Travels during lent (Tokyo) – 2021 update.

This a highly edited and updated version that was originally posted 2 years ago.

When I created this blog, I promised myself not to write my own views and shy away from even sharing my own experiences. I originally wrote this short post after great lent of 2019 had finished. It had taught me something I thought was worthy of sharing. That is why I am sharing it again in a highly edited form before this upcoming holy time of lent.

The issue of travelling during the Great lent (or any fast). I am very well aware that due to the COVID crisis, travel is impossible for most. However, I deeply believe my experiences while travelling can be applied in everyday life, when we “drift away…” or become pre-occupied with earthly matters.

In todays world, the dietary aspects of the fast (avoid animal products and oil) is rather easy to keep, even during travels (its popular to be vegan these days). After the first week of the Great lent in 2019, I went to Japan for a conference and stayed there for two weeks, as a vacation. Full of confidence and pride that I would “keep the fast” there, my dear priest friend told me, before I left, that he did not think it to be a good idea to travel for such a long time during lent, especially if it could be avoided – and in all honesty I could have just stayed for one week, but chose to stay longer (come on, its Japan!). The issue, as I mentioned before, was not the food, I “kept the fast” in that way.

What was the issue however, is the part of the fast that is equally as important (actually most important) – the prayer life. To pray more, pray “better” and to find peace inside – to be close to Christ. This prayer is so so necessary in order to get into the mood of Great lent, which should be a mood of repentance and humbleness. This, as I quickly learned, was harder “to keep” while in Japan. Not because of Japan as such, but because of being out of rhythm, not in accordance to my normal routines, concentrating a lot on less important things in life and in a foreign place. I simply could not pray good in the capsule hotel I stayed at and the excitement of being again in Tokyo (my favourite city) made my mind and heart more often than not focus more on temporal things, than on prayer and closeness to Christ. Tokyo has a wonderful Orthodox cathedral with many services and a friendly and open Orthodox community – but being out of my comfort zone and away from my routines – I still struggled.

I am therefore sharing this here – if you can, avoid long travels during fasts and especially during the Great lent. I was humbled very quickly and the lesson it taught me is something I will carry with me forever. I am weak and need all the peace and balance possible to even try to attain some sort of prayerful state that is so important always, and especially during lent. And today in 2021 during the Corona crisis, we often drift away for days into less important things putting God and prayer in a drawer, giving them a break so to speak. While my “aha!” moment came during travels, the essence of what I realised, could and can apply even today, sitting at home in a semi-lockdown. We need God and especially so if we are to be able to change our hearts during the period of the Great lent – because what we do during these holy weeks, we hope and pray, will stay with us forever.

I wish you all a blessed a fruitful lent. May God bless us all and help us always.

May His most holy Mother always be near us and pray for us.

P. S.Tokyo is a Great city, very peaceful even – but perhaps best visited outside the Great lent…

The sign of the cross throughout history

The Christian sign of the cross as done by the faithful and clergy, did not come from “nowhere”. Likewise, as most of our ritual practices do, it holds deep symbolism and even expression of dogma itself. I will very briefly here outline the history and development of the sign of the cross throughout Church history, starting in the 2nd century.

The first known mention about the sign of the cross can be found already in the 2^nd c. in the writings of Tertullian who wrote: “we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross”[1]. We not only have information from Tertullian that the sign of the cross was used, but also how it was used: “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross”[2] which suggest to us that the sign of the cross was done on the forehead. Most point to the fact that the sign of the cross was done on the forehead with one finger, to symbolise the oneness of God as Jews and many pagans accused the early Christians of being polytheistic.

Likewise, in the same way the sign of the cross (in blessing form) was made on items, this can be read in the life of St. Barbara: “[Barbara] said, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and she miraculously drew the sign of the cross in the marble wall of the bathhouse with her finger (singular, one finger)”[3]. St. Epiphanius also confirms that the sign of the cross was early on in the history of the Church made with one finger[4]. The one finger sign of the cross can be seen up until the fourth century when we start to notice in writings that more than one finger was used for the sign of the cross. Instead the use of two fingers started to appear, most likely as a response and guard against Monophysitism – two fingers now symbolised the two natures of Christ. St. Cyril of Jerusalem remarks in his Catechesis (13:36) that the sign of the cross was to be made with “fingers”, plural. Theodoret of Cyrus, who was involved in rebuking and debating the Monophysics in the 5^th century, wrote: “Thus does one bless with the hand and cross oneself: Holding three fingers together evenly the thumb and the last two fingers-confesses a mystery in the image of the Trinity (…) Joining two fingers together-the index and the middle finger-and extending them, with the middle finger slightly bent, represents the two natures of Christ: His Divinity and His Humanity”. This practice of the sign of the cross prevailed for many centuries.

