, the L4 organizers were quick to even issue a public apology!

The problem with a global missiology. The unhappy lot experienced by both parties during the L4, I think, is very much rooted in an imaginary that remains to be a sticky feature of evangelicalism -the yearning for a singular story that can define and unite the movement. In the field of missiology, the three previous Lausanne documents have been seen as building-up on each other with the hope of finally arriving at a more 'biblical' missiology, one that will be good for everyone, everywhere, and hopefully, for a really long, if not, all, time. Technically, the pursuit of a truly 'global' missiology for today's global church.

But such an endeavor will continue to be less than helpful. As Christianity re/emerges more and more in different parts of the world, it is becoming clear that the challenge has more to do with something beyond the preoccupation with constructing a global (applicable to all) perspective of mission for the evangelical community.

This challenge involves coming to terms with the reality that each locality, each community, each region of the world, faces a context, culture, and church histories that will demand approaches to doing mission which can only be articulated from within.

This has nothing to do with the usual approach of 'contextualizing' something that is global so that it becomes more palatable locally (think of making Bibimbap burgers or Bibimbap salad). It is more about recognizing that there is hardly such thing as 'global' and those that put itself forward as one are actually more appropriately labeled as 'colonial' for they are, in different ways, actually experienced as such. Bibimbap is a beloved Korean dish and best enjoyed in the Korean way of eating and for the L4 delegates the opportunity to enjoy it right where the dish originated -Korea. But to think of a 'global' Bibimbap that serves as a dish for everyone, everywhere, and for all time, is a big mistake.

Lately, I've been talking of how the theology of 'integral mission' has been less effective and became more contentious when it was 'Lausannized' (read as globalized!). It did not help that the Micah Declaration on Integral Mission was drafted in Oxford! Not a few who have encountered integral mission through these sources have thought of 'integral mission' as another 'colonizing' Western framework seeking embrace from their people. Not a few also missed the fact that the 'integral' in Integral Mission is not from the English word 'integrate' (fuse things together) but from what makes 'pan integral' (whole wheat bread) a more healthy choice of bread in the tables of South America. It does not help that even celebrated advocates of Integral Mission also omit the 'genealogy' and historical roots with the hope that a more 'abstracted' version shall be more helpful. But this proved to be really unfortunate.

Confronting colonial missiology. What Rene Padilla, Samuel Escobar, Kwame Bediako, John Stott, among others, accomplished, together, in 1974 is to remind the evangelicals molded in the tradition, history, and context of the Western hemisphere that the Western approach to doing mission does not (and cannot) apply to everyone else in the world. The other regions of the world, today dubbed as the Majority World, are facing battles of their own on how the Gospel will take root in the hearts and minds of their own people, amidst the social and political issues of their communities. It is naive to think that there is 'one' way to do address these multifaceted dimensions of mission and ministry across the world.

Integral Mission is a sharp critique, a necessary pushback, and also a concrete alternative from Latin America to what the West offers. It is a 'moment' in evangelical missiology that has the power to encourage the people of God in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and other regions of the Majority World to reimagine mission anew, and that to do so is not 'heretical' but actually truly 'missional.' It has the power to confront and undo the 'colonial captivity' that not a few in the Majority World continue to suffer from in subtle and hidden ways. This is the 'decolonial' edge of Integral Mission that got blunt when it was 'globalized' in the shape of the old colonial mold of Western missiology. Pan Integral missiology could have launched a thousand ships of missional expressions: adobo mission in the Philippines, Phin mission in Vietnam, Khao soi mission in Thailand, etc. A clear case of why it is not enough to be 'contextual', one also needs to be 'de-colonial' -basically an insistent conviction to root one's way of thinking from where one's feet land and straddle.

And so the struggle has to move beyond, and away from, whether Integral Mission or Prioritism will win as the 'official' evangelical missiology. Such a question can easily go down the path of colonial preoccupation disguised in the language of which one is more 'biblical'. The real work is how the different spaces and communities of evangelicals in different parts of the world can encourage one another to plant the seeds of the Gospel in their localities, sharpen each others perspectives and practices by exchanging notes, and celebrate the fact that it is in these diverse expressions and articulations lie the true strength and uniqueness of the 'church' spreading worldwide whom Christ continues to build and lead. Brings to mind a line that C. Rene Padilla wrote,

"Every culture offers a perspective on the Gospel that brings to light certain aspects of it that in other cultures have remained less visible or even hidden. From this perspective, the cultural differences that so greatly complicate intercultural communication become as advantage for understanding the multiform wisdom of God: they become channels for expressing aspects of the truth of the Gospel that a theology tied to only one culture might ignore all too frequently."

And this is also where a platform like the Lausanne Movement can best position itself in service -not as missiological policemen but as Gospel caterers. That is, a gastronomic platform that will go beyond extending and making the 'global' table more longer, but interrogating the very idea of having a single table! Inviting everyone to ask instead how things will be different if we celebrate the existence of more and many tables and encouraging people to stand-up, explore, and savor what other tables have to offer, not necessarily to copy one another but to be challenged to further deepen each other's work.

I have some ideas on what will happen when we switch from a globalized-bibimbap to single-origin coffee missiology but that will have to be for another post...

-Rants by Rei Lemuel Crizaldo on the recently concluded 4th Congress of the Lausanne Movement held in South Korea from September 22-28, 2024. NOTE: If you like a podcast (audio) version of this blog, please click here.

[dwgill-quotes]

Pagan religion did not depend on a very elaborate institutional structure, and the cults of each city were all organized locally; rabbinic Judaism, too, was very decentralized (Jews did have a single patriarch until around 425, but it is unclear how wide his powers were). Christianity, however, had a complex hierarchy, partly matching that of the state. By 400 there were four patriarchs, at Rome, Constantinople (since 381), Antioch and Alexandria (a fifth, Jerusalem, was added in 451), who oversaw the bishops of each city... Bishops were soon arrayed in two levels, with metropolitan bishops (called in later centuries archbishops) at an intermediate level, overseeing and consecrating the bishops of each secular province. Inside the dioceses of each bishop, which normally covered the secular territory of their city, bishops had authority over the clerics of other public churches... The church in the fourth and fifth centuries became an elaborate structure, with perhaps a hundred thousand clerics of different types, more than the civil administration, and steadily increasing in wealth as a result of pious gifts. It was not part of the state, but its wealth and empire-wide institutional cohesion made it an inevitable partner for emperors and prefects, and a strong and influential informal authority in cities; the cathedral church by 500 was often the largest local landowner (and therefore patron), and, unlike in the case of private family wealth, its stability could be guaranteed – bishops were not allowed to alienate church property... Even in a church context, bishops generally identified themselves with their diocese first, with wider ecclesiastical institutions only secondarily. But they were linked to the wider church hierarchy all the same: they could be called to order and dismissed by metropolitans and by the councils of bishops that steadily became more frequent, whether empire-wide (the ‘ecumenical’ councils) or at the regional level, in Spain or Gaul or Africa. The fact that this institutional structure did not depend on the empire, and was above all separately funded, meant that it could survive the political fragmentation of the fifth century, and the church was indeed the Roman institution that continued with least change into the early Middle Ages; the links between regions became weaker, but the rest remained intact.

Chris Wickham, chapter 3 of The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000.