Europe is working on “a structural reform of the electricity market
France had asked last April for a change in the rules of operation of the European electricity market. “You have electricity prices that are soaring and no longer have anything to do with the costs of producing electricity, it follows the gas, it’s absurd,” alerted President Macron
Indeed, the price of electricity is determined by the most expensive plant – currently gas-fired plants. Prices on the futures market are reaching record levels. For electricity delivered next year, the price in Belgium is 611 euros per MWh. in France, the price of electricity for delivery in 2023 reached 875 euros per MWh on Thursday, an increase of about 80 euros.
Southern EU countries like Spain and Greece have also been calling for market intervention for months. So far, however, they have been unsuccessful, in part because of German resistance.
More recently, several European states have asked to consider a “decoupling” of gas and electricity prices.
On Sunday, Belgian Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten (Groen) called for a European-wide cap on gas prices. “Today, electricity is produced at a much lower price than the price at which electricity and gas are sold. Today we are in a war economy, there is no longer any link between the cost of production and the cost of sale. There is a lot of speculation,” she explained.
On the same day, Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer called on the EU to “decouple the price of electricity from that of gas” to “stop this madness”.
Germany, which has so far been opposed to any change to the current regime, is also beginning to understand that this is the only possible solution. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said at a press conference in Prague that the current system “cannot be described as functional if it leads to such high electricity prices.
On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU is preparing “a structural reform of the electricity market”. “The skyrocketing electricity prices are now exposing, for different reasons, the limitations of our current electricity market design. It was developed under completely different circumstances and for completely different purposes. It is no longer fit for purpose. That is why we, the Commission, are now working on an emergency intervention and a structural reform of the electricity market. We need a new market model for electricity that really functions and brings us back into balance.”
The Czech Presidency of the EU Council indicated that it would convene an emergency meeting of EU energy ministers on 9 September in Brussels.
Name worship (Gr. Onomatodoxia) – a teaching that asserts that God’s name is God Himself, condemned by a Synodal Definition from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). It arose in 1907 as a movement among Russian monks in St. Forest. His supporters became representatives of the Russian intelligentsia and a number of religious philosophers, such as Fr. Pavel Florensky, Fr. Sergiy Bulgakov, A.F. Losev and others. Prominent bishops, such as Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky), archbishop. Seraphim (Sobolev) (“idolatry is nothing but sophianism”), ep. Vasily (Zelentsov), patr. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Abbot Nikon (Vorobiov) and others. During the period 1913-1918 St. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly passed decrees condemning the teachings of the “Imebozhniki” as heretical. The issue is also subject to discussion at the Local Assembly, which fails to make a final decision until its closure. At the beginning of the 21st century, the discussions about imgodliness have been renewed again.
The history of “Imyaslavie” began in 1907 with the publication of books by the monk Hilarion “On the mountains of the Caucasus”. In this book, old man Hilarion told about his spiritual experience with the Jesus prayer as proof that the name of God is God himself and can work miracles. The book became extremely popular among Russian monks on Mount Athos in Greece. Many of them argued that, according to Plato’s teaching, the names of things existed before the appearance of the things themselves and, thus, the name of God should have been pre-created before the creation of the world and could not be anything other than God himself. Among other things, this could mean that knowing the secret name of God allows you to work miracles. This also requires extreme caution in using such names as Jehovah, Christ, etc. Their opponents, other Athos monks, considered this teaching pantheism, incompatible with Christianity. They argued that before creation God did not need a name, therefore his name was created and in fact it was a sound that did not have any mystical properties in itself. Supporters of imyaslavia began to be called imyaslavtsami (that is, subjects who glorify the name of God), and opponents began to be called imyabortsami (subjects who fight with the name of God).
The main supporter of the doctrine of name-worship was Hieroschemamonk Andreevsky Skete of Mount Athos Anthony Bulatovich, who published several books on this issue. The teaching was also supported by the “elder” Grigory Rasputin, influential at the Court, and he also had similarities with the teachings of Fr. John of Kronstadt. But the teaching of John of Kronstadt was not condemned, and name-worship was not seen in his writings before the emergence of this trend. The full quote referred to by the imyaslavists, claiming that John of Kronstadt shared their teaching, looks like this: “Let the Name of the Lord, the Mother of God, an Angel or a saint be to you instead of the Lord God Himself, the Mother of God, an Angel or a saint.” At the same time, there are significant differences between the teachings of John of Kronstadt and the imyaslavtsy. Quoted from: Orthodox view of the veneration of the name of God. Events on Athos in 1913. With the blessing of His Eminence Sergius, Archbishop of Ternopil and Kremenets. Lviv: Publishing house of the missionary department of the Lviv diocese of the UOC, 2003, p.102.
Essence of name-worship
The central position of the teaching of the name-glorifiers is that the name of God is inextricably linked with God himself.
Father Anthony Bulatovich based the doctrine of the Divinity of the Name of God primarily on the fact that the Name of God, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, is His energy or action (in Slavonic “action”; “action” is a translation of the Greek word “energy”), and the energy of God is God Himself.
Father Anthony wrote:
Why did God create man? – In order to make the created being happy by sharing His Divinity with him. … to unite him with Himself by the union of Divine love and make a person a partaker of the Divine Nature. … in order to deify him, the deification of a person consists in the fact that the Energy of the Divine is infused into a person. The essence of the Divinity of God is incommunicable to creation, but Activity is communionable.
Thus, according to name-glory, the Name of God is His energy and He Himself.
Supporters of imyaslaviya insist that the logic of the Orthodox theologian Fr. Anthony Bulatovich fully corresponds to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, in particular Fr. Gregory Palamas about the uncreation of Divine energy. Orthodox opponents of imyaslaviya indicate that in his writings Gregory Palamas nowhere calls the energy of God “God” (Theos), but teaches to call it “Deity” (Theotis).
The initial reaction of the Church Authority
The most authoritative opponent of the new doctrine in Russia was Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia (Khrapovitsky), who regarded imyaslavie as a heresy and a kind of Khlystism. In 1912, by decision of the Holy Synod, the book “On the Caucasus Mountains” was banned in Russia. It was not re-released until 1998.
In September 1912, the book was condemned in a letter from Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople (although in 1907 he supported this book) to the rector of the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon, who, like all the monasteries of Mount Athos, was in the direct canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch: the message called the new teaching “meaningless and blasphemous” and exhorted its supporters to “leave behind soulful delusion and stop arguing and talking about things that they don’t know.”
In 1913, the teaching was reviewed by a commission of teachers from the Theological School of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the island of Halki, headed by Metropolitan Herman of Seleucia. The commission recognized the doctrine as unorthodox; The Synod of Constantinople condemned it as blasphemous and heretical, and the new Patriarch Herman V sent a corresponding letter to Athos dated April 5, 1913, which declared the teaching of name-worship to be pantheism.
