Christ's Light in Tolstoy's Prison

Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born in Russia

on September 9, 1828. He died on November 20, 1910

in Astapovo,Russia. He is considered to be one of the
greatests literary figures in the history of Russia, having
written works such as War and Peace, Anna Karenina,
The Death of Ivan Ilyich, The Three Hermits, and among

many others, the play The Power of Darkness. He was a

very prolific author.

In the blog Logismoi we read a fascinating story on

the last days of Leo Tolstoy; Fr Aaron Taylor writes,

"According to Stanton, Tolstoy had been to Optina at

least four other times, beginning in 1877, and had 

visited Elder Ambrose on three of those occasions.

The latter said very little about their final conversation

(in 1890), but told Constantine Leontiev:

‘When Tolstoy came into my cell, I blessed him, and
he kissed my hand. But when he came to leave, in
order to avoid a blessing, he kissed me on the cheek.’
When he was saying this, the elder was barely
breathing—he was so worn out from his conversation
with the Count. 

‘He is very proud,’ added Father Amvrosii. [1]

[1]Leonard Stanton, The Optina Pustyn Monastery
in the Russian Literary Imagination: Iconic Vision
in Works by Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy, & Others
(NY: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 206."

Please follow the links below to read Fr Aaron's excellent

post in his blog, Logismoi.

Saint Sebastian of Optina on Tolstoy's Last Days Part 1

and

Saint Sebastian of Optina on Tolstoy's Last Days Part 2

"I Have Many Sorrows of my Own" by St Silouan the Athonite

St Silouan the Athonite

“The Merciful Lord loves His own servants and gives them sorrows on earth, so that the soul would through sorrows learn humility and dedication to God’s will and find peace in the pain, as the Lord said: Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and you will find rest unto your souls.” This is what St. Silouan of Mt. Athos wrote in one of his letters—and he was a saint who truly knew by his own experience the color of pain."

To read this article in full, please visit Pravoslavie.ru/english

The Orthodox Church's Response to Reformed Theology

The Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Istanbul)

This magnificent church was built under the reign of Byzantine

Emperor Justinian. From the date of its construction in 537 A.D.

until 1453 A.D., it served as an Eastern Orthodox cathedral and 

seat of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It still stands today

as a museum.

"From 1576 to 1581 Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople  conducted the first important theological exchanges between Orthodoxy and Protestants. On 24 May 1575,Lutherans Jakob Andreae and Martin Crusius from Tübingen presented the Patriarch with a translated copy of the Augsburg Confession. Jeremias II wrote three rebuttals known as 'Answers,' which established that the Orthodox Church had no desire (or need) for reformation" Source

Excerpts from Patriarch Jeremiah II letters to the Tubingen theologians (Lutherans), can be read here

To read the full text and historical background of the correspondence between the Patriarch and the Lutherans please read Augsburg and Constantinople, The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession, by Fr. George Mastrantonis, Brookline, MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982

ISBN 0-916586-81-2

ISBN 0-916586-82-0

"Augsburg and Constantinople" can be purchased at Amazon

Patriarch Jeremiah II ended the correspondence with these words, "Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds."
from Augsburg and Constantinople p.306

Therefore the protestant reformation was a brave but ultimately failed and misguided attempt, to bring restoration to a church already in schism (the Roman Catholic Papacy which severed itself from the other four Orthodox Patriarchates in 1054). It failed because it did not succeed in restoring the papacy to the New Testament Apostolic Church, which is indeed the Orthodox Church. Instead it created thousands of conflicting denominations and even more new ones being formed every year. As the saying goes, "It is not possible to reinvent the wheel". The Church, the Body of Christ, has been, and is, and will be, in unbroken continuity from the beginning until our Lord returns.

The Lutherans rejected the authority of the ages in the Orthodox Church. While seeking to legitimatize their movement by their futile attempt to receive the endorsement of the Church of Constantinople, the Lutherans refused to acknowledge that the Church is One and visible. They have churches but do not believe in THE Church, as confessed in the Nicene creed.  They rejected the words of the very same Fathers who gave us the Nicene Creed, the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, the very foundations on which the Orthodox Christian Church stands and remains intact to this day. The Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic (which means both Whole and Universal) and Apostolic Church. She alone is the New Testament Church, the Body of Christ.

In the Orthodox blog, Orthodox-Reformed Bridge we read an interesting

article concerning some misconceptions expressed by some Reformed

theologians on the Orthodox Church and its teachings,

"Ligonier Ministries on Eastern Orthodoxy

After years of obscurity on the American religious landscape, Eastern Orthodoxy is beginning to catch the attention of Evangelical leaders. In 2004, Ligonier Ministries sponsored a national conference “A Portrait of God” which featured: J. Ligon Duncan III, R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur. At one of the Q&A sessions, the moderator noted that he had received several questions about Eastern Orthodoxy.

It is unfortunate that these well known Reformed theologians made erroneous statements about Eastern Orthodoxy." For the full article please go here

Mosaic of Christ in the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople

Source

How to Avoid becoming Prideful because of our Good Deeds

Source


"One should not give alms with pride but rather with humility,

considering the one to whom the alms are given to be better

than oneself. Did not the Lord Himself say: Inasmuch as ye 

have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye

have done it unto Me? (Matthew 25:40) 

Theophanes the Confessor possessed a mind illumined by the

light of Christ, even as a child. Once, while walking along the

street, he saw a naked child freezing. He quickly removed his

clothes, clothed the child and thus warmed him and brought 

him back to life. He then returned home naked. 

His startled parents asked him: ``Where are your clothes?''

To this Theophanes replied: ``I clothed Christ.'' This is why

he was given the grace of Christ, and was later a great 

ascetic, a sufferer for the Christian Faith and a miracle-

worker. 

Often, when we give alms, either in someone else's name

or in our own name, we cannot avoid pride which, as soon

as it appears in the heart, destroys all the good deeds

performed. 

When we give to the beggar as to a beggar and

not as to Christ, we cannot avoid pride or disdain. What 

value is there in performing an act of mercy, while taking

pride in ourselves and disdaining the man? 

Virtue is not a virtue when it is mixed with sin, just as milk is not milk when it is mixed with gasoline or vinegar." St Nikolai Velimirovich in The Prologue from Ochrid

Reading for September 9th.

The Gospel According to Chairs

Icon of Christ carrying His Cross in the Church of
Panagia Dexia, Thessaloniki, Greece




by Subdeacon Steve Robinson

"Subdeacon Steve Robinson uses chairs to illustrate the difference between penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) and the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Christ's work on the cross.

PSA comes from a medieval thinker named Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109) and is the most widely accepted understanding among Catholics and Protestants of why Christ had to die. By contrast, in Eastern Orthodox Church thought, Christ's death is neither penal, nor is it substitutionary, nor is it even rightly called atonement.

That Christ's death is not penal is seen in Jn 3:16-17: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

That Christ's death is not substitutionary is seen in Ez 18:20: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." So much for vicarious atonement and the related heresy of positional righteousness!

That Christ's death is not rightly called atonement is a mere case of semantic sleight of hand. "Atonement" means reparation for a wrong or an injury. If Christ's death is an "atonement," then it follows by definition that Christ is dying to make reparation for some wrong. But why should we allow the Anselm's followers to put the label "atonement" on Christ's death when the far more ancient term for it was "redemption"? To "redeem" is to rescue something from a state of sinfulness or its consequences. Thus, if we call Christ's death a redemption instead of an atonement, then PSA follows not at all." from the YouTube website

Further Reading:

On Atonement by Fr John Peck

The Orthodox Way of Salvation

The River of Fire

The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation