Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut of America: a true defender of Orthodoxy before the Jesuits

Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut of America: a true defender of Orthodoxy before the Jesuits’ inchizition of the 19^th century

  Saint Peter the Aleut is mentioned in the Life of St Herman of Alaska (December 13). Simeon Yanovsky (who ended his life as the schemamonk Sergius in the St Tikhon of Kaluga Monastery), has left the following account:

 On another occasion I was relating to him how the Spanish in California had imprisoned fourteen Aleuts, and how the Jesuits (actually Franciscans) were forcing all of them to accept the Catholic Faith. But the Aleuts would not agree under any circumstances, saying, ‘We are Christians.’ The Jesuits argued, ‘That’s not true, you are heretics and schismatics. If you do not agree to accept our faith then we will torture all of you to death.’ Then the Aleuts were placed in prisons two to a cell. That evening, the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. Again they tried to persuade two Aleuts in the cell to accept the Catholic Faith. ‘We are Christians,’ the Aleuts replied, ‘and we will not change our Faith.’ Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his companion was a witness. They cut off one of the joints of his feet, and then the other joint. Then they cut the first joint on the fingers of his hands, and then the other joint. Then they cut off his feet, and his hands. The blood flowed, but the martyr endured all and firmly repeated one thing: “I am a Christian.’ He died in such suffering, due to a loss of blood. The Jesuit also promised to torture his comrade to death the next day.

  But that night an order was received from Monterey stating that the imprisoned Aleuts were to be released immediately, and sent there under escort. Therefore, in the morning all were sent to Monterey with the exception of the dead Aleut. This was related to me by a witness, the same Aleut who had escaped torture, and who was the friend of the martyred Aleut. I reported this incident to the authorities in St Petersburg. When I finished my story, Father Herman asked, ‘What was the name of the martyred Aleut?’ I answered, ‘Peter. I do not remember his family name.’ The Elder stood reverently before an icon, made the Sign of the Cross and said, “Holy New Martyr Peter, pray to God for us!”

  We know very little about St Peter, except that he was from Kodiak, and was arrested and put to death by the Spaniards in California because he refused to convert to Catholicism. The circumstances of his martyrdom recall the torture of St James the Persian (November 27). It is believed that Peter was only 14 years of age at the time of his martyrdom.

  Both in his sufferings and in his steadfast confession of the Faith, St Peter is the equal of the martyrs of old, and also of the New Martyrs who have shone forth in more recent times. Now he rejoices with them in the heavenly Kingdom, glorifying God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages.

Source 

Troparion (First Tone)

O Peter, upon the rock of thy faith hath Christ built His Church,

and in the streams of thy blood hath He hallowed our land.

In thee thy people hath been sanctified, O Aleut;

from the farthest islands of the west hath He raised thee, a light unto all.

Glory to Him that hath glorified thee.

Glory to Him that hath crowned thee.

Glory to Him that worketh healings for all through thee.

Promising progress between Catholics and Orthodox at Vienna?

Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians reported promising progress on Friday in talks on overcoming their  Great Schism of 1054 and bringing the two largest denominations in Christianity back to full communion. More…

 

And the true voice of the faithful….

“It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God”

“The Symbol of the Faith must be preserved inviolate, as at its origin. Since all the holy doctors of the Church, all the Councils and all the Scriptures put us on our guard against heterodoxy, how dare I, in spite of these authorities, follow those who urge us to unity in a deceitful semblance of union—those who have corrupted the holy and divine Symbol of Faith and brought in the Son as second cause of the Holy Spirit” (s.v. Jan 19th in The Synaxarion, ed. Hieromonk Makarios of Simonas Petra, and trans. Christopher Hookway; Ormylia: Holy Convent of The Annunciation of Our Lady, 2001).

“The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do.“

St. Mark of Ephesus

 

Other Links:

The differences of Orthodoxy from Papism and the Falsehoods of Papism

A Study on the PAPAL PRIMACY – A Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy

The Teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church Concerning Heterodox Christians and Confessions

Its image is gentle but its intent, perfidious: Fr. George Calciu – A Word on Ecumenism

St Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist

 

“We do not Threaten, but We Pain and Are in a State of Unrest”: on the Orthodox-Papist “dialog” from Vienna (Sept 20-27)

“We do not Threaten, but We Pain and Are in a State of Unrest”

–  Bishop Augustine (Kantiotes) of Florina 

  The International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (Papists) meets in Vienna from Monday, September 20 to September 27, 2010. The Joint Commission representatives will be hosted by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. The Committee’ plenum will continue the discussion on “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium”, that began October 2009 in Cyprus during the Commission’s dialog.