In May 1913, an emergency meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church was held under the chairmanship of Hieromartyr Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky). Three independently prepared reports were heard: by Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky), Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and S. V. Troitsky. All reports recognized the teachings of the “name-worshippers” as non-Orthodox. As a result of the meeting, a synodal resolution was unanimously adopted, condemning the teachings of the “name worshipers”; the corresponding Epistle compiled by Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) was published.
In August 1913, after the expulsion of the “name-worshippers” from Athos, the Synod issued a new resolution, even more strict, against the supporters of the new teaching and adopted the “Formula of Conversion for the Name-Worshipers Returning to the Teachings of the Orthodox Church.” A paper was sent to the monasteries of Russia condemning the “name god” with a proposal to sign it (for example, such a document is known, signed by all the elders of Optina Pustyn, who were at that time in the monastery). According to reports in the Russian monk magazine, in July 1913 the Decree was actively supported on Valaam.
On Athos, name-glory spread only among Russian monks and did not affect monks from other countries. Since the charter of the Holy Mountain strictly forbids heretics to be on it, the kinot of Athos could “under the guise of heretics … cleanse the Holy Mountain from Russians in general”.
Assault on the monastery
In accordance with the prescription of the Holy Synod, on June 4 (in a number of sources – June 5), 1913, the gunboat “Donets” delivered Archbishop Nikon Rozhdestvensky of Vologda and Professor Troitsky to Mount Athos in order to “pacify the monastic rebellion” (on June 11, steamer “Tsar” with 5 officers and 118 soldiers). The census conducted by the archbishop showed that among the 1,700 Russian monks, 661 registered themselves as name-fighters, 517 as name-glorifiers, 360 evaded the census, and the rest registered as neutral[6]. During June, Archbishop Nikon negotiated with the imyaslavtsy and tried to force them to change their beliefs voluntarily, but failed. On July 3, the Kherson steamer arrived, sent to expel the monks from Athos, and the soldiers of the 6th company of the 50th Bialystok regiment were ordered by the Russian consul to “take the rebels by attack, but without bloodshed.” The soldiers stormed the monastery of St. Panteleimon, in which the name-glorifiers barricaded themselves. Although the monks were not armed and did not actively resist, the troops displayed considerable brutality.
The monks were poured with water from hoses, the soldiers were ordered to beat the monks with bayonets and rifle butts. Allegedly, four monks were killed and at least forty-eight were wounded. After the storming of the Panteleimon Monastery, the monks from the St. Andrew Skete surrendered voluntarily.
The Kherson steamer delivered 621 monks from Athos to Russia[6] and on July 13 anchored in Odessa. Forty monks, deemed unable to survive the transfer, were left in a hospital on Mount Athos. On July 17, the ship “Chikhachev” delivered another 212 monks from Mount Athos[6]. Some of the monks voluntarily left the monastery, some went to Kamchatka to the missionary Fr. Nestor Anisimov. The rest of the monks signed papers stating that they reject imyaglory.
After interrogation in Odessa, 8 detained monks were returned to Athos, 40 were sent to prison, and the rest were defrocked and exiled to various regions of the Russian Empire in accordance with their registration. The main leader of the imyaslavtsy on Athos, Anthony Bulatovich, was exiled to his family estate in the village of Lutsykovka, Lebedinsky district, Kharkov province.
The book “On the mountains of the Caucasus” was ordered to seize and destroy in all monasteries.
Official assessment on expulsion from Athos
In February 1914, some imeyaslavtsy were received by Nicholas II. A kind welcome was perceived by them as a sign of a changing fate.
On May 7, 1914, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) of Moscow, the Moscow Synodal Office conducted a trial of the leaders of the imyaslavie, about which there are conflicting testimonies. On May 10, this decision was partially recognized by the Holy Synod, which allowed the imyaslavists to hold positions in the Orthodox Church without formal repentance, but determined that the teaching itself should still be considered heresy. Metropolitan Macarius, having received in August 1914 an official telegram Auber
Prosecutor V.K. Sabler, in which he was allowed to admit to the priesthood those of the justified monks whom he found worthy, removed the canonical prohibitions immediately from about 20 persons and reported this by telegram to the Ober-Procurator, and then allowed others.
On August 27, 1914, the head of the movement, Fr. Anthony Bulatovich asked to be sent as a military priest to the active army, and his request was approved by the Holy Synod. On July 1, 1915, the Holy Synod received a letter from the founder of the doctrine, schemamonk Hilarion, asking if he had been excommunicated from the Church (Hilarion lived as a hermit in the Caucasus and may not have realized the extent of the unrest caused by his book). Hilarion died on June 2, 1916, without receiving an answer.
After the fall of the monarchy
The All-Russian Local Council, which opened in August 1917, was intended, in particular, to solve the problem of naming; it was attended by both active supporters and opponents of the doctrine. Among the theologians who spoke in favor of imyaslavie were Fr. Pavel Florensky and Fr. Sergei Bulgakov.
In October 1918, Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church issued a decree explaining the significance of the trial of Metropolitan Macarius:
… 1) the decision of the Moscow Synodal Office of May 7, 1914, considered by Hieroschemamonk Anthony to justify the very teaching of the name-worshippers, is in fact only a decision on the acceptance into communion of some Athos monks named in this decision, involved in the name-worshipping teaching, brought to the court of Moscow Synodal Office and declaring submission to the Holy Church, after a proper test of their beliefs, with the termination of the court case against them and the permission of priestly service for those of them who were in holy orders, – 2) that such is precisely the decision of the Moscow Synodal Office in this case was approved by the Holy By the Synod, by definition of May 10-24, 1914, No. 4136, with the instruction of the Synodal Office and His Grace Modest to bring admonished monks to the realization that the teaching of the name-worshippers, prescribed in the writings of Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) and his followers, was condemned by His Holiness the Patriarch and the Synod of the Church of Constantinople and St. The Synod of the Russian Church, and that, while showing indulgence to the infirmities of the erring, the Holy Synod does not change the previous judgment about the error itself … “
The issue was referred to the Local Council, which, however, did not have time to make any decision before its closing.
In January 1919, the leader of the imyaslavtsy, Fr. Anthony Bulatovich broke off communion with Patriarch Tikhon and returned to his family estate in Lutsykovka. There he was killed by robbers on December 5 of the same year.
In the early 1920s, there was a name-glorifying circle in Moscow, whose members were: A.F. Losev, V.M. Loseva, D.F. Egorov, N.M. Solovyov, P.S. Popov, Fr. F. Andreev; Priest Pavel Florensky was close to them.
