:: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 ::
:: Saturday, September 27, 2003 ::
Each day after class, we are required to write 300 words on what we discussed that day. This was written after we had a discussion on St Thomas Aquinas' sections on Nature and Grace from the Summa. This is what this ex-Protestant, non-Orthodox student thinks after she reads the defining doctrine of Roman Catholicism.
Thanks to Adam’s fall, I have a corrupted form of my once-perfect human nature. But thanks to Christ’s death and atonement, I can be forgiven of my sins by the grace of God. This forgiveness changes my soul through operative and cooperative grace, or my original reception and later reciprocation of God’s grace.
Out of His love for mankind, God condescended and poured out grace on me for the first time. He then saw this grace that He had placed in me; this grace was beautiful, since it is of God, and God must then love it. This was placed there by no act or ability of mine, but only through God’s good will toward mankind. God loves me (now and forever) because He first loved me (by placing His grace in me to love). This is the first grace, and the greatest change in the soul.
Once God had bestowed this grace upon my soul, I was thankful for this gift. Therefore, I return the love as best as my nature knows how. God sees this love reciprocated toward Himself, and loving me both because of the grace He originally placed in me and because of the love I now reciprocate, He loves me more. Now, both the original benevolent love of God and the reciprocated complacent love multiply, and through this process, I continue to love God, and He me.
This is not an earned grace in any way. The only reason God loves me is because He first loved me; he is the actus purus of the love. God’s grace, His good will toward man, is the reason He can first love us. This is in no way based on our meritorious works. Because of the difference between the cooperative and operative grace, we participate in our salvation, not by earning the first grace, but by being partly responsible for its completion.
Glory to God!
:: 9:27 PM on
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
:: Sunday, September 21, 2003 ::
Taken from “The Soul’s Journey Into God,” written by St Bonaventure, c. 1250; this exerpt is from the 6th book, 5th paragraph; this is a truly beautiful work of poetry, and recommended reading for all!
For if you are the Cherub
contemplating God’s essential attributes,
and if you are amazed
because the divine Being is both
first and last,
eternal and most present,
utterly simple and the greatest or boundless,
totally present everywhere and nowhere contained,
most actual and never moved,
most perfect and having nothing superfluous or lacking,
and yet immense and infinite without bounds,
supremely one and yet all-inclusive,
containing all tings in himself,
being all power, all truth, all goodness –
if you are this Cherub,
look at the Mercy Seat and wonder
that in him there is joined
the First Principle with the last,
God with man, who was formed on the sixth day;
the eternal is joined with temporal man,
born of the Virgin in the fulness of time,
the most simple with the most composite,
the most actual with the one who suffered supremely and died,
the most perfect and immense with the lowly,
the supreme and all-inclusive one
with a composite individual distinct from others,
that is, the man Jesus Christ
Glory to God!
:: 10:01 AM on
Saturday, September 27, 2003
Whoa. Hit the brakes. Back the truck up, and lets try again. Uh…How come other people can get it, and not me?
I talk about religion and theology almost constantly (much like I blog about it almost constantly). About 15 minutes ago, I asked my roommate to borrow her headphones to listen to a new song I had downloaded (the Kerygma one). She asked if she could hear it, and so we listened together. She asked what the second-to-last line of the chorus meant, “Does the kingdom of God surround me?” So, I briefly explained about how we don’t see “reality,” but rather that there are angels, demons, and other things we don’t see that are nonetheless real and existing all around us. Then I was saying how cynical I was because I didn’t really believe in good or holy people. I was describing the first time I met Fr Lawrence, and how I was struck by his holiness; I was saying that there really are good and holy people in the world, but that I am too cynical to believe this. I was being my usual loud, insensitive self, rambling about religion, when I glanced up at my roommate.
