Icons reflecting Christ's refusal of repentance

[Paul Cowan]

I have been thinking about this for some time, and would really appreciate input. I have seen several but can only recall a couple icons and their meanings or historical record which reflects Christ refusing mankind. This troubles me. Here is a good example (http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/moth_unexp.html) of what I mean.


Seeing a soul being purified by repentance, the most blessed Mother began to entreat Her Son: “My benevolent Son! For the sake of My love have mercy upon this sinner.” But the Son replied to Her: “Do not be angry, My Mother, if I do not obey Thee. I, too, entreated My Father to have this cup of suffering pass Me by.”


Over and over the Mother of God entreated Her Son, reminding Him how She had nurtured Him at Her breast, how She had suffered at His cross. But the Lord would not bend down to mercy. Then the Mother of God arose, put Her Son down, and was ready to fall at His feet. “What dost Thou wish to do, Mother?!” – cried out the Son. “I shall remain, – She replied, – lying at Thy feet together with this sinner until Thou forgivest him his sins.” Then the Son said: “The law requires a son to venerate his mother, while justice demands that the giver of the law be himself obedient to the law. I am Thy Son, Thou art My Mother; I am obliged to do Thee homage by fulfilling Thy request. Let it be asThou wishest! His sins are now forgiven for Thy sake! And as a token of forgiveness, let him press his lips to My wounds.”




Another is the Sweet Kissing Icon (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=28)here.


The icon is one of the Eleusa (Tenderness) type. It is unusual in that it shows the Virgin kissing her Child. Christ raises His hand as if to repulse His mother's caress.

I can't remember the other one I read about but basically, Christ told His mother He would not be bothered by the sinner's pleas. I don't understand this apparent turning of His back on those praying to Him.

Thank you for any insight.
Paul

[Olga]

A short(ish) answer for now, Paul:

The sinner who is shown kneeling at the icon of the Mother of God was in the habit of praying before the icon in full knowledge that he was to sin (in some accounts, commit a crime) shortly afterwards. By his prayers, he, in effect, was praying for his sinful actions to be "blessed". This persistent behaviour could be regarded as "I can go ahead and sin as much as I like, and all will be forgiven". The man was soon confronted with his unrepentant ways in a dramatic way, and finally showed true repentance. The initial refusal of the Christ-child to forgive the man was, in this case, necessary to bring the sinner to his senses, and to true repentance.

Regarding the Sweet-kissing icon, the link you posted shows an icon of the Resurrection, not one of the Mother of God. There are dozens of icons which are classified as Sweet-kissing (or Glykofiloussa, Umilenie), it is quite a broad category, with a number of variations in composition. Could you provide a link to the actual icon within this group? Going by the description you provided, it may be Yakhromskaya (one of the loveliest of this type), the very similar Muromskaya and Yaroslavskaya, or the Consolation (also known as Otrada and Paramythia) icon associated with the Vatopedi Monastery at Mt Athos.

As an aside, grumpy old woman that I am, it has become quite common to render the personal pronouns relating to the Mother of God with capital initials, i.e. She, Her, etc, particularly in American English texts. This tendency has also crept into Russian and Slavonic texts, I've yet to see it in Greek. Without doubt this is done out of great piety and as a measure of devotion to the Mother of God, but it is simply incorrect.

Capitals for personal pronouns, if used, should only be for the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Virgin is indeed and rightly "greater and more glorious than the hosts on high", but she is not divine. She was graced by Divinity in bearing the Son of God, but she remained fully human and mortal.

[Irene]

From the Holy Transfigeration Baltimore website:
"This sinner had the habit of praying each day to the Blessed Virgin, often repeating the Archangel’s greeting: “Rejoice, O Virgin full of grace!” Once, before routinely going out to sin, he turned to the holy image and fearfully saw the Holy Virgin standing live with Her Divine Son in Her arms. The Infant had wounds on His hands and feet, and blood was flowing from a wound in His side, just as it had been on the cross. The sinner fell to his knees and cried out: “O Mistress! Who did this?”

“You and other sinners. Over and over again you crucify My Son by your sins, just as the Jews had done,” – the Theotokos answered softly.

“Have mercy upon me,” – tearfully cried out the sinner.

“You call Me the Mother of mercy, yet you offend Me and bring Me sorrow by your deeds.”