In 1928, after the leadership of the Patriarchal Church was transferred to the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius, many imyaslavtsy in the USSR completely broke communion with the Provisional Patriarchal Synod and became part of the Catacomb Church, which was largely due to the rejection of the imyaslavers’ policy of humility proclaimed by Metropolitan Sergius attitude towards atheistic power in the USSR.
In the Russian emigration, the teaching of imyaslavie in the 1920s-1930s continued to be developed by the priest Sergiy Bulgakov, whose fundamental book Philosophy of Names was published in Paris in 1953, after his death. S. Bulgakov wrote: “The name of God is not only a means of denoting the Deity or invoking Him, but there is also a verbal icon, therefore it is holy. So, the names of God are the verbal icons of the Divine, the embodiment of Divine energies, theophany, they bear the seal of Divine revelation.
One of ROCOR’s leading ideologists, Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), gave a detailed theological critique of the “name-worshipping” teaching in his work against the sophiology of Vl. Solovyov, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky. In this work, three chapters (Nos. 18, 19, 20) are devoted to the refutation of the teachings of the “imyaslavtsy” – for for Fr. Sergius and Fr. Paul “sophiology” and “name worship” were in close connection with each other.
Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Exarch (since March 22, 1933) of the Moscow Patriarchate in North America did not hide his sympathetic attitude towards imyaslavl.
Since the 1990s, the ideas of name-worship have been propagated by ROAC clerics Abbot Gregory Lurie and Abbot Feofan (Areskin), who were subjected to censure by their hierarchies in connection with this.
Imyaslavie and mathematics
Archbishop Nikon, a fighter against name glorification, drew an analogy between names and mathematical concepts, implying that the latter do not exist in the real world. At the same time, the mathematician and philosopher A. N. Parshin, a supporter of imyaslavia, says that this argument can be turned in favor of imyaslavia, recognizing that names, like mathematical concepts, exist, but in a supersensible, intelligible world.
The Russian Moscow School of Mathematics was founded by D. F. Egorov and N. N. Luzin, who were both namesakers and personal friends of Fr. Pavel Florensky, as well as the philosopher A.F. Losev (who, in turn, were both men of name in theology). Florensky was Yegorov’s student and studied with Luzin, and they published together. Florensky published works where he argued the existence of parallels between abstract mathematics and religion. In particular, he stated that the mathematics of continuous functions is similar to rationalism, while some concepts such as transfinite numbers can only be explained on the basis of the philosophy of naming, where the Name of God is God himself.
Historians of mathematics Lauren Graham and Jean-Michel Cantor argue that the work of the Russian school of mathematics is still filled with mysticism, in contrast to the French school of mathematics, which, in their opinion, is based on rationalism.
The teaching of the Church Fathers and other holy fathers about names
• St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Another thing is an object that by its nature is subject to a name, and another is a name denoting an object. Being is not the same as naming. “God … has one name, which serves to the knowledge of His own being, namely, that He is one more than any name.”
• St. Basil the Great: “Names mean only essences, but they themselves are not essences.” “There is not a single name that, having declared the whole nature of God, it would be enough to express it.”
• St. Gregory the Theologian: “God is not what we imagine under the concept of God, or what we imagine under the concept of God, or how we depicted Him, or how His word described”.
• St. John of Damascus: “The deity, being incomprehensible, will certainly be nameless. Therefore, not knowing His essence, let us not seek the name of His essence.
• St. Justin the Philosopher: “God cannot be called by any proper name. For names exist to designate and distinguish things in their multitude and diversity, but there was no one before who would give God a name, and He had no need to give Himself a name, being only one ”.
Literature in Russian:
1. Name glory. Anthology. / Ed. Polishchuk E. S. – M .: Factorial Press, 2002. – 544 with ISBN 5-88688-061-5
2. Forgotten pages of Russian imyaslaviya. Collection of documents and publications on the Athos events of 1910-1913. and the movement of name worship in 1910-1918. – M .: Palomnik, 2001. – 525 p. ISBN 5-87464-101-9
3. Parshin A. N. Way. Mathematics and other worlds. – M .: “Dobrosvet”, 2002. P. 240. ISBN 5-7913-0053-0
4. Orthodox view of the veneration of the name of God. Events on Athos in 1913. With the blessing of His Eminence Sergius, Archbishop of Ternopil and Kremenets. Lviv: Publishing house of the missionary department of the Lviv diocese of the UOC, 2003. – 132 p.
5. S. Bulgakov. Name philosophy. M., 1997
Photo: Modern view of the Russian St. Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos
Corals display glowing colors (fluorescence). Credit: Tel Aviv University
Researchers have proved for the first time that corals’ fluorescent colors are intended to attract prey.
For the first time, a recent study from Tel Aviv University, in association with the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History and the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences in Eilat, has established that the magical phenomenon in deep reefs where corals exhibit glowing colors (fluorescence) is intended to serve as a mechanism for luring prey. The research demonstrates that the marine creatures that corals feed on are drawn to fluorescent colors.
Professor Yossi Loya from the School of Zoology and the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History at Tel Aviv University supervised the research, which was led by Dr. Or Ben-Zvi, Yoav Lindemann, and Dr. Gal Eyal.
According to the researchers, the ability of aquatic organisms to glow has long attracted both scientists and those who love nature. The biological role of the phenomena, which occurs often in corals that produce reefs, has been fiercely disputed.
A variety of possibilities have been explored over the years, including: Does this phenomenon defend against radiation? improve
In order to test the planktons’ potential attraction to fluorescence, the researchers used, inter alia, the crustacean Artemia salina, which is used in many experiments as well as for food for corals. The researchers noted that when the crustaceans were given a choice between a green or orange fluorescent target versus a clear “control” target, they showed a significant preference for the fluorescent target.
Moreover, when the crustaceans were given a choice between two clear targets, their choices were observed to be randomly distributed in the experimental setup. In all of the laboratory experiments, the crustaceans vastly exhibited a preferred attraction toward a fluorescent signal. Similar results were presented when using a native crustacean from the Red Sea. However, unlike the crustaceans, fish that are not considered coral prey did not exhibit these trends, and rather avoided the fluorescent targets in general and the orange targets in particular.
A scientist obtaining data for the study. Credit: Tel Aviv University
In the second phase of the study, the experiment was carried out in the corals’ natural habitat, about 40 meters deep in the sea, where the fluorescent traps (both green and orange) attracted twice as many plankton as the clear trap.
Dr. Or Ben-Zvi says, “We conducted an experiment in the depths of the sea in order to examine the possible attraction of diverse and natural collections of plankton to fluorescence, under the natural currents and light conditions that exist in deep water. Since fluorescence is ‘activated’ principally by blue light (the light of the depths of the sea), at these depths the fluorescence is naturally illuminated, and the data that emerged from the experiment were unequivocal, similar to the laboratory experiment.”
