There was a very interesting and exciting archaeological find in Jerusalem recently.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/996230.asp
I suggest you read all about it.
It seems they may have found the tomb of Zecharias (father of John the Baptist), Simeon ("Righteous Simeon" who blessed the baby Jesus), and James the Brother of Jesus (that's "Brother of God" to you, boy.)
They may have found the tomb of these three, or they may not.
They HAVE found, however, an inscription chilsled into the wall of the tomb from (they estimate) the 4th centrury, which quotes Luke 4:25.
It is particularly interesting to scholars of New Testament manuscripts because it is apparenently a very specific version of Luke that was floating around about that time.
But it is especially interesting to us, because they may have found the tomb of our dear Friend James' Holy and Righteous Patron, the Brother of God.
Regards,
Basil
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Original Sin and Traffic Patterns
I have been thinking a lot lately about what makes good things good, and bad things bad. Then along I come and go do something stupid that makes a little light or two go on inside my head.
A few weeks ago I was driving to work in a traffic jam. All the cars headed a certain direction (my direction) down this two lane road were backed up bumper to bumper for several blocks. I could see a street coming up ahead on the right hand side. I was about two cars away from that street, when suddenly in my rear view mirror I see a guy with this souped-up, bright yellow with all the extras SUV honking his horn and flashing his lights at people. I'm thinking: "What is wrong with this nut! Doesn't he see we have nowhere to go forward? Doesn't he realize we are all backed up in traffic. No reason to be blaring on the horn.
I look in my rear view mirror and I see that he is trying to pull around someone on the right hand side several cars back. What a nut, I think. But, I also get angry. I get angry that people like this nut drive in the bicycle lane, to try and pass cars so they can turn right at the next street and not wait in traffic. I can see that's clearly what he intends to do, and I hate it when people do that sort of thing. I ride a bicycle once in a while, not very often, but years ago I rode all the time and I figure nuts like that have no right to do such things.
So, in order to assist the world in law-abiding citizenship, I pull as far to the right as I can without crossing the line into the bicycle lane. I think to myself, there is no way this nut is going to drive past me.
I look in my mirror again, and he is driving up onto the sidewalk. Now he is passing several cars down the sidewalk. Now he is passing me, and I start yelling at him: every profanity I can think of. Or course, he can't hear me. Our windows are all up because it's cold and raining outside. But I feel I must have my say, and I shake my fist at the futility of my empty words (almost giving him the birdie.)
Really, people like that aught not to be allowed on the road.
About a week and a half later I am at a corner. It is a stupid corner designed by traffic engineers that were either drunk, or in a hurry to make it to the bathroom when they signed the dotted line for all the dimensions. What is particularly annoying about this intersection is that you come to a T, and you must turn either left or right. The problem is that "left" is the way that I am always going when I come to that intersection, and "right" is the way that 98% of the other people are going. And I have to wait sometimes for 20 minutes at this intersection merely because the traffic engineers did not make it two lanes wide.
And they are idiots too. They could have made it two lanes wide going our direction. There's plenty enough space between the buildings. There might even be enough paved street already sitting there, but the street is all marked out in yellow and white lines, and it is only one lane wide going our direction, and people park along both sides.
If they had made it two lanes wide, we people turning left would not have to wait 20 minutes for all the people turning right.
Grrrrrr....
But I have a confession to make.
Usually, after about the first ten minutes of waiting, I get close enough to the stop light that I can SEE the end in sight. And the exciting thing about THE END is that right up there... right at the stop light itself. The road going our direction still is not marked out into two lanes, but it IS wide enough at last for the left-turning cars (few though they be) and the right-turning cars to sit side by side for a moment before they turn. And then I do it... The road is clear and nobody is coming the other direction... so I cross over the double yellow lines onto the wrong side of the road, pass about three cars, slide easily into the now-empty left turning lane, and am on my way. It is quick and dirty (and no doubt highly illegal) but it saves me 10 minutes on my sometimes hour-and-a-half drive to work.
Well, last time I did this, I took my little risk a little sooner than ordinary. Passed about 4 or 5 cars going down the wrong side of the road, and my thoughts for some reason went back to that guy that I hated so much who was driving down the sidewalk.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
This is the heart of the truths we hold about humanity: that we are all sinners. No man can look at another in anger or fear and see anything but himself mirrored there.
And as I thought about this... as I drove the rest of the way to work that day... I began to have a clearer picture of the Orthodox conception of "Original Sin". You see, we Orthodox DO believe in Original Sin. It is not the total depravity of the Calvinists (who actually adopted this from Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Equinas' jurridical sense of redemption). It is not some disease of sin contracted by all believers. No, infact, we believe so little in any such sense of Original Sin that we Orthodox do not even stomach the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Imaculate Conception. (There is no need for a miracle to have removed the Theotokos' Original Sin in order for her to give birth to a sinless child.)