Tears were coming down both cheeks. I stopped mid-sentence. “What’s wrong, Lisa?” I asked, and without waiting for an answer, I stood and hugged her. “I just sense that it is so…real.” She said slowly, “I don’t want to sound cheesy, but…it’s so full and beautiful; the way it excites you…I want to meet holy people, people who have become close to God…” It was really weird. I pulled my choktis into my hand (what else was I to do?), and said, “Come sometime to church with me. It is good. It is full; it is beautiful.”
It just struck me as odd; here is a born-and-raised Protestant, very active in her church, leading her worship band, never having been to an Orthodox Church, and yet still being able to sense that Protestantism is not “full.” Those were her exact words. Sure, she’s listened to me ramble about Orthodoxy, but she is not too into theology, so I usually don’t ramble about it in front of her. It was eerie; even she, as good as a good Protestant can get, realized that Protestantism is not “full.” Weird. Well, Glory to God.
Glory to God!
:: 10:41 PM on
Sunday, September 21, 2003
A Weary Catechumen
:: Thursday, September 18, 2003 ::
This isn’t a post on theology, eschatology, soteriology, or any of those wonderful ten-dollar words that I so love to throw about. This is the post of a weary catechumen.
People keep asking me, “When are you going to become Orthodox?” At first, I was offended; I didn’t think that was a requirement for going to an Orthodox church. Then it occurred to me how stupid I was being; I go to an Orthodox Church! One usually goes to a church because one is either of that specific religious persuasion, or one is planning to convert to the same. In the last 3 weeks, the fight between what I believe and what I want to believe has become too much for me. Wait: don’t say it! Really, really, if it were “that easy,” I would have done it. It is not “that easy.” Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!
Glory to God!
:: 9:22 PM on [+] ::
Response to James' Elevation Posts
We doubt everything that seems too good to be true. But foolishness is as bad as gulibility. I will be the first Protestant to admit: I have a hard time believing in the incarnation. A God who condescended to become man; not only this, but He voluntarily died for the very men who killed Him. I do have a hard time believing this, but it can't be any other way. I have studied apologetics, read up on the issue; if it didn't happen, so much of everything else falls apart. Look at Plato, arguably the smartest guy ever to live. In Timeaus, he shows himself to be a pre-Christ Christian. He describes everything (metaphorically), from creation to theodisy, from angels to sanctification. The only thing he misses is the incarnation. If he had this, Timeaus would be a bible. So, the incarnation is the missing piece. It makes things work.
Reason must triumph over revelation. Anselm is the "fide ut intelligum," but Abelard is more right with "intellige ut fidum;" I know so that I may believe. We cannot abandon scientific methods, and the truth of them; the senses are from God, and sensible knowledge is good. Do these "lesser" sciences contain "lesser" truths? The seperation of revelation and reason, and the subsequent ability to believe opposite truths...sound familiar? The 11th century Moslims, originally from Spain, then in Paris, believed this; the modern Donatists do also. This is a heretical idea; it was the Christians who combined both revelation and reason; we cannot separate it.
If revelation is to be accepted at all, it must have some basis. This is where the debate begins; I say the Bible, you say the Church. As you unalteringly believe in your Church, I will believe in the Bible. I have gone through, and read various proofs for its authenticity, but that is another post. The Bible agrees with the sensible world, as far as I can tell. Therefore, I believe it. Some things the Church (what ever that means) teaches do not agree with the sensible world. For example, the likelihood that a splinter from two boards on which my Lord died is still in existance in a California church 2000 years later does not seem likely or sensible.
As far as that splinter mattering much, I cannot say it does. Oh, I would like to live in a world where that would have power, but unfortuantely that takes us from the realm of Christianity to the realm of Gnosticism. If things, incantations, rituals, &c matter that much, then we are only magicians who believe in Jesus. We cannot be Pharisees, stuck in the physical, sacral nature of things.
