| Icon from here |
See also
| Icon from here |

PANAGIA SOUMELA - Vermio, in Veria, Macedonia, Greece. Photo from here
My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
For he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
FEAST OF THE HOLY TRANSFIGURATION
On the sixth of August we celebrate the solemn feast of the Holy Transfiguration in commemoration of the glorious change in appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ on a “high mountain” (Mt. 17:1), which, since the fourth century, Christian tradition identifies with Mt. Tabor. The Fathers refer to Christ’s transfiguration as to His “second epiphany” or the second manifestation of His divinity. For this reason the Fathers during the Christological disputes adduced the transfiguration of Christ as a certain proof of His divinity. The establishment of the feast then followed.
1. The glorious transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ is described in detail by the three Evangelists (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:1-7; Lk. 9:28-36). St. Peter also vividly recalled the event in his Epistle, saying: “We have seen His majesty for ourselves. He was honored and glorified by God the Father, when He spoke to Him and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.’ We heard this ourselves ‘spoken from heaven, when we were with Him on the Holy Mountain.” (II Pet. 1 :16-18)
The Holy Mountain in biblical sense is the mountain of the manifestation of God’s glory. We are told that in the Old Testament God ” called Moses to the top of the mountain” (Ex. 19 :20), and there manifested Himself to him. It was the holy mountain of Sinai. Then again, before appearing to the Prophet Elijah, God summoned him to “Horeb, the mountain of God.” (I Kgs. 19:8) And in the New Testament Jesus took three of His disciples to a “high mountain” (Mt. 17:1), and there He was transfigured before them, manifesting to them His divine glory. As we can see in the Bible a mountain is a favored place of God’s manifestation to people, for which reason the mountain becomes the holy mountain. At the same time, a mountain (a high place) properly symbolizes the exalted dwelling place of God ” on high.” (Is. 33 :5)
Neither St. Peter nor the Evangelists have given us the name of the mountain on the top of which the transfiguration has taken place. But the Christian tradition since the fourth century designates the place as Mt. Tabor, an imposing elevation near Nazareth, surging almost 2,000 feet high into the blue sky of the lush Plain of Esdraelon. There, on the top of Mt. Tabor, St. Helen (d. about 330) built the church of the Holy Transfiguration, which shortly afterwards became a favored place of Christian pilgrimage.
The authentic witness of tradition, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), did not hesitate to indicate Mt. Tabor as the place of Christ’s glorious transfiguration . (cf. P.G., 33, 743) The famous inhabitant of Bethlehem, St. Jerome (d. 420), agreed with him in his description of the Palestinian itinerary of his friend, St. Paula. (cf. P.L., 22, 889).
After them, st. Proclus of Constantinople (d. 447) also testified : ” Mt. Tabor is the mountain on the top of which Christ willed to be transfigured.” (cf. P.G., 65, 770)
The modern church of the Holy Transfiguration built on the top of Mt. Tabor over the ancient ruins in 1924, was designed by a famous Italian architect, Professor A. Barluzzi.
2. The importance of the feast of the Holy Transfiguration is indicated by its high rank in the Byzantine liturgical calendar. The feast belongs among the twelve Major Feasts and, usually, is represented by one of the festive icons of the iconostasis. In the East the feast has been celebrated since the fourth century. Its liturgical solemnity was enhanced by the Christological disputes, since the transfiguration was considered as an irrefutable argument for the divinity of Jesus Christ by the Fathers of the Church. At the same time the commemoration of the glorious event was to sustain the hope of the faithful in their participation in Christ’s glory in heaven. The oldest homily for the feast is ascribed to st. Proclus of Constantinople, who died in 447 A.D. This would indicate that in Constantinople the feast was already celebrated in the first half of the fifth century, passing there from the Church of Jerusalem. Then the feast gradually was extended to other regions of the Byzantine Church.
The most famous homilies for the feast of the Holy Transfiguration are those delivered by St. Andrew of Crete (cf. P.G., 97, 931-958) and St. John of Damascus (cf. P.G., 96, 545-576). The oldest work of art representing the glorious transfiguration of Christ is a mosaic in the church of the noted Greek monastery on Mt. Sinai from the sixth century.