In the 8^th century, St. Peter Damascene wrote in what today is found in the Philokalia the following: “The Holy Fathers have handed down to us the meaning of this holy sign, in order to refute heretics and unbelievers. The two fingers and the one hand then, represent then the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, who we profess as having two natures in one person”[5]. It is however important to note that Sts. Cyril and Damascene as well as Theodoret were all a part of the local Church of Antioch. This local church was very active in the fight against Monophystitism and this view on the sign of the cross was defended there stoutly as a direct result of the Monophysite heresy. This fact makes it more likely that this sign of the cross, with two fingers, was not a universal practice of the Church as such, or at least this possibility needs to be accepted. As this tradition was prevalent in the Orthodox east (Cappadocia and Asia Minor) it is no surprise that the Russians later received it in the 10^th century.

In the 9^th century however, we can find traces of the three finger sign of the cross (as practiced today by most Orthodox Christians) which of course puts an emphasis on the Holy Trinity. This sign of the cross can be found in the writings of Pope Leo IV of Rome (+855), he wrote: “Sign the chalice and the host, with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolised. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing”[6]. In the beginning of the 11^th c., the Abbot of Eynsham, Aelfric, wrote “With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity”[7]. Both these statements are made during a time when the Roman Catholic church was orthodox in their faith. The praise and support for the three-finger sign of the cross continued in the west after the schism with Pope Innocent III (+1216) writing: “The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity”.

The origin of the three fingers sign of the cross can be traced back to the west at least all the way back until 855 when the above mentioned Orthodox Pope Leo IV passed away, which makes it historically certain that this originated before the schism in 1054. This most likely lead to Orthodox people geographically close to Rome to use this three-finger sign of the cross. The Greeks, Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians and Georgians as well as the Monophysite Copts, Armenians and Syrians all used the three-finger sign of the cross at the time of or closely after the great schism[8]. It is however important to note that the Monophysites crossed themselves from left to right – contrary to Orthodox practice. Today Nestorians in India and Persia also cross themselves with three fingers. In other words, this practice seems to have been the official practice in Orthodox west before the great schism, likewise for the Greeks and their closest Orthodox brothers surrounding them as well as the various above mentioned Monophysite and Nestorian groups. Most likely because of the bigger distance, it did not reach the Russians at the time when it spread from the European mainland. It also important to note that the three-finger sign of the cross has been lost in the west and is today mostly associated with the Orthodox Church – it was “officially” abolished by a papal statement in 1569 in favour of the five-finger sign of the cross symbolising Jesus’ five wounds. The Russians kept the practice given to them in the 10-11^th century up until the reforms of the 17^th century, which was the two-finger sign of the cross as taught by the likes of Theodoret of Cyrys and St. Peter of Damascus. This is clear as the writing of these two were included in the Russian Typicon of the time.

As we see, the symbolism of the sign of the cross has evolved and been different depending on the local historical contexts. What is however clear, is that the sign of the cross as a concept has always, since the earliest times, been important to Christians and it has contained symbolism as-well as direct expression of dogma. This never was or is simply an empty part of the ritual.

[1] De Corona Militis, chapter 3.

[2] De Corona Militis, chapter 3.

[3] http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm

[4] Panarion (Adv. Haer.) ch. 12 –

[5] Philokalia p. 642

[6] Liturgy. Rom. Pont.”, III, 37

[7] Thorpe, “The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church” I, 462.

[8] https://orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross#History

Reflections on ecology, under a palm tree.

The more a person challanges themselves, the greater the fruits of our labours or inquiries. The more we are willing to seek discomfort, the more real and lasting comfort we find. This is the Christian way.

We as Orthodox Christians often fail to even attempt to keep the fasts of the Church, being afraid of what we have to give up. In many ways, our approach towards the ecological issues of todays world are the same. Self-denial is not something most of us, including myself, are genuinely ready for.

What we see as the ascetic way of life, so vital and essential to us Orthodox Christians if done correctly, is most often an empty exchanging of meat for vegan meat for a X number of days – without any real attempt for a transformation of our hearts.

This is a tragedy, as the ascetic way of life, prescribed to monks and lay people alike, is the solution to many of our problems, not the least of the ecological issues of our day.

Self-denial, giving up, sacrifice, love for others… All tenets of real ascetic labour.

Our Orthodox faith offers us solutions to our most burning issues, including ecology. The way forward for us is therefore, based on the ascetic traditions of the Church, a strive for self-denial, balanced used of the created world (its resources) as well as love of neighbour and creation. Elizabeth Theokritoff in her “Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology” (p. 90) writes:

“The monk,” says the great spiritual writer Evagrius, “is separated from all and united with all.” The non-monastic Christian may not be separated from other people and things in terms of space; but all Christian asceticism has the goal of detachment for love of God. And that detachment allows us to embrace all other creatures as objects and instruments of God’s love, not of our own desires.

This detachment starts with ourselfs, every Wednesday and Friday is a good beginning I think. If we can learn to at least a bit control our bodily desires, we can also slowly start to make the deeper and permanent changes needed, the re-orientation to Christ, which would allow us in turn to approach the ecological issues in a correct and balanced way – not ignoring it completely and not making it into an idol.

Theokritoff again, quoting Colliander, writes, The ascetic tradition gives a radically new perspective on self-limitation, on the sort of restrictions on our range of options that a sustainable way of living is likely to demand. Such limitations are neither a way of making ourselves miserable, nor an occasion to feel self-righteous. They are opportunities and tools “to silence, with God’s help, our loud-voiced will,” as the Finnish author Tito Colliander puts it so aptly. They are providential aids in our spiritual struggle (p.90).

