Saint Denis (Dionysius), first Bishop of Paris, France († ca. 258)

Saint Denis (a westernization of the the Greek Dionysius), was one of seven bishops sent to Gaul by the Bishop of Rome during the reign of the Emperor Deccius. Their mission was to extend the spread of the Gospel in that mostly-pagan land. While most of the bishops were sent to major settlements, St Denis was assigned to the small, remote pagan town of Lutetia — which later grew to become the city of Paris. He and his companions settled outside the town in a house given to him by a convert, where the few Christians could meet in secret. Soon, through the holy bishop's grace-filled preaching and his many miracles, Christianity grew rapidly. Soon a fierce persecution of Christians swept through Gaul, and many of the faithful were abused, tortured or put to death. Saint Denis, fearless of danger and heedless of his own old age, travelled among the Christians, visiting the prisoners and exhorting all to remain firm in their confession of Christ. Soon he himself was arrested along with several companions, and was tortured without pity. When was publicly hung on a cross, he preached to the onlookers of the mystery of Christ's Passion. Taken back to prison, he celebrated the holy Eucharist for the last time, enveloped in a heavenly light. He and a host of other Martyrs were then beheaded on a hill, now called Montmartre in their memory. There is a tradition that at his beheading he rose up, took his own head in his hands, and walked for several miles to a place that later became the Basilica of St Denis in the town named after him. Before the French Revolution, the Kings and Queens of France were buried in this church.

Saint Eligius (Eloi), Bishop of Noyon (†660)

Saint Eloi was born to a Christian family near Limoges in Gaul (modern-day France) in 588. He became a goldsmith, worked for the royal mint, and in time became a trusted counselor of King Chlothar II. Despite (or because of) the honors and riches that surrounded him, Eligius came to despise all of them and gave away all his property but what he considered essential for everyday life. He devoted all his income to almsgiving and to ransoming prisoners of all nationalities from the slave markets. Many of these became his attendants and disciples in gratitude. Eligius' compassion became so well-known that when visitors asked for directions to his house, they would be told 'Look for the house surrounded by a crowd of beggars. That is where Lord Eligius lives.' The Saint washed the feet of the poor who came to him, served them at his own table and fed himself on what they left. If he ran out of money, he would give away furniture or even his clothing. When King Chlothar died in 629, Eligius became the counselor of his successor King Dagobert I. He founded monasteries for men at Solignac and for women in Paris, telling the King: 'These are the ladders by which we will both be able to climb up to the Kingdom of Heaven.' As a royal counselor he helped to re-establish peace between France and Brittany, and improved the law of the kingdom to make it more just. When Dagobert died in 639, Eligius devoted himself entirely to the service of God as Bishop of Noyon in Flanders. His diocese was still mostly pagan, and Eligius traveled untiringly to preach the Gospel of Christ, often at risk of his life. Having foreseen his approaching death, Saint Eligius reposed in peace in 660. When his tomb was opened a year later, his body was found incorrupt and gave forth a fragrant scent.

Saint Cassien, Bishop of Autun, France († 600)

A sincere attempt is being made with this new series by our website, to now acquaint our readers with the lives of the Orthodox Saints and Martyrs of the original One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord, who, like some of the Orthodox Saints of the British Isles, lived and propagated the Faith in the Western territories of the European Continent during the first millennium of Christianity and prior to the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

The Synaxarion calls him "Our Father Cassian, chosen by God to bring the illumination of Eastern monasticism to the West". He was born in Scythia of noble parents, and was well educated in secular things. But, thirsting for perfection, he left all behind and travelled with his friend Germanus to the Holy Land, where he became a monk in Bethlehem. After becoming established in the monastic life for several years, St John felt a desire for greater perfection, and sought out the Fathers of the Egyptian Desert. He spent seven years in the Desert, learning from such Fathers as Moses, Serapion, Theonas, Isaac and Paphnutius. Through long struggles in his cell, St John developed from personal experience a divinely-inspired doctrine of spiritual combat. Many say that it was he who first listed the eight basic passions: gluttony, fornication, avarice, anger, sadness, acedia, vainglory and pride. In time, struggles in the Alexandrian Church made life so difficult for the Egyptian monks that St John (still accompanied by his friend Germanus), sought refuge in Constantinople, where they came under the care and protection of St John Chrysostom. When the holy Archbishop was exiled, St John once again fled, this time to Rome, where he came under the protection of Pope Innocent I. This proved to be providential for the Western Church, for it was St John who brought the treasures of Desert spirituality to the monasteries of the West. He founded the monastery of St Victor in Marseilles, then, at the request of his bishop, wrote the Cenobitic Institutions, in which he adapted the austere practices of the Egyptian Fathers to the conditions of life in Gaul. He went on to write his famous Conferences, which became the main channel by which the wisdom of the desert East was passed to the monastics of the West. Saint Benedict developed much of his Rule (which at one time governed most monasteries in the Latin world) from St John's Institutions,, and ordered that theConferences be read in all monasteries. Saint John reposed in peace in 435, and has been venerated by the monks of the West as their Father and one of their wisest teachers. His relics are still venerated at the Abbey of St Victor in Marseilles. St John's writings were soon attacked by extreme Augustinians and, as Augustinianism became the official doctrine of the Latin Church, his veneration fell out of favor in the West. Outside the Orthodox Church, his commemoration is now limited to the diocese of Marseilles. (Source:http://www.abbamoses.com/months/february.html

The "Western Rite": Is It Right for the Orthodox?

