Topic: St Mary of Egypt and grave-digging lions!

[Tommelomsky]

Some orthodox people can't believe even in the Holy Fire, not to mention lions digging a grave. They say the Patriarch brings in a lighter  .

The life itself is a miracle. The creation is so complex and inconceivable, that dragons and lions do not seem to be a miracle at all if you give it a thought.

Also, if you have some experience of prayer, you should have noticed, that God knows your every thought, your every feeling and the slightest pain. And He knows this about all 7 billion people simultaneously (while an average person can hardly memorize a 6 digit telephone number). God is great, isn't He?

Why would you then question such trifles as lions digging a grave?

Why people not even can believe in The Holy Fire, it is hard to tell. But I can tell this:
I pray for them. Daily.

God is great. + Glory to God in all things! +

[orthonorm]

Why people not even can believe in The Holy Fire, it is hard to tell.

Because it is not a matter of Christian belief. Neither are lions digging graves.

While I appreciate the maximalist approach the Orthodox tend to project, there is a place for a minimalist critique as well, perhaps not to the degree that YIM takes it (by perhaps I mean obviously not).

Balance seems to be important. And maximalism taken too far, if nothing else takes the emphasis away from the more important aspects of Christian thought and act.

[Tommelomsky]

Balance sure. Will to trust in God yes.
Maximalism can distort one spiritually and steal some of the focus too. I am painfully aware of that.

[Nikolai Sergeev]

Well, atheists also do not believe in the Holy Fire, nor do they believe in the miracle of the Penitent Thief's cross, which, since it was installed by Saint Helena at the island of Cyprus, was hovering in the air suspended by the Holy Spirit for more than 1000 years. I bet atheists do not believe in lions digging a grave as well (lions digging a grave, what a joke ).

If you have no faith, you can't believe, it's easy as that. It doesn't mean that the person, who doesn't believe is a bad person (one of them actually was Saint Thomas, one of the Twelve), but it surely does mean something, which I can't formulate due to lack of spiritual vision and experience.

Any way the phenomen (lack of faith among christians) exists, and I believe we should discuss it from time to time to help each other in one's faith issues.    

[Deacon Lance]

The Vatican has demoted St. Barbara because the accounts of her life seem to lack historicity.

And how does one demote a saint?  In the Roman Catholic Church since 1970 her day may be celebrated as an optional memorial, before that it had the rank of simple feast, functionaly equivalent.  In the Melkite Catholic Church her day is polyeleos rank and in the Slavic Greek Catholic Churches her day is simple rank as she always had been.  Some saints in the General Roman Calendar, especially those with fantastic legends but little history had the rank of their feast reduced but none were removed from the martyrology and anyone in the martyrology may be commemorated.

[podkarpatska]

Why people not even can believe in The Holy Fire, it is hard to tell.

Because it is not a matter of Christian belief. Neither are lions digging graves.

While I appreciate the maximalist approach the Orthodox tend to project, there is a place for a minimalist critique as well, perhaps not to the degree that YIM takes it (by perhaps I mean obviously not).

Balance seems to be important. And maximalism taken too far, if nothing else takes the emphasis away from the more important aspects of Christian thought and act.

Agreed, but balance can be illusive....or deceptive.

[Arachne]

The Vatican has demoted St. Barbara because the accounts of her life seem to lack historicity.

And how does one demote a saint?  In the Roman Catholic Church since 1970 her day may be celebrated as an optional memorial, before that it had the rank of simple feast, functionaly equivalent.  In the Melkite Catholic Church her day is polyeleos rank and in the Slavic Greek Catholic Churches her day is simple rank as she always had been.  Some saints in the General Roman Calendar, especially those with fantastic legends but little history had the rank of their feast reduced but none were removed from the martyrology and anyone in the martyrology may be commemorated.

St Barbara's feast day has been removed from the Roman calendar. Feel free to verify.

[Tommelomsky]

Why people not even can believe in The Holy Fire, it is hard to tell.

Because it is not a matter of Christian belief. Neither are lions digging graves.

While I appreciate the maximalist approach the Orthodox tend to project, there is a place for a minimalist critique as well, perhaps not to the degree that YIM takes it (by perhaps I mean obviously not).

Balance seems to be important. And maximalism taken too far, if nothing else takes the emphasis away from the more important aspects of Christian thought and act.

Agreed, but balance can be illusive....or deceptive.

Well. St Mary of Egypt has a special place in my daily prayerlife and I have a deep respect for the lives and the works of the saints.
It is not me who makes the critical questions..I just try in a newbie way to explain why I believe.