But we do, in fact, believe in Original Sin. The sins of Adam and Eve are passed along to us, down through the epochs of history. But not in our genetic code, not in some sort of disease of the soul, not even through the onslaught of demons. No, it is passed down through history by the traffic engineers, who sit far removed from traffic, exhaust, and any sense of reality, and design the way our streets, freeways, stoplights, etc. all interact with one another to make the experience of the driver as hellish as possible.
Now, you may think I'm joking, but I'm absolutely serious. The Orthodox understanding of Original Sin is that we have difficulties and trials that influence us constantly toward making bad choices, choices that satisfy some inner sense of gratification, but are not the least bit Christian. And these difficulties are passed along to us through history by the consequences of other people's poor decisions in the same vein, all the way back to Adam and Eve (with the Traffic Engineers standing at the center.)
Regards,
Basil
I have been thinking a lot lately about what makes good things good, and bad things bad. Then along I come and go do something stupid that makes a little light or two go on inside my head.
A few weeks ago I was driving to work in a traffic jam. All the cars headed a certain direction (my direction) down this two lane road were backed up bumper to bumper for several blocks. I could see a street coming up ahead on the right hand side. I was about two cars away from that street, when suddenly in my rear view mirror I see a guy with this souped-up, bright yellow with all the extras SUV honking his horn and flashing his lights at people. I'm thinking: "What is wrong with this nut! Doesn't he see we have nowhere to go forward? Doesn't he realize we are all backed up in traffic. No reason to be blaring on the horn.
I look in my rear view mirror and I see that he is trying to pull around someone on the right hand side several cars back. What a nut, I think. But, I also get angry. I get angry that people like this nut drive in the bicycle lane, to try and pass cars so they can turn right at the next street and not wait in traffic. I can see that's clearly what he intends to do, and I hate it when people do that sort of thing. I ride a bicycle once in a while, not very often, but years ago I rode all the time and I figure nuts like that have no right to do such things.
So, in order to assist the world in law-abiding citizenship, I pull as far to the right as I can without crossing the line into the bicycle lane. I think to myself, there is no way this nut is going to drive past me.
I look in my mirror again, and he is driving up onto the sidewalk. Now he is passing several cars down the sidewalk. Now he is passing me, and I start yelling at him: every profanity I can think of. Or course, he can't hear me. Our windows are all up because it's cold and raining outside. But I feel I must have my say, and I shake my fist at the futility of my empty words (almost giving him the birdie.)
Really, people like that aught not to be allowed on the road.
About a week and a half later I am at a corner. It is a stupid corner designed by traffic engineers that were either drunk, or in a hurry to make it to the bathroom when they signed the dotted line for all the dimensions. What is particularly annoying about this intersection is that you come to a T, and you must turn either left or right. The problem is that "left" is the way that I am always going when I come to that intersection, and "right" is the way that 98% of the other people are going. And I have to wait sometimes for 20 minutes at this intersection merely because the traffic engineers did not make it two lanes wide.
And they are idiots too. They could have made it two lanes wide going our direction. There's plenty enough space between the buildings. There might even be enough paved street already sitting there, but the street is all marked out in yellow and white lines, and it is only one lane wide going our direction, and people park along both sides.
If they had made it two lanes wide, we people turning left would not have to wait 20 minutes for all the people turning right.
Grrrrrr....
But I have a confession to make.
Usually, after about the first ten minutes of waiting, I get close enough to the stop light that I can SEE the end in sight. And the exciting thing about THE END is that right up there... right at the stop light itself. The road going our direction still is not marked out into two lanes, but it IS wide enough at last for the left-turning cars (few though they be) and the right-turning cars to sit side by side for a moment before they turn. And then I do it... The road is clear and nobody is coming the other direction... so I cross over the double yellow lines onto the wrong side of the road, pass about three cars, slide easily into the now-empty left turning lane, and am on my way. It is quick and dirty (and no doubt highly illegal) but it saves me 10 minutes on my sometimes hour-and-a-half drive to work.
Well, last time I did this, I took my little risk a little sooner than ordinary. Passed about 4 or 5 cars going down the wrong side of the road, and my thoughts for some reason went back to that guy that I hated so much who was driving down the sidewalk.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
This is the heart of the truths we hold about humanity: that we are all sinners. No man can look at another in anger or fear and see anything but himself mirrored there.
And as I thought about this... as I drove the rest of the way to work that day... I began to have a clearer picture of the Orthodox conception of "Original Sin". You see, we Orthodox DO believe in Original Sin. It is not the total depravity of the Calvinists (who actually adopted this from Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Equinas' jurridical sense of redemption). It is not some disease of sin contracted by all believers. No, infact, we believe so little in any such sense of Original Sin that we Orthodox do not even stomach the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Imaculate Conception. (There is no need for a miracle to have removed the Theotokos' Original Sin in order for her to give birth to a sinless child.)
But we do, in fact, believe in Original Sin. The sins of Adam and Eve are passed along to us, down through the epochs of history. But not in our genetic code, not in some sort of disease of the soul, not even through the onslaught of demons. No, it is passed down through history by the traffic engineers, who sit far removed from traffic, exhaust, and any sense of reality, and design the way our streets, freeways, stoplights, etc. all interact with one another to make the experience of the driver as hellish as possible.