The vast majority of Orthodox Christians identify with a specifically Orthodox way of worshipping. Though different languages are used throughout the Orthodox world, Orthodox Christians who are traveling - or simply visiting a different "jurisdiction" in America - can count on the church architecture looking familiar, the outline of the Liturgy being the same and the means of approaching and receiving the sacrament of Communion being the same as they are used to. Or at least they could until recently. In America an increasing number of converts to Orthodoxy are using a liturgical ritual that looks far more like services done in Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism some thirty years ago. This is being enthusiastically promoted in some quarters of the Church as "western rite" Orthodoxy. The idea of using a "western rite" in the Orthodox Church first surfaced in England during the 19th century. A former Roman Catholic, Dr. Joseph Overbeck, joined the Orthodox Church in that country and apparently decided that Orthodoxy would never be able to evangelize the West unless it used western forms of worship. Otherwise, he reasoned, the Church would not have a "western memory." Overbeck suggested that a version of the Roman Mass - purified of any medieval errors - be used. His proposal, though received with interest in parts of the Orthodox Church, was never implemented. Earlier in this century, a small "western rite" group - the Eglise Catholique-Orthodoxe - began functioning in France. And still later, in the late 1950s, another small group (the Basilian Fathers) were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in the United States by then Metropolitan Anthony Bashir. These Basilian Fathers became the start of a canonical "western rite" presence in this country. Although the "western rite" of the Antiochian Archdiocese continued for years as a mere handful of par ishes, it has recently received a "shot in the arm" with the reception into Orthodoxy of a number of disaffected Episcopalians - sometimes including entire parishes. It is argued that the existence of a "western rite" within Orthodoxy offers these Anglo-C atholics a virtually perfect solution, since they can enter the Church without substantially changing their way of worship. After all, why should "unnecessary barriers" be placed in their way? Furthermore - so we are told - these "western rite" communiti es represent a return to the Orthodox Church of the authentic, pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west and therefore enhances her catholicity and appeal to all people. Compelling as these arguments may seem, the presence of a "western rite" within Orthodoxy represents a change from the way things have been since the Western Schism of the 11th century (or at least since the Fourth Crusade). As such, this innovation needs to be examined very carefully. For the sake of brevity, we will confine ourselves here to "western rite" Orthodoxy as practiced in America and examine it with regards to four fundamental questions: 1.) Does the reconstituted "western rite" actually represent an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west? 2.) If there were a mass return of western Christians to Orthodoxy (say, union with Rome or Canterbury), would this "western rite" provide a workable precedent? 3.) Does the Orthodox Church need a "western rite" in order to evangelize Americans? 4.) Does the "western rite" serve the internal needs of the Orthodox Church in this country today? Does the reconstituted "western rite" actually represent an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west? The "western rite" as currently practiced in the Antiochian Archdiocese consists of two Eucharistic liturgies. As they are quite different from one another, let's consider them separately. First, the "Liturgy of St. Gregory": this liturgy gets its name because it supposedly represents the Roman rite as practiced in the time of St. Gregory the Great, the bishop of Rome from 590 to 604 AD. There is no question that St. Gregory the Great left his mark on the history of worship - not only in the west, but also in the east. (Indeed, it may be argued that the Orthodox Church already has a Liturgy of St. Gregory - namely, the Presanctified Liturgy where this saint is always commemorated in the dis missal.) If the situation of having two Liturgies of St. Gregory isn't confusing enough, the question remains whether or not the Liturgy of St. Gregory as currently practiced in the "western rite" parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese deserves this title at all. In fact, what we are actually presented with is the Tridentine Latin Mass (i.e., the Missal of Pius the V, printed in 1570), translated from Latin into King James English, with - among other things - references to the "merits of the saints" left out and the epiklesis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom stuck in. In this regard, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, the Tridentine Mass was the Liturgy of the Roman Church as revised at the Counter Reformation. Second, the Gregori an Sacramentary (which, so far as the MSS tradition is concerned, is primarily Frankish and not Roman in origin) had already been revised in the 11th century (near the time of the Western Schism). So the present "Liturgy of St. Gregory" as used in America n "western rite" parishes is at least two revisions away from the saint whose name it bears - and both revisions were made at times of severe crises of faith in the west. The inadequacies of this rite become obvious on close examination. The anaphora, for example - far from being a single unified prayer as one would expect - seems more like a loosely joined collection of prayers. Stranger yet, the first of these prayers b egins with the word "Therefore" (referring to what? Apparently, some transition has gone missing!). As if the disjointed nature of this anaphora weren't bad enough, tinkering with it by well meaning Orthodox has only made matters worse. According to the great Orthodox liturgical scholar and saint, Nicholas Cabasilas, the prayer in the Roman rite "Supplices te rogamus" ("Most humbly we implore Thee") is an "ascending epiklesis." Even so, the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been adde d, thereby giving this rite both an ascending and descending epiklesis, in which the celebrant asks for the consecration of the gifts to be completed after it has already happened! Furthermore, such improbable features as the "last Gospel" are retained. (This was the reading of the prologue to the Gospel of John at the end of the service, a practice that had begun as a private devotion of the celebrating clergy sometime curing the 11th or 12th centuries and which, by the 16th century, had become a prescri bed appendage to the Mass.) Second, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon": However inappropriate the "Liturgy of St. Gregory" may seem for Orthodox worship, it can't hold a candle in this regard to the other "western rite" liturgy now in use, which has somehow gotten itself named after a 20th century Russian saint. St. Tikhon served as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America before being elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1917. During his tenure in America, he apparently received a petition for the use of a "western rite" from a group of American Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians. St. Tikhon then forwarded their request to the Holy Synod in Moscow, which examined this proposal carefully and granted the possibility of a "western rite", provided far reaching changes in the Book of Commo n Prayer were made. The Holy Synod left the final decision to