In the last part of the study, the researchers examined the predation rates of mesophotic corals that were collected at 45-meter depth in the Gulf of Eilat and found that corals that displayed green fluorescence enjoyed predation rates that were 25 percent higher than corals exhibiting yellow fluorescence.
Professor Loya: “Many corals display a fluorescent color pattern that highlights their mouths or tentacle tips, a fact that supports the idea that fluorescence, like bioluminescence (the production of light by a chemical reaction), acts as a mechanism to attract prey. The study proves that the glowing and colorful appearance of corals can act as a lure to attract swimming plankton to ground-dwelling predators, such as corals, and especially in habitats where corals require other energy sources in addition or as a substitute for photosynthesis (sugar production by symbiotic algae inside the coral tissue using light energy).”
Dr. Ben-Zvi concludes: “Despite the gaps in the existing knowledge regarding the visual perception of fluorescence signals by plankton, the current study presents experimental evidence for the prey-luring role of fluorescence in corals. We suggest that this hypothesis, which we term the ‘light trap hypothesis’, may also apply to other fluorescent organisms in the sea, and that this phenomenon may play a greater role in marine ecosystems than previously thought.”
Reference: “Coral fluorescence: a prey-lure in deep habitats” by Or Ben-Zvi, Yoav Lindemann, Gal Eyal, and Yossi Loya, 2 June 2022, Communications Biology. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03460-3
Istanbul (Türkiye), 29 August 2022 – Inspectors from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) this month have been providing critical support for the delivery of over one million tonnes of grain and other foodstuffs from Ukraine to global markets and food-insecure regions as part of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, mediated by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
This includes the departure of the first UN-chartered vessel carrying Ukrainian wheat to the Horn of Africa, where the worst drought in decades has brought populations to the brink of famine.
Implemented by the Istanbul-based Joint Coordination Centre and led by the UN Office on Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the Black Sea Grain Initiative is working to enable the safe voyage of commercial ships to allow exports from Ukraine of grain, other foodstuffs, and fertilizers to world markets.
Before the launch of the Initiative by the Russian Federation, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Nations, ships had been blockaded at Ukrainian ports, worsening a global food crisis. But in less than one month, ships carrying more than one million metric tonnes of grain and other food have left Ukrainian ports. According to the Initiative, ships are being inspected off Istanbul on their way in and out by joint inspection teams, which bring together Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian and UN inspectors. On Saturday, 27 August, teams conducted the 100th inspection on board approved cargo vessels.
This includes tens of thousands of tonnes of wheat inspected by UNODC personnel and others aboard the World Food Programme (WFP) ship.
“As the world grapples with food insecurity and high prices, the importance of this Initiative is clear,” noted Amir Abdulla, UN Coordinator for the Black Sea Grain initiative in a statement on Saturday. “As increased volumes of Ukraine’s agricultural production are now heading to market by sea, confidence has grown in the food and shipping industries, driving down prices and reducing risk.”
Secretary-General Guterres sailed in a pilot boat in the Sea of Marmara next to the WFP ship on 20 August.
The six UNODC inspectors in Istanbul – together with inspectors from Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine – examine the shipments to ensure that no other goods are leaving or entering Ukraine apart from grain, other foodstuffs, and fertilizer, and that the crew is consistent with information received at the JCC.
Further information
For updates on the JCC and the Black Sea Grain initiative, click here. To learn more about UNODC, click here.
A team of UN atomic energy experts set out on Monday for Zaporizhzya nuclear power station in Ukraine, after months of rising tensions between Ukrainian and Russian forces, who have accused each other of shelling the plant.
This week, DG @rafaelmgrossi leads the IAEA Support & Assistance Mission to #Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) to: 🔹Assess physical damage 🔹Determine functionality of safety & security systems 🔹Evaluate staff conditions 🔹Perform urgent safeguards activities 👉https://t.co/VKdJqxecgjhttps://t.co/miI73Pi9dI
— IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency ⚛️ (@iaeaorg) August 29, 2022
In a tweet, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA said that he was proud to lead the agency’s Support & Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzya, which has been occupied by Russian forces since shortly after their invasion of Ukraine.
“The day has come…to protect the safety and security” of the plant,” which is Europe’s largest, Mr. Grossi wrote, his comments accompanying a photograph of himself and 13 other IAEA staff, ahead of their mission.
Once the IAEA team arrives in Zaporizhzya “later this week”, Mr. Grossi indicated that the experts’ priorities include carrying out damage assessments and evaluating whether safety and security systems remain functional.
Other urgent tasks also include checking on the welfare of the Ukrainian staff still running the plant, which houses six of the country’s 15 nuclear reactors.
In recent weeks and months, Mr. Grossi has issued repeated calls for access to Zaporizhzya, while also urging all military personnel to fall back from the plant, so that it cannot be deemed to be a target.
During a Security Councilmeeting prompted by the crisis earlier this month, the IAEA Director-General said that “time is of the essence”, given the uncertainty of the situation and the massive potential threat of a nuclear accident.
In-person inspection needed
Information received from Ukraine and Russia about the status of the facility had been “contradictory”, the IAEA noted at the time, regarding its operation and damage sustained.
Only an in-person official visit to Zaporizhzya would make it possible to corroborate these assessments, Mr. Grossi said, adding that IAEA experts also needed “to verify the status of the reactors and inventories of nuclear material to ensure non-diversion from peaceful use”.
Black Sea exports continue
In a related development, the UN-led initiative to secure exports of Ukrainian grain and other foodstuffs from the country’s ports reported that around 1.25 million metric tonnes have now been shipped.
Sunday’s update from the Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) – involving Ukraine, Russia, Türkiye and the UN – reported that a total of 114 voyages have been enabled so far (62 inbound and 52 outbound), since the agreement was signed on 27 July in Istanbul.
Yemen set to benefit
Three commercial vessels were authorized to move on Monday with more than 70,000 tonnes of foodstuffs on board.
They included the “Karteria”, departing from Yuhzny/Pivdennyi and heading to Türkiye, with 37,500 metric tons of wheat.
“This grain is purchased by the World Food Programme (WFP),” the JCC noted. “It will be milled to flour in Türkiye and it will then be loaded onto a new ship that will head to Yemen.”
A second ship, the “Peace M”, was due to sail from Odesa to Constanta, Romania, with 24,485 tonnes of corn; a third, the “Ash Baltic”, was scheduled to leave from Odesa for El Dekhela, Egypt, with 11,000 tonnes of corn.
The Cross is the main symbol of Christianity. And what they have in common is that both there and there, the ancient Greek word ὁ σταυρός (stavros) is used in the name – cross.