  Co – President for the Orthodox will be Metropolitan of Pergamon: Ioannis (Zizioulas), while the Church of Greece will be represented by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Messinia.

 Please note the following, essential aspects: 

  1. At the previous meeting in Cyprus, the Church of Bulgaria – upon Synodical decision – has refused to join. It is unknown what will happen at this year’s meeting…….

  2. The Commission’ meeting is usually preceded by separate meetings of the Orthodox and the Papists delegations. It is known that among the Orthodox members there is no absolute agreement on the position of “papal primacy”. And ultimately, which line will the Orthodox representatives hold in this dialog?

  3. During the previous session, the Commission’s work was preceded by separate Liturgy of the Orthodox where the papist were present and, the Catholic Mass attended by the Orthodox representatives. Will this practice of common prayers continue and this time of the Dialogue? Than the beginning of the Commission’ work is already done in violation of the holy canons that prohibit common prayers.

  4. At this time, it is almost certain that the Commission’s work will reach a common text. In case this won’t  happen, then such dialogue, as the one from Cyprus, is just another deadlock.

  What is the agreenment on the papal primacy that the Orthodox will sign with the Papists? Does anyone expect the true repentance of Vatican and repudiation of the falsehoods of the papal primacy? Or perhaps they will end with the popular theological “compromise” on the “primacy & ministry” of the Pope?

  In any case, the “dialogue” with its terms, conditions and participants, could not lead to the Papists repentance. Its only goal, like the previous ones, is to promote pan-Christian ecumenism/unity, with reciprocal concessions and compromises.     

  But such “union” will never be accepted by the clergy and faithful people who vigilantly watch over the movement of the Papists and the Ecumenists.

   (Translated by blog’ author);    Source

 

 

The Church in the Face of Heresies and Schisms

(Fragments from a letter on ecumenism addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1985 by Bishop Augustine Kantiotes of Florina – a voice that transcends through eternity)

 

[…] With all due respect, then, which we have for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, let it be permitted us to say, that the contemporary state in general in the orthodox sphere, and particularly in the region of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, judged by orthodox criteria, as are the sacred canons, is not at all pleasant, but engenders great dangers. And behold why.

  According to our faith, which for centuries we declare in the Creed of the Faith, the Church is ONE (“I believe…in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, 9th article of the Symbol of faith). And this very same ONE Church is our holy Orthodoxy, which preserves as a priceless treasure the sacred deposit, which the Lord gave to her through his holy apostles and through the ecumenical and regional synods. Concerning this deposit, the apostle Paul writing to his disciple and bishop of Ephesus Timothy, says:

  “O Timothy, [keep vigilant] guard over the deposit, derailing the sacriligious vain-voices and contrieties of pseudo-knowledge, by which certain ones in declaring them concerning the faith, have missed the mark.”

  Now in the response of the great Church of Constantinople to the encyclical of the pope of Rome Leontios 13th, during the year 1885, we read the following characteristic remarks.

 “Christ-loving peoples of the glorious lands of the West! … The redeeming faith in Christ for all time ought to be correct in every respect and according to the holy Scripture and the apostolic traditions, upon which is based the teaching of the divine Fathers and the seven holy and god-selected Ecumenical Synods. It is obvious to the aforementioned that the entire Church of God, which contained within her bosoms the singular and unadulterated and wholesome salvific faith as a divine deposit, … this same Church is one and singular unto eternity, and not some multiple and variegated with time product; insomuch that evangelical truths do not accept variation or progress in time, as do the various philosophical systems, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever more” (Hebrews 13:8)” (See “The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church” by John N. Karmiris, vol. 2 Athens 1953, p. 944).

