The Stigma Of Depression

It is Orthodox that we are in bodies suffering from the fall of man. Sin and disease are the result. Our bodies, through environment and genetics lack what they need and some have more need than others. Cancer is an imbalance in an individual's system that allows the cells to mutate. Balance the system and the cancer goes away. Depression is an imbalance in the system. Balance the system and the depression goes away. Why does one have a stigma and not the other? Depression is a symptom and cannot be seen under a microscope as can cancer. Causes of depression vary with each host- same as cancer. Cures vary with each host-same as cancer. Unfortunately, psychologists have cornered the market on the treatment of depression as a behavior anomaly. The cure is to treat the needs of the body. Psychotropic drugs are not a cure and mask the symptoms. They are of great value in that they allow a person to cope through what can be desperate episodes, but left as a single treatment, the sufferer may never be fully healthy. A person with a propensity toward depression will always have to be on guard. His lifestyle, eating, rest periods, supplements will have to be specific to his needs. It is not a mystery nor a secret that depression is fully curable. A medical doctor needs to be educated. They will not routinely look for the causes such as vitamin deficiencies, kidney malfunction, both related to the body's ability to filter nutrients. Doctors such as Asa Andrews have a holistic approach to life and health from this perspective. Getting on his lifestyle system may change your life. You can enter a time of your life where there are NO episodes and no credit given to anti-depressants. That in effect is a cure. Please forgive if I presume to know too much. I am a living example of everything I just described. For those who would stigmatize the sufferer of depression-would you tell a cancer patient to "snap out of it" or to "have more faith"?

These Mortal Bodies

At first glance it seems encouraging that God has made we humans "a little lower than the angels". Combined with the promise that one day our "little lower" rank will be elevated above the angels is cause for hope. But these mortal bodies do fail us and cause us pain. We are always grateful for the years that God has given us whether our change from mortal to immortal bodies comes in our youth or waits until our old age. I ask all JTO readers to offer at least one prayer for the health and welfare of my earthy father, who at 81 years of age is now faced with a degenerative spine condition. He, much like his father before him, would never willingly stop serving the Lord and being physically active to bring all that will into the Kingdom. He is stubborn to the point of defusing any talk of His condition, which includes extreme pain and the eventual inability to be mobile, to the fact that Creator God knows all about it and will take care of him. Reverend Bill H. Lewis cannot defuse our prayers for him, however, and since I am certain this lifelong Baptist Pastor doesn't read my Orthodox Blog, perhaps I will escape his rebuke for my public request on his behalf.

Christ Is Risen!

Statement of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

We – the Bishops, clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, feel compelled to call as much attention as possible to the following statement.

At the present time, the enemies of Orthodoxy – the Moscow Patriarchate, together with its subservient bureaucrats in the Russian Government – are doing everything possible to completely destroy the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.

This persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church has been going on since the very beginning of our open existence.

During the 1990’s, across Russia, the authorities sought to physically repress any attempt of the faithful who had freed themselves from the pro-Communist and Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate to obtain for their religious needs even a small number of the buildings that had historically been Orthodox churches and had survived the Communist period, in the sole place in Russia where the Russian Orthodox Church was able to organize itself in freedom from lies, betrayals, and heresy – the small city of Suzdal. These authorities illegally took churches away from us, refused to allow us to incorporate our dioceses and parishes, beat our clergy and parishioners up, and slandered us in the press and over the airwaves.

Then, an attempt was made to destroy our Church morally, by slandering and trying our First Hierarch in court. Since there was nothing with which to accuse us, they began to broadcast lies and slander through the mass media to make people who would believe such accusations turn away from our Church. This attempt had some partial success, but our Church remained.

Now, the Vladimir Office of Rossimushchestvo (Russian Federal Property Office), and those who stand behind it, have decided to use the courts to take our churches in Suzdal away from us, in order to deprive us of the possibility of preaching and holding Divine Services in public.

