Også nordmenn burde være triste over at Hagia Sofia blir moské
Hagia Sophia, bilde: Adli Wahid
Det var fredag den 10. juli klokken 20:53 tyrkisk tid, at landets president Recep Tayip Edrogan annonserte at det som opprinnelig var kristenhetens største kirke, skulle konverteres til moské. Akkurat slik den var da Istanbul (tidligere Konstantinopel) lå under Det osmanske riket og frem til 1935. Det er i hovedsak å tolke som en symbolsk handling. Det mangler i alle fall ikke på moskeer i Istanbul fra før, som huser rundt 3500 muslimske gudshus.
Det er dermed også fristende å ty til numerologi: klokkeslettet for Erdogans uttalelse, finner gjenklang i årstallet da Konstantinopel falt i 1453. Hagia Sofia skal i følge ham tas i bruk som moské fredag 24. juli i år, på dagen 97 år etter at Lausanneavtalen ble underskrevet, som etablerte de gjeldende grenser for den tyrkiske stat – en avtale presidenten tidligere har antydet kan trenge en ny gjennomgang. Omgjøringen til moske angår ikke bare gresk-tyrkiske forhold, noe som sees i at både USA, Paven, UESCO er blant mange som har kritisert for sin beslutning.
Kritikken kommer derimot ikke bare utenfra. Et økende antall protester har også kommet fra fremtredende tyrkere. Disse erklærer gjerne at handlingen markerer et tungt symbolsk brudd med den sekulære staten grunnlagt og formet av Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Åndsmennesker som Orhan Pamuk og Taner Akcam har omtalt det som både en skam og skandale. Svarene på kritikken fra Erdogan, var ikke spesielt beroligende. Han viste til at Mehmet II (som erobret Konstantinopel) også ble en leder for de ortodokse kristne.
Men hvilken betydning har Hagia Sofia utover som historisk levning fra den østlige delen av Romerriket vi i dag gjerne omtaler som «Bysants»? Hvorfor skal Europa for øvrig, og ikke minst Nord-Europa og Skandinavia bry seg?
Det er ikke enkelt å formidle den nesten overnaturlig storheten ved Hagia Sofia til personer som aldri har besøkt bygningen. Men nordmenn har kjent den før, helt tilbake til den tiden da bygningen var en kirke. Den gang tjenestegjorde såkalte «væringer» fra Skandinavia i livgarden til den bysantinske keiseren i Konstantinopel.
Det finnes rester etter disse væringene i selve bygningen i dag. For nesten tusen år siden har en av dem har stått på sørsiden av galleriet, ikke langt unna den praktfulle mosaikken av Deêsis, og da – muligens rammet av et øyeblikks tretthet av den lange ortodokse liturgien – inngravert på brystningen runeinnskriften av sitt navn «Halvdan» for ettertiden. Slik ga han på sin måte nok et lite innblikk i hvordan midlertidigheten og det endelige på mystisk vis omfavner den uendelige i rommet av kirken, som var omtalt som ‘acheiropoietos’ Kirken (‘ikke av menneskehånd’) den gang.
Den besøkende oppdager at Hagia Sofia er det ‘huset som inneholder det uholdbare’ (chôra tou achôrêtou). Som sådan er den Store Kirken for flott til å bli noe annet enn det den ble bygget for. Dens kraft og storhet tillater henne ikke å være noe annet enn hva det er. Og nordmenn var engang dens forsvarere.
Nå, da den igjen skal erobres av en hersker med politiske motiver, tar man seg i å håpe på at den evige væringgarden vekkes til atter å vokte den evige kirken i øst. Ikke for å bruke vold, men for å bruke minnet. For Hagia Sofia er egentlig for stor for smålig politikk.