As far as "Protestantism" still existing in converts, this is so very true! Since I don't think I can ever loose the very Protestant ideas I have always know, even if I became Orthodox, I think I would still be a Protestant. But, we can't give them too much of a hard time. They are trying, and that gets my respect.
Your faith in the church is so...deep. I do not know if this is good or not, but it is true.
Glory to God!
:: 11:51 AM on
Thursday, September 18, 2003
On Nephroids and Orthodoxy
:: Monday, September 15, 2003 ::
Picture a nephroid.
"Wait!" You say, "I have no idea what a nephroid is!" All right. It is like a mathematical cartiod. Oh, and a cartiod is like a heart turned on its side. You are very familiar with what a heart looks like, and you can picture it lying on its side. You have just interpreted and understood one interpretation of "nephroid," a completely unknown word, by comparing it to something you know.
To me, Orthodoxy is like the nephroid. I have NO CLUE what it is. But, I am very familiar with Protestantism. Without the comparison of Orthodoxy to Protestantism, I have no basis with which to understand Orthodoxy. Therefore, I say, "Well, it is a little like this, only different," and I can sketch myself a rough picture of it.
Filling in the details is harder. It takes a fairly in-depth understanding of polar geometry to get much further with the nephroid than "sideways heart." Similarly, it takes more understanding of religion to get much further with Orthodoxy than, "Semi-Pelegian Protestants who believe pagan magic." I admit, because of my very limited experience (I am only a teenager!), I am having a difficult time comprehending the details of both nephroids and Orthodoxy. With the nephroid, which is difficult because it is graphed in a system of no straight lines (only circles), I have to trust that normal, straight-line (Cartesian) graphing still works. I use the nephroid, and interpret its results, but I still prefer to graph on nice, straight-lined paper. When I look at Orthodoxy, it is as bizarre as graphing in circles (to me who am used to straight lines). I have to trust that my own, straight-line Protestantism is still true, while still looking at the results of Orthodoxy in the world of religions.
So, as Huw justly accuses me, I am interpreting Orthodoxy through my Protestant view; it is the only thing I can do.
Glory to God!
:: 11:08 AM on [+] ::
:: Sunday, September 14, 2003 ::
The responses to comments from the last post became too long to respond to in the comment box…so, here are the responses.
I am glad we all agree that Pelagius was a heretic, but even my Orthodox friends will conceed they are semi-Pelagianists; they believe in an introverted idea of “original sin,” and so seem to remove guilt from the individual…(but that is a soon-coming separate post.) A good friend of mine here is a Pelagist; here are his writings defending his point. But anyway, I didn’t think monergism and synergism have anything to do with Pelagianism, since it is not necessarily a soteriological view, where as the other two are. Also, the idea of synergism sounds like we are saved by works; this grates at my Protestant mind.
The West sees salvation as a type of monetary transaction; we sinned, Jesus paid, we gain salvation. Salvation is primarily about forgiveness, in this sense. So, once you are forgiven, you can continue to be sanctified (you would say “theosis”). Although forgiveness is an ongoing process, there is this idea that once you are forgiven, all sins past and present are gone (Reformed theology); therefore, you cannot loose this salvation.
Karl reminds us that even the great holy fathers did not claim to have reached the end of the race. This is the scary part. One of the things Huw recently wrote about was something being “more salvific.” How can something be “more” or “less” salvific? The idea doesn’t even make sense…I have no clue what that means. How can the Fathers not be saved? I know we should trust in God’s Mercy, yes; but why should that mercy save ME?
Huw comments on the sinner’s prayer. For those of you who do not know, it is a prayer that someone who wants to become a Christian (all of this in the Protestant tradition) would pray to become saved; it goes something like this: “Jesus Christ, I have sinned. I believe in you, and your death on the cross as payment for my sins. I accept this payment, and want you to come live in my heart and change my life. Amen.” I do not see why this is in anyway a bad prayer; how can this not get someone saved? It says all of the essential things. What else is there?
