ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY – MULTILINGUAL ORTHODOXY – EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH – ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΙΑ – SIMBAHANG ORTODOKSO NG SILANGAN – 东正教在中国 – ORTODOXIA – 日本正教会 – ORTODOSSIA – อีสเทิร์นออร์ทอดอกซ์ – ORTHODOXIE – 동방 정교회 – PRAWOSŁAWIE – ORTHODOXE KERK - නැගෙනහිර ඕර්තඩොක්ස් සභාව – СРЦЕ ПРАВОСЛАВНО – BISERICA ORTODOXĂ – GEREJA ORTODOKS – ORTODOKSI – ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ – ORTODOKSE KIRKE – CHÍNH THỐNG GIÁO ĐÔNG PHƯƠNG – EAGLAIS CHEARTCHREIDMHEACH – ՈՒՂՂԱՓԱՌ ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆ / Abel-Tasos Gkiouzelis - https://gkiouzelisabeltasos.blogspot.com - Email: gkiouz.abel@gmail.com - Feel free to email me...!
Seraphim McCune
My youngest son, Taliesin, is seventeen years old. He is an Orthodox Christian and is digging deep to learn about the teachings of the Church, to live the life of the sacraments, and grow in the grace of God. He recently moved 2,000 kilometers to live with his half-brother and help prepare for the arrival of his half-brother’s child (due in late December or early January) by making repairs and improvements to the home.
Life in the American state of New Mexico can be harsh. It is a desert with an elevation of 1,900 meters. Summers are hot and days this time of year (late August/early September) often end with monsoon rains that last anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. The mountains to the west and north of the area create turbulent weather at times.
My son and I were talking about spiritual matters over a social media messenger. He was defending his faith for a friend who is reluctant to embrace the faith, but is open to hearing what he says. After a few minutes he informed me that the weather had become severe and the National Weather Service had issued a flood advisory and a tornado watch. While rare in most of the world, tornadoes are very common in the summer in the southern and eastern parts of the United States. New Mexico has only a few every decade, but there is no shelter from them as few homes have a basement in that region. The winds began to pick up strongly as the storm front reached his brother’s home and he told me about it and the advisories.
I typed in the chat, “Most Holy Theotokos, rescue us!” My son began to pray and ask the Theotokos’ intercessions. Two or three minutes later he chatted again that the storm had passed as suddenly as it had appeared and that a dusting of snow had taken its place—right there in the desert in the summer! I have taught him to trust in God and His saints from a young age, but it is only since we entered canonical Orthodoxy at Pentecost last year that he has taken this as a personal action and belief.
My son shared what had happened with his skeptical friend and she opened up to the idea that God’s saints are close to Him and He listens to them when they intercede for us. Never forget that your children are paying attention. Show them that you believe and they will be inclined to do the same. As it says in the Book of Proverbs, Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
In closing, I can only say this: God is gloriously to be praised and He is glorious in His saints, especially His most pure and holy Mother!
Seraphim McCune
9/20/2021
https://orthochristian.com/141863.html
The Search for Orthodoxy
Fr. Seraphim Rose, Platina, CA, USA (+1982)
"And I, a sinner, have been trying to love God"
Saint Herman of Alaska (+1836)
“And I, a sinner, have been trying to love God for more than forty years, and cannot say that I perfectly love Him. If we love someone we always remember him and try to please him; day and night our heart is occupied with that object.
Is that how you, gentlemen, love God? Do you often turn to Him, do you always remember Him, do you always pray to Him and fulfill His holy commandments? ‘For our good, for our happiness at least let us make a vow that from this day, from this hour, from this minute we shall strive to love God above all else and to fulfill His holy will.’”
—Saint Herman of Alaska (+1836)
<>
Before I was 80, I would visit Paradise frequently. And now as well but age has a role to play. One time the Lord took me by the hand and was telling me “...here you built a Church, here you Confessed and a soul was saved, here you comforted, here you corrected...” In other words, He was telling me everything and with that He was giving me great joy while talking to me. So much joy that I said: “My Christ, I can’t bear anymore. I can’t bear anymore. I’m going to explode, take me back. And I found myself back again in my room.
Attempts of Jews and Heretics to Dishonor The Ever-Virginity of Mary
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
THE JEWISH slanderers soon became convinced that it was almost impossible to dishonor the Mother of Jesus, and on the basis of the information which they themselves possessed it was much easier to prove Her praiseworthy life. Therefore, they abandoned this slander of theirs, which had already been taken up by the pagans (Origen, Against Celsus, I),and strove to prove at least that Mary was not a virgin when She gave birth to Christ. They even said that the prophecies concerning the birth-giving of the Messiah by a virgin had never existed, and that therefore it was entirely in vain that Christians thought to exalt Jesus by the fact that a prophecy was supposedly being fulfilled in Him.
Jewish translators were found (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) who made new translations of the Old Testament into Greek and in these translated the well-known prophecy of Isaiah (Is. 7:14) thus: Behold, a young woman will conceive. They asserted that the Hebrew word Aalma signified “young woman” and not “virgin,” as stood in the sacred translation of the Seventy Translators [Septuagint], where this passage had been translated “Behold, a virgin shall conceive.”
By this new translation they wished to prove that Christians, on the basis of an incorrect translation of the word Aalma, thought to ascribe to Mary something completely impossible a birth-giving without a man, while in actuality the birth of Christ was not in the least different from other human births.
However, the evil intention of the new translators was clearly revealed because by a comparison of various passages in the Bible it became clear that the word Aalma signified precisely “virgin.” And indeed, not only the Jews, but even the pagans, on the basis of their own traditions and various prophecies, expected the Redeemer of the world to be born of a Virgin. The Gospels clearly stated that the Lord Jesus had been born of a Virgin.
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? asked Mary, Who had given a vow of virginity, of the Archangel Gabriel, who had informed Her of the birth of Christ.
And the Angel replied: The Holy Spirit shall come upon Thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow Thee; wherefore also that which is to be born shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:34–35). Later the Angel appeared also to righteous Joseph, who had wished to put away Mary from his house, seeing that She had conceived without entering into conjugal cohabitation with him. To Joseph the Archangel Gabriel said: Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is begotten in Her is of the Holy Spirit, and he reminded him of the prophecy of Isaiah that a virgin would conceive (Matt. 1: 18–2 5).The rod of Aaron that budded, the rock torn away from the mountain without hands, seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream and interpreted by the Prophet Daniel, the closed gate seen by the Prophet Ezekiel, and much else in the Old Testament, prefigured the birth-giving of the Virgin. Just as Adam had been created by the Word of God from the unworked and virgin earth, so also the Word of God created flesh for Himself from a virgin womb when the Son of God became the new Adam so as to correct the fall into sin of the first Adam (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Book 111).
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25).
“After the birth of Jesus,” said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, “Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ.” But the word “until” does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word “until” and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God’s righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the bands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, “On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.”) The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of “brother” and “sister” have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship.
In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.
Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.
<>
The Nestorian Heresy and The Third Ecumenical Council
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
WHEN ALL THOSE who had dared to speak against the sanctity and purity of the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been reduced to silence, an attempt was made to destroy Her veneration as Mother of God. In the 5th century the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach that of Mary had been born only the man Jesus, in Whom the Divinity had taken abode and dwelt in Him as in a temple. At first he allowed his presbyter Anastasius and then he himself began to teach openly in church that one should not call Mary “Theotokos, since She had not given birth to the God-Man. He considered it demeaning for himself to worship a child wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
Such sermons evoked a universal disturbance and unease over the purity of faith, at first in Constantinople and then everywhere else where rumors of the new teaching spread. St. Proclus, the disciple of St. John Chrysostom’ who was then Bishop of Cyzicus and later Archbishop of Constantinople, in the presence of Nestorius gave in church a sermon in which he confessed the Son of God born in the flesh of the Virgin, Who in truth is the Theotokos (Birthgiver of God), for already in the womb of the Most Pure One, at the time of Her conception, the Divinity was united with the Child conceived of the Holy Spirit; and this Child, even though He was born of the Virgin Mary only in His human nature, still was born already true God and true man.
Nestorius stubbornly refused to change his teaching, saying that one must distinguish between Jesus and the Son of God, that Mary should not be called Theotokos, but Christotokos (Birthgiver of Christ), since the Jesus Who was born of Mary was only the man Christ (which signifies Messiah, anointed one), like to God’s anointed ones of old, the prophets, only surpassing them in fullness of communion with God. The teaching of Nestorius thus constituted a denial of the whole economy of God, for if from Mary only a man was born, then it was not God Who suffered for us, but a man.
St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, finding out about the teaching of Nestorius and about the church disorders evoked by this teaching in Constantinople, wrote a letter to Nestorius, in which he tried to persuade him to hold the teaching which the Church had confessed from its foundation, and not to introduce anything novel into this teaching. In addition, St. Cyril wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople that they should be firm in the Orthodox faith and not fear the persecutions by Nestorius against those who were not in agreement with him. St. Cyril also wrote informing of everything to Rome, to the holy Pope Celestine, who with all his flock was then firm in Orthodoxy.
St. Celestine for his part wrote to Nestorius and called upon him to preach the Orthodox faith, and not his own. But Nestorius remained deaf to all persuasion and replied that what he was preaching was the Orthodox faith, while his opponents were heretics. St. Cyril wrote Nestorius again and composed twelve anathemas, that is, set forth in twelve paragraphs the chief differences of the Orthodox teaching from the teaching preached by Nestorius, acknowledging as excommunicated from the Church everyone who should reject even a single one of the paragraphs he had composed.
Nestorius rejected the whole of the text composed by St. Cyril and wrote his own exposition of the teaching which he preached, likewise in twelve paragraphs, giving over to anathema (that is, excommunication from the Church) everyone who did not accept it. The danger to purity of faith was increasing all the time. St. Cyril wrote a letter to Theodosius the Younger, who was then reigning, to his wife Eudocia and to the Emperor’s sister Pulcheria, entreating them likewise to concern themselves with ecclesiastical matters and restrain the heresy.
It was decided to convene an Ecumenical Council, at which hierarchs, gathered from the ends of the world, should decide whether the faith preached by Nestorius was Orthodox. As the place for the council, which was to be the Third Ecumenical Council, they chose the city of Ephesus, in which the Most Holy Virgin Mary had once dwelt together with the Apostle John the Theologian. St. Cyril gathered his fellow bishops in Egypt and together with them travelled by sea to Ephesus. From Antioch overland came John, Archbishop of Antioch, with the Eastern bishops. The Bishop of Rome, St. Celestine, could not go himself and asked St. Cyril to defend the Orthodox faith, and in addition he sent from himself two bishops and the presbyter of the Roman Church Philip, to whom he also gave instructions as to what to say. To Ephesus there came likewise Nestorius and the bishops of the Constantinople region, and the bishops of Palestine, Asia Minor, and Cyprus.
On the 10th of the calends of July according to the Roman reckoning, that is, June 22, 43 1, in the Ephesian Church of the Virgin Mary, the bishops assembled, headed by the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, and the Bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, and took their places. In their midst was placed a Gospel as a sign of the invisible headship of the Ecumenical Council by Christ Himself. At first the Symbol of Faith which had been composed by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils was read; then there was read to the Council the Imperial Proclamation which was brought by the representatives of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Emperors of the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire.
The Imperial Proclamation having been heard, the reading of documents began, and there were read the Epistles of Cyril and Celestine to Nestorius, as well as the replies of Nestorius. The Council, by the lips of its members, acknowledged the teaching of Nestorius to be impious and condemned it, acknowledging Nestorius as deprived of his See and of the priesthood. A decree was composed concerning this which was signed by about 160 participants of the Council; and since some of them represented also other bishops who did not have the opportunity to be personally at the Council, the decree of the Council was actually the decision of more than 200 bishops, who had their Sees in the various regions of the Church at that time, and they testified that they confessed the Faith which from all antiquity had been kept in their localities.
Thus the decree of the Council was the voice of the Ecumenical Church, which clearly expressed its faith that Christ, born of the Virgin, is the true God Who became man; and inasmuch as Mary gave birth to the perfect Man Who was at the same time perfect God, She rightly should be revered as THEOTOKOS.
At the end of the session its decree was immediately communicated to the waiting people. The whole of Ephesus rejoiced when it found out that the veneration of the Holy Virgin had been defended, for She was especially revered in this city, of which She had been a resident during Her earthly life and a Patroness after Her departure into eternal life. The people greeted the Fathers ecstatically when in the evening they returned home after the session. They accompanied them to their homes with lighted torches and burned incense in the streets. Everywhere were to be heard joyful greetings, the glorification of the Ever-Virgin, and the praises of the Fathers who had defended Her name against the heretics. The decree of the Council was displayed in the streets of Ephesus.
The Council had five more sessions, on June 10 and 11, July 16, 17, and and August 3 1. At these sessions there were set forth, in six canons, measures for action against those who would dare to spread the teaching of Nestorius and change the decree of the Council of Ephesus.