«Εδώ ήταν ο Χάλφνταν»! Η ρουνική επιγραφή χαραγμένη στο μάρμαρο του τειχίου στον γυναικωνίτη του νότιου κλίτους της Αγίας Σοφίας, κοντά στο ψηφιδωτό της Δεήσεως. Κωνσταντινούπολη, Μάρτιος 2020.Φωτογραφία: Παναγιώτης Παύλος
Ήταν πριν δυό εβδομάδες ακριβώς, όταν την Παρασκευή 10 Ιουλίου, στις 20:53 τουρκική ώρα, ο Πρόεδρος της χώρας Ρετζέπ Ταγίπ Ερντογάν ανακοίνωνε ότι η Μεγάλη Εκκλησία της Χριστιανοσύνης, η Αγία Σοφία Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, θα μετατραπεί εκ νέου σε τζαμί.
Θα επανερχόταν, δηλαδή, στην κατάσταση που τελούσε, όταν η Κωνσταντινούπολη ήταν υπό την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, μέχρι το 1935. Η μετατροπή αυτή πρέπει κυρίως και αποκλειστικώς να ερμηνευθεί ως συμβολική πράξη.
Μολονότι οι εμμονές του Ερντογάν δεν περιορίζονται στην αριθμολογία, οι χρόνοι που επέλεξε αναφορικά με την γνωστοποίηση και πρώτη χρήση της Αγίας Σοφίας ως τζαμί, παρέπεμπαν στην Πτώση της Κωνσταντινούπολης (1453), και στη σημερινή ημέρα της 24ης Ιουλίου, 97 χρόνια ακριβώς από την υπογραφή της Συνθήκης της Λωζάνης το 1923, αντίστοιχα.
Μιας Συνθήκης η οποία καθόρισε τα σημερινά σύνορα του τουρκικού κράτους – και για την οποία ο Τούρκος Πρόεδρος έχει επανειλημμένα δηλώσει ότι πρέπει να καταργηθεί. Ωστόσο, η μετατροπή της Αγίας Σοφίας σε τζαμί πόρρω απέχει από το να είναι απλώς ζήτημα διμερές μεταξύ Τουρκίας και Ελλάδας
Αυτό είναι ήδη προφανές, καθώς μέχρι και αυτή την ώρα ενισχύεται διαρκώς η παγκόσμια κατακραυγή εναντίον της απόφασης του Τούρκου Προέδρου, χωρίς να εξαιρούνται από τους εκφραστές έντονης κριτικής ούτε οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, ούτε ο Πάπας, ούτε βέβαια και η UΝESCO.
Μιας απόφασης που, σε κάθε περίπτωση, δεν θα πρέπει να θεωρηθεί ως έκφραση και ικανοποίηση της ανάγκης για ένα νέο χώρο προσευχής των μουσουλμάνων: είναι γεγονός ότι δεν παρατηρείται καμμία έλλειψη τζαμιών στην Κωνσταντινούπολη, όπου ορθώνονται περίπου 3.500 μουσουλμανικά τεμένη.
Πράγματι, η απόφαση αυτή και η σημερινή φιέστα του Ερντογάν δεν είναι παρά επισφράγισμα του δρόμου που επέλεξε η Τουρκία, να αναβιώσει δηλαδή, την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία.
Παράλληλα με τη συνολική διεθνή κατακραυγή, διόλου ευκαταφρόνητες είναι και οι φωνές οι προερχόμενες από εξέχουσες προσωπικότητες Τούρκων, οι οποίοι όχι μόνο επισημαίνουν το τέλος του κοσμικού κράτους που σχηματίστηκε από τον Μουσταφά Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ, πατέρα της σύγχρονης Τουρκίας, αλλά και δεν διστάζουν να αποκαλέσουν τη μετατροπή της Αγίας Σοφίας σε τζαμί, πράξη ντροπής και βαρβαρότητας, όπως χαρακτηριστικά τονίζουν οι Orhan Pamuk και Taner Akçam.
Σε ένα crescendo Νεο-οθωμανικής αλαζονείας και προσβλητικής απόπειρας απάντησης στην παγκόσμια αντίδραση, ο Τούρκος Πρόεδρος δεν δίστασε να δώσει την περασμένη Τρίτη μια ιδέα του ουσιαστικού περιεχομένου της μετατροπής της Αγίας Σοφίας σε τζαμί, δηλώνοντας ότι «ο Μεχμέτ Β’ ο Πορθητής, ήταν ο ηγέτης και των Ορθόδοξων Χριστιανών».