Now, you may think I'm joking, but I'm absolutely serious. The Orthodox understanding of Original Sin is that we have difficulties and trials that influence us constantly toward making bad choices, choices that satisfy some inner sense of gratification, but are not the least bit Christian. And these difficulties are passed along to us through history by the consequences of other people's poor decisions in the same vein, all the way back to Adam and Eve (with the Traffic Engineers standing at the center.)
Regards,
Basil
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Art, Politics and History
Tonight I had the opportunity to enjoy a film that is both entertaining and fascinating in many ways. It was the great Russian classic Alexander Nevsky by Sergei Eisenstein, music by Prokofiev. Of course Prokofiev's music is classic, and some of my favorite stuff. He wrote at least three film scores that I know of (all for Eisenstein?) several operas, and the great ballet music still used today for Cinderella, and Romeo and Juliet. (Also numerous symphonies - my favorite being his Symphony in C, and his masterful violin concertos.) I often think that if I could make a movie, I would use music by Prokofiev. But I digress.
It is always interesting watching these old classics. They did pretty well without all the modern conventions, equipment, technology, etc. that we have today. The acting of Nikolai Cherkasov is superb. But there was one thing that really bugged me: the Soviet Propaganda Machine. It is difficult, no, impossible to ignore two things:
1) This film had the explicit intention of rallying the Russian people behind their state as they entered WW2 - the theme of standing up for their homeland against the German invaders is highly pronounced. Not to mention, they even have many of the soldiers accompanying the teutonic Knights wearing what appear to be your standard WW2 German helmets.
2) They had to change history, and delete all reference to Christianity on the good guys side. (Of course they made it obvious that the "bad guys side" was the Pope, a Cardinal, a Grand Inquisitor, and a bunch of Roman Catholic monks.
You have probably guess that the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was number 2.
Let me briefly recap the historical events:
Alexander Nevsky conquers the Teutonic Knights as they attempt to invade Russia in the year 1242. A great battle takes place on the frozen lake Chudskoe. The Russians win. The Teutonic Knights are routed, and many of those who flee run across thin ice, the lake cracks open and they drown.
Now there is no question, historically, that the great glory of this battle and it's importance in history from 1242 until 1914 or so when the Soveits came to power and rewrote their own history, was the fact that the Orthodox had defeated Roman Catholic invaders who were coming to Russia intent on "taking back" the Church from the heretics (the Orthodox) and properly subjugating it to the Pope.
Those who were fighting alongside Alexander (he's "Saint Alexander" to us, folks...) were doing so for two reasons: (a) to save their homeland, and (b) to save the Church. The victory was not only seen as a great triumph of glory for "Rus" but it was viewed by one and all as a miracle from God. Alexander takes a place among the faithful Christians the way that King David (also a saint to us) did in the Old Testament. It is a shame that when Cherkasov (Alexander) cries out: "Slava Rus" (Glory to Rus!) at the end of the film, he cannot follow that up with the obvious: "Slava Bogu" (Glory to God!) which, undoubtedly, the real St. Alexander most certainly had done.
It is unfortunate, even heartbreaking, that in such an excellent film, the Soviet authorities kept Eisenstein from accurately portraying history. Oh, there are churches everywhere in the background in the film, but not a single mention of their faith. Not a single line in the script. Not a single Orthodox priest or monk. (Unlike Andrei Tarkovsky's great film about Andre Rublev many years later.)
Well, I just had to vent my frustration about that. This film could have been a much more of a masterpiece if it had accurately portrayed history. The acting was great, the music is sublime, the fimlation is spectacular, but the script has been all cut to pieces by those nasty Soviet censors.
Enough said...
I highly recommend seeing this movie anyway. And I highly recommend you read the true history of St. Alexander. Here's a good web site that will tell you about it: Life of St. Alexander Nevsky.
Regards,
Basil
Tonight I had the opportunity to enjoy a film that is both entertaining and fascinating in many ways. It was the great Russian classic Alexander Nevsky by Sergei Eisenstein, music by Prokofiev. Of course Prokofiev's music is classic, and some of my favorite stuff. He wrote at least three film scores that I know of (all for Eisenstein?) several operas, and the great ballet music still used today for Cinderella, and Romeo and Juliet. (Also numerous symphonies - my favorite being his Symphony in C, and his masterful violin concertos.) I often think that if I could make a movie, I would use music by Prokofiev. But I digress.
It is always interesting watching these old classics. They did pretty well without all the modern conventions, equipment, technology, etc. that we have today. The acting of Nikolai Cherkasov is superb. But there was one thing that really bugged me: the Soviet Propaganda Machine. It is difficult, no, impossible to ignore two things:
1) This film had the explicit intention of rallying the Russian people behind their state as they entered WW2 - the theme of standing up for their homeland against the German invaders is highly pronounced. Not to mention, they even have many of the soldiers accompanying the teutonic Knights wearing what appear to be your standard WW2 German helmets.