At the complaint of the bishops of Cyprus against the pretensions of the Bishop of Antioch, the Council decreed that the Church of Cyprus should preserve its independence in Church government, which it had possessed from the Apostles, and that in general none of the bishops should subject to themselves regions which had been previously independent from them, “lest under the pretext of priesthood the pride of earthly power should steal in, and lest we lose, ruining it little by little, the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, has given us by His Blood.”
The Council likewise confirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, which taught that man can be saved by his own powers without the necessity of having the grace of God. It also decided certain matters of church government, and addressed epistles to the bishops who had not attended the Council, announcing its decrees and calling upon all to stand on guard for the Orthodox Faith and the peace of the Church. At the same time the Council acknowledged that the teaching of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church had been fully and clearly enough set forth in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, which is why it itself did not compose a new Symbol of Faith and forbade in future “to compose another Faith,” that is, to compose other Symbols of Faith or make changes in the Symbol which had been confirmed at the Second Ecumenical Council.
This latter decree was violated several centuries later by Western Christians when, at first in separate places, and then throughout the whole Roman Church, there was made to the Symbol the addition that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son,” which addition has been approved by the Roman Popes from the I I th century, even though up until that time their predecessors, beginning with St. Celestine, firmly kept to the decision of the Council of Ephesus, which was the Third Ecumenical Council, and fulfilled it.
Thus the peace which had been destroyed by Nestorius settled once more in the Church. The true Faith had been defended and false teaching accused.
The Council of Ephesus is rightly venerated as Ecumenical, on the same level as the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople which preceded it. At it there were present representatives of the whole Church. Its decisions were accepted by the whole Church “from one end of the universe to the other.” At it there was confessed the teaching which had been held from Apostolic times. The Council did not create a new teaching, but it loudly testified of the truth which some had tried to replace by an invention. It precisely set forth the confession of the Divinity of Christ Who was born of the Virgin. The belief of the Church and its judgment on this question were now so clearly expressed that no one could any longer ascribe to the Church his own false reasonings. In the future there could arise other questions demanding the decision of the whole Church, but not the question
Subsequent Councils based themselves in their decisions on the decrees of the Councils which had preceded them. They did not compose a new Symbol of Faith, but only gave an explanation of it. At the Third Ecumenical Council there was firmly and clearly confessed Previously the Holy Fathers had accused those who had slandered the immaculate life of the Virgin Mary; and now concerning those who had tried to lessen Her honor it was proclaimed to all: “He who does not confess Immanuel to be true God and therefore the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because She gave birth in the flesh to the Word Who is from God the Father and Who became flesh, let him be anathema (separated from the Church)” (First Anathema of St. Cyril of Alexandria).
<>
Attempts of Iconoclasts to Lessen The Glory of the Queen of Heaven;
They are put to shame.
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
AFTER THE THIRD Ecumenical Council, Christians began yet more fervently, both in Constantinople and in other places, to hasten to the intercession of the Mother of God and their hopes in Her intercession were not vain. She manifested Her help to innumerable sick people, helpless people, and those in misfortune. Many times She appeared as defender of Constantinople against outward enemies, once even showing in visible fashion to St. Andrew the Fool for Christ Her wondrous Protection over the people who were praying at night in the Temple of Blachernae.
The Queen of Heaven gave victory in battles to the Byzantine Emperors, which is why they had the custom to take with them in their campaigns Her Icon of Hodigitria (Guide). She strengthened ascetics and zealots of Christian life in their battle against human passions and weaknesses. She enlightened and instructed the Fathers and Teachers of the Church ’ including St. Cyril of Alexandria himself when he was hesitating to acknowledge the innocence and sanctity of St. John Chrysostom. The Most Pure Virgin placed hymns in the mouths of the composers of church hymns, sometimes making renowned singers out of the untalented who had no gift of song, but who were pious laborers, such as St. Romanus the Sweet-Singer (the Melodist). Is it therefore surprising that Christians strove to magnify the name of their constant Intercessor? In Her honor feasts were established, to Her were dedicated wondrous songs, and Her Images were revered.
The malice of the prince of this world armed the sons of apostasy once more to raise battle against Immanuel and His Mother in this same Constantinople, which revered now, as Ephesus had previously, the Mother of God as its Intercessor. Not daring at first to speak openly against the Champion General, they wished to lessen Her glorification by forbidding the veneration of the Icons of Christ and His saints, calling this idol-worship. The Mother of God now also strengthened zealots of piety in the battle for the veneration of Images, manifesting many signs from Her Icons and healing the severed hand of St. John of Damascus who had written in defence of the Icons.
The persecution against the venerators of Icons and Saints ended again in the victory and triumph of Orthodoxy, for the veneration given to the Icons ascends to those who are depicted in them; and the holy ones of God are venerated as friends of God for the sake of the Divine grace which dwelt in them, in accordance with the words of the Psalm: “Most precious to me are Thy friends.” The Most Pure Mother of God was glorified with special honor in heaven and on earth, and She, even in the days of the mocking of the holy Icons, manifested through them so many wondrous miracles that even today we remember them with contrition. The hymn “In Thee All Creation Rejoices, 0 Thou Who Art Full of Grace,” and the Icon of the Three Hands remind us of the healing of St. John Damascene before this Icon; the depiction of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God reminds us of the miraculous deliverance from enemies by this Icon, which had been thrown in the sea by a widow who was unable to save it.
No persecutions against those who venerated the Mother of God and all that is bound up with the memory of Her could lessen the love of Christians for their Intercessor. The rule was established that every series of hymns in the Divine services should end with a hymn or verse in honor of the Mother of God (the so-called “Theotokia”). Many times in the year Christians in all corners of the world gather together in church, as before they gathered together, to praise Her, to thank Her for the benefactions She has shown, and to beg mercy.
But could the adversary of Christians, the devil, who goeth about roaring like a lion, seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8), remain an indifferent spectator to the glory of the Immaculate One? Could he acknowledge himself as defeated, and cease to wage warfare against the truth through men who do his will? And so, when all the universe resounded with the good news of the Faith of Christ, when everywhere the name of the Most Holy One was invoked, when the earth was filled with churches, when the houses of Christians were adorned with Icons depicting Her-then there appeared and began to spread a new false teaching about the Mother of God. This false teaching is dangerous in that many cannot immediately understand to what degree it undermines the true veneration of the Mother of God.
<>
Zeal Not According to Knowledge (Romans 10:2)
The corruption by the Latins, in the newly invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception, ” of the true veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God and Ever- Virgin Mary.
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
WHEN THOSE WHO censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin had been rebuked, as well as those who denied Her Evervirginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, and those who disdained Her icons-then, when the glory of the Mother of God had illuminated the whole universe, there appeared a teaching which seemingly exalted highly the Virgin Mary, but in reality denied all Her virtues.
This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this- that “the All-blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Bull of Pope Pius IX concerning the new dogma). In other words, the Mother of God at Her very conception was preserved from original sin and, by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it was impossible for Her to have personal sins.
Christians had not heard of this before the ninth century, when for the first time the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Beginning, from the 12th century, this idea begins to spread among the clergy and flock of the Western church, which had already fallen away from the Universal Church and thereby lost the grace of the Holy Spirit.
However, by no means all of the members of the Roman church agreed with the new teaching. There was a difference of among the most renowned theologians of the West, the pillars, so to speak, of the Latin church. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisively censured it, while Duns Scotus defended it. From the teachers this division carried over to their disciples: the Latin Dominican monks, after their teacher Thomas Aquinas, preached against the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, while the followers of Duns Scotus, the Franciscans, strove to implant it everywhere. The battle between these two currents continued for the course of several centuries. Both on the one and on the other side there were those who were considered among the Catholics as the greatest authorities.
There was no help in deciding the question in the fact that several people declared that they had had a revelation from above concerning it. The nun Bridget [of Sweden], renowned in the 14th century among the Catholics, spoke in her writings about the appearances to her of the Mother of God, Who Herself told her that She had been conceived immaculately, without original sin. But her contemporary, the yet more renowned ascetic Catherine of Sienna, affirmed that in Her Conception the Holy Virgin participated in original sin, concerning which she had received a revelation from Christ Himself (See the book of Archpriest A. Lebedev, Differences in the Teaching on the Most Holy Mother of God in the Churches of East and West)
Thus, neither on the foundation of theological writings, nor on the foundation of miraculous manifestations which contradicted each other, could the Latin flock distinguish for a long time where the truth was. Roman Popes until Sixtus IV (end of the 15th century) remained apart from these disputes, and only this Pope in 1475 approved a service in which the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was clearly expressed; and several years later he forbade a condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception. However, even Sixtus IV did not yet decide to affirm that such was the unwavering teaching of the church; and therefore, having forbidden the condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception, he also did not condemn those who believed otherwise.
Meanwhile, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception obtained more and more partisans among the members of the Roman church. The reason for this was the fact that it seemed more pious and pleasing to the Mother of God to give Her as much glory as possible. The striving of the people to glorify the Heavenly Intercessor, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the deviation of Western theologians into abstract speculations which led only to a seeming truth (Scholasticism), and finally, the patronage of the Roman Popes after Sixtus IV-all this led to the fact that the opinion concerning the Immaculate Conception which had been expressed by Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century was already the general belief of the Latin church in the 19th century. There remained only to proclaim this definitely as the church’s teaching, which was done by the Roman Pope Pius IX during a solemn service on December 8, 1854, when he declared that the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin was a dogma of the Roman church. Thus the Roman church added yet another deviation from the teaching which it had confessed while it was a member of the Catholic, Apostolic Church, which faith has been held up to now unaltered and unchanged by the Orthodox Church. The proclamation of the new dogma satisfied the broad masses of people who belonged to the Roman church, who in simplicity of heart thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in the church would serve for the greater glory of the Mother of God, to Whom by this they were making a gift, as it were. There was also satisfied the vainglory of the Western theologians who defended and worked it out. But most of all the proclamation of the new dogma was profitable for the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new dogma by his own authority, even though he did listen to the opinions of the bishops of the Catholic church, the Roman Pope by this very fact openly appropriated to himself the right to change the teaching of the Roman church and placed his own voice above the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. A direct deduction from this was the fact that the Roman Popes were infallible in matters of faith, which indeed this very same Pope Pius IX likewise proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic church in 1870.
Thus was the teaching of the Western church changed after it had fallen away from communion with the True Church. It has introduced into itself newer and newer teachings, thinking by this to glorify the Truth yet more, but in reality distorting it. While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it has received from Christ and the Apostles, the Roman church dares to add to it, sometimes from zeal not according to knowledge (cf. Rom. 10:2), and sometimes by deviating into superstitions and into the contradictions of knowledge falsely so called (I Tim. 6:20). It could not be otherwise. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen away from it are fulfilled the words: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me (John 15:4).
It is true that in the very definition of the new dogma it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.
None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son.
Commentators of the Latin confession likewise say that the Virgin Mary was saved by Christ. But they understand this in the sense that Mary was preserved from the taint of original sin in view of the future merits of Christ (Bull on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception). The Virgin Mary, according to their teaching, received in advance, as it were, the gift which Christ brought to men by His sufferings and death on the Cross. Moreover, speaking of the torments of the Mother of God which She endured standing at the Cross of Her Beloved Son, and in general of the sorrows with which the life of the Mother of God was filled, they consider them an addition to the sufferings of Christ and consider Mary to be our CoRedemptress.
According to the commentary of the Latin theologians, “Mary is an associate with our Redeemer as Co-Redemptress” (see Lebedev, op. cit. p. 273). “In the act of Redemption, She, in a certain way, helped Christ” (Catechism of Dr. Weimar). “The Mother of God,” writes Dr. Lentz, “bore the burden of Her martyrdom not merely courageously, but also joyfully, even though with a broken heart” (Mariology of Dr. Lentz). For this reason, She is “a complement of the Holy Trinity,” and “just as Her Son is the only Intermediary chosen by God between His offended majesty and sinful men, so also, precisely, ‑the chief Mediatress placed by Him between His Son and us is the Blessed Virgin.” “In three respects-as Daughter, as Mother, and as Spouse of God-the Holy Virgin is exalted to a certain equality with the Father, to a certain superiority over the Son, to a certain nearness to the Holy Spirit” (“The Immaculate Conception,” Malou, Bishop of Brouges).