Ποιά, όμως, είναι η σημασία της Αγίας Σοφίας, της καρδιάς της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας (Βυζάντιο), για τη Δυτική Ευρώπη και, ιδιαίτερα, τη Νορβηγία και τη Σκανδιναβία;
Γιατί η υπόθεση της Αγίας Σοφίας θα πρέπει να αφορά βαθύτατα κάθε άνθρωπο, θρησκευόμενο ή μη, πολίτη της Δύσης ή της Ανατολής, πιστό ή άπιστο, Χριστιανό, Μουσουλμάνο, Βουδιστή ή άθεο;
Και γιατί οι Νορβηγοί, και οι Σκανδιναβοί εν γένει, δεν μπορούν να παραμένουν ασυγκίνητοι ενώπιον αυτής της μεταβολής;
Δεν είναι εύκολο να μιλήσει κανείς για την Αγία Σοφία, και να περιγράψει επαρκώς κι αξιοπρεπώς το υπερκόσμιο μεγαλείο αυτής της μοναδικής Εκκλησίας, σε κάποιον που δεν είχε την ευκαιρία να την επισκεφθεί ως Μουσείο.
Αλλά εάν κανείς είχε την ίδια ευκαιρία με εκείνον τον άγνωστο Βάραγγο, τον Βίκινγκ που, κατά την επίσκεψή του στην Αγία Σοφία κάπου στον 10ο αιώνα, στάθηκε επάνω στο υπερώο, στη νότια πλευρά του, λίγα μόλις μέτρα από το έκπαγλης ωραιότητας και κάλλους ψηφιδωτό της Δεήσεως, και που σε κάποια στιγμή κόπωσης από την αργόσυρτη Μυσταγωγία της Βυζαντινής Ορθόδοξης Θείας Λειτουργίας, χάραξε στο στηθαίο, για όλους εμάς τους κατοπινούς, την μέχρι σήμερα σωζόμενη ρουνική επιγραφή «εδώ ήταν ο Χάλφνταν»·
τότε αυτός δοκίμασε τουλάχιστον μια γεύση του πώς η χρονικότητα, το διαστατό και το πεπερασμένο υποδέχονται μυστικά την άπειρη ολότητα του αποφατικώς παρόντος με Σάρκα και Αίμα Τριαδικού Θεού, υπερφυσικώς Περιχωρούμενου, στην απαράμιλλη αρχιτεκτονική της Αχειροποιήτου Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας.
Μυούμενος στο Ήθος της Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας, ο άνθρωπος συνειδητοποιεί ότι η Αγία Σοφία είναι «Χώρα του Αχωρήτου».
Ως εκ τούτου, ειναι πολύ Μεγάλη για να γίνεται οτιδήποτε άλλο από αυτό που είναι. Η δύναμη και το μεγαλείο της δεν της επιτρέπουν να είναι κάτι άλλο από αυτό που είναι.
Οι δε Βαράγγοι, οι Σκανδιναβοί, ήταν κάποτε οι υπερασπιστές της.
Τώρα που η Μεγάλη Εκκλησία τίθεται εκ νέου εν Αιχμαλωσία και κατακτιέται από ένα πορθητή με πολιτικά κίνητρα, αρχίζει κανείς να ελπίζει ότι ο αιώνιος Βάραγγος φρουρός θα εγερθεί για να φυλάξει και πάλι την αιώνια Εκκλησία στην Ανατολή. Για να μεταχειριστεί όχι βία, αλλά μνήμη.
Διότι η Αγία Σοφία είναι πραγματικά πολύ Μεγάλη για μικροπολιτική.