The liturgical formation of the festal services took its final shape during the eighth century, when the beautiful hymns and canons were composed by the celebrated hymnographers, St. John of Damascus (d. 749) and St. Cosmas of Maiuma (d. 760) . In the Byzantine Rite the feast of the Holy Transfiguration was traditionally celebrated on August 6, since on that day the first church on Mt. Tabor was solemnly dedicated. During the eighth century the celebration of the feast penetrated into the West, where it was observed by the local Churches at various dates. It was only in 1457, that Pope Callistus III extended the solemn celebration of the feast to the entire Latin Rite Church and introduced the traditional date of August 6. Thus the feast of the Holy Transfiguration became a universal holyday and was solemnly celebrated by both Eastern and Western Churches on August 6.
3. Since the Gospels describe Christ’s transfiguration in detail, it was not hard for hymnographers to compose liturgical hymns and sticheras. It requi red only some appl ication of the scriptural text to Christian life in poetic form. Making such ” spiritual application” of the text, at the same time the hymnographers explained the deep spiritual and liturgical meaning of the feast in order to help the faithful in their spiritual growth. Thus the liturgical compositions of the Byzantine Rite have also an educational value.
Some sticheras for the feast describe the entire event of Christ’s glorious transfiguration as it was recorded by the Evangelists. Thus, for example, at Matins we sing: “Christ, taking with Him aside Peter, James and John to a high mountain, was transfigured in their presence-His face shining like a sun, and His clothes becoming as white as the light. Then Moses and Elijah appeared and talked to Him. Suddenly a bright cloud covered them with shadow and from the cloud there came a voice, saying : 'This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!' ”
This stichera, besides repeating almost wordfor- word the Matthean description of the event, also presents to us the theological meaning of the transfiguration, namely: the manifestation of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Christ’s glorified body, the testimony of Moses and Elijah, and the Father’s voice from heaven are incontestable witnesses to the truth of the previous confession of St. Peter about Jesus, saying: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God!” (Mt. 16:16)
The second theme recurring in the festive sticheras is the encouragement of the Apostles to trust Jesus as they were about to face the humiliating passion of their Master. This point is emphasized by St. Luke, who reports that Moses and Elijah “were speaking of His passing (death), which He was to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (Lk. 9:31 ) So at Vespers we sing : “As You were transfigured before Your crucifiixion, 0 Lord, . .. Peter, James and John were present, the very same Apostles who were to be with You at the time of Your betrayal ; so that having seen You in glory, they would not be dismayed at the time of Your sufferings.” This stichera is also a reminder to the fai thful-to recognize in the sufferings and death of Christ the infinite mercy of God.
The third meaning of the festivity is the assurance of our own participation in Christ’s glory. Thus at Vespers we are professing : “Through Your transfiguration, O Lord, You renewed Adam’s fallen nature to its original beauty, restoring it to the glory and splendor of Your divinity.” And again at Matins: “As You were transfigured on Mt. Tabor, O Savior, You manifested the transformation of mankind by Your glory, which will take place at Your awesome second coming.” Thus, the enti re liturgy of the Holy Transfiguration is filled with a joyful assurance, encouragement and hope of our own glorification with Jesus as we “grow brighter and brighter into His image.” (II Cor. 3:18).
4. The feast of the Holy Transfiguration is celebrated late in summer, at the time of the first fruits, which remind us of God’s great goodness and His infinite bounty. To express our recognition and gratitude to God for His generosity we bring some of these first fruits to the church for blessing. The custom to bless the first fruits passed to us from the Old Testament, since the Jews at the very beginning of their exodus were ordered by Almighty God : “You must bring the best of the first-fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord, your God.” (Ex. 23:19) St. Gregory of Nazianz (d. 389) calls the practice to bless the fruits in church a “just and holy” custom. (cf. P.G., 37, 119)
The Christian practice to bless the fruits in church can be traced back to Apostolic times. The oldest prayer for the blessing of fruits is registered by the Apostolic Constitutions in the fourth century. But there is also an older Prayer of Thanksgiving for the new fruits in the work of St. Hyppolytus, the Apostolic Tradition, composed about 220 A.D. St. Hippolytus mentions the following fruits usually blessed: grapes, figs, pomegranates, pears, mulberries, peaches, and almonds.
The sixth Ecumenical Council, celebrated in Constantinople (680-681), prescribed that the new “wheat and grapes” were to be blessed in church on the feast of the Holy Transfiguration (canon 28). For this reason some older books of blessings, called Euchologia, forbid the faithful to eat new fruits of the season before they have been blessed in church.