Thus, according to the teaching of the representatives of Latin theology, the Virgin Mary in the work of Redemption is placed side by side with Christ Himself and is exalted to an equality with God. One cannot go farther than this. If all this has not been definitively formulated as a dogma of the Roman church as yet, still the Roman Pope Pius IX, having made the first step in this direction, has shown the direction for the further development of the generally recognized teaching of his church, and has indirectly confirmed the above-cited teaching about the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Roman church, in its strivings to exalt the Most Holy Virgin, is going on the path of complete deification of Her. And if even now its authorities call Mary a complement of the Holy Trinity, one may soon expect that the Virgin will be revered like God. who are building a new theological system having as its foundation the philosophical teaching of Sophia, Wisdom, as a special power binding the Divinity and the creation. Likewise developing the teaching of the dignity of the Mother of God, they wish to see in Her an Essence which is some kind of mid-point between God and man. In some questions they are more moderate than the Latin theologians, but in others, if you please, they have already left them behind. While denying the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and the freedom from original sin, they still teach Her full freedom from any personal sins, seeing in Her an Intermediary between men and God, like Christ: in the person of Christ there has appeared on earth the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Pre-eternal Word, the Son of God; while the Holy Spirit is manifest through the Virgin Mary.
In the words of one of the representatives of this tendency, when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Virgin Mary, she acquired “a dyadic life, human and divine; that is, She was completely deified, because in Her hypostatic being was manifest the living, creative revelation of the Holy Spirit” (Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, 1927, p. 154). “She is a perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis” (Ibid., p. 175), CC a creature, but also no longer a creature” (P. 19 1). This striving towards the deification of the Mother of God is to be observed primarily in the West, where at the same time, on the other hand, various sects of a Protestant character are having great success, together with the chief branches of Protestantism, Lutheranism and Calvinism, which in general deny the veneration of the Mother of God and the calling upon Her in prayer.
But we can say with the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: “There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper” (Panarion, “Against the Collyridians”). This Holy Father accuses those who give Her an almost divine worship: “Let Mary be in honor, but let worship be given to the Lord” (same source). “Although Mary is a chosen vessel, still she was a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition relate that it was said to Her father Joachim in the desert, ‘Thy wife hath conceived,’ still this was done not without marital union and not without the seed of man” (same source). “One should not revere the saints above what is proper, but should revere their Master. Mary is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in the Divine Economy. But, on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to offend the Holy Virgin” (St. Epiphanius, “Against the Antidikomarionites”).
The Orthodox Church, highly exalting the Mother of God in its hymns of praise, does not dare to ascribe to Her that which has not been communicated about Her by Sacred Scripture or Tradition. “Truth is foreign to all overstatements as well as to all understatements. It gives to everything a fitting measure and fitting place” (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov). Glorifying the immaculateness of the Virgin Mary and the manful bearing of sorrows in Her earthly life, the Fathers of the Church, on the other hand, reject the idea that She was an intermediary between God and men in the sense of the joint Redemption by Them of the human race. Speaking of Her preparedness to die together with Her Son and to suffer together with Him for the sake of the salvation of all, the renowned Father of the Western Church, Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, adds: “But the sufferings of Christ did not need any help, as the Lord Himself prophesied concerning this long before: I looked about, and there was none to help; I sought and there was none to give aid. therefore My arm delivered them (Is. 63:5).” (St. Ambrose, “Concerning the Upbringing of the Virgin and the Ever-Virginity of Holy Mary,” ch. 7).
This same Holy Father teaches concerning the universality of original sin, from which Christ alone is an exception. “Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birthgiving, did not experience earthly taint” (St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch. 2). “God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner” (St. Ambrose, Ap. Aug. “Concerning Marriage and Concupiscence”). “One Man alone, the Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did not experience the touch of sin” (St. Ambrose, ibid., Book 2: “Against Julianus”).
Another renowned teacher of the Church, especially revered in the West, Blessed Augustine, writes: “As for other men, excluding Him Who is the cornerstone, I do not see for them any other means to become temples of God and to be dwellings for God apart from spiritual rebirth, which must absolutely be preceded by fleshly birth. Thus, no matter how much we might think about children who are in the womb of the mother, and even though the word of the holy Evangelist who says of John the Baptist that he leaped for joy in the womb of his mother (which occurred not otherwise than by the action of the Holy Spirit), or the word of the Lord Himself spoken to Jeremiah: I have sanctified thee before thou didst leave the womb of thy mother (Jer. 1:5)- no matter how much these might or might not give us basis for thinking that children in this condition are capable of a certain sanctification, still in any case it cannot be doubted that the sanctification by which all of us together and each of us separately become the temple of God is possible only for those who are reborn, and rebirth always presupposes birth. Only those who have already been born can be united with Christ and be in union with this Divine Body which makes His Church the living temple of the majesty of God” (Blessed Augustine, Letter 187).
The above-cited words of the ancient teachers of the Church testify that in the West itself the teaching which is now spread there was earlier rejected there. Even after the falling away of the Western church, Bernard, who is acknowledged there as a great authority, wrote, ” I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her.”
“I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness” (Bernard, Epistle 174; cited, as were the references from Blessed Augustine, from Lebedev). The above-cited words clearly reveal both the novelty and the absurdity of the new dogma of the Roman church.
The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God (1) does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5); and in Him is no sin U John 3:5); Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (I Peter 2:22); One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15); Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf (II Cor. 5:2 1). But concerning the rest of men it is said, Who is pure of defilement? No one who has lived a single day of his life on earth (Job 14:4). God commendeth His own love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life (Rom. 5:8–10).
(2) This teaching contradicts also Sacred Tradition, which is contained in numerous Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary from Her very birth, as well as Her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her conception of Christ, but not at Her own conception by Anna. “There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins” (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost). “But when Christ came through a pure, virginal, unwedded, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without wedlock and without father, and inasmuch as it befitted Him to be born, He purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and overthrew the laws of the flesh” (St. Gregory the Theologian, “In Praise of Virginity”). However, even then, as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle 160).
(3) The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before Her birth, so that from Her might be born the Pure Christ, is meaningless; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Virgin might be born pure, it would be necessary that Her parents also should be pure of original sin, and they again would have to be born of purified parents, and going further in this way, one would have to come to the conclusion that Christ could not have become incarnate unless all His ancestors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclusive, had been purified beforehand of original sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incarnation of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to annihilate sin.
(4) The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God’s grace from personal sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation.
(5) This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.
The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that She, being “human with passions like us,” so loved God and gave Herself over to Him, that by Her purity She was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon Her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God’s Providence.
It is not an exaltation and greater glory, but a belittlement of Her, this “gift” which was given Her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glorify the Mother of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glorified by God Himself, so exalted is Her life on earth and Her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to Her honor and glory. That which people themselves invent only obscures Her Face from their eyes. Brethren, take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:8).
Such a “vain deceit” is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by Anna of the Virgin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belittles Her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the “father of lies” (John 8:44), the devil, who has succeeded by it in
blaspheme the Virgin Mary. Together with it there should also be rejected all the other teachings which have come from it or are akin to it. The striving to exalt the Most Holy Virgin to an equality with Christ ascribing to Her maternal tortures at the Cross an equal significance with the sufferings of Christ, so that the Redeemer and “Co-Redemptress” suffered equally, according to the teaching of the Papists, or that “the human nature of the Mother of God in heaven together with the God-Man Jesus jointly reveal the full image of man” (Archpriest S. Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, p. 141)-is likewise a vain deceit and a seduction of philosophy. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), and Christ has redeemed the whole human race; therefore at His Resurrection equally did “Adam dance for joy and Eve rejoice” (Sunday Kontakia of the First and Third Tones), and by His Ascension did the Lord raise up the whole of human nature.
Likewise, that the Mother of God is a “complement of the Holy Trinity” or a “fourth Hypostasis”; that “the Son and the Mother are a revelation of the Father through the Second and Third Hypostases”; that the Virgin Mary is “a creature, but also no longer a creature”-all this is the fruit of vain, false wisdom which is not satisfied with what the Church has held from the time of the Apostles, but strives to glorify the Holy Virgin more than God has glorified Her.
Thus are the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus fulfilled: “Certain senseless ones in their opinion about the Holy EverVirgin have striven and are striving to put Her in place of God” (St. Epiphanius, “Against the Antidikomarionites”). But that which is offered to the Virgin in senselessness, instead of praise of Her, turns out to be blasphemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejects the lie, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6).
<>
In 2004 in the city of Mulino, Oregon, USA, an amazing miracle of Saint John Maximovich of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966) happened. It concerns a woman of Russian origin spiritual child of father Sergios Sveshnikov. In his parish there are kept the treasures of Saint John Maximovich.
The woman was in the last week of pregnancy, (just before the expected day of childbirth), she went for the last general examination. During the examination the doctor diagnosed that the baby was dead in the woman's womb. He immediately told her that she would have to have artificial labor pains and give birth to the dead baby. She turned pale and fainted.
When she regained consciousness, the doctors were preparing to give her substances that would cause her to give birth. She demanded that they stop immediately and asked them to call her priest, Father Sergio. When the priest found out what was happening, he told her to do nothing and wait for him to come.
A little later he arrived with the sleeves of Saint John Maximovitch. Holding the sleeves he made the sign of the cross on her belly and oh the miracle, the child's heart started beating again, as the ultrasound screen showed. The child was born a little later alive and well, and was named John in honor of Saint John Maximovich. Honour and glory to Saint John Maximovich!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/594402733913667/
Ask About The Orthodox Faith
<>
Orthodox Alaska
A Theology of Mission
Michael Oleksa
In 1794, the first Orthodox missionary monks arrived at Kodiak to find what they believed would be an indigenous Orthodox Church in the New World. They recognized as integral to their mission the defense of Native people who were being abused, exploited and enslaved by an unjust regime. The mission understood its function in cosmic terms: to sanctify, here and now, this land, these people, and bring them to the unity-in-love which is the goal of authentic Christian mission.
The history of the Alaskan Church confirms the eternal and indestructible character of the Church's vision, integrating into her worship the cosmic, scriptural and eschatological dimension of faith. Among the Native Americans in Alaska, Orthodoxy has become an integral part of an authentically American culture. Consequently it is appropriate that an Orthodox theology of mission should originate from the Alaskan context. If an American Orthodox missiology is to emerge, its formulation should serve not only the Church in America but contribute to the clarification of Orthodox theology for the universal Church as well.
https://svspress.com/orthodox-alaska/
<>
Abbot Tryphon, Vashon Island, WA, USA
The Department of Missions and Evangelism in USA and Canada
The Department of Missions and Evangelism was established in 1988 to “Make America Orthodox,” in the words of His Eminence Metropolitan Philip of Blessed Memory. To fulfill that dream, the department endeavors to: 1) build new missions in North American cities of over 100,000 population which have no Orthodox Church of any jurisdiction; 2) respond to invitations of lay groups of Orthodox Christians who desire an English-speaking parish; 3) cultivate relationships with independent (generally Protestant) communities which desire to become Orthodox; 4) work with non-Orthodox pastors who desire to become Orthodox; 5) cooperate with College Ministry to develop mission parishes adjacent to major college campuses with no English-speaking Orthodox Church nearby; and 6) train and encourage Antiochian Orthodox priests and lay leaders to promote Orthodox Christian evangelism in their communities and begin new missions in nearby localities.
Since Metropolitan Philip founded this department 108 missions (excluding Western Rite parishes) have been established by the Antiochian Archdiocese. Of these, fifty-five have grown to full parishes. At present the department is developing missions in seven cities across the United States and Canada, and is exploring possibilities in several more.
Becoming Truly Human: the Spirit of Orthodox Christian Evangelism
by Sdn. Adam Lowell Roberts
Many of you may be familiar with the new Antiochian Archdiocese program Becoming Truly Human. Becoming Truly Human is a new evangelism program available to every parish in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, and the ministry has been blessed to be shared with other jurisdictions.
While some may be weary of programs, this program has proven to be different. More than several priests and lay people have admitted they were wrong about their initial concerns. Others recognized right away that this program captures and shares the spirit of Orthodox evangelism. They applauded the Archdiocese for having a program which is effective, loving, Orthodox in spirit and nature, and above all helping our North American churches reconnect with our history of evangelism. We even have some overseas churches wanting to run the program.
Reflections on the Becoming Truly Human Program
“Becoming Truly Human” is an eight week outreach course offered by the Antiochian Archdiocese that uses the vehicle of small group discussions and hosted meals to share the love of Christ. The following two articles by a layman and priest, tell the story of how this program is changing lives.
~~For many years as a Protestant, I witnessed to others because I thought it was my duty. After all, we had been scripturally mandated by the Great Commission to do so, hadn’t we? Unfortunately, try though I might, I can’t remember many of the names or personal circumstances of those with whom I shared the Gospel. I mostly thought that my work was finished and the rest was up to God. (Read James Blackstock’s reflection.)
~~For many years I have felt that in my parish, and in Orthodox Christian parishes in general, there is a need for an evangelism program that is more than simply posting the time of our services and asking parishioners to invite friends to the liturgy. The Divine Liturgy is definitely very powerful and full of the Grace of God. However, I think that most of our parishioners hesitate to invite others to come to an Orthodox Liturgy without laying some ground work that they often do not feel equipped to do. (Read a reflection by Fr. Michael Byars.)