Forgive me, I am just a fool - but one that truly believes.

[podkarpatska]

As a general rule, the Church, in her liturgical commemorations of saints does not focus upon the details of hagiography, but rather upon, for lack of a better word, the essence of the saint's life or deeds. Fr. Hopko, on the OCA's excellent online exposition on Orthodox doctrine explains:

"There are volumes on lives of the saints in the Orthodox tradition. ..... Because these volumes were written down in times quite different from our own, it is necessary to read them carefully to distinguish the essential points from the artificial and sometimes even fanciful embellishments which are often contained in them. ... It also was the custom to add many elements, particularly supernatural and miraculous events of the most extraordinary sort, to confirm the true holiness of the saint, to gain strength for his spiritual goodness and truth, and to foster imitation of his virtues in the lives of the hearers and readers. In many cases the miraculous is added to stress the ethical righteousness and innocence of the saint in the face of his detractors.

Generally speaking, it does not take much effort to distinguish the sound kernel of truth in the lives of the saints from the additions made in the spirit of piety and enthusiasm of the later periods; and the effort should be made to see the essential truth which the lives contain. Also, the fact that elements of a miraculous nature were added to the lives of saints during medieval times for the purposes of edification, entertainment, and even amusement should not lead to the conclusion that all things miraculous in the lives of the saints are invented for literary or moralizing purposes. ... Again, a careful reading of the lives of the saints will almost always reveal what is authentic and true in the realm of the miraculous. " http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-saints

[Deacon Lance]

St Barbara's feast day has been removed from the Roman calendar. Feel free to verify.

 

The site is wrong.  Her day is no longer included in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite ordinary form as a mandatory commemoration.  She is still in the Roman Martyrology and her commemoration may be made.  She was not demoted or de-canonized, or any other such thing.

[Alveus Lacuna]

The Bible has talking snakes and asses, flying flaming chariots, and shadows with healing properties. How this seems like any more of a stretch into the non-historical or legendary than your everyday scriptural affairs is beyond me.

[mike]

St Barbara's feast day has been removed from the Roman calendar. Feel free to verify.

 

The site is wrong.  Her day is no longer included in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite ordinary form as a mandatory commemoration.  She is still in the Roman Martyrology and her commemoration may be made.  She was not demoted or de-canonized, or any other such thing.

And with this post the OT about the veneration of her in the RCC shall end.

[katherineofdixie]

The Bible has talking snakes and asses, flying flaming chariots, and shadows with healing properties. How this seems like any more of a stretch into the non-historical or legendary than your everyday scriptural affairs is beyond me.

That's the way it's always seemed to me as well. What's any more unlikely than a person you knew was dead frying fish for you a few days later?

[Tommelomsky]

In many ways it reminds of when my family tries to pick me apart when it comes to faith and say:

How can you believe in that?!
What does God give you?!
How dare you to set him before us? How could you!?

But as I have answered them over and over again, as humbly as you can in that situation: I believe. I do care about you. I do love you.
God comes always first. For me it boils down to these words. If it makes me this forums biggest fool, fine. Then I am. For Christ I can live with that.

Can you?

[TheTrisagion]

The Bible has talking snakes and asses, flying flaming chariots, and shadows with healing properties. How this seems like any more of a stretch into the non-historical or legendary than your everyday scriptural affairs is beyond me.

That's the way it's always seemed to me as well. What's any more unlikely than a person you knew was dead frying fish for you a few days later?

I don't really look at it as likely vs unlikely, because as far as miracles are concerned, that is irrelevent.  I see it more as how trustworthy is the source?  Apostles writing about Christ = very trustworthy.  Pious peasants in medieval Russia telling a story about a Russian saint = not so trustworthy.  As it pertains to St. Mary of Egypt, the primary source info we have on her was written 200-300 years after her death, which is plenty of time for pious imaginations to infiltrate the story.  I consider the story to be largely truthful, but I suspect there are aspects of the story which may have been embellished. Lions digging graves may or may not be one of those embellishments, but if it is or is not, it doesn't really affect the spiritual value of the story.

[Shanghaiski]

I love the Life of St. Mary of Egypt and am truly inspired by her story. My question is, is it possible that when it is told that a lion helped dig her grave that that part of the story is just a myth. I am not saying the Lord couldn't have done that but it just reads like a myth. your thoughts?

There are a lot stranger things we accept as part of our faith--a virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc. And no Orthodox Christian things they're myths. Why would it be so odd that animals would perform a service for a saint? After all, before the fall, animals served man.