St. Tikhon, who - for whatever reason - never formally authorized the establishment of a "western rite" during his pastorate in America. It therefore seems farfetched in the extreme to name th is liturgy after St. Tikhon. He is not the "father" of this "western rite" in even remotely the same way that St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great are the fathers of the Liturgies which bear their names. Furthermore, even if St. Tikhon had authoriz ed the use of a "western rite", every administrative decision made by a saint should not be considered infallible. What, then, is the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon"? First of all, it is not the Eucharistic rite of the Book of Common Prayer as ever approved by the Episcopal Church. Rather, it is based on a strange amalgam commonly known as the "Anglican Missal." This missal was developed by Anglo-Catholics to make up for deficiencies they perceived in the Book of Common Prayer . The Anglican Missal contains the anaphora and other prayers from the BCP, folded together with parts of the anaphora and other prayers from the Tridentine Mass translated from Latin into King James English. As now used in the "western rite" of the Antio chian Archdiocese, it contains still further additions and corrections made by the Orthodox. A more confusing liturgical hodgepodge could hardly be imagined! The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" is the Reformation rite of Thomas Cranmer, with additions from the C ounter Reformation rite of the Council of Trent, with still further superficial tinkering in order to make it "more Orthodox." In defense of this rite, some Orthodox are saying that we should accept it because it contains "nothing heretical." Unfortunately, that itself is an Anglican argument. An Orthodox rite must do far more than avoid heresy - it must clearly proclaim and tea ch the Orthodox faith. In Communist Russia as in Ottoman Greece, the Orthodox Liturgy alone maintained the faith through long years of persecution. Bearing in mind that Cranmer was probably a Zwinglian who designed his rite to express "the real absence" of Christ in the Eucharist, it is easy to see that the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" could never meet the basic criterion of being an Orthodox Liturgy. In summary, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" has no historical validity whatsoever. The "Liturgy of St. Gregory" can be traced back to that great saint only in a very attenuated way. The simple fact is, neither of these liturgies represents an authentic retur n to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west. Does the "western rite" provide a path for the eventual reunion of Christians? With the reception of "western rite" parishes into Orthodoxy, there were some who felt that the Uniate ideal had now found its proper home. Comparison of Western Rite Orthodox to Eastern Rite Catholics is, of course, inevitable. And, we should keep in mi nd that historically, Rome has often held up its Eastern Rite Catholics as a bridge to union with the Orthodox. How successful has that bridge been? The truth is, Uniatism has been a continuous obstacle to unity between Orthodoxy and Rome. And this recurring difficulty reared its head again only recently, with the breakdown of Communism in eastern Europe. We would be naive in the extreme to suppose t hat "western rite" Orthodoxy will have a more beneficial result. If they grow in numbers, the "western rite" Orthodox will increasingly appear to western Christians as a kind of pseudo-Orthodox whose purpose is not to evangelize but to proselytize. Some might still argue that the "western rite" would at least demonstrate to "western" Christians what Orthodoxy would expect liturgically if a reunion of Christians should occur. Yet this too is groundless. The simple fact is, those parishes using the " western rite" within the Antiochian Archdiocese are not following the "western rite" as now practiced by the overwhelming majority of "western" Christians. Indeed, one must ask why the Orthodox Church should have made herself into a safe haven for a tiny minority of western Christians who have rejected the reforms of the liturgical movement. Regarding the "Liturgy of St. Gregory" - it would be ludicrous for the Orthodox to tell the Roman Catholics that they should go back to doing the "last Gospel" at the end of their Liturgy. Or that revisions made by Vatican II to the Roman anaphora to make it read more like a single prayer were somehow misguided. The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" would be even more indefensible in the case of Anglicans. Many of the recent revisions to the Book of Common Prayer (as with the Roman Missal ) have been based on sound liturgical scholarship - and many are clearly borrowings from the ancient Christian east! Furthermore, since both of these "western-rite" liturgies are being celebrated in "King James" English, are we telling the Christians of t he various western confessions that modern English is unacceptable as a liturgical language? This, in spite of the fact that modern English is now used in many translations of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? In summary, a "western rite" Orthodoxy, at least as it is currently being practiced, seems fated to have an increasingly negative effect on our already troubled position in ecumenical relations. Does the Orthodox Church need a "western rite" in order to evangelize Americans? If we can picture Overbeck in 19th century England we might realize why he felt an Orthodoxy using a "western rite" was absolutely essential if the Church was to have a viable mission in the West. Overbeck would have only been able to experience the worsh ip of Orthodoxy as done among recent immigrants, using not English, but the languages of their mother countries. No wonder he might reach the conclusion that only an Orthodoxy with a different rite, that had a western memory, could ever again be the churc h of the venerable Bede. St. Bede, of course, was a great Anglo-Saxon historian who lived long before the Western Schism. As such, he is perfectly acceptable to us Orthodox today as a saint to be venerated. So are many of the other saints of northwestern Europe - such as Patrick , Aidan, Alban and others, who are now being included in the liturgical calendars of Orthodox Churches. It is obviously a great advantage for converts to be able to venerate saints of their own ethnic background - and it speaks to the catholicity of the C hurch. Clearly, Orthodoxy doesn't have to have a "western rite" to have a western memory. With this in mind, let us suppose Overbeck's experience of the Church had been quite different. Suppose he had attended the celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the feast of the venerable Bede and there in the narthex was a beautiful icon of this saint for veneration by the faithful. Suppose, too that the Liturgy had been conducted entirely in English. What could he find missing to celebrate the fe ast of this great saint of the early Christian west? True, the Liturgy would not be served in exactly the same way as Bede himself would have done. (But then, neither - by a long shot - would the "western rite" liturgies of St. Tikhon or St. Gregory be t he same as done by the venerable Bede.) What matters most is that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the ancient, pre-schismatic liturgical life of the west were the same in all essentials. Without question, Byzantine worship has demonstrated its suitability for all people. It became the dominant liturgical expression for the Russians as truly as it had been for the Greeks. It also rooted itself deeply in the culture of those Orthodox "Lati ns", the Romanians. And in Alaska it expressed the religious aspirations of native cultures - Aleuts, Tlingets and others. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is now being celebrated in Japanese, Korean and a half dozen tribal languages in Africa. Recent ly, it provided the scriptural worship sought after by the Evangelical Orthodox Church, who were, until recently, the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. The use of the Byzantine liturgical tradition by the AEOM is one of the strongest arguments, aga inst the need of a "western rite" for purposes of evangelization in America. But doesn't the use of the "western rite" make it easier to bring people into the Church when they already have "their own" liturgical tradition? Perhaps, but the drawbacks are enormous. Shortly after her former Episcopal parish was received into the "we stern rite" of the Antiochian Archdiocese in Spokane, WA a woman commented, "We were kind of underdogs in the Episcopal Church by worshipping in the old way. Now we feel we're in step with our Church." Sadly, it can only be a matter of time before she di scovers that she is now far more out of step liturgically with her new Church than she ever was with the old. In summary, the use of the "western rite" as a tool for evangelism seems unnecessary at best and misleading at worst. Does the "western rite" serve the internal needs of the Orthodox Church in this country today? A knowledgeable Orthodox Christian, if asked about the Church's greatest need in western Europe and the Americas today, would probably respond with a single word: unity. In this regard, the Byzantine liturgical tradition has been of inestimable value in h olding the Church together. On the other hand, ethnicity has probably been the greatest force for disunity. Ethnic heritage, of course, does not have to be a divisive factor. One can be proud of one's heritage while celebrating the fact that one is part of a Church that is truly multiethnic (as opposed to "non-ethnic", as the alternative is sometimes wrongly presented.) How does the "western rite" fit into this need to bring the Church together as a truly multi-ethnic community, united by faith and worship? Unfortunately, the "western rite" can be viewed as a kind of "super-ethnicity" which is just the opposite of what t he Church needs today. Narrow as their ethnic view might have been, and as much as they may have insisted unwaveringly on the use of their own language, Orthodox Christians have always shown a willingness to use a common form of worship - until now. For all intents and purposes, the use of the "western rite" takes ethnicity one step further. Not only do these converts insist on using (an archaic) form of their own language, but they also insist on using an exclusive liturgical rite that is common to no o ne but themselves. Orthodox Christians who visit a "western rite" parish will find themselves in an alien environment. Not only will the structure of the worship in a "western rite" parish be unfamiliar, but the very method of receiving the sacrament of communion will be di fferent, so that even though technically in communion, visitors from established Orthodox traditions will be discouraged from receiving the holy mysteries. ("Western rite" visitors to other Orthodox parishes will be similarly discomfited.) Contrary to th e ancient practices of the Church, "Byzantine" clergy visiting "western rite" parishes are not allowed - in current Antiochian practice - to concelebrate (and would hardly know how to, even if permitted). Pan-Orthodox services like the vespers for the Sun day of Orthodoxy are now rendered complex if not downright confusing by the possible presence of "western rite" clergy. Pilgrimage is a vital part of the Orthodox tradition and the current situation is bound to affect "western rite" pilgrims to traditiona lly Orthodox countries like Greece or Russia. Instead of finding themselves "at home" in the liturgical traditions of these foreign lands, they will be strangers in their own Church, unable to fully benefit from experiencing the liturgical life served in those holy places that mark the heartlands of what is supposed to be their faith. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the majority of Orthodox faithful and clergy in these countries would accept "western rite" visitors as "their own." Instead, they will pro bably be looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion, as a kind of "sheep in wolves clothing." Perhaps the plight of "western rite" Orthodox Christians is best understood by looking at the actual structure of an Orthodox Church, where the western part of the building is called the narthex. Though they are canonically within the body of Christ, the Church, Orthodox Christians using the "western rite" are still, in a sense, "only in the narthex." They will not be fully integrated into the Church's life until they can come forward and fully participate in the Church's liturgical worship with their bro thers and sisters in Christ. There are some, of course, who will point out that there was considerable liturgical diversity in the early Church - and therefore, why is such diversity not possible and even desirable today? There was indeed considerable liturgical variation from one pl ace to another in ancient times. The reason for this was the simple fact that the average person never got more than 25 miles from his place of birth and communications from one place to another were slow and difficult. Under such circumstances, liturgic al diversity was a natural development and hardly a problem. Today, by contrast, we live in what has been called a "global village" where communications are instant and American families often move several times, from one state to another, while their chi ldren are growing up. Everything in our environment argues for greater uniformity in liturgical practice. For example: what are potential converts to do when they happen to see coverage of an Orthodox service on television, become intrigued, and then are completely confused when they discover that Orthodoxy in their area has an entirely different look? Or, on the other hand, what is a "western rite" Orthodox family to do when they move to another town where the only Orthodox parish is "Byzantine" and pos sibly ethnic? What will they do when they feel far more at home in a "continuing" Anglican parish that meets down the road? In summary, the "western rite" can only impede the progress of the Orthodox Church towards reaching a goal of unity within ethnic diversity. Furthermore, a multiplicity of rites is simply inappropriate in a highly mobile society linked by global communications. There is no reason to question the motives of those who support a "western rite" within Orthodoxy. They are apparently doing so for what they consider to be the very best of reasons. In fact, we might all agree on the ends - yet with all due respect, we simply cannot agree on the means. The "western rite" is inherently divisive. Even so, we must not allow it to divide the Church. At the same time, Orthodox who do not accept the "western rite" are not simply "impeding progress." Rather, they are trying to safeguard the Church from a policy that is neither in the best interests of her established members, nor of her converts. We rejoice whenever and wherever converts are received into the Church. But we also take heart from the fact that many "western rite" parishes eventually see the wisdom of "converting" to the Byzantine liturgical tradition. We can only hope that others will continue to follow that good example. Father Michael Johnson pastor, St Nicholas Church Tacoma, WA The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Is