“Love for our Brethren”:
AFR Interview Introduces New Program
“Becoming Truly Human” is an eight week course offered by the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America to increase effective and relational evangelism, especially towards those who have no religion or church affiliation. The program uses the vehicle of small group discussions and shared meals to help guests to feel loved, listened to, and welcomed.
In a June 24, 2015 podcast, Ancient Faith Ministries President John Maddex interviewed Charles Ajalat, one of the program’s founding committee members, about the new outreach. Charles is an attorney, the former chancellor of the Antiochian Archdiocese, and a member of the Order of St. Ignatius. As one of the founders of the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) and Fellowship of Orthodox Christians United to Serve (FOCUS) North America, Charles is a veteran of start-up efforts, and in the interview he expressed his hopes that this new venture will help people “discuss questions…and then want to go forward into a catechism class with a priest.”
Department of Missions and Evangelism News Archive
http://www.antiochian.org/missions
FJTO
<>
Orthodox Christian parishes in USA, Canada and Mexico
Find a Parish
The parish is a local community of the Church having at its head a duly appointed priest and consisting of Orthodox Christians who live in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, comply with the discipline and rules of the Church, and regularly support their parish. Being subordinate to the Diocesan Authority, it is a component part of the Diocese.
List of American Orthodox Saints
The Veneration of the Mother of God During Her Earthly Life
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES and to our days all who truly love Christ give veneration to Her Who gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in the days of His youth. If God the Father chose Her, God the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, and God the Son dwelt in Her, submitted to Her in the days of His youth, was concerned for Her when hanging on the Crossthen should not everyone who confesses the Holy Trinity venerate Her?
Still in the days of Her earthly life the friends of Christ, the Apostles, manifested a great concern and devotion for the Mother of the Lord, especially the Evangelist John the Theologian, who, fulfilling the will of Her Divine Son, took Her to himself and took care for Her as for a mother from the time when the Lord uttered to him from the Cross the words: Behold thy mother.”
The Evangelist Luke painted a number of images of Her, some together with the Pre-eternal Child, others without Him. When he brought them and showed them to the Most Holy Virgin, She approved them and said: “The grace of My Son shall be with them, ” and repeated the hymn She had once sung in the house of Elizabeth: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and My spirit hath rejoiced in God My Saviour.”
However, the Virgin Mary during Her earthly life avoided the glory which belonged to Her as the Mother of the Lord. She preferred to live in quiet and prepare Herself for the departure into eternal life. To the last day of Her earthly life She took care to prove worthy of the Kingdom of Her Son, and before death She prayed that He might deliver Her soul from the malicious spirits that meet human souls on the way to heaven and strive to seize them so as to take them away with them to hades. The Lord fulfilled the prayer of His Mother and in the hour of Her death Himself came from heaven with a multitude of angels to receive Her soul.
Since the Mother of God had also prayed that She might bid farewell to the Apostles, the Lord gathered for Her death all the Apostles, except Thomas, and they were brought by an invisible power on that day to Jerusalem from all the ends of the inhabited world, where they were preaching, and they were present at Her blessed translation into eternal life. The Apostles gave Her most pure body over to burial with sacred hymns, and on the third day they opened the tomb so as once more to venerate the remains of the Mother of God together with the Apostle Thomas, who had arrived then in Jerusalem. But they did not find the body in the tomb and in perplexity they returned to their own place; and then, during their meal, the Mother of God Herself appeared to them in the air, shining with heavenly light, and informed them that Her Son had glorified Her body also, and She, resurrected, stood before His Throne. At the same time, She promised to be with them always.
The Apostles greeted the Mother of God with great joy and began to venerate Her not only as the Mother of their beloved Teacher and Lord, but also as their heavenly helper, as a protector of Christians and intercessor for the whole human race before the Righteous Judge. And everywhere the Gospel of Christ was preached, His Most Pure Mother also began to be glorified.
<>
The First Enemies of the Veneration of The Mother of God
Saint John Maximovitch of San Francisco, CA, USA (+1966)
THE MORE the faith of Christ spread and the Name of the Saviour of the world was glorified on earth, and together with Him also She Who was vouchsafed to be the Mother of the God-Man,-the more did the hatred of the enemies of Christ increase towards Her. Mary was the Mother of Jesus. She manifested a hitherto unheard-of example of purity and righteousness, and furthermore, now departed from this life, She was a mighty support for Christians, even. though invisible to bodily eyes. Therefore all who hated Jesus Christ and did not believe in Him, who did not understand His teaching, or to be more precise, did not wish to understand as the Church understood, who wished to replace the preaching of Christ with their own human reasonings-all of these transferred their hatred for Christ, for the Gospel and the Church, to the Most Pure Virgin Mary. They wished to belittle the Mother, so as thereby to destroy faith also in Her Son, to create a false picture of Her among men in order to have the opportunity to rebuild the whole Christian teaching on a different foundation. In the womb of Mary, God and man were joined. She was the One Who served as it were as the ladder for the Son of God, Who descended from heaven. To strike a blow at Her veneration means to strike Christianity at the root, to destroy it in its very foundation.
And the very beginning, of Her heavenly glory was marked on earth by an outburst of malice and hatred toward Her by unbelievers. When, after Her holy repose, the Apostles were carrying Her body for burial in Gethsemane, to the place chosen by her, John the Theologian went ahead carrying the branch from paradise which the Archangel Gabriel had brought to the Holy Virgin three days before this when he came from heaven to announce to Her Her approaching departure to the heavenly mansions.
“When Israel went out of Egypt, and the house of Jacob from among a barbarous people,” chanted St. Peter from Psalm 113; “Alleluia,” sang the whole assembly of the Apostles together with their disciples, as for example, Dionysius the Areopagite, who likewise had been miraculously transported at that time to Jerusalem. And while this sacred hymn was being sung, which was called by the J ews the ” G reat Alleluia, ” that is, the great “Praise ye the Lord,” one Jewish priest, Athonius, leaped up to the bier and wished to overturn it and throw to the ground the body of the Mother of God.
The brazenness of Athonius was immediately punished: the Archangel Michael with an invisible sword cut off his hand, which remained hanging on the bier. The thunderstruck Athonius, experiencing a tormenting pain, in awareness of his sin, turned in prayer to the Jesus Whom he had hated up to then and he was immediately healed. He did not delay in accepting Christianity and confessing it before his former co-religionists, for which he received from them a martyr’s death. Thus, the attempt to offend the honor of the Mother of God served for Her greater glorification.
The enemies of Christ resolved not to manifest their lack of veneration for the body of the Most Pure One further at that time by crude violence, but their malice did not cease. Seeing that Christianity was spreading everywhere, they began to spread various vile slanders about Christians. They did not spare the name of the Mother of Christ either, and they invented the story that Jesus of Nazareth had come from a base and immoral environment, and that His Mother had associated with a certain Roman soldier.
But here the lie was too evident for this fiction to attract serious attention. The whole family of Joseph the Betrothed and Mary Herself were known well by the inhabitants of Nazareth and the surrounding ‑countryside in their time. Whence bath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren: James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? (Matt. 13:54–55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.) So said His fellowcountrymen in Nazareth when Christ revealed before them in the synagogue His other-worldly wisdom. In small towns the family matters of everyone are well known; very strict watch was kept then over the purity of married life.
Would people really have behaved with respect towards Jesus, called Him to preach in the synagogue, if He had been born of illegitimate cohabitation? To Mary the law of Moses would have been applied, which commanded that such persons be stoned to death; and the Pharisees would have taken the opportunity many times to reproach Christ for the conduct of His Mother. But just the contrary was the case. Mary enjoyed great respect; at Cana She was an honored guest at the wedding, and even when Her Son was condemned, no one allowed himself to ridicule or censure His Mother.
<>
Orthodox Alaska
The melding of Orthodoxy and Alaska Native culture
By Yereth Rosen
Deep in the old-growth forest of Alaska’s Spruce Island, 8-year-old Julian Griggs made the Sign of the Cross before dipping his plastic bottle into the cold spring water. “Umm,” he said after a sip. “That tastes sweet.”
Up the trail, Julian’s parents joined other adults for a three-hour liturgy near the Orthodox church that enshrines the tomb of St. Herman of Alaska. But here in the forest, beside a small wooden shelter of candles and icons, the children were partaking in another Orthodox tradition.
The spring water that Julian was drinking is considered holy. According to local tradition, the spring was discovered by the monk Herman, a starets (or spiritual father in Russian), who came to Alaska from Russia in 1794. Until his discovery of the spring, the island was thought to be without fresh water. Pilgrims credit the spring water with healing a number of medical and spiritual ills.
“It’s really good, even if it’s a little brown,” said Xenia Hoffman, 12. The spring, and all that surrounds it, drew her family to Alaska. They moved here from California last year “because of St. Herman,” she said. “We wanted to be closer to him.”
Each summer, the Orthodox Church in America’s Diocese of Alaska organizes a pilgrimage to Spruce Island, an hour’s boat ride from the fishing town of Kodiak. Most come from the Alaska Native villages in the Kodiak region, but some come from as far away as Eastern Europe.
St. Herman was not the first Russian to come to Alaska. Legend holds that Russian settlers first established a colony in 1648. And in the early 18th century, Russian explorers and merchants sailed to Alaska by way of a strait (later named for one such explorer, Vitus Bering, who was in fact a Dane in the employ of Peter the Great) separating Asia from North America. They returned with sea otter pelts, which proved very valuable.
Officially, Gregory Shelikhov founded the first Russian-American colony in 1784. Riches, not religion, were in mind; Russian America was a collection of hunting and trading posts.
While there were isolated attempts to Christianize the Alaska Natives, it was not until 1794 that the Russian Orthodox Church, upon Shelikhov’s request, established its first mission. Traveling from their island monastery of Valaam, near Russia’s border with Sweden, Father Herman and other monks reached Kodiak Island on 24 September.
By then, many Alaska Natives were living as slaves, forced to hunt for furs. The Russian traders had broken up families and resettled communities. When Alaska Natives resisted, Russians retaliated by killing many and destroying the hunting gear vital for their survival. Violence and disease claimed 80 percent of the native population of Alaska during the first 40 years of Russian contact.
Into this climate arrived Father Herman and his companions, who did their best to protect the Alaska Natives from mistreatment at the hands of Russian traders. “They are exploiting in every possible way. One must testify about their barbarous treatment of the [Alaska Natives],” Archimandrite Joseph Bolotov, the head of the Kodiak mission, wrote Shelikhov a year after the group’s arrival in Alaska.
Harsh conditions whittled away the original mission band to Father Herman, who eventually set up a hermitage on Spruce Island. There, safe from the harassment of Russian traders, he lived a life of prayer and service to the native community. Father Herman died on 13 December 1837, his tomb and memory revered by the Alaska Natives of the area.
Over the years, greater efforts were made to strengthen the presence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska. Though Alaska’s first bishop, Joseph Bolotov, drowned in a shipwreck in 1799, missionaries continued to pastor the native community. Father John Veniaminov arrived with his wife and family in 1824, settling on the Aleutian island of Unalaska. His travels throughout Alaska, usually by boat, furthered his familiarity with native dialects. Using Cyrillic letters, he constructed an alphabet for the most common dialect, Unagan, and eventually translated biblical and liturgical texts.
While in Russia reporting on the Alaskan missions, Father John learned of his wife’s death. He took monastic vows, taking the name Innocent, and was later consecrated bishop, returning to Alaska and his people. In addition to his studies of Alaska’s native peoples, Bishop Innocent and his colleagues lobbied for the extension of Russian citizenship to Alaska Natives, a few of whom rose high in the ranks of the Russian Navy and other branches of public service. In 1867, Bishop Innocent was elected Metropolitan of Moscow, historically the most important see in the Russian Orthodox Church. He died 12 years later and was canonized in 1977.
This golden age of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska ended with Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867. Protestant missionaries, not Orthodox priests, received government support in the new territory. But even today — as the annual pilgrimage to Spruce Island attests — there remains a significant Orthodox influence, particularly among Alaska Natives. About 90 percent of the Alaskan diocese’s 30,000 to 60,000 members come from indigenous groups: the Aleuts, Alutiiqs, Athabascans, Tlingits and Yupiks.
On Spruce Island, prayers and blessings are recited in English, Church Slavonic and Yup’ik, the language of Western Alaska’s Yupiks. Some, for example, are specific to Alaska: “The Bering Sea is warmed today. The Arctic night is illuminated. Rivers, islands, tundra and forest lands, mountains, volcanoes and glaciers resound with the hymns of Alaska’s native peoples and of all Orthodox Christians throughout the world.”
The Orthodox Church has always placed a special emphasis on maintaining a harmony between church doctrine and native culture. This is evident in Eklutna, a Tanaina Athabascan Indian village on the outskirts of Anchorage. In the village cemetery, neat rows of traditional “spirit houses” rise above the gravesites. It is said the spirits of the departed reside in these tiny houses, starting 40 days after death. The houses are painted in family colors, and family members occasionally bring offerings of tea and snacks.
But traditional Russian Orthodox three-bar crosses also can be found atop the spirit houses — native and Orthodox conceptions of the afterlife are considered complimentary.
Though there is no active parish at Eklutna, a new church is used for special occasions, such as weddings, funerals and holiday services. The church is painted in red and blue, tribal colors. “If you go to Russia, you won’t find the colors that are here,” said Father Christopher Stanton, an Orthodox priest posted in nearby Wasilla, who helps the diocese manage the Eklutna facilities.
After the purchase of Alaska by the United States, the Alaska Natives’ situation did not improve, said Father Michael Oleksa, an Anchorage-based Orthodox priest and historian. U.S. officials, nearly all Protestant, were bent on “civilizing” and “Christianizing” a heathen land. Never mind the fact that to a large degree they were already literate and Christian.
Presbyterian missionary Sheldon Jackson and his colleague, S. Hall Young, were tasked with this “civilizing” mission. They were suspicious of native culture and Russian Orthodoxy, which in their view and typical of the 19th century, was a muddle of idolatry, strange rituals and linguistic gibberish. They divided the territory into regions where either the Catholic Church or various Protestant denominations would hold sway.
Bringing English to Alaska was another priority, Young wrote in his autobiography. “We should let the old tongues with their superstition and sin die — the sooner the better — and replace the languages with that of Christian civilization, and compel the natives in all our schools to talk English and English only. Thus we would soon have an intelligent people who would be qualified to be Christian citizens.”
The consequence of this approach was the loss of a rich culture. Ceremonial works of art, such as totem poles and intricately woven blankets, were burned.
Among the traditions lost was the potlatch, the ceremonial feast given to honor individuals and give gifts to the community. In 1924, Father Andrew Kashevaroff lamented its passing. “It was a social function and as such far more important than any that the white man has,” he told a local newspaper.
It was no coincidence, Father Michael said, that the largest Russian Orthodox mass baptism in Alaska occurred just after the American takeover. “Given the choice between a form of Christianity and education that denied their culture and one that affirmed it, they chose the one that affirmed it,” he said of the 1894 event in Juneau in which hundreds of Tlingits were baptized into the Orthodox faith.
In recent decades, the Orthodox Diocese of Alaska, like many churches, has been struggling to staff its parishes. In 2001, there were only 16 active priests and 10 deacons serving more than 90 churches and chapels.
With only two students in attendance, the St. Herman Theological Seminary in Kodiak, established in 1972, was on the brink of closing; the seminary had lost its accreditation from the Association of Theological Schools. There was even talk of entrusting the Alaska diocese to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, a separate jurisdiction founded by refugees of the Bolshevik Revolution then in schism with much of the Orthodox world.
Since the 2002 appointment of Bishop Nikolai Soraich as Bishop of Sitka, Anchorage and Alaska, the Orthodox Church of Alaska has undergone a resurgence. Bishop Nikolai, who served 22 years in Las Vegas and now resides in Anchorage, quickly settled church legal disputes and put the diocese’s finances in order. He also replenished the ranks of the clergy, recruiting men from other jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church in America. There are now 39 active priests, and there are 15 students at the seminary.
“We have more priests and deacons in the diocese than ever in the history of Alaska,” Bishop Nikolai said.
Not all diocesan priests are Alaska Natives. Many are people like Father Michael, from Allentown, Pennsylvania. “When I was four, I wanted to be an Indian chief,” Father Michael said of his early enthusiasm for Native American culture.
As a priest, Father Michael was first posted in small villages in the Alaskan hinterland. He learned the native languages and, prior to his ordination, he married a woman from the village of Kwethluk. He is now a grandfather and part of an extended Yupik family. He has also served on government commissions, where he has been a strong advocate of native Alaskan causes, particularly those involving hunting and fishing rights. “Without traditional means of subsistence, Alaskan natives will die spiritually, emotionally and eventually physically,” Father Michael said.
After his many years in rural Alaska, Father Michael now pastors St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre Orthodox Church, a storefront church in a south Anchorage strip mall. The church is known for its coziness — in contrast to the much more regal atmosphere of Anchorage’s St. Innocent Cathedral, the seat of the diocesan bishop — and also for its linguistic richness. Father Michael and the congregation use native languages as much as possible, and on holidays it is possible to hear a word of Arabic, Finnish, French, Greek and Spanish.
“Father Michael is always saying we have a liturgy like nowhere else in the world because we have such a combination of languages,” said Anastasia Dushkin, a parishioner from the Aleut village of Atka.
Bishop Nikolai has put a special emphasis on seeking out Alaska Native priests. A new recruit is Father Andrew Kashevarof, an Aleut from St. George, who was ordained last year. Before joining the seminary, he had a successful career. But his life was a mess, recalled the priest, the father of six. “There was a lot missing in my life, [even] after I walked away from drugs and alcohol. The church filled the void.”
Alcohol abuse, family disintegration and loss of culture remain troubling issues in Alaska, Bishop Nikolai said. “Many of the issues that St. Innocent wrote about 150 years ago are the same issues I’m dealing with today,” he concluded.
Back on Spruce Island, Mary Haakanson and her daughter, Phyllis, were enjoying a picnic on the beach overlooking Monk’s Lagoon. They live in the nearby Alutiiq village of Old Harbor and have been visiting the island for years. “It’s such a lovely, peaceful place, and the service didn’t seem that long,“ Phyllis said.
Holly Finnan, a visitor from Seattle, said it has been her dream to come to Spruce Island. Brought up as a Seventh-day Adventist, Ms. Finnan embraced Orthodoxy in 1990. “There’s a spirituality here that I think people on the mainland would like to emulate,” she said. “They want it, but it’s here.”
Yereth Rosen has written about Alaska for The Christian Science Monitor and Reuters.
https://cnewa.org/magazine/orthodox-alaska-33247/
<>
Oscar Mauricio Lopez Casillas, Mexico: "I took Dostoyevsky so seriously that I converted to Orthodoxy"
Besides being one of the most famous and popular authors in the world, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky is an Orthodox philosopher whose ideas still influence his readers and familiarize them with profound Christian concepts. To commemorate his 200th birthday celebrated in November 2021, we are publishing an interview with Oscar Mauricio Lopez Casillas, a graduate of the Faculty of Philosophy of Universidad Vasco de Quiroga in Mexico. After discovering Dostoyevsky, Oscar became a researcher of his work and converted to Orthodoxy.
* * *
—Oscar, do people know and read Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky in your country?
—First, I’d like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky, as he is my favorite author! It is especially important for me considering that las month celebrated his 200th birthday.
It goes without saying that people in Mexico know and read Dostoyevsky’s novels. He’s so popular that the words of one of the characters from The Pianist1 come to mind: “Nowadays everybody only wants to read Dostoyevsky.” However, even though Dostoyevsky is very popular in my country and almost all of his books can be found in bookshops or libraries, few people understand him, at least when it comes to the true motives and meanings of his work. People usually focus on his nihilism, although Dostoyevsky wrote about it only to show how its principles can be overcome by the strong faith of his positive protagonists. Unfortunately, Dostoyevsky’s A Writer’s Diary is not as well-known, so even finding a copy is no easy task. It’s too bad, for this book is crucial for understanding Dostoyevsky. It contains the author’s personal account of his work and life. Dostoyevsky’s books have also been popularized by the American literary scholar Joseph Frank2 whose works on Dostoevsky are well known in my country.
—How did you discover Dostoyevsky? Was it because you studied in the Department of Philosophy?
—Yes, I graduated from the Department of Philosophy of Universidad Vasco de Quiroga,3 but unfortunately the curriculum didn’t include Dostoyevsky or any other Russian philosophers like Kireyevsky, Solovyov or Berdyaev. Studying their works would have been very useful. The curricula of our universities does include similar authors, such as Kierkegaard, Miguel de Unamuno and Gabriel Marcel. I believe that our students would benefit from studying Dostoyevsky’s works, considering their philosophical, psychological and religious subject matter.
The Brothers Karamazov got to me more than any other book I’ve ever read.
If memory serves me right, I first heard of Dostoyevsky when I was a first-year student at the university. I was reading The Tragic Sense of Life by Miguel de Unamuno and came across a passage where he called The Brothers Karamazov the greatest Christian drama. When I went to the International Book Fair in Guadalajara the same year, I remembered these words and bought the book. After reading it, I had to agree with Miguel de Unamuno – this book got to me more than any other book I’ve ever read. It made me want to learn more about Dostoyevsky’s life, reconsider my approach to Christianity and study Christian concepts in earnest, referring to the original sources.
—What impressed you the most when you read Dostoyevsky’s dramatic biography?
—Obviously, the most impressive episode is the pardon he received from Tsar Alexander II just a few moments before his execution was supposed to take place. This was the moment of Dostoyevsky’s rebirth, both as a person and as a Christian. This process was completed in the labor camp, where experiencing hardships and reading of the Gospel made him, in the words of Apostle Paul, “put on the new man”. This period of his life, from the cancellation of the death sentence to release from prison, is the most shocking part of this biography, and I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. This experience more than anything else explains that profundity, preciseness and wisdom so characteristic of Dostoyevsky’s work.
—Which of Dostoyevsky’s works is the most meaningful for you, who is your favorite character, and what is the most important quote?
The devil wants our demise while God wants our salvation, and we and our freedom are between them.
—My favorite quote is from The Brothers Karamazov. It was the first book by Dostoyevsky that I read, and later it became my favorite book. It goes like this: “Here, God and the devil are fighting and the battlefield is the heart of man.” If I’m not mistaken, it is Dmitry Karamazov who said it. This phrase contains a profound wisdom based on the works of the Holy Church Fathers. They remind us that we must continually fight our internal temptations so that we can overcome them and allow divine grace to descend upon us and guide us. The devil wants our demise while God wants our salvation, and we and our freedom are between them. The works of the Holy Fathers and Dostoyevsky’s books can give us the means to be victorious in this spiritual battle.
My favorite character is Alyosha Karamazov. Although, there are other characters that I like too, like elder Zosima, count Myshkin, Sonya Marmeladova and even such a clearly negative character as Nikolai Stavrogin. But it is Dostoyevsky’s Alyosha Karamazov who has the most important features that epitomize the values praised by the Gospel, such as amazing humility and modesty as well as the ability to love and not to judge even the lowliest of people. In my opinion, this character has all the qualities that with God’s help could overcome evil.
In terms of understanding the spiritual content of Dostoyevsky’s works, I am partial to the interpretations by Mikhail Dunayev.4
—Dostoyevsky is one of the main philosopher writers of the world. Which of the philosophical issues he wrote about do you find the most important?
There is no doubt that Dostoyevsky’s works are philosophical. Although he didn’t write philosophical treatises, his characters communicated important philosophical ideas. Dostoyevsky’s books may be classified as a special literary genre of “philosophical literature”. He put his ideas in literary form without sacrificing the philosophical profundity. I should say that the succinct dialogues of Dostoyevsky’s characters are more meaningful than the lengthy writings of some philosophers.
Dostoyevsky’s works covered many philosophical problems, including the existence of God, the existence of evil, relationship between an individual and a society as well as other issues. But I would like to emphasize the most important one—freedom. Recently, I read in George Florovsky’s Theology and Literature that Dostoyevsky had been considering the problem of freedom and its paradoxes all his life. Throughout the history of philosophical thought, the problem of freedom had been considered from various points of view. Following the Christian concept, Dostoyevsky posits that every individual is free because each individual was created in the image and likeness of God. This resolves the paradoxes described by his contemporary materialists and socialists who stated that social evil may be explained by disorder in the society, that a criminal is a victim of this disorder and that a crime is a justified and natural protest against an unjust society. Dostoyevsky had a different, Christian opinion of freedom and harshly criticized such a justification of evil in the world.
—Is the Christian component of Dostoyevsky’s works relevant today? How did it influence you personally?
—It is a complicated issue that requires a lengthy answer, but I’ll try to be brief.
Naturally, faith always comes from God. But in my case, I can say that God used Dostoyevsky to get to me, a stubborn and rebellious youth as I was at the time. All the obstacles that seemed to separate me from faith were torn down by the original true Christianity described by this Russian author. It was Dostoyevsky who helped my quick transition from uncertainty to firm belief that the truth is in Christianity, and from that moment on my life became different and meaningful. Since Dostoyevsky was Orthodox, and I never really related to my Roman Catholic background and never considered turning to Protestantism, I decided to give Orthodoxy a chance and started reading up on it. Divine grace guided me to the true Orthodox Church, and Dostoyevsky and his books were my bridge to Orthodox Christianity. I frequently tell my friends that I took Dostoyevsky’s works so seriously that I became an Orthodox Christian. Although I converted with God’s help, I must admit that Dostoyevsky played an important role in my conversion.