[Shanghaiski]

My cat brings me some dead lizards, mice or birds from time to time if that counts.

And during Lent, your cat brings you fish and shrimp and tofu.

"Where did you get the tofu, kitty?"

"Meow."

[Shanghaiski]

The Vatican has demoted St. Barbara because the accounts of her life seem to lack historicity.

And how does one demote a saint?  In the Roman Catholic Church since 1970 her day may be celebrated as an optional memorial, before that it had the rank of simple feast, functionaly equivalent.  In the Melkite Catholic Church her day is polyeleos rank and in the Slavic Greek Catholic Churches her day is simple rank as she always had been.  Some saints in the General Roman Calendar, especially those with fantastic legends but little history had the rank of their feast reduced but none were removed from the martyrology and anyone in the martyrology may be commemorated.

In the eyes of the Eastern rites, Roman commemorations of saints are all demotions, lol.

[Shanghaiski]

The Bible has talking snakes and asses, flying flaming chariots, and shadows with healing properties. How this seems like any more of a stretch into the non-historical or legendary than your everyday scriptural affairs is beyond me.

That's the way it's always seemed to me as well. What's any more unlikely than a person you knew was dead frying fish for you a few days later?

I think He grilled them in the Gospel, although if He had been in the South, doubtless, He'd have fried them.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I don't really look at it as likely vs unlikely, because as far as miracles are concerned, that is irrelevent.  I see it more as how trustworthy is the source?  Apostles writing about Christ = very trustworthy.  Pious peasants in medieval Russia telling a story about a Russian saint = not so trustworthy.  As it pertains to St. Mary of Egypt, the primary source info we have on her was written 200-300 years after her death, which is plenty of time for pious imaginations to infiltrate the story.  I consider the story to be largely truthful, but I suspect there are aspects of the story which may have been embellished. Lions digging graves may or may not be one of those embellishments, but if it is or is not, it doesn't really affect the spiritual value of the story.

Kind of like the various redactions and revisions throughout the history of the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which I was primarily referencing? Pretty sure that the "eyewitnesses" of even New Testament events were illiterate peasants or fishermen in many instances. You can play head games all you want but a preference for the scriptural sources as more reliable is arbitrary at best and disingenuous at worst. Even the scholarly dating for hagiography/canonized lives and canonized scripture is based on best guesses and available/known manuscripts.

Don't turn off your brain; turn it up.

[Balthasar]

Our brother, Gebre Menfes Kidus, articulated it eloquently, “Sometimes I feel that it is impossible for a human being to have lived such a devout and miraculous life, but then I realize this is simply due to my spiritual ignorance and lack of faith. For nothing is impossible with God. (St. Luke 1:37)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=21160.0

I purposely bring up secular medias to demonstrate that, even the quite often skeptic materialists and Protestants sometimes, somehow, are humble enough to question their ignorance. Though, the demons of prejudice won't abandon them easily.

 (Ac.8:26-39)

“The Ethiopian Eunuch as a Foreshadowing of the Coming Gentile Mission”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reverend-william-e-flippin-jr/the-ethiopian-eunuch-as-a_b_1792387.html

Lions Save African Girl From Abductors

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160265,00.html

The so-called, “wildlife expert” seems to know everything:

"A young girl whimpering could be mistaken for the mewing sound from a lion cub, which in turn could explain why they didn't eat her,"

Interesting comments, 8 years later:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3004901/posts

http://grist.org/list/kidnapped-beaten-ethiopian-girl-rescued-by-caring-protective-lions/

And, finally, I copied this beautiful poem about “St. Abune Aregawi”, to anger the wild skeptics

Long, long ago, or so I’ve heard,
Nine holy men from Syria came
Intent to bring God’s Holy Word
And spread the same in Heaven’s name
Throughout the godless lands of Tigray;
They lived by vows, they did not marry,
But every day they knelt to pray
Especially Abune Aregawi.

He led them by his good example,
A man of God in every way
With vices none and virtues ample.
Some years went by but then one day
St. Abune Aregawi thought
He’d go and found a monastery:
It had to be a quiet spot,
Uncrowded and temptation-free.

He saw a place on top of a crag
Ideal for prayer and meditation.
Unluckily there was a snag —
No way up save levitation!
He knelt upon his knees to pray
(Until they both began to ache)
That God would help him find a way,
So God produced a giant snake

To do the job and no mistake
For it was half a kilometre
In length at least, for pity’s sake!
Believe you me, or ask St. Peter.
Anyways this snake let down its tail
And slid it round old Abune’s waist
(At this the saint turned rather pale
To find himself so tight embraced) .