And monasteries become stavropegic when they are given the status of stavropegic. This word – ἡ σταυροπηγία, from σταυρός – “cross” and the verb πήγνυμι – “to establish, hoist” – literally means hoisting the cross. It indicates that in stavropegic monasteries the cross is erected and erected by the patriarchs themselves.
In general, of course, the cross as the main symbol of Christianity is as paradoxical and unique as itself. Invented by the Romans (the Old Testament does not know the crucifixion), he was an instrument of terrible and shameful execution, which was subjected to the most notorious criminals. A person died from severe suffering, since death came from suffocation, as a result of a long and extremely painful unnatural position of the chest and the whole body. However, in Christianity, the cross, on the contrary, becomes a sign of victory and a messenger of salvation, the main symbol of the Church and the Christian faith. This is the high dialectics of Christianity…
The cross becomes a symbol and a constant reminder of the fact that Christ, by His death on the cross, trampled down and conquered the same death. Through extreme sorrow, he came to a major victory and thereby granted salvation to other people, showing them the same path if they want to imitate Him.
And when a person is baptized, he not only calls on God for help and drives away demons: Hoc signo vinces! – ” You will win with this sign!”. When he is baptized, he voluntarily puts a cross on himself, that is, he imitates Christ, voluntarily accepting sorrows and sufferings as the only way to salvation: “Through many tribulations you must enter the Kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
After all, in fact, if you look around, you can not help but see that no one lives carefree, that everyone has their own sorrows and sufferings. You can’t get away from the cross. This is a symbol of human life, which is similar to death, and a sign of that death, which actually gives real life. The only question is whether you will try to escape the inevitable, or will you accept it meekly and consider yourself worthy of the sorrows sent down. And then, in a still unknown way, but, as Christ said, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt. 11.30).
But how can this heaviest burden of suffering suddenly become light and good? It can be, if you do not ask what the sorrows are sent for, simply accepting them. After all, almost every person is delusional, and it is very, very difficult for him to see his sins, everyone is inclined to think “but what am I for?”. But any suffering can be endured if you see the meaning in it. You will see this meaning if you take everything upsetting for granted and ask “why do you need this?”.
The Russian Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, in his “Ascetic Experiences”, Volume 1, writes the following: “Patient bearing of one’s cross is true vision and consciousness of one’s sin. There is no self-delusion in this consciousness. But he who recognizes himself as a sinner, and at the same time murmurs and cries out from his cross, proves by the fact that he only flatters himself with a superficial consciousness of sin, deceives himself …
From your cross, glorify the Lord, rejecting from yourself every thought of complaint and grumbling, rejecting it as a crime and blasphemy.
From your cross, thank the Lord for the priceless gift, for your cross, for your precious lot, for the lot of imitating Christ with your sufferings.
From the cross, theologize: because the cross is the true and only school, the repository and throne of true theology. Outside the cross there is no living knowledge of Christ.
Do not look for Christian perfection in human virtues. It is not there: it is hidden in the Cross of Christ.”
Legal code from about 1870 B.C. written in the Sumerian language. It predates the long-known Hamurabi law code, now in the Louvre, by more than a century, and for its interest in the history of civilization, it is one of the most important archaeological finds every uncovered. The tablet is one of many thousands excavated in the Temple Library of Nippur by a University of Pensylvania expedition in the late 19th century
The so-called Code of Lipit–Ishtar (c. 1934–24 bc) is a Sumerian law , which contains the typical prologue, articles, and epilogue and deals with such matters as the rights of persons, marriages, successions, penalties, and property and contracts, according to britannica.com. Lipit-Ishtar (Akkadian: Lipit-Ištar; fl. c. 1870 BC – c. 1860 BC by the short chronology of the ancient near east) was the 5th king of the First Dynasty of Isin [see the Sumerian King List (SKL)].
Prologue
When the great An [1], the father of the gods, (and) Enlil [2], the king of all the earth, the ruler who establishes decisions, …Ninisin [3], the daughter of An, … for her… joy … for her clear forehead; when they gave her the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad (and) the favorable rule in her (city) Isin [4], … established by An. When An(i) Enlil called Lipit-Ishtar, then Lipit-Ishtar, the wise shepherd whose name was pronounced Nunamnir, to reign over the land, to establish justice in the land, to remove grievances, to repel the enemy(s) to avoid rebellion by force of arms, (and) to bring prosperity to Sumerians and Akkadians, then I, Lipit-Ishtar, the humble shepherd of Nippur [5], the virtuous farmer of Ur, who does not leave Eridu [6], worthy to be ruler of Erech [7], king of Isin, king of Sumer and Akkad, who was dear to the heart of Inan8, established justice in Sumer and Akkad in accordance with the words of Enlil. Indeed, in those days I provided … freedom for the sons and daughters of Isin, the sons and daughters of Sumer and Akkad, upon whom … the bonds of slavery … were imposed. Indeed, in accordance with … I have made the father the support of the children, (and) the children the support of the father; I commanded the father to stand by the children (and) the children to stand by the father; in father’s house (and) in brother’s house I … . Indeed, I, Lipit-Ishtar, son of Enlil, brought seventy to the house of the father (and) to the house of the brother; to the house of the unmarried I brought … for ten months … the man’s wife, … the man’s children … .
Laws:
1. … was established …
2. …
3. … property from the father’s home from his …
4. … the son of the government official, the son of the palace official, the son of the guardian …
5. … ship … follows him …
6. If a person inherits a ship(s) and rigs it for sailing from his …
7. … gift … it follows …
8. If he has given his garden to a gardener, so that the gardener shall take care of it … (and) the gardener … the owner of the garden …
9. If a person gave a plot of land to (another) person so that he could plant an orchard, (and the latter) did not plant a garden on the entire plot of land, then he is obliged to the person who planted the garden to give a part of the unused plot of land , which is not assimilated by him, as part of his схаре [9].
10. If a man entered the garden of (another) man (and was caught there stealing), he shall pay 10 shekels [10] silver.
11. If a man cut down a tree in (another) man’s garden, he shall pay 1/2 mina [11] of silver.
12. If the pushtinak adjacent to a person’s house belongs to (another) person, and the owner of the house has said to the owner of the pushtinak: “Because the land is not mastered, someone can break into my house; strengthen your house.” , (and) their agreement being confirmed, the owner of the wasteland shall be bound to indemnify the owner of the home for any property lost.
13. If a man’s slave or slave has run away and taken refuge in the center of the city, (and) if it is established that he (or she) has taken refuge in (another) man’s house for a month, he is obliged to give slave for slave.
14. If he has no slave, he shall be obliged to pay 15 shekels of silver.
15. If a human slave has served his servitude to his master (and) if this is confirmed by the master twice, that slave may be given freedom.
