Crucea.ro

by Terry Mattingly

There are times when I really feel the pain of the brilliant folks who work with the polling and research division of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

After all, how would you like to try to put the astonishingly complex world of American religion into those short, punchy phrases that pollsters have to use? You have to use words that mean something to people on sidewalks and in living rooms, yet the phrases also have to have some connection to the actual doctrines and historical facts that are used by insiders and scholars.

Then, to make matters worse, all of this is going to be reporting in mainstream public media in short, short and shorter reports, at times by reporters who have no clue what they are doing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sint cinci lucruri de stiut in legatura cu schimbarile tehnologice:

1) Cultura plateste intotdeauna un pret pentru tehnologie
2) O schimbare tehnologica presupune intotdeauna invingatori si invinsi
3) In orice tehnologie se afla cuprinsa o idee puternica (sau mai multe asemenea idei). Mediul este mesajul.
4) Schimbarea tehnologica nu este cumulativa; este ecologica.
5) Media are tendinta sa devina mitica.

Am intitulat prelegerea mea “Cinci lucruri pe care trebuie sa le stim despre schimbarea tehnologica”. Mi-am intemeiat aceste idei pe experienta celor trei decenii in care am studiat istoria schimbarilor tehnologice, insa nu le socotesc niste idei academice sau ezoterice. Sint genul de lucruri pe care ar trebui sa le cunoasca oricine e interesat de echilibrul si stabilitatea culturala si vi le ofer in speranta ca le veti gasi folositoare atunci cind va veti gindi la efectele tehnologiei asupra credintei religioase.

I

Prima idee este ca orice schimbare tehnologica este un soi de… schimb: tehnologia da si tehnologia ia indarat. Asta inseamna ca pentru orice avantaj oferit de o noua tehnologie, exista intotdeauna un dezavataj care ii corespunde. Dezavantajul poate depasi in importanta avantajul, sau avantajul poate merita acest pret. Acum, poate ca aceasta vi se pare o idee mai degraba intrinseca, insa in acest caz ati fi surprinsi sa aflati citi oameni cred ca noile tehnologii sint binecuvintari depline. Trebuie doar sa va ginditi la entuziasmul cu care majoritatea oamenilor se raporteaza la computere. Rugati pe oricine are idee despre computere sa va vorbeasca despre aceasta si veti afla ca ei vor descrie – netulburati de nimic si cu o incredere sustinuta – in termeni laudativi virtutile acestora. Veti descoperi de asemenea ca in cele mai multe cazuri aceste persoane vor neglija cu desavirsire sa aminteasca vreun neajuns al acestora. Acesta este un dezechilibru periculos, caci cu cit mai spectaculosi sint parametrii unei tehnologii, cu atit mai mari sint consecintele sale negative.

Ginditi-va la automobile, care, cu toate avantajele lor evidente, au otravit aerul pe care il respiram , au sufocat orasele noastre si au degradat frumusetea peisajelor din natura. Sau ati putea reflecta la paradoxul tehnologiei medicale care a adus vindecari minunate si care este, in acelasi timp, nu numai o cauza a multor boli si dizabilitati, ci a jucat si un rol semnificativ in reducerea priceperii in diagnosticare a medicilor. E de asemenea bine sa amintim ca pentru toate beneficiile intelectuale si sociale aduse de aparitia tiparului, costurile au fost la fel de monumentale. Tiparnita a daruit Apusului proza, dar a transformat poezia intr-o forma exotica si elitista de comunicare. Ne-a dat stiinte inductive, insa a redus sensibilitatea religioasa pina la o forma de superstitie elaborata. Tiparul ne-a da conceptul modern de natiune, dar facind asta, a preschimbat patriotismul intr-o emotie sordida, daca nu chiar letala. Am putea chiar sa spunem ca tiparirea Bibliei in limbile vernaculare au introdus impresia ca Dumnezeu e englez sau francez – mai precis, tiparul l-a redus pe Dumnezeu la dimensiunile unui potentat local.