In the land of our ancestors, in Subcarpathia, the fruits of the season were apples, plums, and pears. These usually were brought to the church and blessed. In the United States grapes are also added. [Note of our blog: grapes are blessed on this day in Greece and other orthodox countries. You can see photos here]
TROPARION (Tone 7)
At the time of Your transfiguration on the mountain, O Christ our God, You showed Your disciples as much of Your glory as they could stand ; let Your everlasting light shine also upon us sinners through the prayers of the Mother of God, 0 Giver of light, glory be to You.
THE BLESSING OF THE FRUITSO Lord our God Jesus Christ, You said to Your disciples : ” Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you shall receive, and it will come to you ,” we humbly beseech You, bless (tl and sanctify (tl the fruits which your faithful servants have brought today to Your church. May these fruits when eaten preserve the life and health of all those present here, as well as of those absent. May these blessed fruits be an effective medicine for those who are sick and ailing, and may they be a protection against the assaults of enemy for those who keep them in their homes; and may those who partake of them enjoy the fulness of Your goodness and blessing. For You are the God of peace, love and mercy, O Lover of mankind, and we render glory to You, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever. Amen.
Blessing of the Fruits at the Chirundu Orthodox Church in Zambia, feast of Transfiguration of the Lord, August 2020 (photo from here & here)
Can one be Roman Catholic and Orthodox? I would like to share with you a brief letter that was published some time ago in an Italian Orthodox parish newsletter. Its author, Archpriest Gregorio Cognetti, is the Dean of the Italian parishes under the Moscow Patriarchate. This letter was generally liked by the Italian Orthodox converts, and also received a high degree of appreciation among some cradle-born Orthodox (it was, for instance, translated into Romanian); I hope it may be prove an interesting reading and a source of inspiration for all of you.
Chapel Hill (U.S.), March 1982
Dear Bill,
Even though you never asked it directly, I feel from your words that you do not yet understand why I left the Roman Church to become Orthodox.
You were even a member of one of the least latinized Byzantine parishes, you seem to say,why, then?…
I guess I owe you an explanation, since,
a long time ago, when we were both members of the Latin church, we
shared the same feelings. These same
feelings brought both of us to a Byzantine rite parish, and then myself
to Orthodoxy. You could not have forgotten the criticisms that we moved
to the Romans: the continual insertion of new traditions
in place
of the old ones, Scholasticism, the legalistic approach to spiritual
life, the dogma of papal infallibility. At the same time we both
reckoned the legitimacy and correctness of the Orthodox Church. A Uniate
parish seemed the optimal solution. I remember what I was saying in
that period:
I think like an Orthodox, I believe like an Orthodox, therefore I am Orthodox.
Entering officially into the Orthodox Church seemed to me just a useless formality. I even thought that remaining in communion with the Roman Church might be a positive fact, in view of the goal of a possible reunification of the Churches.
Well, Bill, I was wrong.
I believed I knew the Orthodox Faith, but it was just a smattering, and quite shallow for that. Otherwise I would not have failed to know the intrinsic contradiction between feeling Orthodox and not being reckoned as such by the very same Church whose faith I stated I was sharing. Only a non-Orthodox may conceive an absurdity like being Orthodox outside of Orthodoxy. Individual salvation does not only concern the single person, as many Westerners believe, but it must be seen in the wider frame of the whole Church Communion.
Each Orthodox Christian is like a leaf: how could he receive the life-giving sap if he is not connected to the vine? (John 15:5)
Orthodoxy is a way of life, not a rite. The beauty of the rite derives from the inner reality of the Orthodox Faith, and not from a search for forms. The Divine Liturgy is not a more picturesque way of saying Mass: it comes forth from, and strengthens, a theological reality that becomes void and inconsistent if excised from Orthodoxy.
When the spirit of the Orthodox Faith is present, even the most miserable service, done in a shack, with two paper icons placed on a couple of chairs to serve as the iconostasis, and a bunch of faithful out of tune as the choir, is incomparably higher than the services in my former Uniate parish, in the midst of magnificent 12th century Byzantine mosaics, and a well-instructed choir (when there was one).The almost paranoid observance of the ritual forms is the useless attempt to make up for the lack of a true Orthodox ethos. I was deluding myself when I believed I was able to be an Orthodox in the Roman communion.
It was a delusion because it is impossible.
The continual interference of Rome in the ecclesiatical life reminds you in due course who is in command. To pretend to ignore this is self-delusion. I tried to avoid the problem, feigning to be deaf and dumb, and repeating to myself that I belonged to the ideal “undivided Church”. My position was quite sinful. First of all, because the undivided Church still exists: it is the Church that never broke with Her past, and that is always identical to Herself: in other words, the Orthodox Church.