Saint Olaf, the King & Enlightener of Norway, Martyr († 1030)

St. Olaf was born in 995, the son of a Norwegian lord named Harald Grenske, the great grandson of Harald Fairhair, and Asta Gudbransdatter. Olaf grew up in the household of his stepfather, Sigurd Byr of Ringarike. From the age of 12, he went on expeditions to the Baltic coast, Denmark and the Netherlands. Between 1009 and 1013 he fought under Thorkell the Tall against the English at London, Ringmere and Canterbury. For a time he was a captain of mercenaries for Duke Richard of Normandy, and in 1013 or 1014 he was converted to the Faith of Christ and baptized in Rouen. Then he entered the service of the exiled English King Ethelred and followed him back to England, where he fought on the English side at the taking of London Bridge. When the Danish King Canute conquered England, Olaf joined his service.

According to The Saga of St. Olaf, the two men were at first great friends. However, King Canute then became jealous of the younger man. Moreover, the Saga continues, "the bishop [St. Sigfrid, enlightener of Sweden] always waited for Olaf at Divine service, but not for Canute, and the bishop called Olaf king, and this Canute could not bear to hear, and spoke to the bishop about it in such strong words that the latter had to desist, because of the king's authority, for the king's heart was filled to overflowing with pride and ambition, because of his power and place. So things went on until it came to Lent. Then Canute began to speak to Sigfrid: 'Is it true that you called Olaf by the title of king this winter? Now how do you defend your words, when he has no settled country nor wears a crown?'

"'It is true, my lord,' said the bishop, 'that he has no land here, and he wears no crown of gold or silver. Nay, rather is he chosen and crowned by the highest Lord and Ruler, the King of all kings, the one almighty God, to rule and govern that kingdom to which he is born, and this special destiny awaits him, to rule a kingdom for the comfort and profit of the people, and to yield to God the fitting fruit of his coming into his kingdom. All the people in Norway and the lands tributary to it, and not these parts only, but no less the whole of the region of the north as well, shall have reason to remember and keep in mind this pillar and support of God's Christendom, who will root out all brambles and weeds from God's field and vineyard, and sow in their stead the noble seed of God's holy words. All these words will flourish and come to perfect growth, and every man who accepts them will himself be acceptable to the highest King of heaven, world without end.'

"King Canute said: 'You cannot be said to have made good the words which we are told you have spoken, my lord Bishop, declaring that he outshines us in miraculous virtues, above all if you make so great a distinction between us, that you declare that we show no virtues at all.'

"'You have heard rightly concerning these words of ours,' said the bishop.

"King Canute said: 'It avails me little, then, to chastise myself more than King Olaf, if I am bound to fall short of him in some respect, for now, since Lent has begun, I wear a linen and not a silken shirt, a scarlet kirtle, and not one of velvet or purple. I drink also ale and not mead. But Olaf wears a shirt of silk and a kirtle of velvet. He has the choicest foods prepared for him, and a vessel of wine stands on his table.'

"The bishop said: 'It is true, my lord, that Olaf wears a shirt of silk, but he wears a hair-cloth under the shirt, and a belt about his body so broad that it reaches from hip to shoulder-blade, and iron extending from it in front. You will always see that when King Olaf takes his seat and the choicest foods are brought before him, there is a mound in the place where he is wont to sit. There is hidden a cripple, and it is he that eats the dainties, but Olaf eats salt and bread. There is also a vessel of water, and this Olaf drinks, and has no more to drink than that, but it is the cripple that drinks out of the wine-cup.'

"Then King Canute was so enraged against Bishop Sigfrid, that King Olaf could not stay there because of the jealousy of King Canute, and a little later it went the same way with Bishop Sigfrid."

In 1015 Olaf and Sigfrid went to Norway, where Olaf succeeded in seizing the kingdom in spite of much opposition. First, by distributing money, and with the support of his kinsmen on the Opplands, he gained control of Ostland. Then, on Palm Sunday, March 25th, 1016, he conquered the country's principal chieftains, Sven Hakonsson Jarl, Einar Tambarskjelve, and Erling Skjalgsson, in the sea battle at Nesjar (between Larviksfjord and Lengesundsfjord). In the same year he was accepted as King at the Oreting in Trondelag.

He had a comparatively peaceful reign for almost 10 years, and during this period considerably advanced the unification of Norway. Olaf's work of unification assumed concrete form as territorial dominion over a kingdom which extended from Gautelven in the south up to Finnmark in the north, from the Vesterhav islands in the west to the forests toward the realm of the Swedes in the east. Olaf was the first high king who secured real control over the inland areas of Trondelag and Opplandene. Moreover, he gained a foothold for the Norwegian national kingdom on the Orkney islands and Hjaltland.

Olaf also laid the foundation for nationwide local government and introduced a certain division of labor among the royal housecarls. He installed sheriffs recruited from the nobility and the landed gentry throughout the country and tried by means of his year-men to keep control of the political activities of the sheriffs. According to Snorre a division of labor seems to have occurred in the King's household into actual housecarls (military functions), guests (police functions), house chaplains, and churls (duties within the palace). Moreover, several titles of the masters of the King's court are known from this time: standard-bearer, King's Marshal, House Bishop.

With the aid of his English missionaries he succeeded in making Norway Christian. At the meeting of the Ting (Parliament) At Moster, Bomlo in Sunnhordland (1024), Norway acquired a nationwide ecclesiastical organization with churches and priests, a Christian legal system and a first organization of the Church's finances. Gwyn Jones writes: "The Christian law formulated at Moster was of prime authority; it was read out at the different Things, and there are confirmatory references to it in the oldest Gulathing Law." The king established peace and security for his people, remaking old laws and insisting on their execution, unaffected by bribes or threats. He built many churches, including one dedicated to St. Clement at the capital, Nidaros (Trondheim). All other faiths except Christianity were outlawed.