At one time, in the beginning of the 1990’s, when the Communist Party and its stranglehold on power in our country came to an end, the churches began to be returned to people of faith – those who had survived the Soviet meat-grinder; the descendants of those who had built these churches, in the first place. We received all of these churches in accordance with the law, and most of them were in deplorable condition when we received them. And now, after our parishioners have invested so much of their time and money into bringing them into proper shape and embellishing them, the bureaucrats have decided to sue them away from us so that they can give them to the Moscow Patriarchate and use them for their own common purposes.

Our communities of faithful believers are the only lawful proprietors of these buildings, to whom the government had simply returned that which had previously been taken away from them by force – their own inheritance that had been stolen away from them by the Bolsheviks. The faithful were the ones who received them back, they are the ones who restored them, they are the ones who preserved them for the government, and they are the ones who use these churches and maintain them in proper manner. These facts should have been the deciding factor in the courts of the legality of our using these churches. But instead of handing down a fair decision and leaving these churches with the faithful, the courts trampled upon their civil rights, as well as their religious sensibilities, and the Constitution of their own government. Could this happen anywhere else in the world but in Russia?

What this means is that the time has not come to an end in Russia when the authorities, like thieves, acting in opposition to their own people, can appropriate for themselves all of the Orthodox churches they want, deciding the fate of our holy things in accordance with their own whims, can make a mockery out of the religious feelings of people of faith, and dispose of anyone that they don’t happen to like. Now, we are witnesses to a repetition of the past. The tyranny of the bureaucrats continues on who, in the name of government, lord it over the people, and decide the fate of the inheritance that the nation has received from its ancestors. Instead of preserving the nation, instead of preserving our Faith, instead of preserving the government, instead of safeguarding the people, the authorities, in order to please the modern-day Pharisees of the “official church,” exile Orthodox Christians who are guilty of doing nothing wrong, and annihilate the last shreds of religious liberty.

However, their war is not with us. Their war is with Almighty God, Who will quickly repay His enemies for their evil deeds.

Together with the Prophet and King David, our response is, “Our God is refuge and strength, a helper in afflictions which mightily befall us” (Psalm 45:1). Let our oppressors prosper in their luxuries and power. Let them rejoice in their high-sounding titles. Let them “devour widows’ houses” (Matt. 23:14), let them amass their comforts in the bosom of the bureaucracy. We, however, will follow the path of the New Martyrs of Russia – the straight and narrow path of Christ.

We know that very soon, in the churches that belong to us, we shall see the bailiffs of the courts and the militia (OMON), which will beat us up and chase our clergy and people out of their churches. In a word, we shall see the repetition of the same things that took place in our unfortunate country during the horrendous years of the 1920’s and the 1930’s.

In conclusion, we wish to say, not to the district attorneys and judges, but to those people who are standing in the wings behind them and directing this repression against us: We understand that you do not believe in God, but why do you have no fear of bringing yet more shame upon your country?

President of the Synod of Bishops Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir.

Members of the Synod of Bishops:

Archbishop Theodore,

Archbishop Seraphim,

Archbishop Viktor,

Archbishop Hilarion,

Bishop Timothy,

Bishop Irinarkh,

Bishop Andrew,

Bishop Yakov.

Bishops say "NO" to Antiochian Synod and Metroplitan Philip's Power Grab

Bishop Basil of The Diocese Wichita and Mid-America and Bishop Mark of the Diocese of Toledo and the Mid West have refused to sign a document "Affirming Obedience" to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch and Metropolitan Philip that demotes the Bishops to the status of Auxiliary. The document entitled:

RESOLUTION AFFIRMING OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009,WHICH NORMALIZES THE STATUS OF BISHOPS ACROSS THE ENTIRE SEE OF ANTIOCH

The decision, made without consulting the Bishops, raised questions including the canonicity, the legality and the underlying motives of such a sweeping decision. Another Bishop, Alexander of the Diocese of Ottowa Eastern Canada and Upstate New York, also did not sign the document but instead, wrote a note on the signature line saying "this decision is not in effect and does not need my signature." Only three of the six Bishops signed the document, virtually dividing the consensus in half.