2) They had to change history, and delete all reference to Christianity on the good guys side. (Of course they made it obvious that the "bad guys side" was the Pope, a Cardinal, a Grand Inquisitor, and a bunch of Roman Catholic monks.
You have probably guess that the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was number 2.
Let me briefly recap the historical events:
Alexander Nevsky conquers the Teutonic Knights as they attempt to invade Russia in the year 1242. A great battle takes place on the frozen lake Chudskoe. The Russians win. The Teutonic Knights are routed, and many of those who flee run across thin ice, the lake cracks open and they drown.
Now there is no question, historically, that the great glory of this battle and it's importance in history from 1242 until 1914 or so when the Soveits came to power and rewrote their own history, was the fact that the Orthodox had defeated Roman Catholic invaders who were coming to Russia intent on "taking back" the Church from the heretics (the Orthodox) and properly subjugating it to the Pope.
Those who were fighting alongside Alexander (he's "Saint Alexander" to us, folks...) were doing so for two reasons: (a) to save their homeland, and (b) to save the Church. The victory was not only seen as a great triumph of glory for "Rus" but it was viewed by one and all as a miracle from God. Alexander takes a place among the faithful Christians the way that King David (also a saint to us) did in the Old Testament. It is a shame that when Cherkasov (Alexander) cries out: "Slava Rus" (Glory to Rus!) at the end of the film, he cannot follow that up with the obvious: "Slava Bogu" (Glory to God!) which, undoubtedly, the real St. Alexander most certainly had done.
It is unfortunate, even heartbreaking, that in such an excellent film, the Soviet authorities kept Eisenstein from accurately portraying history. Oh, there are churches everywhere in the background in the film, but not a single mention of their faith. Not a single line in the script. Not a single Orthodox priest or monk. (Unlike Andrei Tarkovsky's great film about Andre Rublev many years later.)
Well, I just had to vent my frustration about that. This film could have been a much more of a masterpiece if it had accurately portrayed history. The acting was great, the music is sublime, the fimlation is spectacular, but the script has been all cut to pieces by those nasty Soviet censors.
Enough said...
I highly recommend seeing this movie anyway. And I highly recommend you read the true history of St. Alexander. Here's a good web site that will tell you about it: Life of St. Alexander Nevsky.
Regards,
Basil
Monday, September 22, 2003
In my search today on the topic of sophiology, I came across this marvelous sermon by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. It is interesting that James inspired my search tonight, and the sermon I found is a fitting echo. We just celebrated The Exaltation of the Cross a little over a week ago (perhaps they are celebrating it right now in Russia?) and James had a couple of thought provoking articles about it all on his blog.
Anyway, I requote Fr. Bulgakov's sermon here, in it's entirety. It is long, but such a sermon as this should be quoted again and again, like the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom.
Regards,
Basil
The Power of the Cross:
Anyway, I requote Fr. Bulgakov's sermon here, in it's entirety. It is long, but such a sermon as this should be quoted again and again, like the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom.
Regards,
Basil
The Power of the Cross:
From a sermon preached by Fr. Bulgakov
at the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
14 September, 1924
Today the Lord's Cross is raised before all the world; today 'the Cross is raised and the world hallowed', and the faithful are called to worship the thrice blessed Tree on which Christ was crucified. We pray to the tree of the Cross, and we pray to the holy life-bearing Cross itself, we invoke it, we call to it: 'Thou art my mighty defence, tri-partite Cross of Christ, hallow me with thy power that I in faith and love may worship thee and glorify thee.' 'Rejoice, life-bearing Cross, unhindered victory of godliness, the door of Paradise, the confirmation of the faithful, the defence of the Church...impregnable armour, bane of devils...bestowing mercy upon the world.' 'O Cross of Christ, thou hope of Christians, teacher of those in error, haven of the storm-tossed, victory in battle, pillar of the universe, physician of the sick, resurrection of the dead, have mercy upon us.' 'Those who rely upon thee, O thrice blessed and life-giving Cross, rejoice together with the heavenly hosts.' 'Invincible, unfathomable and divine power of the life-giving and honorable Cross, do not forsake us sinners.' 'O glorious and life-giving Cross of the Lord, help us together with our Holy Lady the Mother of God and all the saints, world without end. Amen.'
But however much we may revere the actual precious and life-bearing Cross of the Lord, surely we are not tree worshippers who pray to a tree as to a living being, as to an intelligible essence? Is it to a tree, even if it be thrice-blessed, that we pray, or to the divine power and mystery of the Cross manifested to us in that tree? Worship of Christ's Cross is indeed inseparable for us from the worship of of the Cross abiding in heaven, a divine and unfathomable power. The earthly Cross leads our minds to the contemplation of its archetype the heavenly Cross, as indivisibly united to it as the divine and the human nature are indivisibly but without confusion united in Christ. The heavenly Cross of the Lord shone forth on earth in the tree of the Cross, the instrument of our salvation.