To silence our will, so soaked in sin, which often wills and desires that which is not really needed, seems to be the answer to our issues. Let us follow the teachings of our Holy Fathers. As our father among the saints, St. John Chrysostom puts it:

Is not ‘the earth God’s, and the fullness thereof?’ [Ps 23.2]. Our possessions, then, belong to one common Lord; and therefore they belong also to our fellow servants. The possessions of the Lord are all common. (Hom on 1 Tim).

Let us therefore use only what what we really need. Consume to live, not live in order to consume.

Photo from my sisters balcony in Dubai, under the palm tree, where this was written.

“When in Rome…”

”When in Rome, do as the Romans”.

This famous response of St. Ambrose of Milan (whose memory the Church celebrates today) to St. Augustine when the latter was to visit Rome and was used not to fast on a Saturday – something however done in Rome at this time during late 4th/early 5h century.

St. Augustine together with his mother Monica consulted about this matter with St. Ambrose before they went to visit. It is said that he answered them, “When I am here (in Milan) I do not fast on Saturday, when in Rome I do fast on Saturday”, and this is how the famous saying was born.

A western painting of Sts. Ambrose, Monica and Augustine

What can we read into this simple answer given by the great Church Father of Milan? First thing that comes to mind is that already in the early Church, this is after all in the 4^th century, we witness that there were various local practices and traditions. This is confirmed by many various writings of the era left to us. This demonstrates to us the diversity of Church life. A diversity based first and foremost on the adherence and confession of the one Orthodox faith and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If we study liturgical history of the Church for instance, we notice the same thing in the first millennium. There were many different rites or variants of the same rite. Before 451, we had in the Orthodox Church what we today would call, radically simplifying it of course, Western rite, Eastern rite and Syriac rite, just to mention a few. Today in the Orthodox Church, such diversity is mostly gone, sadly I would personally say. We do however still have quite a big diversity in other, non-liturgical practices. Usually of course tied to a certain place or local church. In Russia one (usually) has to confess before receiving Holy Communion, while in Greece, most people confess once per year and then commune the whole year. Serbs barely eat fish during the Sts. Peter and Paul (Apostles’ fast) fast, while Russians often refer to it as the “fish” fast because they can eat fish almost all days of the fast. Russian Old Ritualists cross themselves with two fingers, their brothers in the Orthodox Church of America use three fingers. Most Orthodox do not kneel on Sundays in church, while many Romanians say the Lord’s prayer while kneeling on Sunday in church. All these and many more examples here not mentioned, demonstrate to us that while we are united by one faith in the one Church of Christ, we do have local tradition and practices.

In todays modern world, where we can travel at ease (perhaps not in 2020…), this is something we as Orthodox Christians should be aware of and I would even claim something we should cherish. How do we cherish this? Well, “When in Rome, do as the Romans…” is the pointer. When we visit our brothers and sisters from other local traditions, either in the diaspora or in traditionally Orthodox countries, we should humble ourselves and do as they do. This is a sign of respect and love. A sign of unity. We might think that what they are doing is strange or even wrong, however, if we are in full eucharistic communion with someone, we accept their practices, without having to adopt them of course.

Therefore, on todays feast of St. Ambrose of Milan, let us ask for his prayers that we all may humble ourselves and with deep love acknowledge, accept and above all respect other local traditions. This is the way of the Church Fathers and the earliest Church. This is the Universality of the Church.

Met. Amfilohije of Montenegro about Pope Francis and the papacy.

Christ is Risen!

In 2015-2016 when I was doing research for my bachelor thesis about St. Justin Popovic, I interviewed Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro, spritual son of St. Justin.

We came into the topic of the papacy and he said the following about the situation and Pope Francis. Keep in mind, this is 4 years ago and I am by no means defending Francis or even bashing him – simply I am delivering what Met. Amfilohije said.

“I had the conversation with the current Roman Pope Francisco when I was at his inauguration as a representative of our church. So we spoke in the evening. I got to know him in Buenos Aires when he was the bishop there. So I told him: ‘Your Holiness, some newspapers published that you had said that Christ is the Head of the Church. Just so you know, your words made us in the Orthodox Church very happy.’ He said: ‘I am against papolatry.’ Then I told him that Popes before him were different, aggiornamento… As you are new Pope now, you should do something. He asked me: ‘What shall I do?’ I replied: ‘You know the decisions of the first Vatican Council, where the primacy of the Roman Pope was defined, so he became infallible. Just so you know, the Orthodox Church will never accept such a position of the Roman Pope.’ I saw him thinking about that, deep in his thoughts. But I can see he is not for papolatry, by his behavior and some statements. He’s seriously thinking about it. There is no doubt.”

The “traditional” Papists will most likely say “of course he says this, he is not a real pope”…

I think this short quote shows some of the positivity felt within Orthodoxy when Bergoglio was made pope – If he has lived up to this or not, I will not judge now and here.

But, interesting stuff for sure.