What is Good (ἀγαθόν) and what is Evil, or Bad (κακόν)? How can we discern them? The question touches upon both metaphysics, or ontology, and ethics. I have been looking for a while into a couple important texts in Neoplatonism and Early Christian thought on the issue: a) Proclus’s – the great Athenian Neoplatonic philosopher of the 5th century – treatise De Malorum Subsistentia (English translation with commentary: On the Existence of Evils, edited by Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel, London: Bloomsbury 2013), and b) the Περὶ Θείων Ὀνομάτων (On the Divine Names) treatise (especially chapter 4) by Dionysius the Areopagite (critical edition: Corpus Dionysiacum I. De Divinis Nominibus, edited by Beate R. Suchla, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990; English translations (a selection) by Clarence E. Rolt, London: SPCK, 1920, and John Parker, London: Parker, 1897). Dionysius was a Christian author of a disputed origin, and his text is nowadays widely agreed to be dated at the beginnings of the 6th century). These texts, along with a much earlier treatise, Plotinus’s Ennead I.8, Περὶ τοῦ τίνα καὶ πόθεν τὰ κακά (On what are and whence come evils), cause an immensely fruitful brainstorming to anyone wishing to dive into the problem of Good and Evil in Late Antiquity.
At a first glance, and from the overall stance of greek philosophical thinking, it is quite safe to generally ascertain that evil does not exist. From Plato and onwards evil’s existence is understood only by means of reference to the good. The original Platonic epistemological disposition towards evil is more or less maintained by all his successors – even by those who stand somehow remote from the core of Platonic philosophy. Now, such a disposition should not lead us towards a manichaistic dualism. For Plato, Plotinus, Proclus and Dionysius the common bottom line is that evil exists only as privation, lack (στέρησις), absence of the good. Already in Platonic, and consequently Neoplatonic (pagan) thought, the good is more or less identified with God (in many Platonic dialogues, i.e. Theaetetus, Republic, Timaeus, Plato does everything possible to make clear that evil should not be connected with the divine in any way).
Christian philosophy of late antiquity works out further the understanding that good is whatever derives from God. And as a matter of fact, everything derives from, precisely is created by, God. Thus, the entire creature is good, and, in general, everything that exists is good, since good and being are almost identical notions. The latter idea is responsible for a paradoxical syllogism: if one accepts that evil is (exists), and, if all existence stems from God the Good, and therefore is good as well, then one should acknowledge that evil is good. The syllogism is obviously ending to an ἄτοπον, and one has to figure out then, how evil should be qualified. What starts to become more consciously clear throughout the development of late Antique Christian and, later on, Byzantine philosophical tradition is that, evil has no natural existence. In other words, nothing which is or happens could be evil. To this it should be added that generation (γένεσις), corruption (φθορά), alteration (ἀλλοίωσις), diminution (φθίσις) had been already acknowledged and defined by Aristotle as something neutral, being neither good nor evil. So, for the Greeks, everything pertaining to being is not evil. Rather, the basic constant of cosmological thinking was that evil should be associated with disorder and disorderly states of being. Within Christian tradition, however, corruption and death cannot be equally claimed as good, since they are not natural in that nature was not created by God to end up in death. I shall not enter here into the discussion of what is ‘natural’ and what is not in the after-Fall state of creation, according to the Church Fathers. For the time being, I shall only mention in passing that the Areopagite does never adhere to a view that admits evil being associated within anything that is.
But if evil is not present in nature in the way scetched above, then one should rather turn from the attempt of inventing evil metaphysical principles, towards the faculty of will, that is to locate evil within the sphere of morality. The moral understanding of Evil is persistent in the thought both of pagan thinkers and the Church Fathers as a disposition (which also leads to activity) opposed to God and to God’s goodness. Thus evil is not an opposition of essences or subustances, i.e. God’s good substance versus an x’s bad substance (here is crucial to note that, the entire Christian philosophical and theological tradition maintains that God’s essence is both unknown and unknowable), but as a certain decision for opposing God. To understand this better, one might consider that for the Christian thought, the power that designs, creates, maintains and sustains, and saves the world is God’s divine energeia (divine activities). Life itself (at least, the way we understand life; Dionysius devotes an entire chapter on the divine name of Life, in the above mentioned treatise) is consisted in, and dependent on, God’s activity. Therefore, opposition to God would imply opposition to the presuppositions of life and to life itself. Seen from this point of view, evil substantiates as corruption and destruction.