At the beginning of his reign St. Olaf did not enjoy good relations with Sweden; for the Swedish King Olof Skotkonung had seized a portion of Norway in about the year 1000. However, through the mediation of St. Anna, King Olof's daughter, it was agreed that St. Olaf should marry his other daughter Astrid, and relations between the two Christian kings were restored. In this way the foundations were laid for the Christianization of the whole of Scandinavia.

After the death of the King Olof in 1022, St. Olaf made an alliance with his son Anund Jacob against Canute of England and Denmark. For Canute's hatred had not been extinguished; and the jealousy of this Cain was destined both to open a fruitful mission-field and to provide a martyr's crown for the latter day Abel. But in 1026 the allies were defeated by Canute at Helgean in Skane, Sweden.

Then, as Florence of Worcester writes, "since it was intimated to Canute, king of the English and Danes, that the Norwegians greatly despised their king, Olaf, for his simplicity and gentleness, his justice and piety, he sent a large sum of gold and silver to certain of them, requesting them with many entreaties to reject and desert Olaf, and submit to him and let him reign over them. And when they had accepted with great avidity the things which he had sent, they sent a message back to him that they would be ready to receive him whenever he pleased to come." So the next year (1028), "Canute, king of the English and Danes, sailed to Norway with 50 great ships, and drove out King Olaf and subjected it to himself," appointing the Danish earl Hakon, son of Eirik Jarl, whom Olaf had banished in 1015, as his viceroy.

Olaf decided to flee to Sweden and thence to the court of his kinsman, Yaroslav of Kiev, whose father, the famous St. Vladimir, had given shelter to Olaf Tryggvason in his youth. And it was the same Olaf Tryggvason who appeared to his successor and namesake one night and said:

"Are you sick at heart over which plan to take up? It seems strange to me that you are pondering so much, and similarly that you are thinking of laying down the kingdom which God has given you, and moreover that you are thinking of staying here and taking a kingdom [Bulgaria] from kings who are foreign and strangers to you. Rather go back to your kingdom which you have taken as your inheritance and have long ruled over with the strength God has given you, and do not let your underlings make you afraid. It is to a king's honor to win victories over his foes, and an honorable death to fall in battle with his men. Or are you not sure whether you have the right in this struggle? You will not act so as to deny your true right. You can boldly strive for the land, for God will bear you witness that it is your own possession."

In 1029 Hakon died in a shipwreck in the Pentland Firth on his way home to Norway. This gave Olaf his opportunity. Early in 1030 he set off for Norway over the frozen Russian rivers. When the sea-ice broke, he sailed to Gotland with 240 men. King Anund of Sweden gave him 480 more, but when he faced Canute's army at Stikrlarstadir, he had no more than 3600 men (Swedes, Jamtlanders from Northern Sweden, Icelanders and his Norwegian companions) against a peasant army 14,400 mrn - the largest army ever assembled in Norway.

Then, like Gideon, the saint decided to reduce his numbers by choosing only Christians to fight in his army. So he was eventually opposed by overwhelmingly larger forces. And as the sun went into total eclipse on July 29, 1030 (July 30, according to modern astronomers), his army was defeated and he himself was killed, as had been revealed to him in a vision just before the battle.

But immediately a great fear fell on the soldiers of Canute's army. And then miracles began to be manifested at St. Olaf's body: a light was seen over it at night; a blind man recovered his sight on pressing his fingers, dipped in the saint's blood, to his eyes; springs of water with healing properties flowed from his grave; and then, to the chagrin of Canute's first wife, Elgiva, and her son King Swein of Denmark, his body was found to be incorrupt. Soon the penitent Norwegians expelled the Danes, and recalled Olaf's son Magnus from Russia to be their king.

The incorruption of Olaf's body was certified by his loyal Bishop Grimkel, whose see was Nidaros (Trondheim). As we read in St. Olaf's Saga: "Bishop Grimkel went to meet Einar Tambarskelver, who greeted the bishop gladly. They afterwards talked about many things and especially about the great events which had taken place in the land. They were agreed among themselves on all matters. The bishop then went into the market and the whole crowd greeted him. He asked carefully about the miracles which were related of King Olaf and learned a great deal from this questioning. Then the bishop sent word to Torgils and his son Grim at Stiklastad, calling them to meet him in the town. Torgils and his son did not delay their journey, and they went to meet the bishop in the town. Then they told him all the remarkable things which they knew and also the place where they had hidden the king's body. The bishop then sent word to Einar Tambarskelver, and Einar came to the town. Einar and the bishop then had a talk with the king and Elgiva and asked the king to allow them to take up King Olaf's body from the earth. The king gave permission, and told the bishop to do it as he wished. Then a great crowd assembled in the town. The bishop and Einar then went with some men to the place where the king's body was buried and had it dug up. The coffin had by this time almost risen out of the earth. In accordance with the advice of many, the bishop had the king buried in the ground beside St. Clement's church. It was twelve months and five days from the death of the king to the day his holy relics were taken up, the coffin having risen out of the earth and looking as new as if it had just been planted. Bishop Grimkel then went to the opened coffin of King Olaf, from which there proceeded a precious fragrance. The bishop then uncovered the king's face, and it was completely unchanged: the cheeks were red as if he had just fallen asleep. Those who had seen King Olaf when he fell noticed a great difference in that his hair and nails had grown almost as much as they would have done if he had been alive in this world all the time since his fall. King Swein and all the chiefs who were there then went to see King Olaf's body.

"Then Elgiva said: 'A body rots very slowly in sand; it would not have been so if he had lain in mould.'

"The bishop then took a pair of scissors and cut off some of the king's hair and also some of his beard (he had a long beard, as was the custom at that time). Then the bishop said to the king and Elgiva:

"'Now the king's hair and beard are as long as when he died, and since then they have grown as much as you now see shorn off.'