At the creation of the world the seed of trees for the Cross was planted in it--the cedar, the oak, the cypress; on the day when the earth was bidden to bring forth every kind of plant, the trees for the Cross sprang up. But the Cross made of wood is the symbol of the Eternal Cross, the revelation of the mystery of the Cross. The sign of the Cross is written upon the world as a whole, for in the words of the Church anthem, it is the 'four pointed power' binding together the 'four corners of the world' as 'height, breadth, and depth'. It is written too in the image of man with his arms outstretched: Moses and Joshua praying with their arms uplifted prefigured the Crucified. The form of the body calls forth, as it were, the tree of the Cross, for it is itself a Cross, the centre of which is the heart. In the image of the Cross the Creator inscribed His own image in the world and in man, for according to the testimony of the Church, the Cross is the divine image printed upon the world. What does the sign mean? It proclaims God's love, and in the first place God's love for His creation. The world is created by the power of the Cross, for God's love for the creation is sacrificial. The world is saved by the Cross, by sacrificial love; it is blessed by the Cross and overshadowed by its power. But the mystery of the Cross, is even more profound, for it wondrously the image of the Tri-Personal God, of the Trinity in unity. The Church teaches that it is the symbol of the unfathomable Trinity, the three-membered Cross bearing the tri-personal image of the Trinity. The Cross is the revelation of the Holy Trinity, and the power of the Cross is a divine power. When we call in prayer upon the incomprehensible, invincible, and divine power of the precious life-giving Cross, we pray to the Source of life, the Trinity in unity, one and divine in life and substance. The Cross is God Himself in His revelation to the world, God's power and glory.
God is love and the Cross is the symbol of divine love. Love is sacrificial. the power and flame, the very nature of love is the Cross, and there is no love apart from it. The Cross is the sacrificial essence of love, since love is a sacrifice, self-surrender, self-abnegation, voluntary self renunciation for the sake of the beloved. Without sacrifice there can be no acceptance, no meeting, no life in and for another; there is no bliss in love except in sacrificial self-surrender which is rewarded by responsive fulfilment. The Cross is the exchange of love, indeed love itself is exchange. There is no other path for love and for its wisdom but the path of the Cross. The Holy Trinity is the Eternal Cross as the sacrificial exchange of Three, the single life born of voluntary surrender, of a threefold self-surrender, of being dissolved in the divine ocean of sacrificial love. The tri-partite Cross is the symbol of the Holy Trinity. How is this true? In the Cross three lines meet and intersect; they approach one another from different points but as they intersect they become one in the heart of the Cross, at their meeting point. Similarly in the Holy Trinity the divine life of the Tri-unity is an eternal meeting, exchange of self-surrender and of self-discovery in the two other Hypostases. No limits can be set on love or sacrifice. Renouncing oneself in order to live again in the other--such is the bliss of love. He who loves another loves the Cross as well, since love is sacrificial. Love itself, God, in the Eternal Cross surrenders Himself for the sake of His love. The three points in which the lines of the Tri-cross end are images of the Three Divine Self-subsistent Hypostases, and the point of their intersection is the co-inherence of the Three, the Trinity in unity in sacrificial exchange.
The bliss of divine love is the sacrificial bliss of the Cross, and its power is a sacrificial power. If the world is created by love, it is created by no other power than the power of the Cross. God who is love creates it by taking up the Cross in order to reveal His love for the creature. The Almighty Creator leaves room in the world for the creature's freedom, thus as it were humbling Himself, limiting His almightiness, emptying Himself for the benefit of the creature. The world is created through the Cross of God's love for the creature. But in creating the world through the Cross, God in His eternal counsel determines to save it, also through the Cross, from itself, from perishing in its creatureliness. God so loved the world that from all eternity He gave His only begotten Son to be sacrificed on the Cross to save the world and call it to eternal life through the death of the Cross and Resurrection. God seeks in the creature a friend, another self, with whom He can share the bliss of love, to whom He can impart the divine life, and in His boundless love for the creature He does not stop at sacrifice, but sacrifices Himself for the sake of the creature. The boundlessness of the divine sacrifice for the sake of the world and its salvation passes all understanding. The Son humbles Himself to become man, taking upon Him the form of a servant and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. The Father does not spare His beloved, His only-begotten Son, but gives Him to be crucified; the Holy Spirit accepts descent into the fallen and hardened world and rests upon the Anointed, Christ, dwells in His Mother, and sanctifies the Church. It is the sacrifice not of the Son alone, but of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity as a whole. The Son alone was incarnate and suffered on the Cross, but in Him was manifested the sacrificial love of the Holy Trinity--of the Father who sends Him, and of the Holy Spirit who rests upon Him and upon His sorrowing Mother. The Cross was prepared in the world by God for God and was therefore prefigured in the Old Testament by many symbols and images. And the Cross appeared to the world as the salutary tree, as victory over the world; hence the sign of the Cross will victoriously appear in heaven at the second glorious coming of the Son of God, and in the heaven of heavens there ever shines the Holy Cross, the vision of which was vouchsafed to St. Andrew.