If evil is connected to will, then one, because of the freedom granted from God that allows one to act even against God, is free to decide to act against God’s Word (the Word of God here meaning not an ethical commandment for a morally accepted life, but the ontological foundation of the cosmos). Hence, evil is that which opposes God, who is The Good. As such evil could be introduced to the cosmos only by a living being that being free demonstrates the ability to use its freedom in order to act against God. Thus, evil appears when a rational being decides to act against its creator, against its creative algorithm (this obscure expression aims at pointing to the ontological implications of the problem of evil, which derive from the moral understanding of it). In the hierarchical structure of cosmos – a structure largely conceived within Neoplatonic philosophy – not only humans but also angels, demons, souls, are rational beings. Similarly, in the Christian tradition there is a hierarchy in the invisible realm, a central difference (among many others) being the fact that – in contrast to pagan Neoplatonism – demons are defined as angels fallen, after their willed direct opposition to God. In other words, the loss of humbleness of some angels prompted them to think that they can reverse the parameters of the(ir) creation, that is to replace him who created the world, by themselves. It is extremely interesting to deepen into the mystery of the human being and see, or understand somehow, how this corruption affected not only the angels, but also the human soul and mind (with detrimental consequences to the bodily constitution of the human being, as well), so that the human being believed that can become God ‘in the place’ of God and without God. This wish, this irrational desire, (again this prédication of desire depends on the association of rationality with a positive source of being: rational is what is in accordance with its Logos of being, whereas irrational what is in discordance) is the matrix for the birth and growth of Evil, the latter not being primarily identifiable as such, but secondarily, as dependent on the Good.
The above general outline, intends to show that a differentiation between good and evil, and a discernement of the latter, should be based on a rather simple remark, that evil does not exist. One may speak of evil as absence of the good. Thus, ontological, so to say, evil does not exist. This last point is very well conceived by many major Greek philosophers and theologians, both pagan and Christian, i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus (who is admittedly a particular case in that in several regards he moves beyond the main lines of Greek thought on the issue), Proclus, Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, who argued on evil by starting from the good and ending up to the good. So it was clear to them that one cannot speak of evil as such. Even Proclus, who attempts to define evil as such, uses all the qualities of the good, structuring what one could call the ‘non-ontology of evil’. If the good, is inherent to human beings, then each human being should be rightly expected to have a sort of inner information of what is good and bad and therefore how is worth acting.
To conclude, I do not think I could agree with the idea that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. There is an asymmetry between them. Man cannot think of, nor speak about, evil the way man can do that about the good. For the latter is, whereas the former is not.
Text by Øystein Silouan Lid, Pictures by Torbjørn Fink & Panagiotis Pavlos
The majestic rocky Mount Athos, a natural outpost.
In this post I reproduce a beautiful article originally published in Norwegian, in the newspaper Dagen, from Bergen. It is about a tribute to Mount Athos, titled: ‘Mirakla i Romarrikets siste utpost‘ (‘The Miraculous Last Outpost of the Roman Empire’), written by the journalist Øystein Silouan Lid, who happened to travel to the Holy Mountain, in May 2016. The English translation was prepared by the author on the occasion of its publication on the portal pemptousia.com, in August 2016. I am grateful to Øystein Silouan Lid for his permission to reproduce it here. Some of the pictures in this post are property of Torbjørn Fink, one of the members of the pilgrims group, to whom I am grateful as well.
The Church of Protaton, in Karyes, the capital of Mount Athos (photo by Torbjørn Fink).
This summer [2016 -ed.] ten Norwegians were granted an audience at The Holy Mountain, the last remaining part of the Roman Empire. The monks who live here tell stories of miracles and wonders as a normal part of everyday life. Mount Athos has been called the one place on planet earth that has changed least over the centuries. The Orthodox monks who dwell here, live as they did during medieval times, praying and working. They come to dedicate their lives completely to God, and the last thing they want is for the hard-to-reach peninsula to become a tourist attraction. Nevertheless, the monastic republic in northern Greece has a remarkable pull on people from all over the world.