But before you could say “Jack Robinson”
St. Abune found himself up high
On top of the cliff and the job was done
With the help of God it was easy as pie!
St. Abune called this holy place
Debra Damo and nowadays
All who tread this holy space
Must climb a rope and not use stairs.

So let us praise this holy man
Who founded Debra Damo
In the year A.D.501
Some fifteen hundred years ago.
His nigdet is for rich and poor
Upon the 14th of October
So all go easy on the suwa
And for St.Abune’s sake, stay sober.

Note: St. Abune Aregawi was an early Ethiopian Christian saint who founded the ancient monastery of Debra Damo. Legend has it that he chose the site at the top of an inaccessible cliff but was only able to gain access to it when, in answer to his prayers, at God's behest a giant snake lowered itself to pick him up and place him on top of the cliff. To this day, access to this ancient monastery (restricted to men and male animals) involves climbing up a rope suspended from the top of the cliff. 'Nigdet' is a saint's feastday; 'suwa' is a kind of home-made beer served at such feasts.

[TheTrisagion]

I don't really look at it as likely vs unlikely, because as far as miracles are concerned, that is irrelevent.  I see it more as how trustworthy is the source?  Apostles writing about Christ = very trustworthy.  Pious peasants in medieval Russia telling a story about a Russian saint = not so trustworthy.  As it pertains to St. Mary of Egypt, the primary source info we have on her was written 200-300 years after her death, which is plenty of time for pious imaginations to infiltrate the story.  I consider the story to be largely truthful, but I suspect there are aspects of the story which may have been embellished. Lions digging graves may or may not be one of those embellishments, but if it is or is not, it doesn't really affect the spiritual value of the story.

Kind of like the various redactions and revisions throughout the history of the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which I was primarily referencing? Pretty sure that the "eyewitnesses" of even New Testament events were illiterate peasants or fishermen in many instances. You can play head games all you want but a preference for the scriptural sources as more reliable is arbitrary at best and disingenuous at worst. Even the scholarly dating for hagiography/canonized lives and canonized scripture is based on best guesses and available/known manuscripts.

Don't turn off your brain; turn it up.

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

[LBK]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

We are not Swedenborgians.

[orthonorm]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

We are not Swedenborgians.

When does Star Trek villain get mashed up with this group on some ridiculous cartoon? Or when did it? Since the internet has done everything already.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

We are not Swedenborgians.

I know. I'm taking problematic thoughts to their potential end, and you're getting in the way.

[TheTrisagion]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

I don't think I ever stated that I think it is exclusively mythological to the exclusion of historicity.  I said it is history mixed with myth.  The percentages of which is which does not really concern me.  I obviously don't believe Christ's resurrection to be myth or I wouldn't be Orthodox.  Are there mythological stories about Christ's life?  Yes, I believe there are. I would look at the Acts of Pilate or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as examples of those. There may be history in them, but it is mixed with a good amount of myth.  In reading the OT, it is not difficult to find stories that have been stretched a bit.  Even if Adam is wholely myth, (which I do not believe is the case), it does not automatically lead to Christ being myth.

[orthonorm]

I don't really look at it as likely vs unlikely, because as far as miracles are concerned, that is irrelevent.  I see it more as how trustworthy is the source?  Apostles writing about Christ = very trustworthy.  Pious peasants in medieval Russia telling a story about a Russian saint = not so trustworthy.  As it pertains to St. Mary of Egypt, the primary source info we have on her was written 200-300 years after her death, which is plenty of time for pious imaginations to infiltrate the story.  I consider the story to be largely truthful, but I suspect there are aspects of the story which may have been embellished. Lions digging graves may or may not be one of those embellishments, but if it is or is not, it doesn't really affect the spiritual value of the story.

Kind of like the various redactions and revisions throughout the history of the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which I was primarily referencing? Pretty sure that the "eyewitnesses" of even New Testament events were illiterate peasants or fishermen in many instances. You can play head games all you want but a preference for the scriptural sources as more reliable is arbitrary at best and disingenuous at worst. Even the scholarly dating for hagiography/canonized lives and canonized scripture is based on best guesses and available/known manuscripts.

Don't turn off your brain; turn it up.

Your argument for maximalism can lead to the same end as the alleged minimalism you are suggesting is being argued here. No is making the connections you are.

This is where turning your brain up does include source criticism, genre criticism, etc.