“No, Mistress,” – the sinner cried out in fear. – May my malice not overcome Thy indescribable kindness and mercy! Thou alone art the hope and safe haven of all sinners! Have mercy upon me, O benevolent Mother! Entreat Thy Son and my Creator on my behalf.”

Seeing a soul being purified by repentance, the most blessed Mother began to entreat Her Son: “My benevolent Son! For the sake of My love have mercy upon this sinner.” But the Son replied to Her: “Do not be angry, My Mother, if I do not obey Thee. I, too, entreated My Father to have this cup of suffering pass Me by.”.....

For the rest of the article and a picture of the Icon go here. (http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/moth_unexp.html)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Capitals for personal pronouns, if used, should only be for the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Virgin is indeed and rightly "greater and more glorious than the hosts on high", but she is not divine. She was graced by Divinity in bearing the Son of God, but she remained fully human and mortal.

A dear 'amen!' to our grumpy old woman. In point of fact, capitalising personal pronouns relating to persons of the Trinity is also a (relative) novelty, and the majority of the patristic texts and fathers do not (of course!) engage in this practice, nor do the majority of liturgical texts (until relatively recent times). The furthest I've myself been able to track the trend is to Germanic influence on English in the 16th and 17th centuries, with its penchent for capitalising all proper nouns creeping into the English practice (thus, 'He saw the Girl coming up the Long Road with her Mother...'). This appears to have infected the capitalisation of personal pronouns for dignitaries certainly by the 17th century: nobles are 'His Lordship', 'His Majesty', etc.; and this trend is seen divorced from the direct titles in the same period (so, not only 'His Majesty', but also 'they saw Him from afar off...'). This was carried over into references to God, as the fullest form of such wide-spread piety.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, it has certainly been American English that has furthered the trend, as in British English it has been largely diminished (though is far from absent). In common practice today, all sorts of associated adjectives, superlatives, even personal adverbs are capitalised -- so we get, 'Most Holy Angel', 'the Comforting Spirit of Truth', 'the Rightly-Believing Christians', and so on.

There are a few occasions when the capitalisation of personal pronouns relating to, for example, Christ, are helpful. A sentence like, 'he said to him that he should follow the example he set', is clearer as to its subjects when rendered 'He said to him that he should follow the example He set' -- which makes clear which 'he' is Christ and which his follower. But the dramatic over- and often outright mis-use of capitalisation has created a type of textual piety that can be problematic: as if 'the holy Trinity' is less pious than 'the Holy Trinity'. It is the Trinity's holiness that is blessed, not the capitalisation of it! And 'Christ saw his disciples' is no less pious than 'Christ saw His disciples'; the point is that Christ saw them, and Christ is God, capitalisation not withstanding.

Of course, there is pious reverence in this tradition, much of it very holy indeed. But whether or not one wishes to encourage a shift in modern usage, or in one's own usage, it is at least pertinent to note that this is a modern practice, and that in the Church's longstanding testimony and practice, is somewhat foreign.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Paul Cowan]

A short(ish) answer for now, Paul:

The sinner who is shown kneeling at the icon of the Mother of God was in the habit of praying before the icon in full knowledge that he was to sin (in some accounts, commit a crime) shortly afterwards. By his prayers, he, in effect, was praying for his sinful actions to be "blessed". This persistent behaviour could be regarded as "I can go ahead and sin as much as I like, and all will be forgiven". The man was soon confronted with his unrepentant ways in a dramatic way, and finally showed true repentance. The initial refusal of the Christ-child to forgive the man was, in this case, necessary to bring the sinner to his senses, and to true repentance.

Regarding the Sweet-kissing icon, the link you posted shows an icon of the Resurrection, not one of the Mother of God. There are dozens of icons which are classified as Sweet-kissing (or Glykofiloussa, Umilenie), it is quite a broad category, with a number of variations in composition. Could you provide a link to the actual icon within this group? Going by the description you provided, it may be Yakhromskaya (one of the loveliest of this type), the very similar Muromskaya and Yaroslavskaya, or the Consolation (also known as Otrada and Paramythia) icon associated with the Vatopedi Monastery at Mt Athos.

As an aside, grumpy old woman that I am, it has become quite common to render the personal pronouns relating to the Mother of God with capital initials, i.e. She, Her, etc, particularly in American English texts. This tendency has also crept into Russian and Slavonic texts, I've yet to see it in Greek. Without doubt this is done out of great piety and as a measure of devotion to the Mother of God, but it is simply incorrect.