"Then Elgiva answered: 'This hair will be a holy relic to me if it does not burn in the fire; we have often seen the hair of men who have lain longer in the earth than this man whole and unscathed.'

"The bishop then had fire brought in on a censer. He made the sign of the cross over it and put incense in it. Then he laid King Olaf's hair in the fire. And when all the incense had burned the bishop took up the hair from the fire and it was not burned. The bishop let the king and the other chiefs see it. Then Elgiva ordered them to lay the hair in unhallowed fire. But Einar Tambarskelver ordered her to be silent and said many hard words to her. Then the bishop declared, and the king agreed, and the people deemed, that King Olaf was truly holy. The king's body was then borne into St. Clement's church and placed over the high altar. The coffin was wrapped in a pall and over it was placed a beautiful cover. And then many miracles took place at the holy relics of King Olaf."

King Canute made no opposition to the veneration of St. Olaf, and churches dedicated to the saint were soon being built throughout the Viking world, from Dublin to the Orkneys to Novgorod. Forty ancient churches were dedicated to St. Olaf in Britain, and his feast occurs on several English calendars.

It was in connection with a miracle attributed to St. Olaf that a chapel was dedicated to him in Constantinople. Thus Bishop Ambrose von Sievers writes: "From other sources I have established that the Panagia Varangiotissa was situated by the western facade of Hagia Sophia, almost touching it. In about the reign of Alexis Comnenus (or a little earlier) St. Olaf was included among the saints of Constantinople and in the church of the Varangian Mother of God a side-chapel was built in honor of St. Olaf, while the old church itself was transformed into a church to which a women's monastery was attached."

According to the medieval Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson, in 1066 as St. Olaf's half-brother, King Harald of Norway was preparing to invade England, he dreamed that he was in Trondheim and met St. Olaf there. Olaf told him that he had won many victories and died in holiness because he had stayed in Norway. But now he feared that he, Harald, would meet his death, "and wolves will rend your body; God is not to blame." Snorri wrote that "many other dreams and portents were reported at the time, and most of them were ominous." Harald was killed, in accordance with the prophecy of St. Olaf, at the Battles of Stamford Bridge in England.

Holy Martyr-king Olaf, pray to God for us!

By Vladimir Moss. Posted with permission.

(Sources: Heinskringla. The Saga of St. Olaf; King Harald's Saga, 82, translated by Magnusson & Palsson, Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1966; Florence of Worcester, Chronicle; "The Life of the Holy Grand Princess Anna", Living Orthodoxy, vol. V, no. 1, January-February, 1983, pp. 14-18; The Norwegian Encyclopaedia and the Svenska Uppslagsbok, translated in Living Orthodoxy, vol. V, no. 3, May-June, 1983, pp. 27-30; David Farmer, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, Clarendon Press, 1978; Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings, Oxford University Press, 1984; Bishop Ambrose (von Sievers) of the Goths, personal communication)

Celebrated July 29 (translation August 3)

http://www.orthodox.net/western-saints/olaf-martyr-king-of-norway.html

Saint Genevieve of Paris († 502)

Genevieve was born near Paris to a family of wealthy landowners. When she was about ten years old St Germanus of Auxerre (July 31), passing through the region on his way to Britain, discerned a special divine purpose for her, and told her parents that she had been chosen for the salvation of many. "He asked her that day, and early the next, if she would consecrate herself to holy virginity for Christ and, on both occasions, she answered that it was her dearest wish. Then he blessed her and gave her a copper coin inscribed with the Cross to wear around her neck, telling her never to wear gold, silver or pearls, but to elevate her mind above the small beauties of this world in order to inherit eternal and heavenly adornments." (Synaxarion) Convents were unknown at that time in Gaul, so Genevieve lived as a solitary, in a cell in her own house, first with her parents then, after their death, with her godmother in Paris. She devoted herself to the poor, giving away everything that came into her hands, except the small amount that she needed to feed herself on bread and beans. (When she passed the age of fifty, she was commanded by the bishops to add some fish and milk to her diet). She kept Lent from Theophany to Pascha, during which time she never left her house. She was never afraid to rebuke the powerful for their oppression of the weak and the poor, and thus earned many powerful enemies; but the people's love for her, and the support of the Church, kept her from persecution. It became her custom to walk to church on Sundays in procession with her household and many pious laypeople. Once the candle borne at the front of the procession (it was still dark) blew out in a rainstorm. The Saint asked for the candle and, when she took it in her hand, it re-lit and stayed lighted until they reached the church. At several other times, candles lit spontaneously in her hand; for this reason her icon shows her holding a candle. She traveled throughout Gaul (modern-day France) on church business, being greeted with all the honors usually accorded a bishop. Several times she saved the city of Paris from the assaults of barbarian tribes through her prayers, by pleading with barbarian chieftains, and once by organizing a convoy to bring grain to the besieged city. Saint Genevieve reposed in peace at the age of eighty. Through the centuries since then, she has shown her holy protection of the city of Paris countless times, and her relics in the Church of Saint Genevieve have wrought innumerable healings. Her relics were many times carried in huge processions in times of war, pestilence or other national trial. These relics were mostly burned and thrown into the River Seine by the godless Revolutionaries in 1793, but, as the Synaxarion concludes, "those who continue to invoke Saint Genevieve with faith, find her to be well and truly alive." (Source: http://www.abbamoses.com/months/january.html

A Convert’s Heritage – Western Saints

  

   Despite the universality of the Holy Orthodox Church, it is not infrequently that converts confess to feeling "out of place" in {he Russian, Greek, Serbian, or other ethnic tradition which, with few exceptions, dominates parish life in the Orthodox West. This is a natural outcome of the circumstances in which Orthodoxy spread to the West: it was primarily an immigrant rather than a missionary movement. Today, however, a majority of converts come from a West European stock which is neither Slavic nor Greek. Those of us whose ancestors are French, Irish, Scandinavian, German, Italian or other British or European nationality, would do well to remember that we too have a rich Orthodox heritage. Unhappily, it has in many cases been buried under a thick layer of Catholic and Protestant history. It would, however, serve not only our own interests, but the interest of the Orthodox Church as a whole, were we to bring to light that treasury of Western saints and their rich legacy--of which we are the unworthy inheritors.