Poate cea mai buna cale prin care pot exprima aceasta idee aceea ca intrebarea “Ce va face o noua tehnologie?” nu este mai putin importanta decit intrebarea “Ce va desface (destrama) aceasta noua tehnologie?” Intr-adevar, intrebarea din urma e mult mai importanta, mai ales fiindca este pusa atit de rar. Am putea spune, asadar, ca o perspectiva complexa in relatie cu schimbarile tehnologice trebuie sa includa si scepticism fata de viziunile utopice si mesianice descrise de cei care nu au nici un simt al istoriei sau al precaritatii echilibrelor culturale. De fapt, daca ar fi dupa mine, as interzice oricui sa vorbeasca despre noile tehnologii informationale pina cind persoana respectiva nu demonstreaza ca stie cite ceva despre efectele sociale si psihice ale alfabetului, ale ceasului mecanic, ale presei tipografice si telegrafului. Cu alte cuvinte, sa stie ceva despre costurile (efectele) marilor tehnologii.

Ideea numarul unu este ca intotdeauna cultura va plati un pret pentru tehnologie.

Adaptare dupa textul in engleza, disponibil aici. O prelegere a lui Postman e disponibila aici in format video, in limba engleza.

Adevaratul crestin este ca un razboinic ce isi croieste calea printre regimentele vrajmasului nevazut, catre patria sa cereasca.

Five things to know about technological change:

1. Culture always pays a price for technology.
2. There are always winners and losers in technological change.
3. Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea (or ideas). The medium is the message.
4. Technological change is not additive; it is ecological.
5. Media tends to become mythic.

And here is the full lecture:

“I call my talk Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change. I base these ideas on my thirty years of studying the history of technological change but I do not think these are academic or esoteric ideas. They are to the sort of things everyone who is concerned with cultural stability and balance should know and I offer them to you in the hope that you will find them useful in thinking about the effects of technology on religious faith.

I

“The first idea is that all technological change is a trade-off… Technology giveth and technology taketh away. This means that for every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The disadvantage may exceed in importance the advantage, or the advantage may well be worth the cost. Now, this may seem to be a rather obvious idea, but you would be surprised at how many people believe that new technologies are unmixed blessings. You need only think of the enthusiasms with which most people approach their understanding of computers. Ask anyone who knows something about computers to talk about them, and you will find that they will, unabashedly and relentlessly, extol the wonders of computers. You will also find that in most cases they will completely neglect to mention any of the liabilities of computers. This is a dangerous imbalance, since the greater the wonders of a technology, the greater will be its negative consequences.

“Think of the automobile, which for all of its obvious advantages, has poisoned our air, choked our cities, and degraded the beauty of our natural landscape. Or you might reflect on the paradox of medical technology which brings wondrous cures but is, at the same time, a demonstrable cause of certain diseases and disabilities, and has played a significant role in reducing the diagnostic skills of physicians. It is also well to recall that for all of the intellectual and social benefits provided by the printing press, its costs were equally monumental. The printing press gave the Western world prose, but it made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of communication. It gave us inductive science, but it reduced religious sensibility to a form of fanciful superstition. Printing gave us the modern conception of nationhood, but in so doing turned patriotism into a sordid if not lethal emotion. We might even say that the printing of the Bible in vernacular languages introduced the impression that God was an Englishman or a German or a Frenchman – that is to say, printing reduced God to the dimensions of a local potentate.

“Perhaps the best way I can express this idea is to say that the question, What will a new technology do? is no more important than the question, What will a new technology undo? Indeed, the latter question is more important, precisely because it is asked so infrequently. One might say, then, that a sophisticated perspective on technological change includes one’s being skeptical of Utopian and Messianic visions drawn by those who have no sense of history or of the precarious balances on which culture depends. In fact, if it were up to me, I would forbid anyone from talking about the new information technologies unless the person can demonstrate that he or she knows something about the social and psychic effects of the alphabet, the mechanical clock, the printing press, and telegraphy. In other words, knows something about the costs of great technologies.