Then, because that feeling of being a member of the Undivided Church
,
which I considered so Christian and irenical, was instead a grave sin
of pride. I was practically putting myself above Patriarchs and Popes. I
believed I was one of the few who really understood the Truth
, beyond old and sterile polemics
.
I
felt I had the right to ask the Eucharist both from the Romans and the
Orthodox, and I felt unfairly treated when the latter denied it to me. I
have a great debt of gratitude towards a priest who, in that time,
refused to give me Communion. Instead of softly speaking of canonical impediments
, as if the matter were a merely bureaucratic problem, he said me bare-facedly:
If it is true that you consider yourself an Orthodox, why is it that you keep belonging to heresy?
I was deeply shocked by those words, and for a long time I did not return to that Church. But he was right. I had understood
what Saints, Fathers, Bishops and Priests had not understood for centuries.
According to me, the schism between East and West was a tragic misunderstanding
based merely on political problems and the ponderings of the
theologians. And in doing so I indirectly accused many holy people of
calculation, superficiality and bigotry. And I was mistaking all of this
for Christian charity…
No, Bill, it is impossible to be both Roman Catholic and Orthodox at the same time.
The rite is not all that important. After all, the Latins were Western Rite Orthodox for many centuries. I agree with you that, after the separation, the Romans and the Orthodox have still much in common, but this is not enough to consider both of them part of the same Church. Beyond the well-known doctrinal differences, there is the approach to the Supernatural, the same life of the Church that makes impossible to live the two religious realities at the same time.
We state in the Creed:
“and (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.
Until a unity of faith comes, they will be two churches.
The theory (also affirmed by John Paul II) that the Romans and the Orthodox are still the same one Church (despite the schism, and in a mysterious way) sounds well, but it doesn’t hold. It is based only on beautiful words. The differences of faith, on the other hand, do exist, and they are not a mere word-play.
Yes, I know that theological dialogue
has been started, and it is even possible (everything is possible to
the Lord) that eventually the unity will be reached. But beware! Many
good Romans believe that the differences might be resolved by means of a
clever statement that, owing to its genericness may sound acceptable by
both parties. Having reached an agreement on this statement, both would
interpret it according to their understanding, in fact keeping their
opinions. Worse still, some propose a unity in diversity, without a
formal commitment of faith from any part, but under the universal
co-ordination of the Pope of Rome.
Well, all of this is impossible. The Fathers taught us that the the agreement on common faith must be univocal and unequivocal.
Orthodoxy follows the spirit of the Law, rather than the letter. And since it is impossible for the Orthodox Church to introduce new doctrines, it falls on the Romans to abandon a millennium of innovations, and unreservedly return to the faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This is the only possible platform for an agreement.
History has shown the fallacy of
otherwise based unions. And now let me ask you a trivial question: Bill,
is the Pope infallible (on his own and not by virtue of Church consensus
,
as specified in the 1870 dogma) or not? He may not be fallible and
infallible at the same time, as it would happen if the two churches were
still part of the same Church. One of the two must be wrong.
But Vatican II allowed a great freedom of opinions…
you may answer. Yet this is a sophism. The true Church may not fall in error. If you believe that your Church has erred, or that She is actually erring, you deny that She is the true Church.
I embrace you with unchanged friendship and love in Christ.
Gregorio.
(PS. For the record, Father Gregorio Cognetti told me that the recipient of this letter, soon afterwards, converted himself to Orthodoxy — he is now a tonsured reader of the O.C.A. in Florida — and that this letter was a major factor in his conversion)
You can see also
Basic Points of Difference between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church
by Protopresbyter fr. George D. Metallinos (+ 19-12-2019) Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of Theology
Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries
In Memoriam...
Our beloved Father George, internationally acknowledged for his steadfast Orthodox perception and stance, departed far too soon to be in Heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ and the company of our Holy Mother and all the Saints - especially with the one that he so fervently referred to in his essays, homilies and books: the Apostle Paul.
The present book was compiled by him several years ago, aspiring to an eventual translation for an English publication; perhaps Father George Metallinos wanted his last words before departing from this world to be deposited in the form of a “farewell bouquet” of sermons, intentionally titled “Apostolic Messages” in honour of his most beloved and frequently quoted Saint: the Apostle of Nations, Paul.