Antiochian churches across North America and especially those in the diocese of the resisting bishops now wait to see what the ramifications of such a refusal to sign will have. A few churches have already met on the parish level to discuss the issues involving the possible departure of the Bishops from he Antiochian jurisdiction under Metropolitan Philip or the possibility that Metropolitan Philip and the Antiochian See will recognize the strong opposition to their recent action, not only from the bishops but from clergy and laymen alike.

Many of we who are converts are struck by the blatant papist elements of such an edict that seems to usurp the consensus/synod elements of the faith giving the power of decision to one man in a region. It is not uncommon for one man to have authority over a region, however, what is uncommon is for a region which already has Bishops in place to remove or demote those bishops who have committed no infraction and are in total compliance with the Self Ruling documents already in place. It seems to JTO that the reasons for the demotion of these good men lies in who refused to sign and why. Why would two of the most respected and revered bishops in the entire diocese so openly resist? We can only hope that this information would come from their mouths and very soon.

The official statement from Metropolitan Philip as to why this action was taken is still cryptic and couched in platitudes. The fact of the matter is, he attempted to enforce an independent decision. Half of his bishops refused to sign on to it and the parishioners have rejected it. While it is true that,"Where the bishop is there is the church", it is also true that if you lose the people there is no need for a bishop. Unless you are a papist.

The Bolsheviks Are Back

Author Unknown...

For us who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist dictatorship 20 years ago, it was impossible to believe then that the atheist establishment that fell with such a bang would have been back in business in such a short time. Unfortunately we are re-living the times of 1917 when the Godless regime attempted to drown and extinguish Orthodoxy. Ninety years later after committing unspeakable crimes against the True Orthodox Church of Russia, a new wave of persecution has been unleashed, camouflaged under the cloak of law enforcement by a pseudo-democratic state.

It appears now as if nothing has changed: The state is still trying to suppress and choke off True Orthodoxy, the MP is a cheerleader of the Godless regime (Sergianism in full bloom) and the True Orthodox are once again running for the Catacombs. It is dejavou all over again with two notable exceptions:
* This time the government is pretending to be a democracy enforcing equitable laws and treating everyone equally and
* the MP is an instigator of much of the suffering inflicted on fellow Orthodox if one can ever accept that the MP is Orthodox.

The collusion of MP and the government is clear against those whose only crime is that they are not followers of the government-approved faith. It is inconceivable that in the 21 century, in a country that calls itself Orthodox, the government is seizing and closing Churches and persecuting its citizens merely because they do not follow the faith approved by the government. It is difficult to believe that the True Orthodox of Russia have to revert to asking for help from western heretics to defend them from their fellow "Orthodox". It is difficult to believe that protestants and catholics and Pentecostals are treated as fellow Christians and the True Orthodox are treated as if they are non-believers (as is the case of the Constantinople Patriarchate in its attempt to muzzle the Esphigmenou Monastery and the Traditional movement in general).

I have spent some time in the Middle East where churches were not allowed to place a cross on their buildings but the reason of course is that Christianity is not an accepted religion in Muslim countries. Russia these days resembles a Muslim country when it comes to the Churches of ROAC: ROAC has not been allowed to place a cross or cuppalas on the two churches that have been built in Moscow by private donations and private efforts on private land. Is the present government in Russia of the same mindset? You decide for yourself. If you do not believe what you are reading and find these facts incredible, then please open your eyes and beware of the creeping reality because as they say back in the old country "today it is my neighbors feast but it is also the eve of my celebration". Today it is ROAC in the crosshairs of the neo-soviets. Without a doubt the other Traditional Churches will not escape such treatment when the MP and the government masters find it opportune to smash the competition and silence their voices.