16. If a miktum is a gift to the king, it is not subject to alienation.
17. If a miktum has come to a man of his own free will, that man shall not dare to detain him; he is free to go wherever he pleases.
18. If a person without permission has forced (another) person to do something about which (the latter) thinks nothing, then that person does not deserve approval; he (the first man) must bear punishment for that deed which he compelled him to do.
19. If an owner of an estate has not paid the tax for the estate (and) another person has paid it, it is forbidden to evict the person from the estate within three years. (Then) the person who paid the estate tax becomes the owner of the estate, (and) the previous owner of the estate cannot dispute his right.
20. If an estate owner …
21. If one of the heirs has seized …
22. If … the father’s house … he has married, then the father’s house received by her as a gift from the father, he will receive, as her heir.
23. If the father be alive, his daughter, no matter what she may be, a ninishigir, or a lukur, or a temple maid, shall live in his house as an heiress.
24. If a daughter in the home of her healthy father …
25. If the second wife to whom he is married has borne him children, then the dowry which she brought from her father’s house belongs to her children; and the children from his first wife and the children from the second wife should equally share their father’s property.
26. If a man has married and his wife has borne him children, and these children are alive, and the slave girl has also borne children to her master, (but) the master has given freedom to the slave girl and her children, then the children of the slave girl have no right to share the estate with the children of their (previous) master.
27. If his first wife is dead, and after her death he takes a slave woman as his wife, then the children of his first wife are his first heirs; the children born of the handmaid of her master shall be as … and his house they, …
28. If a man’s wife has borne him no children, (a) the hetera with the public square has borne him children, he is bound to provide the hetera with grain, oil, and clothing; the children born to him by the heterah become his heirs, but as long as his wife lives, the heterah cannot live in (his) house with his wife.
29. If a man renounces his first wife … (a) she has not left home, then his wife, taken by him as his beloved, is his second wife; he is obliged to take care of his first wife.
30. If the (future) son-in-law entered the house of his father-in-law (and if) he was betrothed, (but) then they drove him out (of the house) and gave his wife to his friend, they are obliged to return to him what was brought by him presents on the occasion of the betrothal, (and) then the woman may marry his friend.
31. If a young man married a heter of the public square, (and) the judge forbade him to visit her, but, afterwards he divorced his wife, then the money …
32. (If) … he gave it to him, then after the father’s death the heirs shall divide the father’s estate, (but) the inheritance of the estate they shall not divide; they will not “boil the father’s word in water”.
33. If while still alive the father has postponed the marriage gift for his son, (and) in the presence of the father while still alive, he (son) has taken a wife, then after the death of his father the heirs …
34. If he lived with the assurance that … he did not divide the estate, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver.
35. If a man has hired a bull (and) has caused damage to its flesh in the region of the nostril, then he is obliged to pay one-third (of its) value.
36. If a man has taken a bull on lease (and it has damaged its eyes), then he is obliged to pay one second (of its value).
37. If a man took a bull on lease (and broke its horn), then he is obliged to pay a quarter (of its) value.
38. If a man has hired a bull (and) damages it in the region of the tail, then he is obliged to pay a quarter (of its) value.
39. If … then he is obliged to pay.
Epilogue
Indeed, in accordance with the truthful word of Utu, I incited Sumer and Akkad to adhere to true justice. Indeed, in accordance with the judgment of Enlil, I put an end to enmity and insurrections; of sufferings, complaints, sobs … taboo; I became the cause of good order and justice; I brought prosperity to the Sumerians and Akkadians…
Indeed, when I established abundance in Sumer and Akkad, I erected this stele. May he who does not do any malicious act to it (the stela), who does not destroy my creation, who does not erase its inscriptions, who does not write his own name on it, be granted long life and breath for many years; let him rise high in Ekur [12]; let Enlil’s high brow bow over him. (A ) he who commits an indecent act upon it (the stele), who destroys my creation, who erases inscriptions from it, who writes his own name on it (or) he who, knowing this curse, intends to replace it , – let this man be …, let him be …let him deprive him … send him … In his … whoever he is; let Ashnan [13] and Sumugan [14] the lords of abundance deprive him … let him remove .. Let Utu [15] the judge of heaven and earth … take away … him … foundations … as … let them consider him; not to establish the foundations of his dominion; this king, whoever he may be, Ninurta [16], the mighty hero, the son of Enlil …
Notes:
1. Ann – in Akkadian. Anu, one of the three supreme Sumero-Akkadian gods, patron of the city of Uruk.
2. Enlil – in Akkadian. Elil, from noise. “lord of the winds”, one of the main Sumero-Akkadian gods, along with An and Enki, patron of Nippur.
3. Ninisin – healing goddess, daughter of An, worshiped in Isin.
4. Insin – an ancient city in Mesopotamia, now the city of Tel-Ishan-Bahriyat in Iraq.
5. Nippur – a city in ancient Mesopotamia on the Euphrates River, now Nifer in Iraq. In the city there was a ziggurat of the god Enlil.
6. Eridu – an ancient Sumerian city, now the city of Abu-Shahrain in Iraq, was founded in the first half of the IV century BC. on the Persian Gulf coast.
7. Erech – the biblical name of the Sumerian city of Uruk, its name is also found as noise. Unug, the Greek. Orhoya, now Vark settlement. The city was for some time the capital of ancient Sumer.
8. Inan – from noise, “ruler of the heavens”, Sumerian goddess of fertility, carnal love and strife.
9. The Russian translation is not very clear. Probably, the provision stipulates that the harvest from the entire land should be calculated first, and then divided into the agreed shares, and the unrealized harvest from the unsown plot should also be included in the share of the gardener.
10. sickle – of noise. gin, a Babylonian unit of weight equal to 8.4 g, 1 shekel = 1/60 mina.
11. mina – (Shum. mana) a measure of weight in Sumer and Babylonia, weighing about 505 years, 1 mina = 60 shekels (Shum. gin); 60 minis = 1 talent (shum. gu).
12. Ekur – “home of the mountain”, name of the temple of the Sumerian god Enlil in Nippur
13. Ashnan – Sumerian goddess of grain.
14. Sumugan – Shakan, Sumero-Akkadian deity responsible for plant and animal life in the valleys.
15. Utu – from noise.”the bright”,”shining”,”day”. In Sumerian mythology, the sun god.
16. Ninurta – noise. “ruler of the earth”, in Sumero-Akkadian mythology god of war, hunting and fishing, vegetation and fertility. together with this god of the morning sun, merciful, healing and all-forgiving. He was honored with his father Enlil at Nippur.
A report from the Conference of European Churches (CEC) highlights European Church contribution toward reconciliation and unity ahead of the World Council of Churches (WCC) Assembly. The report is an outcome of CEC’s European Regional Pre-Assembly, which focused on the WCC Assembly theme “Christ’s love moves the world to reconciliation and unity”.