  And as an ever-memorable High-priest, a fervent lover of Orthodoxy, used to say,

 “this same deposit contains everything and whatever our Orthodoxy has that is sacred: dogmatic exactitude, god-taught ecclesiastical commonwealth, sacred and holy traditions, a long and glorious history.”

  The Church is ONE, the Orthodox Church. Besides her all the other religious forms are heresies or schisms. And they are improperly called churches. Now what should the relation of the Orthodox Church be towards the other confessions-heresies – this constituted the initial issue of discussion in regional and ecumenical synods. These same [synods,] in interpreting the teaching of the New Testament, and particularly a certain few of its characteristic passages, (as, for example, Math. 7:15; 16:6; Titus 3:10; 2 John verse 10,), articulated in the form of sacred canons and ordained, on penalty of defrockment (unrobing) or excommunication, the mind-set and stance of orthodox before heretics. Behold the text of the above passages:

•a) “Beware of the pseudo-prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravenous wolves” (Math. 7:15).

•b) “And Jesus said to them: Look (out for yourselves) and be careful, (keep guard) from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Math. 16:6).

•c) “Quit (communicating with) a heretical man after the first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10).

•d) “If somebody comes to you and bears not this teaching, do not accept him into your home, and do not greet him” (2 John verse 10).

  Shall we, here, also call to remembrance the sacred canons? They are known to every bishop. We call to remembrance, however, certain ones of them, the following. 45th, 65th of the holy Apostles, of the 1st and 3rd Ecumenical Synod, and the 6th, 9th, 33rd, and 37th of the Synod of Laodikeia (See “Pedalion” published by “Asteros”, Athens 1957, pp. 50-51, 84-85, 170-171, 422, 433, 435). By the sacred canons, then, as many annotated and interpreted  them, distinguished canon law specialists and interpreters, among which, also, is saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite, it is prohibited literally for heretics to enter into the sacred churches of the orthodox (“what is sacred is not to be treaded upon by heretics”); prohibited are: common concelebrations, joint prayer, addresses and counter addresses in the sacred churches: prohibited is the exchange of gifts between orthodox and heretics; prohibited is the entrance of orthodox into synagogues (congregations) of Jews or heretics, as also into conventions of apostasy [*].

  [*] Of these sacred canons called to remembrance we cite herein the text of one only (the 6th Canon of the Laodiceia Synod), as well as the interpretation, which was composed by saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite, as also the related, relevant commentary from the sacred-canonical book “Constitution of Divine and Sacred Canons” of the authors G. Ralli-M.Potli (vol. III. Athens 1853, p. 176).

  CANON 6 (Text): “Concerning the non allowance of heretics to enter into the house of God, who persist in heresy.” Interpretation (Nicodemos the Hagiorite); The ordinance of the present Canon is for heretics not to have license, permission to go inside the sacred temple of God, which is held by Orthodox, that is, if they persist in the heresy and do not want to return” (See “Pedalion”, publication of “Asteros”, Athens 1957, p. 422). Commentary (from the above mentioned book of Ralli-Potli); “Those who have fallen into heresies, and remaining in them, are ostracized from the Church, as being aliens” (Zonaras). “Heretics are not to step on what is sacred. It is not allowed for heretics to enter into the house of God…” (Aristenos).

Are the Sacred Canons [Kept and Actively] Observed?

  And we ask: These sacred canons, which were put together in holy Spirit by god-bearing fathers, whose shoe laces we modern fathers are unworthy of untying, are in force or not in force in the Orthodox Church? Yes or no? If not, then honorably and with straight talk it must be said and it must be indicated, which organ superior to ecumenical and regional synods took such a more modern decision. For it will constitute an example of the ultimate hypocrisy, for the bishops, on the one hand, during the dreadful hour of their ordination to promise that they shall [vigilantly keep or actively] observe them without deviating, but in practice though, to trample them underfoot flagrantly and to provoke in this way the astonishment of the remaining faithful, who in this century of faithlessness preserve the kindlings of Orthodoxy, as the canon (rule) of faith and life. If however, the sacred canons continue to be in force, then these canons should be enforced in practice and every person that dares to stray away from their line should undergo the demanded annulments. To this question there must, at all events, be given an answer. For, it is not concerning an issue which, according to the teaching of the canons, there is room for economy and condescension. This is about the issue related to the faith, concerning the protection of that which is of the orthodox faith from apostates and heretics, who, so long as they do not repent, but persist in their errors, must be found at the canonical, [proper] distance. Now the keeping of such a distance must not be characterized as “misallodoxia” (hatred for people of other views) and harshness, but as an expression of a robust orthodox “phronema” (mentality; mind-set; mental orientation) and genuine Christian love, which through strictness looks to the enlightenment and coming to an awareness of the those in error and their return to the sacred fold. For this kind of strictness, which encloses depth of love, sacred Augustine clamours: “O merciful strictness!”.