Demons tremble at the blessed sign of the Cross. The Cross is to them a consuming fire. Why do they tremble at this fore of love? Because they hate love, because they are darkened by selfishness and cannot abide the path of the Cross; they are united in their legions by the power of common hatred and not love. The cheering and comforting fire is to them an unendurable flame.
The Cross is the figurative inscription of God's Name, working miracles and manifesting powers, like the name of God revealed to Moses. The Cross is the symbol of the Holy Trinity, the sacred sign of God who is in love, burning up enmity, malice, and hatred.
This heavenly Cross has been revealed to us men in the Cross of Christ, in the blessed tree the image of which we worship and kiss with awe. We are signed with it as soldiers of Christ, we wear it on the breast and carry it in our hearts. A Christian is essentially a Cross-bearer. The sweetest Name of Jesus is said to have been inscribed on the heart of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the God-bearer; and similarly the heart of a Christian holds the Cross of the Lord which has pierced it once and for all and set it aglow. A Christian lives in God, and, in so far as he enters into the love of Christ, shares both in the burden and in the sweetness of His Cross. To worship the Cross and to glory in it is for him not an external commandment, but an inner behest: 'Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his Cross, and follow Me.' we can only worship the Cross to the extent to which we share in it. He who is afraid of the Cross and in his inmost heart rejects it worships it falsely and deceives his own conscience. This is why today's feast is both sweet and terrible, and the Church accompanies its celebration with a strict fast. The Cross shines in the sinful darkness of our heart, illumining it and at the same time exposing it. Our sinful, self-loving nature fears it and resists it. Why deceive ourselves? The natural man is afraid of the Cross. And yet we must overcome this fear; we must bring forth the tree of the Cross in our hearts, lift it up, and worship it. We must lay on our shoulders, too, as did Simon, the Cyrenian passer-by, the burden of Christ's Cross. Everyone must take up his Cross and never leave it, and, raising the Cross in his own soul, help to raise it in the world.
The Saviour's command to bear one's Cross is not a harsh infliction of pain, but God's great mercy towards man. It is a sign of God's love for man, of great respect for him. God wants His highest creation to participate in His Cross, in His joy and bliss. It was vouchsafed to Adam while still blissfully ignorant of good and evil to taste the sweetness of the Cross through obeying the divine command not to eat of the fruit of tree of knowledge. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge grew together in the garden of Eden. That was the paradisal sign of the Cross: renouncing his own will and doing the will of the heavenly Father, man was crucified on the tree which became for him the tree of life, full of eternal bliss. But through the whispering of the wily serpent, Adam and Eve rejected the Cross; they came down from it having willfully disobeyed. And the tree became deadly for them and gave them knowledge of good and evil, which entailed exile from paradise. But the New Adam, the Lord, the Son of man and only-begotten Son of God, ascended the Cross which the first Adam had forsaken; He was lifted up on the Cross so as to draw all men unto Him, for there is no way except that of the Cross to the sweetness of paradise. The ancient serpent tries to get Him too, saying to the Crucified through the mouth of his servants: 'Come down from the Cross!' But the new temptation was rejected, and the tree of knowledge became once more the tree of life, a life-bearing garden, and those who taste its fruit partake of immortality. In every man so long as he lives there lives the seed of the old Adam; he hears the unceasing whisper seconded by his natural frailty and infirmity: 'Come down from the Cross, don't torture yourself.' The world wars against the Cross, is driven to fury by the preaching of the gospel; love of the world is hatred of the Cross. But love of God is also love of the Lord's Cross, for our hard, rebellious heart can only love it if it be pierced by the Cross. Sweet are thy wounds to my heart, O most sweet Jesus, and it knows of no greater sweetness!
O Glorious Miracle, the width of the Cross matches the breadth of heaven, since divine grace hallows all. Amen.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Tips for web cam viewing...
On my personal web cams, you are getting a single snap shot for each time you click. So if I'm not there, or the view out my window is fuzzy, click again later.
About the view out my window: if it is all white, that's because the camera/software does an analysis for how much light it needs after you click, and then sends you back the picture. It takes several clicks to "wake up the camera" in the morning, before the picture will be clear. So, no, it is not snowing at my house...
Regards,
Basil
On my personal web cams, you are getting a single snap shot for each time you click. So if I'm not there, or the view out my window is fuzzy, click again later.
About the view out my window: if it is all white, that's because the camera/software does an analysis for how much light it needs after you click, and then sends you back the picture. It takes several clicks to "wake up the camera" in the morning, before the picture will be clear. So, no, it is not snowing at my house...
Regards,
Basil
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
World Travler
I spent a little while tonight watching people strole down Broadway at Times Square in New York. That's an exciting thing for me, as I have never been to New York before.