The other thing Huw writes is “What is hell? What is heaven? What is the Church? What is salvation? What is ‘to be saved’?” Uh…I don’t know? Hell is that bad place unrepentant sinners go on the Day of Judgment; fire, gnashing of teeth, all that bad stuff: forever. Heaven is where the saved go to worship God for all eternity; I don’t know about angels and harps, but we will get crowns, and it should be good. The Church…well, that’s an entire book! I have no clue what the Church is. Salvation is forgiveness. “To be saved” is to have asked Jesus to live in your heart. I know these are facile answers, but they are true nonetheless.
The idea of salvation making someone whole…that is a new concept; I will have to think about that for a while. But the idea of jumping into a fire to be saved?!? Hello? Isn’t the point of salvation to avoid that fire? No, thank you. No fire for me.
This blog is really an extended comment on the last one…so, sorry for the format.
Glory to God!
:: 4:56 PM on
Monday, September 15, 2003
What if it’s not true?
:: Friday, September 12, 2003 ::
Here’s a scary thought: What if you’re not going to Heaven? Not in that “you-are-a-damned-sinner” sense of not going to Heaven, but rather in that “enter-ye-in-at-the-narrow-gate” sense.
I have been reading St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa recently, and have come to the startling conclusion that he believes in predestination and election as staunchly as the most ardent Calvinist I know. (Predestination and election are just fancy theological terms to say that when we are born, God knows if we are going to Heaven or Hell.) No matter what we do, what we believe, &c, our eternal destination is already determined. And there is nothing we can do to change it.
With this new information, it seems as though Roman Catholics (at least traditionalists) are predestinationalists, as would most Protestants. It is only the Armenians (Wesley’s Methodists being the biggest example) who believe that man has free will to choose his own destiny. Oh, yeah, and the Orthodox believe this, too.
If the majority of Christendom holds to predestination, there is no problem dealing with who will get to heaven: in fact, we shouldn’t even really worry about it. I as an individual will either get there, or I won’t, regardless. But, as I explore Orthodoxy, I start to worry. If the security of my eternal destination is based on my actions, I may not go to heaven, especially with no concept of security of salvation. “Perseverance of the saints” is one of the five major doctrinal statements of Calvin, and it means that once a person is saved (salvation is a one-time event), there is nothing , absolutely nothing, he can do to loose his salvation. In Orthodoxy, salvation and its gain and loss seems to be a constant concern for everyone. The other day, I told a friend that Orthodox pray for salvation every day; she looked at me shocked, “You mean, not even your pastor is saved! Wow, you go to a really heretical church!” Yes, this idea of Orthodox soteriology is interesting, but it is not the main point of this post
The main idea is not going to heaven. Christ says in the Matthew, “13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” I don’t know about you, but this scares me greatly, especially in view of the lack of security Orthodox soteriology (<= the science of salvation). I am certainly not one of “the few;” it is conceit to think that somehow I am one of the “special” ones who get to go to heaven. Even if Christ was referring to “few” being only slightly less than “many,” I still don’t think I would make it. I am not that religious, not that pious, not that holy. In this last week, it has really hit me; who is going to heaven? In the whole of the world, why would I ever think I am one of the few? That is arrogance. But, if I am not, then I will eternally burn in Hell. I follow the wide way; I usually do the easy thing. So, I will go to Hell. This is not a pretty concept. How sure are you that you are right? Are you arrogant enough to say that you are on the narrow path? Ah, but the question is: Can we ever know for sure?
Glory to God!
:: 7:02 PM on
Sunday, September 14, 2003
:: Thursday, September 11, 2003 ::
So, the only problem with having a completely bilingual roommate is that I get phone calls in her other language:
Me: “Hello. This is Erica.”
Me: “No, this is Erica. Lisa’s not here. Can I take a message?”
Me: “Um…Lisa’s out. Can I tell her who called?”
Her: “Lisa? No?”