“Idea Number One, then, is that culture always pays a price for technology. Read the rest of this entry »

EVZ publica o stire despre o initiativa a Garzii de Mediu din Suceava care va fi, in aparenta, preluata si sustinuta in predicile preotilor BOR:

“Întocmit în baza mai multor recomandări dintr-un ghid de ecoturism editat de Ministerul Mediului, Decalogul urmează să fie adus la cunoştinţa publicului prin cele mai diverse modalităţi de informare – de la fluturaşi împărţiţi vizitatorilor din staţiunile de agrement până la pilde de urmat în cadrul slujbelor oficiate în bisericile din Suceava, Botoşani, Iaşi, Bacău, Vaslui şi Neamţ“:

„Acest Decalog conţine zece reguli de aur, pe care fiecare dintre noi ar trebui să le respecte atunci când merge la iarbă verde. Pentru ca mesajul nostru de protejare a naturii să ajungă la cât mai mulţi oameni, am făcut apel la sprijin atât din partea primăriilor, cât şi a instituţiilor care au un cuvânt greu de spus în cadrul comunităţilor locale – Biserica şi unităţile de învăţământ, să fie prezentat oamenilor, chiar şi sub forma unor pilde în cadrul slujbelor oficiate”, a precizat sefa Garzii de mediu din Suceava.

Evenimentul Zilei preia o stire France Press:

“Biserica Catolică mexicană a anunţat suspendarea slujbelor de azi, din cauza epidemiei de gripă porcină, soldată cu cel puţin 20 de decese, relatează AFP.
Biserica a respectat sugestia ministrului Sănătăţii, care ceruse ieri “suspendarea completă a tuturor reuniunilor publice, desfăşurate în spaţii deschise sau închise”.
“Cerem tuturor preoţilor să aplice decizia de suspendare a slujbelor, luată de cardinalul Norberto Rivera”, a declarat directorul postului de radio şi televiziune al arhiepiscopiei Mexicului, Jose de Jesus Aguilar.
Mexicul este a doua ţară din lume, după Brazilia,din punct de vedere al numărului credincioşilor catolici.”

Nu stiu cum vor reactiona ortodocsii in fata acestor amenintari: feluriti virusi (fie trupesti, ca acum, sau culturali sau politici, alteori) care sint plantati de stapinii lumii in diferite zone ale lumii pentru a controla, teroriza si extermina ca in niste lagare ale lumii “libere”, insa inchiderea bisericii, chiar daca o fac niste papistasi, e un semn trist care ne arata care este “modelul”.  Sa ne rugam pentru sufletele amenintate ale oamenilor care sint azi chinuiti in acest chip.

One can say that everyone rejoices when they hear the troparion of the Resurrection. But they sometimes grow bored when it is sung often. This hymn, however, should be endlessly joyful to people: its continual repetition about the victory over death and the devil should be an infinite source of consolation. Therefore if this joy soon passes, it passes because one’s faith is not so living and strong. People find it difficult to believe because their souls do not especially love this victory.
They say: Thomas, who had been previously ready to die for Christ, also did not believe.
No, Thomas asked for assurances not because he did not believe, but because he desired an untroubled faith, for he longed for the resurrection and understood its significance.
Before their entry into Jerusalem, having learned that there would not be any external success but, to the contrary, that the Savior awaited suffering, the disciples thought that the same death awaited them as a reward for following Him. They were overcome by horror and fear, and then Thomas said: Let us go that we might die with Him [Jn 11:16]. Thomas had a loyal heart. How many of them were troubled when they learned that there was not, and would not be, any external success! When He was to them a great miracle worker, healing them and giving them bread, they believed; but when they learned that He was ready to accept and bear the great deed [podvig] of patience and suffering for the sake of their spiritual benefit – then they all ran away, their faith weakened and, if their conscience rebuked them, they easily found an excuse in themselves: we trusted that it had been He [Lk 24:21].
People say: if we had seen Him we would not have denied Him. This is not true: the majority of those who denied Him had seen Him, and they denied Him because they did not love spiritual values, and the victory over the devil spoke but little to their hearts; they desired external success.
Cases of full denial are not many. Normally a remnant of faith remains, and this half-acknowledgment and half-faith is perhaps even worse, and such half-believers are in the majority. If they were to be excluded from so-called believing society we would see that there are but few true worshippers. Church and cross, unity in Christ, unity in the name of the feat [podvig] of love – there is the outline of our relationship towards the Lord. But half-believers do not strive to understand either one or the other – unity or Christ’s love – in the way that Christians understand it.
Half-faith has many degrees, but one thing inevitably follows from all half-belief. Those who deny know both what they have denied and to what to return. But the half-believer does not have any such clarity and grows accustomed to a life guided by sophistries, half-truth, and hints at some sort of supposed truth.