     This process was begun in earnest by a true apostle of our own day, Archbishop John Maximovitch, of Blessed Memory. While living in Paris as ruling Archbishop of Western Europe, he was inspired by a love for the :Church to begin collecting information on early saints of the West, together with their pictures or icons. Thus he began a task of promoting amongst Orthodox living in the West, a consciousness of, and a devotion to, those saints who had lived in the West before the Schism of 1054. In 1952 he spoke on this subject before a Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, presenting for their consideration a list of pre-schism Western saints for inclusion in the Orthodox calendar.

A similar task was undertaken by one who was himself an Orthodox saint of the West, St. Gregory, Pope of Rome—also known as St. Gregory the Great, or St. Gregory the Dialogist, Writing at the end of the sixth century, he compiled a book honoring the memory of the saints of Italy for the edification and instruction of his fellow countrymen. The book is written in the form of a dialogue between himself and his deacon Peter, from whose comments it St. Gregory the, Dialogist is clear that we are not alone in our ignorance of these holy and illustrious men of God.

Peter: "I do not know of any persons in Italy whose lives give evidence of extraordinary spiritual powers.., This land of ours has undoubtedly produced its virtuous men, but to my knowledge no signs or miracles have been performed by any of them; or if they have been, they were till now kept in such secrecy that we cannot even tell if they occurred."

Gregory: "On the contrary, Peter, the day would not be long enough for me to tell you about those saints whose holiness has been well established and whose lives are known to me either from my own observations or from the reports of good, reliable witnesses."

      St. Gregory proceeds to recount a veritable 'Paradise of the Fathers' of the West. These men and women, by whose prayers the dead were raised, the sick healed, who calmed the seas and tamed wild beasts, were in no way behind their fellow laborers of the East in their ascent of the ladder of virtue. Amantius, Eleutherius, Fortunatus, Boniface, Donatus, Honoratus, Cerbonius-these are but a few to whom we are introduced in St. Gregory's Dialogues. The second book of the Dialogues is devoted entirely to the life of St. Benedict of Norcia, a monastic father of the West. Unable to confine his love and enthusiasm for God' s saints to Italy, St. Gregory crosses over to Spain, a country which had Christian settlements as early as the first century.

      Going north into France, we again discover a whole army of Orthodox saints: the desert-dwellers of the Jura Mountains, the monastic fathers of Lerins, the saintly bishops of Poitiers ,.Tours, Paris, Lyons. Numbered among their ranks is St. Ciotilde, Queen of France (d. 545), by whose prayers her husband, Clovis, King of the Franks, received the faith of Christ. where again we are fortunate in having primary sources available to us in English: St. Gregory of Tours'History of the Franks contains some lives of saints, while his magnificent Vita Patrum (Life of the Fathers) was translated by Hieromonk Seraphim and has appeared over the past few years in issues of "The Orthodox Word". In his Introduction to this series, Pr. Seraphim writes:

     "The 20th-century Orthodox Christian will find little that is strange in the Christianity of 6th-century Gaul; in tact, it he himself has entered deeply into the piety and spirit of Orthodoxy as it has come down even to our days, he will find himself very much at home in the Christian world of St. Gregory of Tours."

     Archbishop John included several of these saints in his own list, among them St. Germanus of Auxerre and his companion St. Lupus .(St. Loup) of Troyes. Those of us who love the saints of France, will always owe a debt of gratitude to the Roman Catholic historian, Louis Duchesne, for his superb Fastes Episeopaum de l'Ancienne Gaul. This wonderful book has all the early lists of saintly French bishops, together with brief biographical details, One could also mention Baring-Gould's mammoth 16 volume Lives of the Saints, completed just before World War I. This is particularly invaluable for anyone wishing to venerate the relics of saints while on holiday in Europe.

     Crossing the Channel to England, we find a wealth of Orthodox saints all but unknown even to those living there! The discovery, not long ago, of the relics of St. Edward the Martyr, a 10th century King of England, has brought attention to the historical presence of Orthodoxy in Britain, but work has only just begun in this fertile field of Orthodox sanctity which could do so much toward the strengthening of faith among native Britons and those of British heritage. Two sources on this subject deserve special mention: A History of the Enghlish Church and People by the Venerable Bede (available in Penguin paperback), and Saints of the British Isles, compiled by two English converts to Orthodoxy, A. Bond and N. Mabin. The latter is arranged chronologically--according to the date of commemoration of the saint--and includes an alphabetical listing. A number of icons have been painted of some of these saints (an icon of St. Edward the Martyr was presented as a gift to Prince Charles and Lady Diana on the occasion of their wedding) and others have had kondaks and tropars composed in their honor. But there is still much work to be done in this area,

     What convert of Irish ancestry doesn't have a devotion to St. Patrick? So successful were the apostolic labors of this wondrous saint that by the sixth century Ireland had become a genuine Thebaid of the West whose monastics penetrated the farthest corners of Europe in their missionary zeal. Wales, too, had an illustrious bishop, St. David, as its patron. Here was another breeding ground of missionary saints, many of whom are more illustrious in the lands they evangelized than in their homeland.

     Ninian of Scotland, Amend of Belgium, Anschar of Sweden... There is no country in Europe which does not have an Orthodox heritage. Let us make an effort to uncover these beacons of Christianity for our own edification and to the glory of God, wondrous in His saints.

James Read