Does Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Have Authority Over the Whole of Orthodoxy?

"In true Orthodoxy, canonicity is not determined by individuals and church politics, but by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. There is no canon promulgated by any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which even remotely suggests that every single Orthodox Jurisdiction must be in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It would be churlish to suggest that given his greatly diminished territorial stature (the Turkish government recently reminded him of the tiny Christian population of his see) he should be stripped of his title of First among Equals. He should rightly remain as the first spokesman of the Church (although the current Patriarch’s dalliance with ecumenism is causing questions to be raised amongst some Churches in this regard). But at no time should he be regarded as exercising any form of temporal or ecclesial jurisdiction. He is simply the 270^th successor of the Apostle Andrew in the See of Constantinople; and that is the greatest of his honours." (See the Full Article HERE from The Hermitage Journal) [UPDATE: 3/9/11-The link provided here has joined a series of links making itself available to members only and is password protected. Prompting the question, why? Seems there are more "orthodox" sites becoming unavailable to the public since the coup of the MP. Also watch for revisionist history, particularly in new additions of books and other Orthodox materials.]

So stop throwing around the phrase "You must be "canonical" as if every Orthodox Bishop must be in communion or under the reign of the Ecumenical Patriarch. That concept is Papism and Papism is certainly not canonical. A Bishopric/Church/Diocese is canonical if it has authentic succession, follows the canons of the Church as presented by the historic Ecumenical Councils, and teaches what has been believed by the Church at all times in all places. This is what Antiochian Metropolitan Philip has refused to accept as he has recently demanded the written acquiescence of his fellow Bishops to the Antiochian Patriarch's decision to demote them without cause.

Here are some of the more relevant questions about canonicity:

1. Is Pseudo-Patriarch Bartholomew canonical when he teaches that there are paths to God other than through Jesus Christ? Do the churches who remain in communion with the heretical Patriarch retain their canonicity?

2. Are Bishops canonical when they issue an edict forbidding all Orthodox to evangelize people of other "christian faiths" in order to preserve "unity"?

3. Is a Bishop or church canonical when it follows a New Calender innovation introduced by a single heretical Masonic Bishop removing that which was practiced by the whole Church and since the First Ecumenical Council?

4. Is any jurisdiction canonical when it considers the Roman Catholic Church to be a sister church sharing the same Eucharistic sacrament?

The Ecumenical Patriarch has been uncanonical in all of these matters. One cannot with integrity broach the issue of canonicity without dealing first with these and other similar questions.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Question: "Should not we cease to emphasize our differences and unite in a spirit of love?"

Answer: "If we, supposedly in the name of love, so as not to trouble our neighbors, are going to keep quiet about their error and not explain to them that they are on a false path, then this is not love at all but hatred! Does he do well who, upon seeing a blind man approaching a precipice, does not tell him about it, so as not to 'trouble' him? Is that then love?"

Antiochians And All Other Parishoners Of "World Orthodoxy"

This is the theology of your hierarchy- your Ecumenical Patriarch, your Patriarchs, your Metropolitans, your Bishops, your Priests and your Deacons who are part of SCOBA and are part of the World Council of Churches and who adopted the following mission statement. Is this what you believe?

The Barr Statement of the World Council of Churches

"That in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word the entire human family has been united to God in an irrevocable bond and covenant. The saving presence of God's activity in all creation in all creation and human history comes to its focal point in the event of Christ...

[Good so far? Look at the rest...]

...because we have experienced goodness, truth and holiness among followers of other paths and ways than that of Jesus Christ..., we find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ."

"Choose you this day whom you will serve."

Saint John Chrysostom's Pascal Homely

If any man be devout and loveth God,
Let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast!
If any man be a wise servant,
Let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord.