The report summarises reflections on topics related to the war in Ukraine, churches’ efforts for peace, and their struggles in the context of secular and plural European societies.
The European Regional Pre-Assembly was organised in cooperation with the Polish Ecumenical Council and the WCC Assembly office.
The report features views from churches in Europe who spoke about the war in Ukraine, delving deep on common issues, reflecting on what it means to be a church in Europe today, and what that means for a WCC Assembly hosted in Europe. As the gathering at the European Regional Pre-Assembly discussed issues in different geographical and ecclesial contexts, themes of reconciliation, secularity, and unity threaded together into a rich tapestry of common understanding and vision.
“The theme of the 11th WCC Assembly is Christocentric and missional, but not exclusivist. Christ’s love, radical compassion and solidarity with those who suffer, is at the centre of the reflections and preparations of churches for the Assembly,” reads the report.
The report states how churches in Europe are part of the worldwide movement of transformation, aware of their responsibilities, and strongly committed to the work of global unity and reconciliation.
“The war against Ukraine is a new shock to Europe that churches and Christians are grappling with, the city of Karlsruhe continues its preparations to host the WCC Assembly. The city, set on the banks of the Rhine near the French-German border, is a witness to a long history of reconciliation after World War II, and is an example of cross-border dialogue and reconciliation in Europe.”
“Churches in Europe hope that the upcoming Assembly will be a truly intergenerational, interconnected, and prophetic Assembly, prepared by local communities as they reflect on the biblical stories of Jesus’ compassion. They hope that this Assembly will be an ecumenical boost for Europe that will strengthen the role of ecumenism and religion’s role in our societies,” reads the report.
The European Regional Pre-Assembly brought together over 150 participants from across Europe, including prominent church leaders and academics, representing CEC Member Churches.
The Association of Greek Archaeologists on 22.8.2022 published an open letter to the UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay, sounding the alarm about both Hagia Sophia and the Chora Monastery, which was also recently turned into a mosque, reported Orthochristian.com.
The Association believes that the photographic evidence of damage to the building that has emerged since 2020 suggests “bleak prospects for its future.”
Full text of the letter:
Open letter regarding the endangered monuments of Hagia Sophia and the Chora Monastery
Hagia Sophia, in today Istanbul, is a masterpiece of world architecture, the most representative monument of Byzantine civilization. It is a building of high significance -in terms of architectural composition, decoration and construction techniques- which impressed with its beauty and name the Ottomans who occupied Constantinople in 1453.
From 1935 to 2020 Hagia Sophia operated as a monument open to all kinds of visitors, where public access was ensured to every part of the historic building and also to the totality of its treasures. During this period of museum operation, the Byzantine mosaics of Hagia Sophia were uncovered and preserved, whereas restoration works were also undertaken, according to a programme that aimed at gradually revealing and promoting the historical identity of the monument. Thus, the visitor, both Turkish and non-Turkish, had the pleasure of enjoying the value of this outstanding monument that has embellished Constantinople since the 6th century AD.
In 2020 the Turkish Council of State decided to annul the 1934 Cabinet decree which had allowed Hagia Sophia’s operation as a museum (“mujesi”). The new decision recognized it exclusively as a waqf of Sultan Mehmed II (1432-1481) and, therefore, paved the way for the return of Hagia Sophia to its Ottoman-era status. At the time, in 2020, there was worldwide concern about the problems that would be created by using such a monument as a place of worship, as management without a scientific approach would gradually cause alterations and damage to the historic building. We, along with other scientific organizations, had expressed warnings about these problems.
And unfortunately these problems have now appeared along the way. Since 2020 and especially in the recent past, photographic evidence [1] has come to light with gloomy prospects for the future of Hagia Sophia. The Ottoman wooden door leaves of the Imperial Gate were damaged, wall coatings were scraped and removed, fountains and doors were used for shoe storage, marble floor slabs were destroyed. The unique Byzantine mosaics remain covered and unseen. Archaeological supervision has stayed outside the monument.
All this and probably more, still unknown, are connected with the uncontrolled flow of visitors (pilgrims) and the use of Hagia Sophia as a mosque without great historical depth, as a place where respect for history and art is absent. The lack of control of visitors and the absence of guards testify to the negligence for the protection of the monument and leave its protection at the mercy of the will of every visitor or pilgrim. Justifiably, therefore, concern has been aroused in Turkey and worldwide for the future life of Hagia Sophia.
In the last few years (2006 and onwards), when the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) took over the management of Turkey’s monuments that were formerly in the hands of the Turkish Archaeological Service, many monuments have suffered irretrievable damage. In the context of renovation initiatives by the abovementioned institution, Byzantine and Ottoman monuments have been reconstructed and damaged. Representative, in this respect, are the works carried out at the Cumanin Camii (Panayia) in Antalya, a monument with Byzantine, Seljuk and Ottoman phases, as well as at the Süheyl Bey Cami in Istanbul, a mosque built by the workshop of Mimar Sinan (16th century).
It is with concern, therefore, that we hear that work is currently being carried out on another of Istanbul’s outstanding Byzantine monuments, the former katholikon of the Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii), so that it too can be used as a mosque. The covering up of the monument’s prestigious mosaics and frescoes, a glorious example of Palaeologan art, is an act of historical malpractice. We wonder how the Chora Monastery will be able to pass intact to the new operating status, after the 2020 decision of the Turkish Council of State, which also provided for the cancellation of its “museum use” and its conversion back into a mosque.
The Association of Greek Archaeologists has demonstrated its continuous interest in the protection of the material remains of the Byzantine era, fighting for monuments and sites that faced the possibility of destruction, first and foremost in our own country. Byzantium is an ecumenical heritage, a tradition that closely links peoples and nations in Southeastern Europe, the Mediterranean and beyond. The devaluation of Hagia Sophia and the Chora Monastery restricts the vast social potential that culture provides, puts obstacles to the promotion of 1: historical and artistic education, deprives Turkey of the understanding of its historical identity and of the important position the country ought to have as one of the depositories of Byzantine culture.
We would like to note that, according to tradition, Muhammad II, on the day of the Fall of Constantinople, prevented one of his soldiers from removing a marble slab from the floor of Hagia Sophia. The Sultan acted as the patron of Hagia Sophia. And indeed it was Muhammad II that respected the value of the old Christian church, when he converted it into a mosque and secured a considerable fortune for its operation as part of his own waqf. Hagia Sophia passed into the Ottoman era, experiencing a new golden age, thanks to the renovation initiative of Mohammed II, the Ottoman ruler who also respected its name. It is not in his name that Hagia Sophia can be subjected to this destructive management.