Me: “No, Lisa’s not here.”
Her: “OK Lisa. Bye.”
I’m not sure if I ever communicated the fact that indeed, Lisa is not in the room right now. I love my roommate a ton, and I think most of her friends are really cool. But they are a lot easier to understand in person (hand-motions help). And they always smile and nod a lot. That helps too. And I never really see them unless they are over here with Lisa, and then they talk Japanese most of the time anyway. I love my roommate; she’s really cute.
Glory to God!
:: 5:33 PM on
Friday, September 12, 2003
Sacraments and Saints
:: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 ::
Having nothing better to do after spending the last 6 hours doing Calculus, I sat down to read the webpage of a church I have heard about. It is in Felton, California (near Santa Cruz). I have a friend who attended the academy there, and had heard about it.
The articles raise some interesting questions, specifically about sacraments and the Theotokos. One of the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is the enumeration of sacraments. While Roman Catholics claim there are absolutely seven, the Orthodox tend to be flexible about this number, instead claiming many things as sacramental, with varying degrees. But, then sacraments are reserved for those who have received the grace of baptism; how does the rest of the world live? It would seem as though the purpose of venerating an ikon, eating blessed bread, blessed wine, blessed oil, or any of the other “lesser sacraments” is lost on us non-baptized. Since it is sacraments that confer grace, it would then seem as though the rest of the world is completely devoid of grace. Since Orthodox believe in a remaining (lingering) grace, even in such things as heterodoxical sacraments, how do these two views get meshed? Is there any point in us heterodox doing any of these “lesser sacraments,” or is it just mockery of the holy? It would almost seem wrong to participate in any of the lesser sacraments…
I read in the Bible, “5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (Tim 2:15), and the entire 8th chapter of Hebrews discusses the New Covenant and the Mediator (Jesus) who stands as the High Priest between man and God. This seems all good, right? So, why is the Theotokos also a mediator? We don’t need two. This page I was reading took the lesser-taken view that Mary is not the mediator: good. What about the Troparion (I forget which) that calls the Theotokos, “…mediation unto the Creator most constant…”?
As I look over these questions, they seem stupid. But you have to keep thinking! Even if you are Orthodox, be careful that you think hard about your faith. This Protestant was the top apologist of her county, led Bible study, thought she had it all good as a Protestant…and now I am look at Orthodoxy, a heretic in the eyes of many. So, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Glory to God!
:: 11:23 PM on
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Cur Deus Homo
:: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 ::
I have not blogged for a week…whew, I have been busy! (Actually, I have written 4 different blogs, but did not post them…maybe later…)
The Orthodox world-view is different from the Protestant world-view (for that matter, I am sure they are both different from the Roman Catholic view, but since I start the Summa next week, I’ll save that discussion). Yesterday in class, the question of the motivation incarnation was raised, especially over reading St Maximos’ “4 Centuries on Love” and St Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo.” Why did God become man?
Had I been asked a year ago, the answer would have been easy. “God became man to die for our sins, so we can live with Him in heaven forever.” Yesterday, however, I didn’t even think of this answer. Instead I blurted out what seemed obvious, “God became as man, so that man might be as God.” (St Athanasius). Upon hearing myself, and looking at the sea of blank stares, I realized I had absorbed what I had been hearing this summer. So, now the whole class (17 of us) have been wrestling with the idea of divinization (deification, theosis) as the telos of mankind. We played a little game today: we had to find Bible verses that supported the idea of divinization. Although we all failed miserably, the point was made. St Maximos was considered a good hermanutist; what he was saying was (little ‘o’) orthodox, and he was respected. Therefore, he had to be agreeing with some authority. As if a light had dawned, we realized that our own hermanutical training had been to the slant of one tradition. Although Protestants deny any tradition, and like to think that they all interpret the Bible “without any other man’s input,” today my group realized we were relying on our own tradition as much as St Maximos was relying on his. It was a very startling realization for us…
Anyway, in other news, I went to the E.R. last night; I have sand in my eardrum. It is not really pleasant, since it is infected, I am dizzy, have a fever, and am generally ornery. So, I hope I don’t mistakenly kill anyone tonight. Pray for me, a sinner.