Source: Translation into english from Ora et Labora

Bishop John, in the world Nicholas Alexandrovich Bulin, was born on March 16, 1893 in Veps, Vervsky (Vyrussky) uyezd, Estonia into the family of a pious Estonian stonemason. His father’s sister, Nun Juvenalia, struggled in the monastery of St. John the Forerunner in Pskov. At the age of six Nicholas began to serve in church, and at the age of eight was reading the six psalms by heart. At the age of fourteen he entered a theological school, after which he decided to become a priest. With the blessing of his parents, he entered the Riga theological seminary. On completing his studies there, he entered the Petrograd Theological Academy in 1914. In 1916 became an officer in the Russian army who was wounded on the front in the First World War. In 1917 he was released from the army with the right to teach in any higher or intermediate school. He decided to return to the Academy for the last time, and there he was tonsured into monasticism. In 1918 he was briefly arrested and released. In 1919 he was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Eusebius (Grozdov). He was appointed to an insignificant country parish in Zacherye, Estonia. His time there was difficult at first, but he was helped by the personal protection of Archbishop Eusebius, and within a few months had acquired a definite authority among the local church-going population. On February 20, 1920 Metropolitan Alexander (Paulus), head of the Estonian Church, appointed him prior of the Holy Dormition Pskov Caves monastery, which appointment he received with great joy. On January 13, 1921 he was raised to the rank of archimandrite in the Alexander Nevsky cathedral in Tallin.
On April 25, 1926, at the request of the Russian parishioners, the monastic brotherhood and the inhabitants of the Pechorsk region, he was consecrated Bishop of Pechersk by Metropolitan Alexander, Archbishop Eusebius and Bishop Sergius. He was a defender of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia from Estonization, opposed the removal of Church Slavonic from the services, and did much repair work in the monastery.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following was written by blogger who went by the tag of Scrivener. Sadly, Scrivener has left the blogosphere, and his blog is no more.

What Ever Happened to Baby WI-38?

My wife and I have opted our children out of certain portions of the recommended vaccination schedule. This has made for some difficult conversations in the doctor’s office, and will likely complicate matters when it comes time to send them to school. But we have our reasons.

Here’s one: several of the most popular vaccines contain human tissue cultures originally obtained from aborted babies.

Unless you’re in the habit of reading vaccine inserts and researching this kind of thing, this will be news to you. It sounds a little too gruesome to be true. You may be inclined to disbelieve me. I wanted to disbelieve it. But though it’s not an article of common knowledge (even among health professionals), it’s quite true, and it’s never been a secret. This is public information and easily verifiable.

In order to produce a live-virus vaccine, one must first cultivate the disease one hopes to immunize against. Some viruses are more easily propogated in a laboratory setting than others. Easier ones are often produced in a cellular culture derived from chicken egg whites. Other viruses more difficult to propogate are only reliably cultivated in actual human tissue cultures.

Vaccines developed by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline for Rubella, Hepatitis-A and Varicella (Chicken Pox) are developed in a culture of human diploid cells taken from the lungs of two babies aborted in the 1960s. In both cases, the abortions were legally performed (in Europe) and the babies were healthy.