Capitals for personal pronouns, if used, should only be for the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Virgin is indeed and rightly "greater and more glorious than the hosts on high", but she is not divine. She was graced by Divinity in bearing the Son of God, but she remained fully human and mortal.


Hi Olga,
Yes, sorry i should have posted a better photo, but i was more showing the story. The oca site many times does not show the correct icon with the relative history of it. Here is a better representation of the icon (http://www.skete.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=145). i wonder if the iconographer is the same monk Michael that recently joined Monachos.

i found another interpretation of the icon saying Christ was not pushing his mother away but rather was brushing his hand against her chin in loving respect. This just to show how easily i am swayed by the story i am reading. Discernment is not one of my stronger suits.

Paul

[Paul Cowan]

A dear 'amen!' to our grumpy old woman. In point of fact, capitalising personal pronouns relating to persons of the Trinity is also a (relative) novelty, and the majority of the patristic texts and fathers do not (of course!) engage in this practice, nor do the majority of liturgical texts (until relatively recent times). The furthest I've myself been able to track the trend is to Germanic influence on English in the 16th and 17th centuries, with its penchent for capitalising all proper nouns creeping into the English practice (thus, 'He saw the Girl coming up the Long Road with her Mother...'). This appears to have infected the capitalisation of personal pronouns for dignitaries certainly by the 17th century: nobles are 'His Lordship', 'His Majesty', etc.; and this trend is seen divorced from the direct titles in the same period (so, not only 'His Majesty', but also 'they saw Him from afar off...'). This was carried over into references to God, as the fullest form of such wide-spread piety.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, it has certainly been American English that has furthered the trend, as in British English it has been largely diminished (though is far from absent). In common practice today, all sorts of associated adjectives, superlatives, even personal adverbs are capitalised -- so we get, 'Most Holy Angel', 'the Comforting Spirit of Truth', 'the Rightly-Believing Christians', and so on.

There are a few occasions when the capitalisation of personal pronouns relating to, for example, Christ, are helpful. A sentence like, 'he said to him that he should follow the example he set', is clearer as to its subjects when rendered 'He said to him that he should follow the example He set' -- which makes clear which 'he' is Christ and which his follower. But the dramatic over- and often outright mis-use of capitalisation has created a type of textual piety that can be problematic: as if 'the holy Trinity' is less pious than 'the Holy Trinity'. It is the Trinity's holiness that is blessed, not the capitalisation of it! And 'Christ saw his disciples' is no less pious than 'Christ saw His disciples'; the point is that Christ saw them, and Christ is God, capitalisation not withstanding.

Of course, there is pious reverence in this tradition, much of it very holy indeed. But whether or not one wishes to encourage a shift in modern usage, or in one's own usage, it is at least pertinent to note that this is a modern practice, and that in the Church's longstanding testimony and practice, is somewhat foreign.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Dear father Matthew,

Will you be able to live up to your artistic abilities once more by sharing with us an ode to capitalization as you did with Ode to the overuse of boldface font? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53918&postcount=1)

Eagerly,
Paul

[Olga]

The new icon you linked to is of the Yakhromskaya/Muromskaya type, with the figures facing the left, instead of the right. I would rank this Tenderness type on a par with Vladimirskaya in the evocation of maternal love and the consolation of the Christ-child. The delicacy of expression is exquisite, from the embrace of the Mother of God of her Child, to His little hand caressing her face.

The Monk Michael who painted the icon on the Skete site is a Greek monk from the monastery of Karyes, Athos. He is particularly prolific, and his workmanship is superb.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The icon of Christ sternly gazing outward while the Mother of God lowers his hand from her mouth (the icon 'Mother of God Paramythia') is from the monastery of Vatopaidi on the Holy Mountain, and is found in a special chapel there (as well as painted on the outside of the katholikon). It relates to a particular event in the life of the monastery, and is quite interesting. I will try to write it up and post it as soon as I've time.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Dr. Terrance Dougherty]

Hi Olga,

My name is Terrance and I am new to this forum. That said, I am a Roman Catholic who has devotion to the Mother of God and to the Rosary. In fact, in response to a particular novena request, the Holy Theotokos sent me "The Unexpected Joy" narrative. Your insights, comentary, and analysis regarding this icon fascinate me. Please tell me more.

I have sung the Akathist as well.