This "watching" didn't have anything to do with September 11th. I was simply looking for someone else who is up as late tonight as myself. It is 2:23 in NYC right now. I can tell because one of the cameras is pointed at the clock.
Now it is far more interesting checking out the scene in Moscow. At least it is daytime there! I get to see beautiful, ancient, and even familiar places. The view changes directions. Constantly. I recognize this. The camera is located somewhere near the Hotel Rossia. Or so I imagine. One moment it is pointed across the Moscow river, and the next up toward Red Square. They are using the phrase Red Square quite liberally when they welcome you to Red Square. It would be quite a walk from here to Lenin's tomb.
Ah, now that's better. Now we are looking at my Cathedral!
Let's see what the weather is like in Paris. Now, this is cool. It's a bit windy today, and I can see it in live, streaming video.
I wonder, now that the "war is over" are there still live webcams in Baghdad? It doesn't look like it. Only an outdated link to what msnbc once had running. I guess we had our moment of glory and aren't interested any more.
It's fascinating how small the world is now. But I have that deep nagging in the back of my mind, are the enemies of peace (enemies of God) going to succeed in making it bigger for us once again? These days you don't even have to be rich to hop on a plane and fly somewhere. And even the poorest of us can hop on the net and get a live snapshot, or even streaming video of people walking down the street in places we never even heard of.
Small, small world. I guess Walt Disney was right. I guess Walt won. Or did he?
Now, this is crazy! These people think Germany is on the coast of North Africa!
Now this is sweet. Live, streaming video from downtown Dublin. I think I'll pour myself a Jamesons just so I can toast to their good health.
And then there is this view out my window, and sometimes me sitting at my desk. Okay, so I admit, I'm not as pretty as the girls laying in the sun at this Italian beach.
Is the world really smaller or is it all an illusion? Is the world any smaller when we can watch militants killing children with their expensive guns live on the evening news?
It is interesting, but is it progress? I thought by now we'd have learned to love each other. I thought by now the wars would be at an end. But, no, everyone has to proove they are stronger. And in the end we all lose.
But at least we can watch it live, on the news or on the webcams.
~ Basil
I spent a little while tonight watching people strole down Broadway at Times Square in New York. That's an exciting thing for me, as I have never been to New York before.
This "watching" didn't have anything to do with September 11th. I was simply looking for someone else who is up as late tonight as myself. It is 2:23 in NYC right now. I can tell because one of the cameras is pointed at the clock.
Now it is far more interesting checking out the scene in Moscow. At least it is daytime there! I get to see beautiful, ancient, and even familiar places. The view changes directions. Constantly. I recognize this. The camera is located somewhere near the Hotel Rossia. Or so I imagine. One moment it is pointed across the Moscow river, and the next up toward Red Square. They are using the phrase Red Square quite liberally when they welcome you to Red Square. It would be quite a walk from here to Lenin's tomb.
Ah, now that's better. Now we are looking at my Cathedral!
Let's see what the weather is like in Paris. Now, this is cool. It's a bit windy today, and I can see it in live, streaming video.
I wonder, now that the "war is over" are there still live webcams in Baghdad? It doesn't look like it. Only an outdated link to what msnbc once had running. I guess we had our moment of glory and aren't interested any more.
It's fascinating how small the world is now. But I have that deep nagging in the back of my mind, are the enemies of peace (enemies of God) going to succeed in making it bigger for us once again? These days you don't even have to be rich to hop on a plane and fly somewhere. And even the poorest of us can hop on the net and get a live snapshot, or even streaming video of people walking down the street in places we never even heard of.
Small, small world. I guess Walt Disney was right. I guess Walt won. Or did he?
Now, this is crazy! These people think Germany is on the coast of North Africa!
Now this is sweet. Live, streaming video from downtown Dublin. I think I'll pour myself a Jamesons just so I can toast to their good health.
And then there is this view out my window, and sometimes me sitting at my desk. Okay, so I admit, I'm not as pretty as the girls laying in the sun at this Italian beach.
Is the world really smaller or is it all an illusion? Is the world any smaller when we can watch militants killing children with their expensive guns live on the evening news?
It is interesting, but is it progress? I thought by now we'd have learned to love each other. I thought by now the wars would be at an end. But, no, everyone has to proove they are stronger. And in the end we all lose.
But at least we can watch it live, on the news or on the webcams.
~ Basil
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself.
~ a quote from author Rita Mae Brown
I was struck by the humor, and yet truth of these words above, when I got in one of my daily quotes the other day. The thing that struck me the most is that these words went right along with what I was thinking throughout and after the sermon at Church on Sunday.
Namely, the sermon was about not looking to the left or the right, about the fact that as Christians we must concentrate on God and His Kingdom alone, and all else is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction.
I had to struggle with these concepts, for the most part, because the work of the author and poet is quite the opposite. The work of the author and poet is to take in everything, digest it, and feed it back to the world, perhaps synthesized according to a certain world view.