Glory to God!
:: 7:48 PM on
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Reader’s Vespers at a Protestant Campus
:: Monday, September 01, 2003 ::
I go to a Protestant Bible College, where student-led prayer groups are encouraged. Some of these groups invite adults (usually pastors, but also small-group leaders) to join them for prayer, or even to lead it. They are allowed to use whatever conference rooms or lobbies are open at the time, provided they reserve them in advance.
I plan to reserve a room today for such a ‘prayer meeting,’ scheduled to take on October 30th. It will be a meeting, and it will be very devoted to prayer. Bree and I plan to ask for some outside help from some people at her church (or maybe another church). In other words, we plan to have Reader’s Vespers here next month.
As we checked into the history of non-Protestant groups meeting to pray on campus, there were some discouraging results. There was a group of RC students who tried this 7 years ago, and the Reformers group (yes, it is a real group name!) came and stopped them. They outnumbered them, and would not leave; I am not sure how it all ended, but the Catholics ended up getting in trouble. The accusation was that they were praying to Mary, something that isn’t allowed here. I know the organizers were brought into the Chaplin’s office, but I am not sure the final outcome.
Nevertheless, Bree and I are very excited about getting this together. It is something we talked about last year, but never did. We face some logistical problems, such as having ikons on campus, how to invite people, the wearing of a cassock by the reader who we hope to invite, &c. There are all sorts of problems as to how to let people know it will be happening; if we use the public, school intranet, no matter where we post, it will be seen by people who will object to it. I personally can think of about 15 students who would attend, and I have contacted them already, inviting them. But I fear that if too many people find out about it, it will not be a good thing.
As we are debating which type of music to use (Arab or Russian, from our respective churches), and who to ask as a reader, we face more logistical problems. The only room we could use (and we have been looking) is one with a huge window; it has beautiful acoustics, but I don’t want everyone staring at us. Also, if we invite the reader whom we hope will come, he will want to wear his blacks; riassas on a Protestant campus don’t work. It should be interesting.
I think the best part is that, although I am organizing it, I can’t get in too much trouble for it. I am not Orthodox, but rather just a Protestant who goes to an Orthodox Church. This may sound like an excuse, but it is also very true, and I very much plan to use it if I am brought into the Chaplin’s or Dean of Student’s office. I just wish I could convince Bree to not let her involvement be too known; she is Orthodox, and could potentially get in trouble for organizing this. I figure if I’m caught, they will just look at me kind of funny, ask why I go to a ‘heretical’ church, and escort me to the closest Baptist church for a few weeks (which would not be fun, but not the end of the world). I don’t hold beliefs particular to either direction, at least not ‘officially’ (although, I am probably more Orthodox than Protestant at this point), but Bree does, so I wish she would let me deal with this and any trouble we may get into.
Well, I am very excited, and have lots of planning to do. Pray for me, a sinner.
Glory to God!
:: 11:32 AM on
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Coptic Church (and rant on church politics)
I am not Orthodox.
I spent part of last semester and all of this summer going to Orthodox Churches; I would like to continue this as I am now down here this school year. Because I don’t have a car, I rely on other people and the bus system for most of my transportation needs, including going to church (as often as I can).
My best friend, Bree, has promised me a ride each week to her church, which is in Riverside. This is good, but it is a long distance. Within walking distance of campus, there is a Coptic church. I think it is a Jacobite Coptic church, but I am not sure. I am considering attending.