I want to tell all people who are interested in Dostoyevsky’s personality and books that they must make an effort and learn about Orthodoxy, because without this knowledge they won’t be able to understand the profundity of his literary legacy. Recently, at the presentation of his new book, Dostoyevsky’s Gospel, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) said that the ideas of Orthodoxy were clearly reflected in Dostoyevsky’s books and that his global popularity is facilitating the expansion of Orthodoxy. I personally believe that such missionary work is crucial, so I’m trying to do something like this for Latin America where people know Dostoyevsky well but know very little about Orthodox Christianity.
Elena Maler
spoke with Oscar Mauricio Lopez Casillas
Translation from the Russian version by Talyb Samedov
Pravoslavie.ru
12/6/2021
Notes:
1 The Pianist (2002)—a film by Polish director Roman Polanski.
2 Joseph Frank—American literary scholar, Russian scholar, and Western biographer of Feodor M. Dostoevsky; author of five monographs, which were translated into Spanish and Portuguese.
3 Universidad Vasco de Quiroga—a Catholic institution of higher education, one of the top five universities in Mexico, located in Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
4 Mikhail Mikhailovich Dunayev, literary scholar, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, author of six volumes of Orthodoxy and Russian Literature.
https://orthochristian.com/143259.html
FJTO
<>
Saint John Kochurov of Chicago, Illinois, USA, hieromartyr in Russia (+1917)
October 31 / November 13
Saint John Alexandrovich Kochurov, hieromartyr of the Soviet revolution, was one of a number of young educated priests who came to the United States in the late 1890s as missionaries among the émigrés from Carpathian Ruthenia and Galicia. He was active in establishing parishes and aiding communities, mainly in the Midwest. After returning to Russia he was assigned to Estonia where he put into action the teaching skills he learned in America before he was assigned in 1916 to Tsarskoe Selo. Here he was killed during the early days of the Bolshevik revolution. His feast day is celebrated on October 31. He is also commemorated on the Synaxis of the first martyrs of the American lands on December 12 and on the feast of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, celebrated on the Sunday nearest to January 25, which was the date of the martyrdom of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, the first of the new martyrs.
Early years
John Kochurov was born on June 13, 1871. His father was a priest. His education included attendance at the Ryazan Theological Seminary before continuing at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He excelled at his studies at both the seminary and academy.
After graduating in 1895, Fr. John married and then entered his life's work when he was ordained deacon. On August 27, 1895, he was ordained a priest at the St. Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg by Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov) of the Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska.
America
Having expressed the desire to be a missionary priest in the United States, Fr. John was soon transferred and became the first permanent priest at St. Vladimir's Church in Chicago. This parish was later to become the Holy Trinity Cathedral. As St. Vladimir's parish did not yet have their own building, his first major project was construction of the church building. Under the guidance of Bishop Tikhon, later Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and saint, Fr. John enlisted the services of the noted architect Louis Sullivan to design the church. To finance the project, Fr. John sought and obtained donations from Tsar Nicholas II as well as from a few Americans, notably Harold Fowler McCormick and Charles R. Crane who was the American ambassador to China. Construction of the church began in April 1902 and was completed the next year for the consecration by Bishop Tikhon.
Fr. John devoted much effort to aiding the establishment of other parishes in the Chicago area. He performed the first service for the future Archangel Michael Orthodox Church in southwest Chicago. In the Chicago area he was active in the formation of the parishes in Madison, Streator, and Joliet (all in Illinois), as well as aiding the parishes in Buffalo, NY, and Hartshorne, OK.
His presence at the consecration of an Episcopalian (aka Anglican) bishop long predates the anathema against ecumenism of 1982 and does not fall under it.
On the social side of parish life, he, with Fr. Alexis Toth, future Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, was influential in the establishment of a major Orthodox mutual aid society that provided support for the many newly arrived immigrants. He also translated religious texts into English, looking to the time when the church in America would consist of English-speaking members. Before his return to Russia, Fr. John helped to organize the first All-American Council that was held in Mayfield, Pennsylvania, in 1907.
Russia and martyrdom
Fr, John returned to Russia in 1907 where he was assigned to Narva (now Estonia). Here he put to use the skills he had learned in the United States teaching catechism in the schools.
Then in 1916, he was transferred to St. Catherine's Cathedral in Tsarskoye Selo, just outside St. Petersburg. At St. Catherine's, he established himself as a popular priest who was skilled in presenting moving sermons. Then in October 1917 the Bolshevik uprising in St. Petersburg spilled over quickly into Tsarskoye Selo as the town was attacked by Bolshevik elements. The people thronged to the churches where the clergy held prayer services and led processions throughout the town praying for peace.
On October 31, 1917 (Old Style), the Bolsheviks entered Tsarskoe Selo in force and arrested Fr. John. He was taken by the Bolsheviks out of town where he was summarily shot. By this act, Fr. John became the proto-hieromartyr of the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet yoke. Fr. John was buried several days later in the crypt of St. Catherine's Cathedral.
On December 1994, Fr. John was glorified by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in session at St. Daniel's Monastery, Moscow, Russia, as the first of the new martyrs of the 20th century. In the United States he is also honored as a missionary and inspired preacher.
<>
Life and Miracles of Saint John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966) - One of the Greatest Saints of the 20th Century
"Sanctity is not just a virtue. It is an attainment of such spiritual heights, that the abundance of God's grace which fills the saint overflows on all who associate with him. Great is the saint's state of bliss in which they dwell contemplating the Glory of God. Being filled with love for God and man, they are responsive to man's needs, interceding before God and helping those who turn to them."
Thus describing the ancient Saints, Vladyka John simultaneously summarized his own spiritual attitude which made him one of the greatest Saints of our time.
Childhood
Michael Maximovitch, the future Archbishop John, was born on June 4, 1896, in the village of Adamovka in the province of Kharkov in southern Russia. He was a member of the Little Russian noble family of Maximovitch, to which St. John of Tobolsk also had belonged. He received at baptism the name of Michael, his heavenly protector being the Archangel Michael. He was a sickly child and ate little.
He received his secondary education in the Poltava Military School, which he attended from 1907 to 1914. Upon completing military school he entered Kharkov Imperial University in the faculty of law, from which he graduated in 1918, before it was seized by the Soviets.
Kharkov, where Vladyka spent his formative years, was a true town of Holy Russia, and the young Michael, impressionable to revelations of holiness, acquired there the pattern of his future life. There were two miraculous Icons of the Mother of God, the Oseryanskaya and Eletskaya, which were carried in a religious procession twice a year from the monasteries where they were treasured to the Dormition Cathedral. In the Protection Monastery, in a frescoed grotto underneath the altar, lay the remains of the holy Archbishop Melety Leontovitch, who after his death in 1841 rendered miraculous help to those who served a panikhida for him at his coffin. Even during his lifetime the Archbishop was venerated for his severe asceticism, especially for the ascetic feat of abstaining from sleep. He was known to spend nights on end standing motionless, with lifted arms, deep in prayer. He foreknew the day and the hour of his own death. The young Maximovitch was known to have a veneration for this holy hierarch.
Today Archbishop John may be seen to resemble the holy man of Kharkov in at least three respects: he was known not to have slept in a bed for forty years; he knew beforehand of his death; and before his glorification in 1994 his relics rested under a cathedral in a special grave-chapel where panikhidas were sung almost daily and the Psalter read over his coffin by those asking for his help. This is a unique case of the transplanting, as it were, of a part of Holy Russia to contemporary America.
While at Kharkov University, Misha Maximovitch spent more time reading the lives of the saints than attending classes; nonetheless he was an excellent student. Evidently his emulation of saints was apparent even at that age, since Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, one of the great Church figures of that time (later Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, the first Chief Hierarch and founder of the Russian Church Abroad) took special pains to become acquainted with him, and then kept the youth close to him and guided his spiritual formation.
Belgrade
In 1921, during the Civil War in Russia, the future archbishop, together with his parents, his brothers, and his sister, was evacuated to Belgrade, where he and his brothers entered the University of Belgrade. One brother graduated in the technical faculty and became an engineer, the other graduated in law and served in the Yugoslav police. Michael himself graduated in 1925 in the faculty of theology. While he was a student he worked for his living by selling newspapers.
In 1924, Michael was ordained reader in the Russian church in Belgrade by Metropolitan Anthony, who continued to exert great influence over him; and Michael in his turn showed the utmost respect and devotion to his superior. In 1926 Metropolitan Anthony tonsured him a monk and ordained him hierodeacon in the Milkov Monastery, giving him the name John, after the future archbishop's own distant relative, Saint John (Maximovitch) of Tobolsk. On November 21 of the same year Fr. John was ordained hieromonk.
The city of Bitol was in the diocese of Okhrida. At that time the ruling bishop of this diocese was Nicholas Velimirovich—a noted preacher, poet, writer, and inspirer of the popular religious movement. He, as much as Metropolitan Anthony, valued and loved the young Hieromonk John, and himself exerted a beneficial influence upon him. More than once he was heard to say, "If you wish to see a living saint, go to Bitol to Father John."
For, indeed, it began to become evident that this was an entirely extraordinary man. His own students were first to discover what was perhaps Fr. John's greatest feat of asceticism. They noticed at first that he stayed up long after everyone else had gone to bed; he would go through the dormitories at night and pick up blankets that had fallen down and cover the unsuspecting sleepers, making the Sign of the Cross over them. Finally it was discovered that he scarcely slept at all, and never in a bed, allowing himself only an hour or two each night of uncomfortable rest in a sitting position, or bent over on the floor praying before icons. Years afterward he himself admitted that since taking the monastic vows he had not slept lying in a bed. Such an ascetic practice is a very rare one; and yet it is not unknown to Orthodox tradition.
Archbishop Averky of the Jordanville Holy Trinity monastery, then a young hieromonk in Carpatho-Russia, witnessed the deep impression Hieromonk John made upon the seminary students. When they returned home on vacations they would speak of their extraordinary instructor who prayed constantly, served the Divine Liturgy or at least received Holy Communion every day, fasted strictly, never slept lying down, and with true fatherly love inspired them with the high ideals of Christianity and of Holy Russia.
In 1934 it was decided to raise Hieromonk John to the rank of bishop, althought nothing was farther from his mind. A lady who knew him relates how she met him at this time on a streetcar in Belgrade. He told her that he was in town by mistake, having been sent for in place of some other Hieromonk John who was to be consecrated bishop! When she saw him the next day he informed her that the situation was worse than he had thought: it was him they wished to make bishop! When he protested that this was out of the question, since he had a speech defect and could not enunciate clearly, he was only told that the Prophet Moses had the same difficulty.
The consecration occurred on May 28, 1934. Vladyka was the last bishop of the very many to be consecrated by Metropolitan Anthony, and the extraordinarily high esteem in which that venerable hierarch held the new bishop is indicated in a letter which he sent to Archbishop Dimitry in the Far East. Himself declining an invitation to retire to China, he wrote: "Dear friend! I am very old and unable to travel … But in place of myself, as my soul, as my heart, I am sending you Bishop John. This little, frail man, looking almost like a child, is in actuality a miracle of ascetic firmness and strictness in our time of total spiritual enfeeblement." Vladyka was assigned to the Diocese of Shanghai, China.
Vladyka arrived in Shanghai in late November, on the Feast of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple, and found a large cathedral uncompleted and a jurisdictional conflict to resolve. The first thing he did was to restore Church unity. He established contact with Serbs, Greeks, Ukrainians. He paid special attention to religious education and made it a rule to be present at the oral examinations of the catechism classes in all the Orthodox schools in Shanghai. He at once became a protector of various charitable and philanthropic societies and actively participated in their work, especially after seeing the needy circumstances in which the majority of his flock, refugees from the Soviet Union, were placed. He never went visiting for tea to the rich, but he was to be seen wherever there was need, regardless of times and weather. He organized a home for orphans and the children of needy parents, entrusting it to the heavenly protection of a Saint he highly venerated, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, who loved children. Vladyka himself gathered sick and starving children off the streets and dark alleys of Shanghai's slums. Beginning with eight children, the orphanage later housed up to a hundred children at one time, and some 1500 in all. When the Communists came, Vladyka evacuated the whole orphanage, first to an island in the Philippines, and then to America.
It soon became apparent to his new flock that Vladyka was a great ascetic. The core of his asceticism was prayer and fasting. He ate once a day at 11 p.m. During the first and last weeks of Lent he did not eat at all, and for the rest of this and the Christmas fast he ate only bread from the altar. His nights he spent usually in prayer, and when he finally became exhausted he would put his head on the floor and steal a few hours of sleep near dawn. When the time would come to serve Matins, someone would knock on the door, to no avail; they would open the door and find Vladyka huddled on the floor in the icon-corner, overcome by sleep. At a tap on the shoulder he would jump up, and in a few minutes he would be in church for services — cold water streaming down his beard, but quite awake.