When the famous CBS news magazine 60 minutes in 2009 asked permission to come do a story on The Holy Mountain, the request was categorically denied. It took two years of negotiating before one of the monasteries finally said yes. It was therefore not without trepidation that the Norwegian journalist set foot in Karyes, the administrative centre of Mount Athos, before setting off on foot towards the ancient monastery of Iviron.
East-north view of the Iviron Monastery.
The forest on each side of the footpath has a jungle-like appearance. Wild edible peas, dill and oregano grow in several places. Suddenly we notice the wonderful fragrance of incense – the smell is easily recognized from the Orthodox liturgy. Yet here we are, in the middle of the forest, and no one is swinging the censer.
On the path from Karyes to Iviron Monastery. (T.F.)
Small signs and wonders such as these happen all the time here on Athos, says Panagiotis Pavlos. He is a scholar of philosophy at the University of Oslo, and presently our local guide. We are not far from the house of saint Paisios (1924-1994), regarded as one of the holiest men of the monastic peninsula. While he was alive people came by the thousands to visit him – on this very path. They were healed from all kinds of diseases, delivered from demons, and received spiritual counsel. It was said that his mere presence could change the hearts of the pilgrims who came to see him, and draw them towards Christ. Panagiotis was himself one of the many people who came to visit the saint’s kellion (monastic cell) in the forest, and is a friend of the monk who lives here today – father Arsenios.
– Christos anesti (Christ is risen)! Panagiotis cries out, and before long a man with a flowing beard is seen in the doorway.
Father Arsenios greets his old friend warmly and the Norwegians politely, before telling a few of the numerous stories of signs and wonders which took place right here in his cabin. A phenomenon father Arsenios tells us about, is the ability of saint Paisios to know what the guests would ask him, before even opening their mouths.
– Once, a lawyer came to Mount Athos. He didn’t believe the stories about Paisios, and decided to put him to the test. He planned to present himself as a doctor, instead of a lawyer. When he arrived at the gate he found himself in a group of 50 people who all had come to see the saint. Elder Paisios opened his door, looked the lawyer straight in the eye, and said: “Go away, and take your lies with you to the court room”. The man never doubted again, says father Arsenios.
Outside the cabin of Saint Paisios, in Panagouda (T.F.)
The kind of Christianity preserved on Athos has a rather unique history. After the capitol of the Roman Empire fell to the occupying Muslim army in 1453, Mount Athos became the last remaining outpost of Imperium Romanum. Already in the year 972 it had been established as a self-governing monastic state within the empire by the emperor John the First, Tzimiskes.
Today the «Autonomous Monastic State of the Holy Mountain» is the only republic where the banner of the Eastern Roman Empire – the characteristic double eagle – still can be seen waiving in the wind on top of official flag poles.
Mount Athos is today considered to be the spiritual centre of the Orthodox Church. Over 2.000 monks reside in the 20 operative monasteries, having dedicated their lives to prayer for the entire world.
Aproaching the Holy Mountain. (T.F.)
–The monks find the reason behind their monastic calling in the words by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19) regarding a life of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God, about selling all belongings, giving to the poor, and following Christ, says father Johannes, the priest in St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in Norway, as well as the spiritual guide of the group.
Fr. Johannes, fr. Seraphim and Øystein Lid, at the south gate of Iviron Monastery.
During the stay we live in three-bed, four-bed and eight-bed rooms in different monasteries, and take part in the daily lives of the monks. The services often start at 3 o’clock in the morning, and there are only two daily meals. They are all vegetarian and last for a grand total of ten minutes.
The pilgrims thus have more time for conversation and getting to know one another. All of them have a Lutheran background. Two of them, Lars Karlsøen and Bjørn Skauen, have even been priests in The Lutheran state church of Norway. Several of them have sought refuge in the Orthodox Church from what they see as heresy, modernism and worldly influence in Protestantism.
– I experienced that the Norwegian state church no longer had room for me. When I am here on Athos and see the spiritual riches of the Orthodox tradition, I can’t help thinking that Martin Luther made a great mistake in doing away with monasticism. The monasteries are guarantors of right doctrine, and the monks are models for the laymen when it comes to worship and obedience, says Karlsøen.