One of these was Baby WI-38. What is commonly referred to as the “WI-38 cell culture” was derived from a female fetus aborted at 3 months gestation in 1961. Diploid cells harvested from her lungs have been cultured and reproduced in American laboratories for the past 35 years as a efficacious, human medium for cultivating the infectious agents needed in the manufacture of live-virus vaccines.

In the UK, the MRC-5 cell culture was developed along similar lines, from human diploid cells harvested from the lungs of a male fetus aborted in 1966, also at about three months of development.

Read the rest of this entry »

Neil Postman is a critic of contemporary culture. His is not an Orthodox voice, but one well worth heeding (in the vein of Ivan Illich and Wendell Berry).

Six questions to ask about technological change:

Here is the full lecture:

Read the rest of this entry »

Schema-Igumen Zosimas was born on June 28, 1862 and was given the name Philip in honour of St. Philip (June 3/16). He was tonsured into monasticism at the monastery of St. Alexander of Svir on April 23 / May 6, 1900 with the name Philaret after St. Philaret the Merciful. On May 25 / June 7, 1902 he was ordained to the priesthood. He received the schema on December 10/23, 1925 or 1926 in honour of St. Zosimas of Solovki. He went into hiding and served in secret in the flat of the Josephite Nuns Valentina (Alexandrovna Krasnolenskaya) and Marina (Nikolayevna Grabbe, born 1907, died 1971) on the Moika. Another Josephite also lived in the house: Liv Tatyana Fedorovna (born 1876, died 1967). He died on October 10/23, 1943, and was buried in Volkov cemetery.
In 1927 Schema-Igumen Zosimas wrote: “Who are the schismatics? If it is that side from which the question in dispute arose, then it will be just to call those who depart schismatics. But if it turns out that the opinions of those who introduce new views do not accord with the Gospel, then it is not those who have departed, but they who are the true schismatics, for they have broken the unity of the Church. Among them sprang up a source that muddied the pure water, and the water of Orthodox thought, and as long as it, the source, does not dry up, the evil will not be cut short.”
On February 29, 1928 Fr. Zosimas wrote: “In the new church disturbances that have arisen during the second deputyship of Metropolitan Sergius, [the deputy of] the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, many soothe their disturbed conscience that they will not sin if they offer obedience to the canonical bearer of the rights of the first-hierarch of the Russian Church. In obeying Metropolitan Sergius, they think they are obeying the Church, and our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the Head and Ruler of His Church. ‘We do not want arbitrariness and new schisms, we must obey the hierarchy. Without obedience there is no Church.’
“There is no doubting that. There must be no place for arbitrariness in the Church. But obedience itself we must not offer in an arbitrary way, but in such a way as the rules, traditions and canons of the Church teach, as it is taught by the Holy Scriptures. And the Apostle Paul was not being arbitrary when in Antioch he, the youngest of the Apostles according to time of calling and dedication, ‘not for one moment’ conceded, and did not obey, but ‘resisted’ the first of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the Apostle Peter, when he and others with him, in the conviction of the Apostle Paul, ‘did not act rightly’ according to the truth of the Gospel, but began to ‘hide’ and withdraw and, fearing the circumcised, ‘act hypocritically’.

Read the rest of this entry »

“We celebrate the slaying of death,
the dethronement of hades, and
a new life of eternal renewal.”

Beloved brethren and children in the Lord,

We, your spiritual shepherds, have the habit of preparing and delivering “Paschal Epistles” during this time of the Bright and Joyous Resurrection. Many of these may have a deep meaning and are rich in theological and pastoral technicality, but are poor in regards to teaching one how to live spiritually and resurrectionally…

We tend to voice to one another our paschal greeting without making this greeting apply to our own personal death and resurrection. And this is because the idea of “co-resurrection with Christ” is missing within us, even though this is the means whereby our Savior’s Resurrection lives within us. We are missing within us the “slaying of the hades of sinfulness” and the immediately followed “new life of eternal renewal.”