This brought me back to a certain specific dilemma I often confront (head on, as I confront everything else in this big beautiful world), namely: is it even possible to be an author / poet and still be a Christian. There are many places in life where I have a face-off with this dilemma. For example, many successful authors say that the only way you can become successful is if you put the work of writing far above everything else in life: your family, your friends, your religion… And, from what I have seen, it is mostly true. I face this dilemma daily as I struggle for time to write, fight for time to think about my writing. And yet, on the other hand, I am not willing to completely set aside my family, my Church, and my faith. No, in fact, I go on writing in their midst… I go on working on things in my head, even while the ordinary world happens around me. (From what I’ve heard from successful and not-so-successful authors, this is also a common phenomenon.)
How then do I face the dilemma? What do I ultimately decide: is not God more important than my writing? What about my friends and family?
I find myself always going back to the same point, and then using the same argument to “justify my conclusion.” Namely, I must use the “talent” God has given me, or else I become like the man who buried his one talent in the earth, and then expected his master to be happy when he returned from his journey (remember the parable?). So then how do I justify the ramifications of this? Do I really have to ignore my Church and my Family to serve God properly?
No, I think not. One does not have to set aside his wife, children, friends, faith and family (though he may have once in a while to fight with them for time) in order to be a writer. Here I take my inspiration from the incarnation. Just as Christ, we believe, is fully God and fully man, so must I be fully in this earth and fully in heaven. In order to be the writer I that I feel I must, I must let my mind (and my words) wander into every corner of this earth, all the while never letting it wander too far from the Truth that is within me. That does not mean I have to sin. No, I the contrary, I should become a sanctifying presence wherever I wander. But it does mean I have to get awfully close to the gates of hell, as I go about my journey. It also means I cannot be afraid to get dirty from time to time.
I think my friends and family are starting to understand that I’m a bit eccentric. And so far I haven’t ever had to throw anyone out so that I could work on something. But I sometimes wonder, if my writing starts to become more successful – so successful that I have obligations and deadlines, and yet not quite successful enough that I can quit my day job… then what will I do? Well, I don’t have a plan yet, but as they say at the company where I work whenever we get new contracts, and don’t have enough employees: “it’s a good problem to have.”
~basil~
~ a quote from author Rita Mae Brown
I was struck by the humor, and yet truth of these words above, when I got in one of my daily quotes the other day. The thing that struck me the most is that these words went right along with what I was thinking throughout and after the sermon at Church on Sunday.
Namely, the sermon was about not looking to the left or the right, about the fact that as Christians we must concentrate on God and His Kingdom alone, and all else is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction.
I had to struggle with these concepts, for the most part, because the work of the author and poet is quite the opposite. The work of the author and poet is to take in everything, digest it, and feed it back to the world, perhaps synthesized according to a certain world view.
This brought me back to a certain specific dilemma I often confront (head on, as I confront everything else in this big beautiful world), namely: is it even possible to be an author / poet and still be a Christian. There are many places in life where I have a face-off with this dilemma. For example, many successful authors say that the only way you can become successful is if you put the work of writing far above everything else in life: your family, your friends, your religion… And, from what I have seen, it is mostly true. I face this dilemma daily as I struggle for time to write, fight for time to think about my writing. And yet, on the other hand, I am not willing to completely set aside my family, my Church, and my faith. No, in fact, I go on writing in their midst… I go on working on things in my head, even while the ordinary world happens around me. (From what I’ve heard from successful and not-so-successful authors, this is also a common phenomenon.)
How then do I face the dilemma? What do I ultimately decide: is not God more important than my writing? What about my friends and family?
I find myself always going back to the same point, and then using the same argument to “justify my conclusion.” Namely, I must use the “talent” God has given me, or else I become like the man who buried his one talent in the earth, and then expected his master to be happy when he returned from his journey (remember the parable?). So then how do I justify the ramifications of this? Do I really have to ignore my Church and my Family to serve God properly?
No, I think not. One does not have to set aside his wife, children, friends, faith and family (though he may have once in a while to fight with them for time) in order to be a writer. Here I take my inspiration from the incarnation. Just as Christ, we believe, is fully God and fully man, so must I be fully in this earth and fully in heaven. In order to be the writer I that I feel I must, I must let my mind (and my words) wander into every corner of this earth, all the while never letting it wander too far from the Truth that is within me. That does not mean I have to sin. No, I the contrary, I should become a sanctifying presence wherever I wander. But it does mean I have to get awfully close to the gates of hell, as I go about my journey. It also means I cannot be afraid to get dirty from time to time.
I think my friends and family are starting to understand that I’m a bit eccentric. And so far I haven’t ever had to throw anyone out so that I could work on something. But I sometimes wonder, if my writing starts to become more successful – so successful that I have obligations and deadlines, and yet not quite successful enough that I can quit my day job… then what will I do? Well, I don’t have a plan yet, but as they say at the company where I work whenever we get new contracts, and don’t have enough employees: “it’s a good problem to have.”
~basil~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)