Thank you.

Terrance


A short(ish) answer for now, Paul:

The sinner who is shown kneeling at the icon of the Mother of God was in the habit of praying before the icon in full knowledge that he was to sin (in some accounts, commit a crime) shortly afterwards. By his prayers, he, in effect, was praying for his sinful actions to be "blessed". This persistent behaviour could be regarded as "I can go ahead and sin as much as I like, and all will be forgiven". The man was soon confronted with his unrepentant ways in a dramatic way, and finally showed true repentance. The initial refusal of the Christ-child to forgive the man was, in this case, necessary to bring the sinner to his senses, and to true repentance.

Regarding the Sweet-kissing icon, the link you posted shows an icon of the Resurrection, not one of the Mother of God. There are dozens of icons which are classified as Sweet-kissing (or Glykofiloussa, Umilenie), it is quite a broad category, with a number of variations in composition. Could you provide a link to the actual icon within this group? Going by the description you provided, it may be Yakhromskaya (one of the loveliest of this type), the very similar Muromskaya and Yaroslavskaya, or the Consolation (also known as Otrada and Paramythia) icon associated with the Vatopedi Monastery at Mt Athos.

As an aside, grumpy old woman that I am, it has become quite common to render the personal pronouns relating to the Mother of God with capital initials, i.e. She, Her, etc, particularly in American English texts. This tendency has also crept into Russian and Slavonic texts, I've yet to see it in Greek. Without doubt this is done out of great piety and as a measure of devotion to the Mother of God, but it is simply incorrect.

Capitals for personal pronouns, if used, should only be for the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Virgin is indeed and rightly "greater and more glorious than the hosts on high", but she is not divine. She was graced by Divinity in bearing the Son of God, but she remained fully human and mortal.

[Olga]

Welcome to the forum, Terrance!

Were you after more information on the icon Unexpected Joy, or on the other icons of the Mother of God referred to in this thread?

[Andreas Moran]

As to capitalisation, we should also, at the other end of the scale, not use a capital 'd' for the devil. There is a degree of capitalisation in modern Orthodox English prayer books (particularly those which use KJV-style English) not found in the KJV where 'he' as the pronoun for Jesus is always with lower case.

As to the spiritual meaning raised in the opening post, I wonder if we can get some clarification of this? The idea that an habitual sin may not be forgiven is deeply troubling! There are surely not a few who struggle with habitual sins of one sort or another. May we not be forgiven in confession if we confess an habitual sin in the knowledge that we are likely to repeat it? How does this relate to the well-known saying that in the spiritual life we fall down and get up again, fall and get up again . . . ?

[Dr. Terrance Dougherty]

Welcome to the forum, Terrance!

Were you after more information on the icon Unexpected Joy, or on the other icons of the Mother of God referred to in this thread?

Thank you for the warm welcome Olga. I'm specifically interested in the Unexpected Joy. Any insights regarding the symbolism of the narrative would be helpful to me. Building upon what you wrote previously in this thread would be a nice start.

Thank you for your assistance.

Terrance

[Father David Moser]

As to the spiritual meaning raised in the opening post, I wonder if we can get some clarification of this? The idea that an habitual sin may not be forgiven is deeply troubling! There are surely not a few who struggle with habitual sins of one sort or another. May we not be forgiven in confession if we confess an habitual sin in the knowledge that we are likely to repeat it? How does this relate to the well-known saying that in the spiritual life we fall down and get up again, fall and get up again . . . ?

Here we must look at the true meaning of repentance. It means "to turn away from". If I am struggling with an habitual sin and as a part of that struggle I come and confess that sin and repent of it with all my heart and strength resolving never to fall into it again -this is repentance that brings forgiveness. If, because I am weak, I am dragged into that sin again, kicking and screaming and resisting all the way, and return to confess my sin and repent again with the resolve never to fall into it again - again we are granted forgiveness. But if we sin and then go to God and in confessing our sin take the attitude that "OK I did sin and I wish I didn't, but you know I know its just going to happen again and again and so I won't waste my time fighting it but just go along with it (or worse yet, I'll just cooperate with it and encourage it since I might as well enjoy it anyway) then there is no repentance, no "turning away" from the sin. Rather there is only an acknowledgment that "Oh yes I guess I did sin" but without the turning away part, without the repenting part. This is brought on by everything from despair and a lack of hope that Jesus Christ not only forgives but delivers us from sin to a genuine love for sin (or at least the pleasure it brings) - a love for the sin greater than our love for our Lord. In this case we only pay lipservice to one Master (God) and pay real service to the other (the sin).