  Unfortunately, it must be confessed that the hurried and untortured (lax and unexamined) lifting of the anathemas between Rome and Constantinople that took place at the time of your predecessor patriarch Athenagoras, against which very visible hierarchs of the ecumenical Patriarchate protested, without however being heard, opened, as was consequent, the doors also to papism, and to the other heresies and schismatic bodies. The capstones (ceilings; roofs) of the Orthodox Church were abolished. The sacred canons, which ordain, define and regulate the relations of orthodox towards heretics, were trampled upon and are being trampled upon without reserve [shamelessly], and the scandalization coming from this is big. And so that we are not considered to be speaking undefinably [abstractly] and generally, from the many such violations we mention here certain ones, that is, the most known ones.

Samples of Violations

  •1) The yearly concelebrations by orthodox and papists of the enthronement feast-day of the apostle Andrew (November 30) in the patriarchal church of the Phanar. Also the concelebration of the corresponding enthronement feast-day of the apostle Peter (29 June) in Rome by the papists and orthodox, and during these concelebrations the relative addresses and counter-addresses, and the exchange of gifts.

  •2) The addresses that are delivered, counter-addresses, and joint prayers in orthodox churches during the visits of the pope in Sydney, Australia (in December of 1970), in Constantinople (the year 1979), in the patriarchal temple of Sambesy in Geneva, Switzerland (in June of the year 1984), and in Canada (in September of the year 1984).

  •3) The joint prayers and observances of common liturgies by orthodox and papists during the conventions of members of the so-called Theological Dialogue in Patmos-Rhodes (the year 1980), in Monacho of Germany (in July of 1982) and in Chania-Crete (end of May – beginning of June of the year 1984).

  •4) The observed joint prayers at the conventions of the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), as also at its last general convention performed in VancouverCanada in the fall of the year 1983.

  •5) The exchanging of gifts from time to time between papists and orthodox high-priests in Rome and elsewhere, on the occasion of various occurances (visits to the Vatican, the returning of sacred relics on its [Vatican’s] part to sacred metropolises of the Church of Greece, and so on).

  •6) The public and spectacular reception of cardinal Vilemrants by the orthodox church of Crete, who followed the orthodox divine liturgy in the sacred church of Saint Mena in Heraclion, dressed in priestly adornment and finally blessed the orthodox people from the beautiful gate of the above [mentioned] sacred temple.

  •7) The ecumenical co-prayer or joint prayer of orthodox and papists in the orthodox church of Brussels of Belgium, in which, on the part of the orthodox participated the previous metropolitan of Belgium mr. Aemilianos.

  •8) The performance of a trisagion by orthodox high-priests of the ecumenical throne before the corpse of pope Paul the 6th who had passed away in the year 1978.

  •9) The event during the enthronement of the metropolitan of Sweden (of the ecumenical throne) mr. Damascene, of a joint prayer session of orthodox, papists, and protestants in the sacred temple of Saint Paul of Geneva.

  •10) The referral made during the year 1983 for the transmission of the divine eucharist to the papists by orthodox clerics of the sacred archdiocese of Thyateron and Great Britain, as also the participation more previously (in the year 1979) or orthodox clerics of greater London in an ecumenistical vesper service within the papal temple of Westminster.

  •11) During the past year (May-June 1984) the reception and entrance into orthodox churches of cardinal of Vienna, Kainich, as also his entrance and his co-prayer or joint prayer held with orthodox in a sacred monastery of Mount Athos.

  •12) The participation of the metropolitan of Germany, mr. Augustine (Lambardaki) in an ecumenistical worshipful function (blessing of the sweet bread) in July of the passed year 1984, as the newspapers of Stuttgard wrote up.