If any have laboured long in fasting,
Let him how receive his recompense.
If any have wrought from the first hour,
Let him today receive his just reward.
If any have come at the third hour,
Let him with thankfulness keep the feast.
If any have arrived at the sixth hour,
Let him have no misgivings;
Because he shall in nowise be deprived therefore.
If any have delayed until the ninth hour,
Let him draw near, fearing nothing.
And if any have tarried even until the eleventh hour,
Let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness.

For the Lord, who is jealous of his honour,
Will accept the last even as the first.
He giveth rest unto him who cometh at the eleventh hour,
Even as unto him who hath wrought from the first hour.
And He showeth mercy upon the last,
And careth for the first;
And to the one He giveth,
And upon the other He bestoweth gifts.
And He both accepteth the deeds,
And welcometh the intention,
And honoureth the acts and praises the offering.

Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord;
Receive your reward,
Both the first, and likewise the second.
You rich and poor together, hold high festival!
You sober and you heedless, honour the day!
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted
And you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously.
The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:
Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.

Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead,
Is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be glory and dominion
Unto ages of ages.

Amen.

"A Brief Analysis of the Current Situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese"

Unsigned Document
Full PDF File Here

A Brief Analysis of the Current Situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese April 6, 2009

What Happened?

In February, the Holy Synod met and claimed to have changed its bylaws to “normalize” its rules governing non-Metropolitan bishops, even though it did not have a quorum present to issue a binding decision under its own rules.

In the Antiochian Church today, there are only three bishops, other than our own Diocesan Bishops, who are not Metropolitans—and one of these bishops—the Patriarchal Vicar—is not permitted to be a Metropolitan. Although couched as a decision affecting the entire Patriarchate, the decision, if binding, would affect North America disproportionately.

Metropolitan PHILIP then issued a directive stating that, as a result of the Holy Synod’s decision, our Diocesan Bishops were (a) reduced in status to Auxiliary Bishops and (b) not permitted to do anything contrary to the will of the Metropolitan.

Metropolitan PHILIP regularly states that this is a “narrow administrative change” and that nothing really changed—the Local Synod continues to exist and the bishops in the Archdiocese just have an added title to their names—“Auxiliary.” Quite the opposite is true. Although the Local Synod may still “make decisions,” Metropolitan PHILIP’s directive clearly prohibits any bishops from opposing his own will, as some have in the past.

Is the Action Binding on the Archdiocese?

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because it is noncanonical. The Holy Canons are exceedingly clear that one bishop may not be subjected to the authority of another bishop without (a) the consent of the affected bishop or (b) a conviction of the affected bishop by an ecclesiastical court for conduct unbecoming a bishop or teaching or action contrary to Scriptures, the Holy Canons, or Holy Tradition. This ecclesiological structure is one of the fundamental differences between Holy Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism; Holy Orthodoxy does not tolerate and has never tolerated superbishops. Metropolitan PHILIP himself has said, in response to a query from Bishop BASIL, that none of the Diocesan Bishops have done anything wrong.

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because its decision was not properly taken in accordance with its own rules that require a quorum of at least 11 of its 20 members to be present before it can take binding action. The signatures of only 9 members were affixed to the document faxed to Metropolitan PHILIP, and the presence of at least one of those bishops was unlikely. Metropolitan PHILIP indicates that the document was faxed to other members of the Synod for approval, but signatures after the meeting by members not present would not make the action binding after the fact.

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because its decision violates its grant of self-rule to the Archdiocese in 2003. The Holy Synod bound itself to revising its own Constitution to reflect the special “self-rule” status for our Archdiocese. Although the Holy Synod never got around to amending its Constitution as promised, its failure in this regard did not make self-rule any less of a reality.

On a number of previous occasions (primarily dealing with differences in the Archdiocesan Constitution as adopted by the General Assembly and as approved by the Holy Synod), Metropolitan PHILIP and the Archdiocesan Legal Department themselves have insisted in no uncertain terms that:

The Holy Synod’s grant of self-rule was irrevocable; and

The Holy Synod, by reason of its grant of self-rule, was not permitted to interfere in the administration of the Archdiocese.