This mystery of the co-resurrection of mankind with the Risen Christ is the mystery of our salvation. And as a mystery it cannot be circumscribed, it cannot be analyzed. On the contrary, it can only be lived. And this way of life means that the kingdom of sin is shattered within us, the locked gates of hades are broken, and only then does the light of the Resurrection shine within us. Otherwise, no matter how much we greet one another with “Christ is Risen,” and no matter how much we preach with our mouths and lips the response “Truly He is Risen,” if we yet remain in the tomb of indifference, evil, pride and lack of repentance, we remain outside of the mystery of salvation.

In such a manner, although we say with great words, and although we print fantastic greetings, although we feel an apparent worldly joy, we do not meet the Risen Christ. On the contrary, we deny him by our evil actions. We, from the Royal Doors exclaim “Come receive ye the light, of the unwaning light,” and you all run to light your candles. And despite all of this, we remain for the most part in darkness. Because, if by our sinful life we extinguish the light within us, how overwhelming is the darkness? If our lips voice “we celebrate the slaying of death” and yet we live as though we are dead, hopeless and careless towards the spiritual things, and if we are not moved by the plea of St. Joseph of Arimathea to ask for the body of Jesus for burial, and if we are not inspired by the courage of St. Nicodemus and the bravery of the myrrh-bearing women, and if we remain in the tomb of denial and of faithlessness, then what use is it for us to say “Christ is Risen?”

How can we work towards our exit from the tomb of sinfulness? How can we celebrate a true Pascha? Through co-resurrection! But first we must pass through the road of co-crucifixion. To walk with Christ towards Golgotha and be lifted up on the Cross with Him is of great necessity for the achievement of co-resurrection. And this walking with Christ and being lifted up on the cross with Him, receives its worth and becomes a reality only through humility and contrition. Even if we directly deny the Teacher, there is still a way of returning to the right road and walking with Him. For, after his third denial of Christ, upon hearing the cock cry thrice, St. Peter “went out and cried bitterly.”

Only the humiliated and brokenhearted know the road of repentance and contrition. And only those who have passed through their own personal Golgotha of humility and martyrdom (which in this case means repentance), and have reached the empty tomb, live resurrectionally and are given a foretaste of the inexpressible joy of eternity. Only those who know Christ in their lives as the “slain lamb” see him as the conqueror of death, because only they understand the meaning “he came victorious and that he may conquer.”

Beloved brethren, as always, even today the road towards Golgotha is the road that is directed by the true Church of Christ. Rather, the Church is the only road towards Golgotha. It is the only way towards Resurrection. It is the Church of the Cross and the Resurrection. They who remain as members of the Church, they who hold unadulterated and uncounterfeited the good Confession (that is, Orthodoxy, which cannot be understood without Orthopraxy, which is walking with and being crucified with Christ), only they indeed rise up to the martyric road of Golgotha, only they really celebrate the Resurrection, only they are deemed worthy of co-resurrection with Christ, and only they experience the reality of the Paschal greeting:

“Christ is Risen! – Truly He is Risen!”

Your fervent supplicant before the Risen Lord,

+ Metropolitan Cerycus of Mesogaea and Laureotica
Sunday of Pascha, April 6/19, 2009, Athens, Greece.

English Language Website: genuineorthodoxchurch.net

Stiu ca este un inceput mai putin obisnuit, insa trebuie sa va spun ca micul articol care urmeaza nu reprezinta un punct de vedere oficial al vreunei Biserici sau jurisdictii, cel putin nu dupa stiinta mea. Este o marturie personala bazata pe invatatura parintelui Arsenie Cotea, asa cum am primit-o de la secretarul acestuia, parintele Ilarion, pustnic din muntele Athosului, si de la ucenicul sau, tinarul monah Gavriil din Capsala.