Towards the Wolves Politeness, Towards the Sheep Austerity?

The above cases, few of the many, constitute flagrant violations and trampling upon the sacred canons, which, if they occurred in other times, when the orthodox faith was robust, they would not be dared, and whichever chance violators would be punished in an exemplary manner. But today they take place publicly and indeed provocatively, and the most scandalous thing of all is this: wherever, that is, orthodox appear, faithful children of the Church, protesting against the violations, these are placed into persecution by their head parish priests of the regional orthodox churches, are excommunicated and punished, and by Hagiorite (Mount Athos) fathers that go about abroad in the diaspora, are placed under austere, strict penances (as the deprivation of the divine communion, and so on.) There are not lacking also even threats against the protesters, as additionally their beatings by those holding opposite views, which remind one of the frightful periods of the Church, during which the heretics were supported and taken care of [in every way], and the faithful were persecuted cruelly or mercilessly, as occurred during the period of arianism. What a frightful thing! Where have we ended up! Heretics of every sort, masons and [so-called] Jehova’s Witnesses, atheists and unbelievers, are not being excommunicated, but faithful children of the Church are being excommunicated, children which, as we said, preserve still the kindlings of the orthodox faith and the patristic piety/godliness. The most rev. of Australia, mr. Stylianos, the most rev. of Switzerland mr. Damascene, the god-beloved bishop of Toronto (Canada) mr. Soterios, and whoever else, forget that, according to the encyclical of the patriarchates of 1848, the faithful “laos,” people is the guardian of Orthodoxy and for no reason whatsoever is it permitted for him to be spurned, reviled or abused. Behold an excerpt from this most important response-encyclical:

 “Among us neither Patriarchs nor Synods were capable ever of introducing new [things/lawless innovations], because the advocate or supporter of the Religion is that very body of the Church, that is the people itself, who wants its religion eternally unchanged and of the same form as that of its fathers” (See the cited work “The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church” by John N. Karmires, vol. 2, Athens 1953, p. 920.)

  Now, as Basil the Great observes in his famous homily on the Six-day Creation, just as the sheep that grazes in the meadow discerns the poisonous plant and does not touch it quantitatively, thus also the rational sheep of the flock of Christ, however humble the position that they might posses, are taught godwards (from God, theothen) and discern the kind of spiritual food that is offered to them. The remaining faithful people, this remnant of Orthodoxy, today unfortunately is mocked, disdained and excommunicated, while the masons, the papists and the rest of the heretics chance to enjoy affectionate embraces and various forms of [delicate] attending towards the full, as it appears, application of the prohibitive ordinances of the canons of the Orthodox Church which are against this.

  Under such circumstances the dividing line between orthodox and heretics is continually weakening and is tending towards disappearance or extinction, and the pan-heresy of ecumenism, according to the ever-memorable Justin Popovitch, is tending to flood Orthodoxy. In the souls of godly/pious priests and bishops of the Orthodox Church there are observed already crises of conscious, about whether, after such deviations – why not also betrayals? – they should continue to commemorate the names of bishops, archbishops and patriarchs, as correctly dividing  the word of TRUTH. A few of them, to be sure, overstress love, saying that, because of love, it is demanded that many retreats and sacrifices be made. But genuine, authentic love is closely conjoined to the truth. It is not enough simply to say that we love, but also to “be true in love” (Ephesians 4:15); that is, to have real love and sincere love, accompanied by the true faith, and for us to look for the spiritual and psychical interest of the beloved [one]. For love without truth, without the faith, is falsehood and deception. Love as a heavenly plant, as a plant rejoicing in truth, takes pleasure, blossoms, and bears fruit only within the truth. And the whole truth, not only a part of it, is found in Orthodoxy.

  The orthodox people, found before such kinds of unacceptable manifestations begins already to be in serious unrest. And the black flag, which was raised in some sacred monastery of Mount Athos, as a robust protest on account of the anti-orthodox deviations and manifestations, has touched and moved many.