Vladyka officiated in the cathedral every morning and evening, even when sick. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy daily, as he was to do for the rest of his life, and if for some reason he could not serve, he would still receive Holy Communion. No matter where he was, he would not miss a service. Once, according to a witness, "Vladyka's leg was terribly swollen and the concilium of doctors, fearing gangrene, prescribed immediate hospitalization, which Vladyka categorically refused. Then the Russian doctors informed the Parish Council that they released themselves of any responsibility for the health and even the life of the patient. The members of the Parish Council, after long pleas for mercy and threats of taking him by force, compelled Vladyka to agree, and he was sent to the Russian Hospital in the morning of the day before the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. By six o'clock, however, Vladyka came limping to the cathedral on foot and served. In a day all the swelling was gone."
Vladyka's constant attention to self-mortification had its root in the fear of God, which he possessed in the tradition of the ancient Church and of Holy Russia. The following incident, told by 0. Skopichenko and confirmed by many from Shanghai, well illustrates his daring, unshakable faith in Christ. "Mrs. Menshikova was bitten by a mad dog. The injections against rabies she either refused to take or took carelessly… And then she came down with this terrible disease. Bishop John found out about it and came to the dying woman. He gave her Holy Communion, but just then she began having one of the fits of this disease; she began to foam at the mouth, and at the same time she spit out the Holy Gifts which she had just received. The Holy Sacrament cannot be thrown out. So, Vladyka picked up and put in his mouth the Holy Gifts vomited by the sick woman. Those who were with him exclaimed: `Vladyka, what are you doing! Rabies is terribly contagious!' But Vladyka peacefully answered: `Nothing will happen; these are the Holy Gifts.' And indeed nothing did happen."
By now it had become known that Vladyka was not only a righteous man and an ascetic, but was also so close to God that he was endowed with the gift of clairvoyance, and there were healings by his prayers. A striking account told by an eyewitness, Lidia Liu, testifies to Vladyka's spiritual height. "Vladyka came to Hong Kong twice. It's strange, but I, not knowing Vladyka then, wrote him a letter asking him to help a widow with children, and I also asked him about some personal spiritual matter, but I never received an answer. A year passed. Vladyka came to Hong Kong and I was in a crowd that went to meet him in church. Vladyka turned to me and said, `It is you who wrote me the letter!' I was astonished, since Vladyka had never seen me before."
"A moleben was sung, after which Vladyka, standing before a lectern, was delivering a sermon. I was standing next to my mother, and we both saw a light surrounding Vladyka down to the lectern — a radiance around him a foot wide. This lasted a rather long time. When the sermon was over, I, struck by such an unusual phenomenon, told what we had seen to our friend, who replied to us: `Yes, many faithful saw it.' My husband, who was standing a little way off, also saw this light."
A similar event occured in 1939, when a certain parishioner began to lose her faith due to many tribulations which had befallen her. Once, upon entering the Church during Vladyka's service, she witnessed during the transubstantiation of the Holy Sacraments a little flame in the form of a large tulip descended into the Chalice. After this miracle her faith returned, and she began repenting of her faint-heartedness.
Vladyka visited prisons and celebrated the Divine Liturgy for the convicts. On one occasion in Shanghai, Vladyka John was asked to give communion to a dying man in a Russian hospital. This time he took another priest with him. On his arrival he spotted a gregarious young man in his twenties, playing a harmonica. This lad was to be discharged the next day. Vladyka John called to him and said: "I want to give you communion right now." The young man immediately confessed his sins and received communion. The astonished priest asked Vladyka why he did not go to the one dying, but tarried instead with an obviously healthy young man. Vladyka answered: "He will die tonight, and the other, who is seriously ill, will live many years." It happened just as he foretold.
Vladyka loved to visit the sick and did it every single day, hearing confessions and giving Holy Communion. If the condition of a patient should become critical, Vladyka would go to him at any hour of the day or night to pray at his bedside. Here is one undoubted miracle among the many worked by Vladyka's prayers; it was recorded and placed in the archives of the County Hospital in Shanghai.
L. D. Sadkovskaya was very much taken by the sport of horse racing. Once she was thrown off her horse; she hit her head on a rock and lost consciousness. She was brought to the hospital unconscious. A concilium of doctors agreed that her condition was hopeless and it was not likely that she would live until morning. The pulse was almost gone; the skull was fractured in places so that small pieces of the skull were pressing on the brain. In such a condition she would die on the operating table. Even if her heart would tolerate surgery and the result were successful, she would still remain deaf, dumb, and blind.
Her sister, after hearing all this, rushed to Bishop John in despair and begged him to save her sister. Vladyka agreed. He came to the hospital and asked everyone to leave the room and prayed there for about two hours. Then he called the chief doctor and asked him to examine her again. How surprised the doctor was to discover that her pulse was normal! He agreed to perform the operation immediately, but only in the presence of Bishop John. The operation was successful, and the doctors were amazed when, after the operation, the patient regained consciousness and asked to drink. Soon she was released from the hospital and lived for many years a normal life.
Vladyka visited the prison also, and celebrated the Divine Liturgy for the convicts on a primitive little table. But the most difficult task for a pastor is to visit the mentally ill and the possessed—and Vladyka sharply distinguished between the two. Outside Shanghai there was a mental hospital, and Vladyka alone had the spiritual power to visit these terribly sick people. He gave them Holy Communion, and they, surprisingly, received it peacefully and listened to him. They always looked forward to his visits and met him with joy.
Vladyka possessed great courage. During the Japanese occupation the Japanese authorities tried in every way possible to bend the Russian colony to their will. Pressure was directed through the heads of the Russian Emigrant Committee. Two presidents of this Committee strove to maintain its independence, and as a result both were killed. Confusion and terror seized the Russian colony, and at that moment Vladyka John, in spite of warnings from the Russians who were collaborating with the Japanese, declared himself the temporary head of the Russian colony.
During the Japanese occupation it was extremely dangerous to walk on the streets at night, and most people took care to be home by dark. Vladyka, however, paying no heed to the danger, continued to visit the sick and needy at any hour of the night, and he was never touched.
In Shanghai, a voice teacher, Anna Petrovna Lushnikova, taught Vladyka the proper method of breathing and pronunciation of words, thus helping him to better his diction. At the end of each lesson Vladyka paid her 20 dollars. In 1945, during the war, she was gravely wounded and happened to be in a French hospital. On a very stormy night, feeling that she might die, Anna Petrovna began asking the nurses to call Vladyka John, who was in France, so that he would give her Communion. The nurses refused since the hospital was locked up during the night due to war-time conditions. Anna Petrovna was beside herself and kept calling upon Vladyka. Suddenly, around eleven o'clock in the evening, Vladyka appeared in the ward. Unable to believe her eyes, Anna Petrovna asked Vladyka, weather this was a dream or did he really come to her. Vladyka smiled, prayed and administered communion to her. Following this she calmed down and slept. The next morning she felt cured. No one believed Anna Petrovna that Vladyka visited her that night since the hospital was tightly secured. However, her ward neighbor substantiated the fact that she also saw Vladyka. The greatest surprise was that under Anna Petrovna's pillow was found a 20 dollar bill. Thus Vladyka left a material evidence of his visit.
A former Shanghai altar boy of Vladyka's and presently Archpriest George Larin, relates: "Notwithstanding Vladyka's strictness, all the altar boys loved him very much. To me, Vladyka was an ideal whom I wished to emulate in every way. Thus, during Lent, I stopped sleeping in bed and lay on the floor, I stopped eating the usual meals with the family, but partook of bread and water in solitude … My parents became worried and took me to Vladyka. Hearing them out, the prelate asked the guard to go to the store and bring a sausage. To my tearful outcries that I did not wish to break Lent, the wise prelate admonished me to eat the sausage and to remember always that obedience to parents is more important than personal accomplishments. "How then shall I go on Vladyka?'—I asked wishing nevertheless to 'especially' apply myself. 'Go to Church as you always did, and at home do what your mother and father ask.' I remember how grieved I was then that Vladyka did not assign to me some 'special’ deeds."
With the coming of the Communists, the Russians in China were forced once again to flee, most of them through the Philippine Islands. In 1949 approximately 5,000 refugees from the Chinese mainland were living in an International Refugee Organization camp on the island of Tubabao in the Philippines. This island is located in the path of the seasonal typhoons which sweep through that part of the Pacific. During the 27-month period of the camp' s occupancy, the island was threatened only once by a typhoon, and it changed course and bypassed the island.
When the fear of typhoons was mentioned by one Russian to the Filipinos, they replied that there was no reason to worry, because "your holy man blesses your camp from four directions every night." They referred to Vladyka John; for no typhoon struck the island while he was there. After the camp had been almost totally evacuated and the people resettled elsewhere (mainly in the USA and Australia), it was struck by a terrible typhoon that totally destroyed the camp.
Paris
Vladyka himself went to Washington, D. C., to get his people to America. Legislation was changed and almost the whole camp came to the New World—thanks again to Vladyka. The exodus of his flock from China accomplished, Archbishop John was given in 1951 a new field for his pastoral endeavor: he was sent by the Synod of Bishops to the Archdiocese of Western Europe, with his see first in Paris, and later in Brussels. He was now one of the leading hierarchs of the Russian Church, and his attendance was frequently required at the sessions of the Synod in New York City.
In Western Europe Vladyka took a deep interest not only in the Russians in the diaspora, for whom he exerted himself tirelessly in labors similar to those for which he had been known in Shanghai, but also in the local inhabitants. He received under his jurisdiction local Dutch and French Orthodox Churches, protecting them and encouraging their Orthodox development. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Dutch and French, as before he had served in Greek and Chinese, and as later he was to serve in English.
Vladyka's interest in and devotion to the Church's Saints, of whom his knowledge was already seemingly limitless, was extended now to Western European Saints dating from before the schism of the Latin Church, many of whom, venerated only locally, were not included in any Orthodox calendar of Saints. He collected their lives and images of them, and later submitted a long list of them to the Synod.
From this period of Vladyka's presence in Western Europe, Mrs. E. G. Chertkova reminisces: "On several occasions I visited Vladyka when he lived in the Cadet Corps building near Paris. He had a small cell on the top floor. In the cell were a table, an armchair and several chairs and in the corner—icons and a lectern with books. There was no bed in the cell since Vladyka did not lie down to sleep, but prayed by leaning on a tall stick with a cross-bar on top. Sometimes he prayed on his knees; most likely when he prostrated himself he would then fall asleep for a little while in that position on the floor. That is how he exhausted himself! Sometimes during our conversation it seemed to me that he dozed. But when I stopped, he would immediately say: "Continue, I hear you.'"
"Since for a long time our church did not have a permanent priest, once a priest from another parish came to us to celebrate Vespers. The whole service lasted only 45 minutes (usualy it takes 2 and a half hours)! We were horrified! So many parts of Vespers were skipped that we decided to tell Vladykaabout this. We hopped that he will influence the priest to follow the established order of Orthodox services. But Vladyka, smiling pleasently, said to us: `How difficult it is to please you people. I celebrate too long, and he too short!' With such kindness and meeknes he taught us not to judge."
Vladyka's reputation for holiness, too, spread among the non-Orthodox as well as the Orthodox population. In one of the Catholic churches of Paris, a priest strove to inspire his young people with these words: "You demand proof, you say that now there are neither miracles nor saints. Why should I give you theoretical proof, when today there walks in the streets of Paris a Saint — Saint Jean Nus Pieds (Saint John the Barefoot)." Many people testify to the miracles worked by the prayers of Archbishop John in Western Europe.
V. D. recounts: "Many were aware that it was not necessary to ask Vladyka to visit someone. The Lord Himself inspired him where and to whom to go. Vladyka John was known to many in the French hospitals and was admitted therein at any time. Besides, Vladyka unerringly directed his steps to where he was needed. My brother was once taken to the hospital after receiving a head wound. The x-ray revealed a large fracture of the skull. His eyes swelled and became sanguinous; he was in critical condition. Vladyka, who did not know my brother, somehow found him in the hospital, prayed over him and gave him Communion. When my brother underwent a follow up of head x-rays, there was no fracture to be found. My brother recuperated very fast. The doctor was dumbfounded!"
In San Francisco, where the cathedral parish is the largest in the Russian Church Abroad, Vladyka's life-long friend, Archbishop Tikhon, retired due to of ill-health, and in his absence the construction of a great new cathedral came to a halt as a bitter dispute paralyzed the Russian community. In response to the urgent request of thousands of Russians in San Francisco who had known him in Shanghai, Archbishop John was sent by the Synod in 1962 as the only hierarch likely to restore peace in the divided community. He arrived at his last assignment as bishop twenty-eight years to the day after his first arrival in Shanghai—on the feast of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple, November 21, 1962.