Since 2003, our Diocesan Bishops have been exempt from the rules that the Holy Synod attempted to amend in February:

The Holy Synod’s Bylaws have always contained rules that make non-Metropolitan bishops into what we refer to as “Auxiliary Bishops.”

The Holy Synod’s grant of self-rule to our Archdiocese removed our Diocesan Bishop from the scope of these rules.

The Holy Synod’s purported action in February simply amended the existing rules governing Auxiliary Bishops and would, if binding, have no effect on our Diocesan Bishops—they have been exempt from these rules since the Holy Synod granted self-rule to our Archdiocese.

The Metropolitan’s directive violates the Archdiocesan Certificate of Incorporation and the Constitution approved by the people.

Section 2(c) of the Archdiocese’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that, if the provisions of the Archdiocesan Constitution are not followed as the result of an action taken outside the Archdiocese, both the Board of Trustees and the Local Synod must take “all necessary action to protect the Archdiocese.” Our Board of Trustees and Local Synod (including Metropolitan PHILIP) have a legal obligation to take all necessary action to protect the Archdiocese from any attempts by the Holy Synod to reduce the status of our Diocesan Bishops.

The Archdiocesan Constitution provides very clearly that the decision-making power in the Archdiocese resides in the Local Synod and not in the Metropolitan.

Metropolitan PHILIP and the Archdiocesan Legal Department have reminded the Faithful many times that the Archdiocesan Constitution may only be changed by following the procedures set forth in it. These procedures have not been followed, in disregard of both (a) the Constitution approved by the Faithful and (b) the Metropolitan’s own past insistences.

Why was this Done?

At this time, we can only speculate as to the reasons for this action. The national Association of Orthodox Christian Attorneys has published a helpful and well-documented factual timeline of the Archdiocese’s path to self-rule and situations that have occurred since at http://www.orthodoxattorneys.org/resources.html.

The facts, themselves, suggest a number of reasons, but it is up to you to develop your own thoughts in the matter. www.ocanews.org also has some excellent discussion of this issue, but you must be careful to distinguish between fact and rumor.

What can be Done?

Pray. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

Think clearly. Our Metropolitan has done much good for this Archdiocese. There may be a temptation, as was the case with (Father) Joseph Allen, to give Metropolitan PHILIP what he wants simply because he has done these good things. The Metropolitan’s directive, however, strikes at the very heart of the Orthodox Faith. Never before in history has our Church permitted the authority of a bishop to be reduced by other bishops without that bishop’s consent or a conviction of that bishop for wrongdoing. The Metropolitan wants us to accept his short-term practical answer (“nothing has really changed”) to a question both of principle (“do the Canons permit this?”) and one of long-term reality (“assuming nothing would really change during the Metropolitan’s tenure, what happens after he dies?”).

Act like a responsible Orthodox Christian layperson.

When a bishop acts in a manner not sanctioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, the laity have a distinct role that they are obligated to exercise—the laity are the guarantee of the Orthodoxy of the Church. When most of the bishops at the Council of Florence signed a statement of agreement with the Papal authorities, they returned home to laity who refused to comply. Ultimately, these bishops either recanted their agreements or were treated as heretics because of the pressure brought by the people.

Consider contacting all members of the Board of Trustees and the Local Synod (including your Diocesan Bishop), encouraging them to hold fast against this noncanonical situation and to meet their legal obligation to protect this Archdiocese from the Holy Synod’s attempted action.

Advocate for the true practice of our Orthodox Faith; don’t attack people or personalities. Be respectful in all that you do, no matter how distasteful you find something.

Understand that not everyone is compelled to protest this action in the same manner. Different Orthodox Christians will find different ways that are best suited to their souls.