Videos of St. Catherine's Monastery

[joasia]

Christmas trees are a German tradition. Where can you find a Christmas tree in Nazareth?

And perhaps you are further ignorant, but the Holy Fire appears on Big Saturday, for Orthodox Pascha, which is in Jersualem.

You condemn Jersalem, then you reject the Holy Fire that God sends. If God sends It then He doesn't condemn Jerusalem for the sake that it is the site of the Holy Sephlecur.

The day that God doesn't send the Holy Fire, will be the day that God has rejected Jerusalem.

But, of course, you know better than God and have condemned Jerusalem already.

prelest.

[Cyprian]

Jerusalem can be understood in a number of different senses.

St. Cassian speaks of the historical Jerusalem as the city of the Jews; the allegorical Jerusalem as the Church of Christ; anagogically as the heavenly city of God (the mother of us all); and tropologically as the soul of man.

In the Sacred Scripture the Holy Spirit mystically speaks of Jerusalem as Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. ( c.f. Rev 17/18 )

This may be a hard saying for some, but it is infact the revelation of Sacred Scripture and the Holy Prophets.

[joasia]

Cyprian,

Your references are referring to the end of days. I am referring to the present. I also mentioned that when God will not send the Holy Fire for Pascha that He will have rejected Jerusalem. In other words, that means the end of times, for when else would it happen that the Holy Fire would be denied on Pashca except when the anti-Christ will have his seat there.

In the Sacred Scripture the Holy Spirit mystically speaks of Jerusalem as Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. ( c.f. Rev 17/18 )

This is what I am referring to when I speak of the end of time. I think we are both saying the same thing, but in a different way. The city will become a place of abomination - hence, the Holy Fire will not appear there anymore.

[Pravoslavnik]

Euthymios,

Code: Select all

  I well recall the visit of Pope John Paul II to the St. Catherine of Sinai Monastery several years ago.  The Pope was hurt and offended that the Orthodox brethren of the monastery would not allow him to con-celebrate the liturgy with them.  In fact, it was this very rebuff, as you may recall, which prompted John Paul II to issue his famous, public [i]apology[/i] for the historical errors and offenses of the Papacy.  Unfortunately, the [i]apology[/i] was very vaguely worded, and was misinterpreted by the American media as a reference to Papal offenses against Israel.

  Was it a sin, in your opinion, for the Orthodox brethren of St. Catherine's Monastery to greet the Pope cordially?  Are you implying that the brethren disobeyed that important Christian commandment to "hate our enemies, and to deal spitefully with those who have mistreated us"?

[GOCPriestMark]

Euthymios,

He's not here anymore.

[buzuxi]

Actually the monastics of St. Katherine's recieved the pope and his entourage soley as pilgrims. In fact the Sunday February 27, 2000 issue of the New York Times reported on the papal visit with a photo of the embrace between the roman pope and Archbishop Damanios but right under the caption read "Archbishop Damanios abbot of the Greek Orthodox Monastery at Mt Sinai, embraced the pope as he arrived, but he did not pray with him. ' It is impossible, it is against our canon law ', the archbishop explained'.

The article went on to say how the roman pope hoped to convene christian, jewish and muslim leaders at the site to symbolize reconcilliation in the new millenium but the plan was scrapped because the Sinai Monks completely denounced the idea. Archbishop Damianos went on to say that such a dialogue should never even take place in a muslim country because of the "mentality of the people". The Times reporter also explained that Orthodoxy does not view these other groups on par with Orthodoxy.

The Times article went on to say that Archbishop Damanios in his address only referred to the roman pope as the "President of the Roman catholic church" never calling him bishop or pope.
This article can be looked up in most libraries i have given the date of it and its found under the International section of the NY Times.

And on a side note the babylon refered to in Rev 17-18 is not Jerusalem but the new babylon which at the time was Rome.

[Cyprian]

And on a side note the babylon refered to in Rev 17-18 is not Jerusalem but the new babylon which at the time was Rome.

I should like to see evidence of this presented from the testimonies of Sacred Scripture and of the Holy Fathers.

Furthermore, you say "new babylon which at the time was Rome."

Are you saying that the Mystery Babylon of the Apocalypse changes throughout the age? If Rome was "new Babylon" at the time, which was "old Babylon" and which city is Babylon presently? Is the present Babylon the final Babylon, or is there yet another Babylon to come?

Thank you for any clarification.

Cyprian