Under Vladyka's guidance a measure of peace was restored, the paralysis of the community was ended, and the cathedral finished. Yet, even in the role of peacemaker, Vladyka was attacked, and accusations and slanders were heaped upon his head. He was forced to appear in public court—in flagrant violation of church canons—to answer to preposterous charges of concealing financial dishonesty by the Parish Council. All involved were completely exonerated; but this filled Vladyka's last years with the bitterness of slander and persecution, to which he unfailingly replied without complaint, without judging anyone, with undisturbed peacefulness.
Vladyka remained true to the end to his path of faithful service to the Church. To those who knew him in his last years, perhaps two aspects of his character stood out. First was his strictness regarding the Church and the Law of God.
At the end of October, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast of All Saints. There is a tradition that during the preceding night the dark spirits celebrated their own festival of disorder. In America this "celebration" called Halloween has become an occasion on which children make mischief dressed in costumes of witches, devils, ghosts, as if calling on the dark powers—a diabolic mockery of Christianity. A group of Russians organized on this night a Halloween Ball. In the San Francisco Cathedral at this time was the All-night Vigil celebrated, and a number of people were absent, to the great sorrow of Vladyka. After the service Vladyka went to the place where the ball was still in progress. He climbed the steps and entered the hall, to the absolute astonishment of the participants. The music stopped and Vladyka, in complete silence, glared at the dumbfounded people, slowly and deliberately making the round of the entire hall, staff in hand. He spoke not a word, and none was necessary; the mere sight of Vladyka stung the conscience of all, as was evident from the general consternation. Vladyka left in silence; and the next day in church he thundered his holy indignation, in his flaming zeal calling all to the devout Christian life.
Yet Vladyka is not best remembered by his flock for his sternness, but rather for his gentleness, his joyfulness, even for what is known as "foolishness for Christ's sake." The most popular photograph of him captures something of this aspect of his character. It was especially noticeable in his conduct with children. After services he would smile and joke with the boys who served with him, playfully knocking the mischievous ones on the head with his staff. Occasionally the Cathedral clergy would be disconcerted to see Vladyka, in the middle of a service (though never in the altar), bend over to play with a small child! And on feast days when blessing with holy water was performed, he would sprinkle the faithful—not on the top of the head as is usual, but right in the face (which once led a small girl to exclaim, "He squirts you"), with a noticeable glint in his eye and total unconcern at the discomfiture of some of the more dignified. Children were absolutely devoted to him, despite his usual strictness with them.
Anna Hodyriva recounts: "My sister Xenia Yarovoy, who lived in Los Angeles, suffered for a long time with a painful hand. She sought physicians, tried home remedies, yet nothing helped. She finally decided to turn to Vladyka John and wrote to him in San Francisco. Some time went by and the hand was healed. Xenia began to forget about the previous pain in her hand. On one occasion, when she visited San Francisco, she went to the Cathedral for services. At the end of the service Vladyka John held the cross to be kissed. On seeing my sister he asked: `How is your hand?' Vladyka saw my sister for the first time! How then did he recognize her and know that it was she who had a painful hand?"
Anna S. recollects: "My sister Musia and I got into an accident. A drunken young man was driving towards us. He struck the door with great force on the side where my sister was sitting. The ambulance was called and she was taken to the hospital. Her condition was very serious—a lung was punctured and a rib broken, which caused her great pain. Her eyes were invisible in her swollen face. When Vladyka visited her, she lifted her eyelid with her finger and upon seeing him took his hand and kissed it. She could not speak since she had a tracheotomy, but tears of joy flowed from her eyes. After that Vladyka visited her several times and she began to get better. Once Vladyka entered the ward and announced, `Musia is feeling very poorly now.' He then went to her and, closing the drape around her bed, he prayed for a long time. During his prayer we were approached by two physicians and I asked them how serious was my sister's condition, and if I should summon her daughter from Canada? (We had not informed the daughter yet of her mother's accident.) The physicians answered: `To call or not to call the family is your problem—we cannot guarantee that she will survive until the morning.' Thank God that she not only survived that night, but was completely cured and returned to Canada. My family and I believe that Musia was saved by the prayers of Vladyka John."
Vladyka's life was governed by the standards of the spiritual life, and if this upset the routine order of things it was in order to jolt people out of their spiritual inertia and remind them that there is a higher judgment than the world's. A remarkable incident from Vladyka's years in San Francisco (1963) illustrates several aspects of his holiness: his spiritual boldness based on absolute faith; his ability to see the future and to overcome by his spiritual sight the bounds of space; and the power of his prayer, which beyond all doubt worked miracles. This incident is related by the woman who witnessed it, Mrs. L. Liu; the exact words of Vladyka were confirmed by the Mr. T. who is mentioned.
"In San Francisco my husband was involved in an automobile accident and was seriously injured; he his balance and suffered terribly. At this time Vladyka had many troubles. Knowing the power of Vladyka's prayers, I thought: "If I ask Vladyka to come to my husband, he will recover;" But I was afraid to do this because Vladyka was so busy then. Two days passed, and suddenly Vladyka came to us, accompanied by Mr. B. T., who had driven him. Vladyka stayed with us about five minutes, but I believed that my husband would recover. The state of his health was at its most serious point then, but after Vladyka's visit there was a sharp crisis, and then he began to recover, living four more years after this. He was quite aged. Afterwards I met Mr. T. at a Church meeting and he told me that he had been driving Vladyka to the airport. Suddenly Vladyka had said to him: "Let's go now to the Liu's." He objected that they would be late for the plane and that he could not turn around at that moment. Then Vladyka had said: "Can you take the life of a man upon yourself?" He could do nothing but drive Vladyka to us. Vladyka, as it turned out, was not late for the plane."
The Death of a Saint
Among those who knew and loved Vladyka, the first response to the news of his sudden death was: it cannot be! And this was more than a reaction to the suddenness of the event; for among those who were close to him there had unaccountably developed the notion that this pillar of the Church, this holy man who was always accessible to his flock, would never cease to be! There would never be a time when one would not be able to turn to him for advice and consolation! In one sense, in a spiritual sense, this has since turned out to be true. But it is also one of the realities of this world that every man who lives must die. Vladyka was prepared for this reality.
To the manager of the orphanage where he lived, who had spoken in the spring of 1966 of a diocesan meeting to be held three years later, he indicated, "I will not be here then." In May, 1966, a woman who had known Vladyka for twelve years and whose testimony, according to Metropolitan Philaret, is "worthy of complete confidence" was amazed to hear him say, "I will die soon, at the end of June—not in San Francisco, but in Seattle."
Again, on the evening before his departure for Seattle, four days before his death, Vladyka astonished a man for whom he had just served a moleben with the words, "You will not kiss my hand again." And on the day of his death, at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy which he celebrated, he spent three hours in the altar praying, emerging not long before his death, which occurred on July 2, 1966. He died in his room in the parish building next to the church. He was heard to fall and, having been placed in a chair by those who ran to help him, breathed his last peacefully and with little evident pain, in the presence of the miracle-working Kursk Icon of the Sign.
Before the of canonization of Archbishop John his relics reposed in a chapel in the basement of the San Francisco cathedral (after the canonization in July of 1994 the relics of Archbishop John were moved to the main floor of the cathedral). Soon after his repose, a new chapter began in the story of this holy man. Just as St. Seraphim of Sarov told his spiritual children to regard him as living after his death, and to come to his grave and tell him what was in their hearts, so our Vladyka also has proved to be hearing those who revere his memory. Soon after his death a one-time student of his, Fr. Amvrosy P., saw one night a dream or a vision: Vladyka, clad in Easter vestments, full of light and shining, was censing the cathedral. He joyfully uttered to him just one word while blessing him: "happy."
Later, before the end of the forty-day period, Fr. Constantine Z., long Vladyka' s deacon and now a priest, who had lately been angry at Vladyka and had begun to doubt his righteousness, saw Vladyka in a dream all in light, with rays of light shining around his head so brightly that it was impossible to look at them. Thus were Fr. Constantine's doubts of Vladyka's holiness dispelled.
The manager of the St. Tikhon of Zadonsk Home and long a devoted servant of Vladyka, M. A. Shakmatova, saw a remarkable dream. A crowd of people carried Vladyka in a coffin into St. Tikhon's Church; Vladyka came to life and stood in the royal doors anointing the people and saying to her, "Tell the people: although I have died, I am alive!"
As during his life time, Vladyka continues to be very active in helping those who need him. Here are just two of the thousands of cases of Vladyka's miracles. Victor Boyton, who witnessed the healing of his friend by Vladyka John, recounts: "The miracle occurred after I had received the copyright to the English publication of Orthodox Life from Jordanville, N.Y., which included photos of Vladyka John. I had a friend, a Moslem from Russia, who was suffering from leukemia and was losing his sight. The doctors concurred that in three months time he would be blind. Placing the picture of Vladyka John by my vigil light, I began to pray daily for my friend. After a short period of time my friend was healed from the leukemia and began to see normally. The eye doctors were amazed at this occurrence. From then on, my friend has lead a normal life and reads without impediment."
The archpriest Stephan Pavlenko recollects: "My brother Paul, although not in the military, lived for some years in Vietnam. There he sought children who were wounded or orphaned due to the then continuing war. He placed them either in orphanages or hospitals. Thus he became close with his future wife, a certain Vietnamese Kim En who was also involved with helping the unfortunate children. My brother introduced Kim to the Christian faith and to the lives of many of God's Saints. She told my brother that during her very difficult times there appeared to her in her dreams a certain monk who consoled her and told her what to do. Once, towards Easter time, I sent my brother some cassettes of monastic songs as well as some books and journals of a spiritual context. Having received my parcel and having shown the spiritual literature to Kim he was surprised, when upon seeing the cover of a certain journal she exclaimed: `This is the monk who appears to me in my sleep!' She pointed to a well known picture of Vladyka John, taken among the graves of the New Diveevo monastery in Spring-Valley, New York. Kim was baptized in the Orthodox Church with the name Kyra."
Epilogue
Blessed Archbiship John of Shanghai and San Francisco was canonized as a Saint by the Russian Church on July 2 1994. It was a wonderfull and unforgettable event to which hundreds of clergy and many thousands of laymen came from all over the world!
The importance of St. John for the people of the twentieth century cannot be underestimated. Those who knew him personally or have read about his life and miracles have learned of the tremendous spiritual power embodied in this frail little man. God was drawn to the burning, loving heart of Vladyka John, which became a vessel of His grace. He entrusted the Saint with heavenly secrets and the ability to transcend physical laws, making him a point of contact between Himself, the Creator, and us, His creatures.
There can be no doubt that Vladyka John has been sent by God as a gift of holiness to the people of the last days. At a time when imitation has become the norm in all aspects of life, when the authentic spirit of the Christian Faith has been so hidden that most are oblivious of its very existence, he can be seen as a model of genuineness.
Vladyka John has set the right "tone" of true apostleship in the modern world. As more people are drawn into the Orthodox Church of Christ before the final unleashing of evil, may they look to him as their loving guide and a pastor who knows no death. He is a kind of "measuring stick" that indicates who and what is real in our confusing times. The unit of measure is nothing other than pure Christian love, which he possessed and distributed in abundance. With this love, the intense struggle of spiritual life becomes worth the effort.
By the prayers of Saint John may God bless and save us. Amen!
https://pravoslavie.ru/54575.html
<>
Open to me the doors of repentance, O Giver of Life!
St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco (+1966)
Repentance is expressed by the Greek word, metanoia. In the literal sense, this means a change of mind. In other words, repentance is a change of one's disposition, one's way of thinking; a change of one's inner self. Repentance is a reconsideration of one's views, an alteration of one's life.
How can this come about? In the same way that a dark room into which a man enters is illumined by the rays of the sun. Looking around the room in the dark, he can make out certain things, but there is a great deal he does not see and does not even suspect is there. Many things are perceived quite differently from what they actually are. He has to move carefully, not knowing what obstacles he might encounter. When, however, the room becomes bright, he can see things clearly and move about freely.
The same thing happens in spiritual life.
When we are immersed in sins, and our mind is occupied solely with worldly cares, we do not notice the state of our soul. We are indifferent to who we are inwardly, and we persist along a false path without being aware of it.
But then a ray of God's Light penetrates our soul. And what filth we see in ourselves! How much untruth, how much falsehood! How hideous many of our actions prove to be, which we fancied to be so wonderful. And it becomes clear to us which is the true path.
If we then recognize our spiritual nothingness, our sinfulness, and earnestly desire our amendment - we are near to salvation. From the depths of our soul we shall cry out to God: "Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy according to Thy Great mercy!" "Forgive me and save me!" "Grant me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother!"
As Great Lent begins, let us hasten to forgive each other all hurts and offenses. May we always hear the words of the Gospel for Forgiveness Sunday: If ye forgive men their debts, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their debts, neither will your Father forgive your debts (Matt. 6:14-15).