The good thing I think to see here is that I don't think anyone is walking away missing what matters about the story here. Belief in the Resurrection (or the struggle to do so) is required for standing in the Church. Grave digging lions ain't. And the Resurrection goes directly to the point of the Gospel. Directly. With some creative and possibly interesting symbolic exegesis grave digging lions might shed some light on something relevant to salvation, but I think most here could agree it is not necessary, not even to understand the import of the story.

If you take the hagiography of my favorite Saint, I am not sure what the necessary upshot is, except maybe elements of non-canonical narratives of the Nativity found their way back into the fold via oral legend, I dunno:

Rumwold was a medieval infant saint in England, said to have lived for three days in 662.[2] He is said to have been miraculously full of Christian piety despite his young age, and able to speak from the moment of his birth, professing his faith, requesting baptism, and delivering a sermon prior to his early death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumwold_of_Buckingham

[Shanghaiski]

I was referencing the dead frying fish comment by Katherine. In regards to your comment, I will readily admit that I am not convinced that all that is told in the OT is 100% historical.  I think there is history mixed with myth.  1000's of years will do that to any writing.  I accept it as infallible for my spiritual health, not a history or science book.

Is the resurrection motif necessarily historical and scientific to be a spiritually "healthy" moral tale? If the Old Adam is exclusively mythological and archetypical to the exclusion of simultaneous actual historicity, then why not the New Adam as well?

We are not Swedenborgians.

When does Star Trek villain get mashed up with this group on some ridiculous cartoon? Or when did it? Since the internet has done everything already.

Thank you for making me think of the Swedish Chef as part of the Borg. Resistance is futile, BORK BORK BORK.

[Shanghaiski]

I don't really look at it as likely vs unlikely, because as far as miracles are concerned, that is irrelevent.  I see it more as how trustworthy is the source?  Apostles writing about Christ = very trustworthy.  Pious peasants in medieval Russia telling a story about a Russian saint = not so trustworthy.  As it pertains to St. Mary of Egypt, the primary source info we have on her was written 200-300 years after her death, which is plenty of time for pious imaginations to infiltrate the story.  I consider the story to be largely truthful, but I suspect there are aspects of the story which may have been embellished. Lions digging graves may or may not be one of those embellishments, but if it is or is not, it doesn't really affect the spiritual value of the story.

Kind of like the various redactions and revisions throughout the history of the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which I was primarily referencing? Pretty sure that the "eyewitnesses" of even New Testament events were illiterate peasants or fishermen in many instances. You can play head games all you want but a preference for the scriptural sources as more reliable is arbitrary at best and disingenuous at worst. Even the scholarly dating for hagiography/canonized lives and canonized scripture is based on best guesses and available/known manuscripts.

Don't turn off your brain; turn it up.

Your argument for maximalism can lead to the same end as the alleged minimalism you are suggesting is being argued here. No is making the connections you are.

This is where turning your brain up does include source criticism, genre criticism, etc.

The good thing I think to see here is that I don't think anyone is walking away missing what matters about the story here. Belief in the Resurrection (or the struggle to do so) is required for standing in the Church. Grave digging lions ain't. And the Resurrection goes directly to the point of the Gospel. Directly. With some creative and possibly interesting symbolic exegesis grave digging lions might shed some light on something relevant to salvation, but I think most here could agree it is not necessary, not even to understand the import of the story.

If you take the hagiography of my favorite Saint, I am not sure what the necessary upshot is, except maybe elements of non-canonical narratives of the Nativity found their way back into the fold via oral legend, I dunno:

Rumwold was a medieval infant saint in England, said to have lived for three days in 662.[2] He is said to have been miraculously full of Christian piety despite his young age, and able to speak from the moment of his birth, professing his faith, requesting baptism, and delivering a sermon prior to his early death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumwold_of_Buckingham

I love St. Rumwold of Buckingham!

[mersch]

Guess these lions must not of received the memo that they don't help someone in need    Poor girl, thankfully the lions were there.  Soooo,       why so hard to believe that one helped St Mary dig a grave? http://madmikesamerica.com/2013/04/lions-save-ethiopian-girl-from-being-beaten-and-raped/

[Shanghaiski]

Guess these lions must not of received the memo that they don't help someone in need    Poor girl, thankfully the lions were there.  Soooo,       why so hard to believe that one helped St Mary dig a grave? http://madmikesamerica.com/2013/04/lions-save-ethiopian-girl-from-being-beaten-and-raped/

Perhaps because they don't want to be laughed at. As if people don't already laugh at them for believing in what they, as Orthodox Christians, should believe in (but perhaps do not really--who can tell?).