Mai intii, nu spunem  “Hristos a Inviat!” asa cum am spune “Hai sa traiesti!” sau “Servus!”. O spunem ca pe o marturie lumeasca a faptului ca sintem martori ai Invierii Domnului. Inainte de a rosti cuvintele acestea, este bine sa le cintarim o clipa greutatea in contextul lumesc in care marturisim: e o marturie pretioasa care nu trebuie sa rasune in desert.

Asta mai cu seama ca marturia lumeasca de care vorbeam inchipuie o marturisire duhovniceasca: trebuie sa simtim ca atunci cind spunem “Hristos a Inviat!” transmitem de fapt Crezul intreg al crestinului:

Cred întru Unul Dumnezeu, Tatăl Atotţiitorul, Făcătorul cerului şi al pământului, văzutelor tuturor şi nevăzutelor.
Şi întru Unul Domn Iisus Hristos, Fiul lui Dumnezeu, Unul-Născut, Care din Tatăl S-a născut mai înainte de toţi vecii. Lumină din Lumină, Dumnezeu adevărat din Dumnezeu adevărat, născut, nu făcut; Cel de o fiinţă cu Tatăl, prin Care toate s-au făcut.
Care pentru noi, oamenii, şi pentru a noastră mântuire, S-a pogorât din ceruri şi S-a întrupat de la Duhul Sfânt şi din Maria Fecioara, şi S-a făcut om.
Şi S-a răstignit pentru noi în zilele lui Ponţiu Pilat şi a pătimit şi S-a îngropat.
Şi a înviat a treia zi, după Scripturi.
Şi S-a înălţat la ceruri şi şade de-a dreapta Tatălui.
Şi iarăşi va să vină cu slavă, să judece viii şi morţii, a Cărui împărăţie nu va avea sfârşit.
Şi întru Duhul Sfânt, Domnul de viaţă Făcătorul, Care din Tatăl purcede, Cel ce împreună cu Tatăl şi cu Fiul este închinat şi slăvit, Care a grăit prin prooroci.
Întru una, sfântă, sobornicească şi apostolească Biserică.
Mărturisesc un botez întru iertarea păcatelor.
Aştept învierea morţilor.
Şi viaţa veacului ce va să fie. Amin!

Asadar, spunind cu mintea si cu gura “Hristos a Inviat”, marturism in chip ortodox Invierea Domnului, cea cintata de tropare:

Piatra fiind pecetluită de iudei şi ostaşii străjuind preacurat Trupul Tău, înviat-ai a treia zi, Mântuitorule, dăruind lumii viaţă. Pentru aceasta, Puterile cerurilor strigau Ţie, Dătătorule de viaţă: Slavă învierii Tale, Hristoase! Slavă împărăţiei Tale! Slavă iconomiei Tale, Unule Iubitorule de oameni!
Când Te-ai pogorât la moarte, Cela ce eşti Viaţa cea fără-de-moarte, atunci iadul l-ai omorât cu strălucirea Dumnezeirii; şi când ai înviat pe cei morţi din cele de desubt, toate Puterile cereşti au strigat: Dătătorule de viaţă, Hristoase, Dumnezeul nostru, slavă Ţie!
Să se veselească cele cereşti şi să se bucure cele pământeşti! Că a făcut biruinţă cu braţul Său Domnul, călcat-a cu moartea pe moarte, Cel Întâi-născut din morţi S-a făcut; din pântecele iadului ne-a mântuit pe noi şi a dat lumii mare milă.
Propovăduirea Învierii cea luminată înţelegând-o de la înger uceniţele Domnului şi lepădând osândirea cea strămoşească, Apostolilor lăudându-se au zis: Jefuitu-s-a moartea, sculatu-S-a Hristos Dumnezeu, dăruind lumii mare milă.
Pe Cuvântul Cel împreună fără de început cu Tatăl şi cu Duhul, Carele S-a născut din Fecioara spre mântuirea noastră, să-L lăudăm, credincioşii, şi să I ne închinăm; că bine a voit a Se sui cu trupul pe Cruce şi moarte a răbda şi a scula pe cei morţi, întru slăvită Învierea Sa.
Puterile îngereşti la mormântul Tău şi străjerii au amorţit şi sta Maria la mormânt, căutând preacurat Trupul Tău. Prădat-ai iadul, nefiind ispitit de dânsul; întâmpinat-ai pe Fecioara, dăruind viaţă. Cela ce ai înviat din morţi, Doamne, slavă Ţie!
Stricat-ai cu Crucea Ta moartea, deschis-ai tâlharului raiul; plângerea mironosiţelor o ai schimbat şi Apostolilor a propovădui ai poruncit că ai înviat, Hristoase Dumnezeule, dăruind lumii mare milă.
Dintru înălţime Te-ai pogorât, Milostive; îngropare ai luat de trei zile, ca să ne slobozeşti pe noi din patimi. Cela ce eşti Viaţa şi Învierea noastră, Doamne, slavă Ţie!