Bree is very adamantly opposed to me attending a Coptic church; she claims their heresy is corrupting. Yes, they are heretics, but since I am not Orthodox, I don’t see how that matters. I can’t (nor would I want to) receive sacraments from any church, Orthodox, Coptic, or otherwise. Since I don’t think I will start becoming a monophysite or monothilysite any time soon, I don’t see myself in much danger. What I do see is the opportunity to attend church more often, something I had gotten used to when I was at home. I see the opportunity to be plugged into a community where I can actually be part of the community, not just come once a week or so. They may be heretics, but since they are the best choice available that is close by, I think they will work. I mean, they are significantly more “Orthodox” then say, Grace EV Free, the other church within walking distance of campus. I don’t see why Copts would be such a bad idea for a church.
Slightly randomly, and not having anything to do with the Copts, I HATE POLITICS! The politics of a diocese should never, ever, not at all affect the average parishioner, especially when that ‘average parishioner’ is not even Orthodox! As by a number of odd circumstances, I find myself deeply entwined in pathetic in-fighting between diocese. It comes down to a simple fact: someone is lying. This really, really makes me mad. I have written many letters in the last week, trying to make sure that this is simply not a miscommunication. At this point, I am certain it is not. To add to this, I have too different conflicting messages from two different priests, both of whom I respect; they are literally saying exact opposite things. Boy, I really, really hate politics. It gets in the way of Church, and now it has the possibility of dividing my best friend and I on religion. Why can’t churches (any church, including respective Protestant, Orthodox, Roman) leave petty bickering aside and cooperatively seek to help those who earnestly wish to discover the treasures contained therein?
Glory to God!
:: 10:32 PM on
Monday, September 01, 2003
Boring Description of my Long Weekend
Whew! I survived this weekend. It was one of those impossibly busy weekends, which at the end, I sit back and say, “Wow. That was blessed.”
After missing ride to the Beheading of St John Liturgy, which my best friend (Bree) went to at Holy Virgin Mary Cathedral in LA (I had calculus instead), I was not in the best of moods (which the fast didn’t help), so I spent the rest of the day reading St Anselm.
Bree and I decided that Saturday we didn’t want to wait until noon to eat (when the caf opens), so we were going to meet at 7AM to walk up to Starbucks. Well, as I turn my computer on at around 6:30 to check e-mail, I am greeted with a lewd message. As soon as I get the repulsive image off of my screen, my computer crashes, giving me one of those completely non-descript Win ME error messages. With a sinking feeling, I realize I have a virus. Anyway, I have to meet my friend, so I turn my system off, and go spend the next three hours eating breakfast/coffee, and discussing the Coptic church and obedience to one’s Spiritual Father. I spend the rest of the day re-formatting my system, and scrubbing all of my files, which I did end up salvaging (I love networks!) after a good two hours of conniptions.
Saturday, Maximos, a friend from home called, and said he’d be in the LA area; he asked if we wanted a ride to Holy Virgin Mary. I pounced on the offer. So, Sunday at 6:30AM he calls, having just arrived in LA. Anyway, Bree and I, along with two of my other friends (who had NEVER been to an Eastern rite Orthodox Church) end up going to HVM. Both of my friends thought it was great; they are both very into church (like me), and will probably be going back. I spent the rest of the day/evening at Bree’s house, hanging out with her family and her godsister (who goes to my church at home).
Today, I got up early to go to a sale at a thrift store with Bree and three other good friends. After dropping Bree off at work, I went over to her parent’s house for a memorial akathist; that was good, but a little awkward. After saying I wouldn’t stay for lunch (I eat at their house too much!), I ended up staying for BBQ chicken and mashed potatoes. As soon as I got home from that (2:00), my roommate called and asked if I wanted a ride to a Labor Day party for my school. It was at a tutor’s house, about 45 minutes away. It was good; I met many of the new freshman, and hung out with my group. Finally, I got home and got to sleep.
Funny, I can sleep in more on the weekdays than on the weekends. Oh, well. So is life.
Glory to God!
:: 10:12 PM on [+] ::