– The first time I visited an Orthodox church the liturgy was in a language I did not understand. Even so, I experienced it and tears started flowing, says Thorleif Grønnestad. He converted over 10 years ago, and is today in charge of typica services in his home town Sandnes.
Still, they do not paint a rosy red picture of the situation in The Orthodox Church. In some places the organization is poor, in others there are issues of nationalism. One of the pilgrims, Dag Markeng, has a striking comment.
– When I became Orthodox in 1983, my sponsor said something that I have found to be true. It won’t be easy being Orthodox – but it will be worth it.
One of the richest and most beautiful monasteries we visit, is called Vatopedi, established in the 5th century. Golden coins, gilded chalices and spectacular church art is everywhere. But it is also the home of a great treasure not made from gold, but from camel hair – preserved from the earliest times of Christianity.
The Holy Monastery of Vatopedion.
– This is the belt of the Virgin Mary, says the monk Evstathios.
According to written sources the belt was preserved in Jerusalem until the year 400. After being in Constantinople for some years, it was given to the monastery of Vatopedi as a gift.
– This belt didn’t only perform miracles at one point in history, but to this very day. Every 14th day or so we receive messages from all over the world from people who have been healed or helped after having been in contact with the belt, says father Evstathios.
The Orthodox claim that in the same way as God performed miracles through even the clothes of the apostle Peter (Acts 19, 12), the same thing happens through the belt of the Theotokos. Father Evstathios point to a series of strange stories related to the belt. Especially childless couples are helped, but many different diseases have also been cured.
– An oncologist from Switzerland came to see us and was given a few bottles of oil. He himself did not believe the stories, but he wanted to conduct some experiments after having heard about the phenomenon. He gave it to all the patients who were close to the terminal phase. Some did not survive, but two of his patients were fully healed. He came back to us in the monastery and told us about it. We don’t know why some are healed and others are not, but we use the oil in faith, and see what God wants to do, says father Evstathios.
Each of the Norwegian pilgrims are given a bottle, and father Johannes are given several – for use in the Orthodox Church in Norway.
Towards the end of the stay the Norwegians hear a rumour about a Scandinavian monk at one of the monasteries they were visiting – Karakallou. After having met mostly Greek monks on Athos it makes an impression to meet a monk with glittering blue eyes and a long read beard. Father Prothromos is from Finland, and speaks some Swedish. As it turns out that also he has a Lutheran background.
– How did you become orthodox, father?
– I went into an Orthodox Church one, and was so struck by the liturgy that tears started flowing. I realized immediately that I had to belong here, the monk says, echoing the story many of the Norwegian converts carry with them.
Soon after his conversion 20 years ago, father Prodromos travelled to the Holy Mountain. Now he is head of the guest house in the monastery, and has had to learn several languages.
– How is life here in the monastery?
– It is very good. Since the monastery of Karakallou is not as large as the others (number 11 on the internal ranking among the 20 monasteries), it is not as busy as some of the rest. So I have plenty of time to focus on prayer, says father Prodromos, reminding us about what really matters in life.
A very interesting anthology I am currently working on together with excellent co-editors, is about to be released by Routledge, in June 2019. The idea for such edition was conceived in the aftermath of the International Workshop in Oslo on the Philosophy of Late Antiquity, that was held at the Department of Philosophy in the University of Oslo, in December 2016. The volume Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity contains 15 essays and an Introductory chapter that cover topics on the interface between Platonism and Christian thought in this period. The authors, who are scholars from several disciplines, contribute on topics distributed in 4 parts:
I. Methodologies
Sébastian Morlet, on The Agreement of Christianity and Platonic Philosophy from Justin Martyr to Eusebius
Christina Hoenig, on Augustine and the “Prophecy” of Plato, Tim. 29c3
Christine Hecht, on Porphyry’s Daemons as a Threat for the Christians
II. Cosmology
Enrico Moro, on Patristic Reflections on Formless Matter