We ask UNESCO to intervene forcefully to reverse the current situation, which only poses risks for Hagia Sophia, the heart of the Historic Areas of Istanbul, a property inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List.
Association of Greek Archaeologists
See interalia: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/imperial-gate-in-hagia-sophia-mosque-damaged-173144, , https://www.duvarenglish.com/ancient-water-reservoir-broken-at-iconic-hagia-sophia-in-newvandalism-news-60842, https://twitter.com/ofyavascay?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1518744939814 866944%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F
Salvation and, in particular, justification for the Orthodox is a free-moral state, although it can be accomplished only with the help of the grace of God. In order to be regenerated by grace, a person must himself contribute to his regeneration. “Coming to the good Physician,” writes St. Ephraim the Syrian, – the sinner must, for his part, “bring tears – this is the best medicine. For it is pleasing to the heavenly Physician that everyone heals himself and is saved with his own tears,” and not involuntarily undergoes only salvation.
“Thoroughly wash yourself with tears, as a dyer washes a wave, indulge in humility and reduce yourself in everything; for having thus cleansed yourself, you will come to God ready to receive grace. Some of the penitent return again to sin, because they did not know what was hidden in them the serpent, and if they knew, they did not completely remove him from themselves, for they allowed the traces of his image to remain there, and he soon, as if conceived in the womb, again restores the full image of his malice. that he has not changed in his mind, because all the reptiles of sin are still in him.The sign of one who brings firm repentance is a collected and severe way of life, the laying aside of arrogance, conceit, as well as eyes and mind, always directed to the longed Jesus Christ, with desire, by the grace of Christ, to become a new man, as a wave becomes purple or blue or hyacinth-colored cloth.
Thus, the effectiveness of the sacrament depends on the degree of free participation in it by the person himself. In order to emerge from the sacrament as a new person, he himself must strive to be new and, as far as he has the strength, must destroy in himself the slightest remnants of the former sinful dispensation. That is why the Fathers of the Church insist that the free decision and effort of a person is just as necessary, although not sufficient in itself, a condition for justification in baptism, as well as the grace-filled help of God. “If there is no will,” says St. Macarius of Egypt, “God Himself does nothing, although He can by His freedom. Therefore, the accomplishment of the work by the Spirit depends on the will of man.”
The rebirth of a person is accomplished through a moral path, with the free-conscious assistance of the person himself. “A renewal of life is taking place in a person,” says Rev. Theophan, “not mechanically (that is, not in such a way that the grace of God expelled sin from a person’s soul, as something independent of the will of a person, and also settled in his place against his will righteousness), but according to internal arbitrary changes or decisions; this is also done in baptism because the person being baptized has loved to live this way in advance. Therefore, before immersing in the font, having renounced Satan and his works, we are united to Christ the Lord in order to devote our whole life to Him. the location in the font by the grace of God is imprinted and takes on the power to be effective. Coming out of the font with him, the baptized one is, thus, completely new, renewed in his moral and spiritual life – he is resurrected. Just as Christ the Lord is resurrected, and the baptized, into the font, he dies, but, leaving the font, he rises: he dies in sin and rises for the truth, for a new and renewed life. present place of St. Paul the Apostle: Buried to walk in newness of life.
Therefore, giving full power and meaning to the grace-filled influence on the human soul, the Fathers of the Church depicted the sacrament of baptism in the form of a covenant with God, i.e. such an action that directly presupposes freedom not only for the reception of grace, but in the very fruits of grace. “Briefly, under the power of baptism,” remarks St. Gregory the Theologian, “we must understand the covenant with God about entering into another life and maintaining greater purity”; and this presupposes both the desire to be good, and the decision to be good, and actually work on oneself, and the free efforts of a person under the most mysterious influence.
A person can save himself on the path of good only by direct efforts of his will, by forcing himself to do good. “The fact that our former sins are buried in baptism – this, according to St. I. Chrysostom, is a gift of Christ; and in order to remain dead to sin after baptism, this should be a matter of our own zeal, although in this feat, as we will see, God helps us most of all. For baptism has the power not only to atone for past sins, but also to protect against future ones. Just as you used faith to atone for past sins, so that you would not be defiled by sins after baptism, show a change in disposition. Although grace-filled help is always ready for the baptized, although he is in sincere union with Christ, however, only with the assistance of his will can a person make use of this grace-filled help. “The Evangelist,” says the same Holy Father, “never gives place to coercion, but shows the freedom of will and the independence of man; he expressed this even now. it is another for a Man to show faith, but then a lot of care is required from a man: for in order to preserve purity, it is not enough for us to be baptized and believe, but if we want to acquire perfect lordship, we must lead a worthy life. The mystical rebirth and our cleansing from all former sins is accomplished in baptism; but to remain clean in the subsequent time and not allow any filthiness in ourselves again – this depends on our will and care.
So it is in baptism, and so it is with every other sacrament: the freedom of man is always preserved. “The honest blood of Christ,” says St. Cyril of Alexandria, “delivers us not only from perdition, but also from all impurity hidden within us, and does not allow us to cool to indifference, but, on the contrary, makes us burning in spirit.” However, this is only with the voluntary effort of the person himself: “it is necessary and beneficial that those who have once been worthy to partake of Christ should strive firmly and unswervingly to cling to a holy life”; so that even at the highest degrees of grace-filled illumination, a person still remains the cause of his actions and can always go in a completely opposite way. “And those who are filled with the Holy Spirit,” according to St. Macarius of Egypt, “have natural thoughts in themselves and have the will to agree to them.”
Therefore, the Fathers of the Church have always taught that the grace of justification is to a certain extent a temporary phenomenon, i.e. temporarily felt and temporarily hidden from consciousness, that it may finally be lost for a person. “Even the perfect ones,” says St. Macarius of Egypt, “while they are in the flesh, they are not freed from worries (that is, about their salvation) because of freedom and are under fear, which is why temptations are allowed upon them.” And only, “when the soul enters that city of saints, then it will only be possible to remain without sorrows and temptations.” Righteousness is a fire kindled within us that threatens to be extinguished by the slightest inattention on our part. “The fire that we received by the grace of the Spirit,” says St. I. Chrysostom, “if we want, we can strengthen it, but if we don’t want, we will immediately extinguish it. And when it goes out, nothing will remain in our souls but darkness. Just as great light appears when a lamp is lit, so when it is extinguished nothing remains but darkness.
However, it is not necessary to imagine the subsequent life of a person in such a way that his whole task will consist only in not losing somehow this righteousness he has received.
Source: with abbreviations that do not distort the meaning, from the work of Archbishop (Finland) Sergius: “The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation”. Ed. 4. St. Petersburg. 1910 (pp. 140-155, 161-191, 195-206, 216-241). Photo by Ron Lach :