 Source

 

Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos

 

 

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
From the root of Jesse and the loins of David the King, Mariam, the
child of God, is born for our sake this day.  Hence, all creation
exulteth on its renewal.  Both Heaven and the earth rejoice together now.
Praise her, O ye tribes of nations here below.  The righteous Joachim
rejoiceth, and Anna keepeth feast, crying out:  The barren beareth the
Theotokos, the nourisher of our life.

Kontakion in the Third Tone
On this day the Virgin and Theotokos Mary, the bridal chamber of the
Heavenly Bridegroom, by the will of God is born of a barren woman.  Being
prepared as the chariot of God the Word, she was pre-ordained for this,
since she is the divine gate and the true Mother of Life.

 

Please see: The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God

by St. John Maximovitch,
Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco

 

 

 “DETHRONE MARY? . . . An ORTHODOX RESPONSE”

– by Rev. Fr. Daniel Daly

The following article was written by Rev. Fr. Daniel Daly of St. Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Church in response to “Dethrone Mary”, an article in “The Messenger Magazine” – June 2002

  In the May issue of your magazine (The Messenger), I read the article entitled “Dethrone Mary” by Jean Green.  Throughout the Christian world the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodo Church both honor Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ.  In some of the Reformation Churches, Mary is also honored.  Even John Calvin refers to Mary as the “most holy virgin”.  However, neither in Catholicism nor in the Eastern Church is Mary regarded as the Redeemer.  Christ alone is the Redeemer.  Because she was the mother of a Person who was both God and man, Mary was given the title of “Godbearer” by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.  I do not know who Ms. Green may be referring to when she says “How dare humanity believe that the earthly mother of Jesus can forgive their sins. . .?”  Regardless of misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the teaching of the Catholic or any other church, the belief that Mary can “forgive sins” is not held by ANY church.

  Ms. Green also states that “no human could endure the agony of the cross as did the Eternal Son of God”.  Has she not heard that crucifixion was one of the means of execution used by the Roman Empire?  After the revolution of Spartacus, the Apian Way (a Roman road leading out of Rome) was lined with the crosses of thousands of his [Jesus’] followers.  They had no choice but to endure the “agony of the cross”.

  In the first chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke, the Bible states that Mary was “Blessed among women”.  She was told by the angel that she was “highly favored” (in Greek, it is literally “the one receiving grace” – also translated as “full of grace”).  She was told that “the Lord was with (her)”.  Mary is said to have “found favor with God”.  Mary’s soul is said to “magnify the Lord”.  She prophesied that “all generations shall call me blessed.”  Truly these were inspired and prophetic words.  To say that people should “dethrone Mary” is hardly in keeping with what is recorded in the Bible.  Rather, we should “call her blessed.”  Would not all Bible-believing Christians want to do this?  Mary is not the savior.  No church teaches that she is.  She too is part of the human family.  It is fair, nonetheless, to ask what role she played in the saving plan of God.

  Adam chose to disobey the command of God.  He turned away from God.  He and Eve were cast out of Paradise.  They no longer lived in union with God.  Adam was told that on the day he ate the forbidden fruit he would die!  His biological death may have come later, but he did die on that day.  Whatever death is, it is our separation from God.  It is Paradise Lost.  This is that sad inheritance of every person born.  To restore that life to man, to bring man back into union with God, man had to be saved.  He had to be brought back into union with God.  He had to be healed.  For that to happen – even before His death on the cross — the divinity of God and the humanity of man had to be brought back together in One person who was both human and divine.  If that Person were not both human and divine, he would be powerless to achieve the restoration and the healing of man.  And so God became man.  The Word became flesh.

  If God wished only to forgive man, He could have remained in Heaven.  He could have declared our forgiveness from Heaven.  But to truly save us, He had to become man.  This required more than an attachment to humanity.  Wearing our humanity like a cloak would not be enough.  God’s Eternal Son, the Divine Word, had to truly become man.  Otherwise, the separation between man and God, caused by the sin of Adam, would remain.  But for God to become man, one thing was necessary.  The only way to be born into this world is through a human mother.  Mary of Nazareth, through her Divine motherhood, gave to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity His humanity.  The Second Person of the Trinity did not simply “pass through” Mary.  She really was His mother.  Because of this role, Christians have loved her and honored her from the earliest days of the church.  This is her great honor.  She was the woman who said yes to God.  Truly we should “call her blessed”.