But if we confess our sins and repent with full hope in Christ and truly turn away from our sins. He does indeed forgive us in our weakness time and time again.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is a novel by Nikolai Leskov- On the Edge of the World- where a native Siberian asks the Russian Orthodox bishop how it can be that in Christianity one can do anything one wishes and then basically 'get away with it' by having confession. To him it seems that in Christianity responsibility for ones actions is overlooked.

Of course this is incorrect but it does point to a possible abuse on our part concerning the relationship between sin and confession. As Fr David shows, without responsibility on our part regarding our sin, confession can become an external action that actually increases our sin rather than freeing us from it.

This question becomes particularly sensitive when it comes to habitual sins. These sins are habitual due to the fact that we still enjoy or desire them on some level. Thus our confession is in danger of becoming merely external or an abuse of God's love.

What we can confess though in this situation is how corrupt our desire still is, of how in truth there is still so much of us that desires sin. If we approach confession in this manner then it is honest and not hypocritical. But of course we need to have this attitude of contrition concerning the sinful inclination of our heart.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Dr. Terrance Dougherty]

There is a novel by Nikolai Leskov- On the Edge of the World- where a native Siberian asks the Russian Orthodox bishop how it can be that in Christianity one can do anything one wishes and then basically 'get away with it' by having confession. To him it seems that in Christianity responsibility for ones actions is overlooked.

Of course this is incorrect but it does point to a possible abuse on our part concerning the relationship between sin and confession. As Fr David shows, without responsibility on our part regarding our sin, confession can become an external action that actually increases our sin rather than freeing us from it.

This question becomes particularly sensitive when it comes to habitual sins. These sins are habitual due to the fact that we still enjoy or desire them on some level. Thus our confession is in danger of becoming merely external or an abuse of God's love.

What we can confess though in this situation is how corrupt our desire still is, of how in truth there is still so much of us that desires sin. If we approach confession in this manner then it is honest and not hypocritical. But of course we need to have this attitude of contrition concerning the sinful inclination of our heart.



In Christ- Fr Raphael


Wow! Awesome insights. Thank you Fr. Raphael and Fr. David for your insights. I'm deeply humbled and appreciative.

Merry Christmas.

Terrance

[Andreas Moran]

Two helpful points emerge (for me) from the Fathers' posts. First, that we do not rely upon our repentence but use it as a vehicle for putting our hope in Christ. Secondly, that if we acknowledge the corruption our habitual sin causes, and wish to be free of it, then, though (as we fear) it may recur against our good intentions, we are forgiven. 'I acknowledge my trangression and my sin is ever before me.'

[Paul Cowan]

I have seen several but can only recall a couple icons and their meanings or historical record which reflects Christ refusing mankind. Paul

I was visiting one of our members albums and went to Orthodoxwiki to see the icon Panagia Paramyethea (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Panagia_Paramythea) and saw this story.


Near the monastery, the son of Emperor Theodosius the Great fell off a ship and into the sea. By miraculous intercession of the Mother of God, he was carried safely to shore unharmed and found sleeping in a bush, not far from the Vatopedi monastery. This is the event that defined the name of the monastery (Vato + paidi, derived from "Batos paidion", the bush of the child).

The tradition tells us that the original expression on the faces of the figures and the position of the bodies of Christ and the Blessed Virgin changed when the following strange miracle occurred, January 21, 807:

Pirates had secretly landed on the shore of the monastery and were hiding, waiting for the gates to open in the morning in order to launch an attack on the monastery of Vatopedi. The Abbot, who had remained behind after the end of Matins in order to continue his prayer, heard these words from the icon of the Blessed Virgin:
"Do not open the gates of the Monastery today, but go up on the walls and drive away the pirates."
As he turned to look, he saw the Theotokos turned towards her right shoulder and looking at him, while the Holy child was stretching out His hand to cover the mouth of His mother saying,
"No, Mother, do not watch over this sinful flock, let them fall under the swore of the pirates and be punished as they deserve."
But the Blessed Virgin, taking Her Son's hand in Hers and turning Her head a little to free her mouth, repeating the same words.
This last arrangement of the figures has remained permanently on the icon and has, thus, and has also earned it the rare iconographer's title of "Achaeropito". The monks, miraculously saved from the pirates, gave thanks to the Theotokos and named the icon "Paramythia", which means "calming down" or "restrain," words which equally convey the content of the miracle.