Acum, daca veti cintari o clipa insemnatatea duhovniceasca a acestei marturisiri de credinta, veti intelege de ce atunci cind spunem unui frate dreptcredincios “Hristos a Inviat” si primim minunatul raspuns “Adevarat a Inviat!”, alcatuim o biserica, dupa Cuvantul Domnului:

Că unde sunt doi sau trei, adunaţi în numele Meu, acolo sunt şi Eu în mijlocul lor.   (Matei 18,20)

Iata de ce, cintarind acestea, parintele Arsenie si cei de un duh cu el nu primeau cu usurinta aceasta impreuna marturisire a Mintuitorului, a credintei intregi. Spre uimirea si cirtirea multora, parintii zeloti nu spun cu usuratate, oricui este dispus sa il rosteasca fara temei duhovnicesc, ceea ce trece drept “traditionalul salut pascal“… Multi heterodocsi sau schismatici sau eretici sau chiar atei pot spune in zilele noastre cu gura “Hristos a Inviat!” (sau derivate din categoria “Paste fericit!” sau “Sarbatori fericite”), fara ca aceasta sa insemne nimic in plan duhovnicesc si soteriologic, ci dimpotriva. Aceste saluturi goale de inteles al mintuirii sint o schimonosire cumplita a marturisirii crestine de credinta. Sint o luare in desert a Numelui lui Hristos. Sint un fel de “Hai-sa-traiesti-in-sezonul-pascal” sau, mai rau, o pseudo marturisire de credinta.

Caci ce inseamna pentru un ecumenist “Hristos a Inviat!”? Dar pentru un ateu care o spune din respect condescendent pentru “obiceiuri”? Dar pentru un “ortodox” rupt de Sfanta Traditie? Dar pentru un papistas sau mai stiu eu ce soi de protestant? De buna seama, NU inseamna o marturisire de credinta in chipul descris mai sus. Si atunci, de ce sa impreuna marturisim un asemenea Crez? Din reflexul ecumenist de a celebra un numitor comun care inseamna din ce in ce mai putin? Sa nu fie aceasta!

Asadar, sa cintarim in minte si in suflet minunata marturisire de credinta pe care sintem chemati sa o facem.

Iar daca, si aici se incheie cuvantul zelotilor arsenioti si vine parerea neputinciosului si pacatosului de mine, nu gasim inca taria sa ne asumam singuratatea care decurge din marturisirea nesmintita ortodoxa, si folosim cuvantul “Hristos a Inviat!” doar ca pe o marturie lumeasca, sociala, sa o facem in chip cuviincios si purtind in suflet, in clipa rostirii, o rugaciune cu dragoste pentru cel pe care il salutam desi nu e dreptcredincios, ca Bunul Dumnezeu sa il aduca la intelegerea Adevarului si la Credinta dreptslavitoare. Dar, ca sa inchei in duhul zelotilor arsenioti, nu aceasta este calea, ci numai Ortodoxia, marturisita deplin, mantuitor.