The icon is a wall-painting and is on the right choir of the chapel named after it. [1] In memory of this miraculous event a perpetual lamp burns in front of the wonderworking icon. Every day a Canon of Supplication is chanted in honour of the icon and on Fridays the Divine Liturgy is celebrated.


This is slightly off my original post of refusing repentence, but in this story, Christ is telling his mother to not assist them in sparing their lives due to their sinfullness. If He wants all men to turn from their sin and be saved, where does this story fit in? Fr. Dcn's post above (I just saw it) is "quite interesting". Can you elaborate more on this for me? How does Christ "call draw all men unto Himself" if He tells his mother to let them perish by the sword? Correction from sinfullness is one thing, but where is the Love in this seemingly outright turning of HIs back on them; and even worse, telling her not to intervene? I am sure they afterwards looked to themselves for self-correction, but only because she warned them.

Paul

[Olga]

There were instances in Christ's life where He said or did things which could be construed as harsh or lacking in compassion. Two immediately come to mind: His initial admonishment of His mother at the wedding at Cana (His initial refusal to "do something" about the lack of wine), and the encounter with the Canaanite woman in Matthew's Gospel ch.15:

21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”
23 But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 Then she came and worshipped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I cannot square with any notion that Christ was lacking in love or was indifferent in both these instances, but that He chose to act in this way for a higher purpose. I suspect there may be more to the Paramythia story than meets the eye.

BTW, if the name of this icon indeed means "calming down" or "restrain", then the name of the icon should be Parathymia, not Paramythia. The former word is made up of para (to one side), and thymia (passion, from the root word thymos). Paramythia actually means of legend, and the word paramythi is used to this day to refer to stories such as children's fairy tales.

[Antonios]

This is slightly off my original post of refusing repentence, but in this story, Christ is telling his mother to not assist them in sparing their lives due to their sinfullness. If He wants all men to turn from their sin and be saved, where does this story fit in?

Dear Paul,

I can't answer your very important question and the only thing I can come up with is another question (of which I have no answer for):

If the father of the prodigal son knew that his son was actually not true in his repentance and that the very next day that same son would steal the robe and ring which was given to him and abandon his father again, only to willfully search out riotous living and sinful debauchery, would his father have had the same welcoming reaction at his son's homecoming?

Also, in my small amount of readings, the rare instances of Christ seemingly refusing mercy and forgiveness, whether the Canaanite women or in various divine visitations, those people (or their witnesses) eventually repent and do receive His mercy and forgiveness. It is almost as if such overt and observable appearances of abandonment by Christ Himself only occur when it leads to eventual repentance and mercy. (at least, that is, to my knowledge)

In Christ,
Antonios

[Andreas Moran]

Going back to habitual sins, one way to 'turn away from' (as Fr David put it) such sins is to feel resentful and angry that we are a prisoner of sin. No one likes to feel he is a captive. At the same time, we can postively yearn for freedom; not merely freedom from sin but for freedom in Christ.

[Andreas Moran]

There was a man who told his confessor that he thought it a great shame always to be confessing the same sin, to which the confessor replied, 'so, you think it's better to work through the whole range?'

[Nina]

BTW, if the name of this icon indeed means "calming down" or "restrain", then the name of the icon should be Parathymia, not Paramythia. The former word is made up of para (to one side), and thymia (passion, from the root word thymos). Paramythia actually means of legend, and the word paramythi is used to this day to refer to stories such as children's fairy tales.

Dear Olga, the name is Paramythia. And it means Consolation in the meaning also of giving hope. You are right that 'paramythi' means fairy tale, but what do the fairy tales give? Consolation, hope for the future :) At least this is what I was taught about the Icon of Paramythia. :)

[Vasiliki D.]

Dear Olga, the name is Paramythia. And it means Consolation in the meaning also of giving hope. You are right that 'paramythi' means fairy tale, but what do the fairy tales give? Consolation, hope for the future :) At least this is what I was taught about the Icon of Paramythia. :)

It is not even ParamythI ... it is ParamythEa :) The etymology of the word is not rooted on myth! :) One single vowel makes a whole heap of difference! :) Na eisai kala vre Nina.