St. Philaret of New York

2011-06-16T16:41:00.000-07:00

old photo

2011-06-16T09:23:00.000-07:00

Hilarion Censors Met. Philaret

2011-06-15T09:45:00.000-07:00

[Taken from a Yahoo Group Forum]

June 15, 2011

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/142306

THE LOST PEARL FROM THE TREASURY OF THE THIRD FIRST HIERARCH

Dear list,
The following was sent to me, Irina Pahlen:

Discovery of the lost treasured words of Metropolitan Philaret.

A concerned faithful

Recently, a cassette found its way into the hands of a faithful member of the former true ROCOR and admirer of Met.Philaret, containing the sermons of this remarkable and memorable prelate. After listening to its contents and comparing them to the text in the books titled "Sermons and teachings of the Most Eminent Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky)" - published in 1989 - a significant disparity was discovered between the words that were actually articulated by Met.Philaret from the pulpit, and those printed in the books. This disparity can be found in the 2nd tome on page 82, which deals with the sermon on "Love your enemy". As it happened, the significant section uttered by the prelate was mercilessly excised from the book by the editor. The editor of this book was Bishop Hilarion, current Archbishop of Australia and New Zealand!

We now request our God-loving readers to familiarize themselves with the segment, which fell under Bhp.Hilarion's censorship. The text of this spiritual pearl of enormous significance, which was denied to the Orthodox faithful by the imprudent hand of the erudite Orthodox bishop, can be found after the third paragraph in the book with the concluding submission: "With regard to the current comments uttered by those "intellectual" individuals, I must say that it is not the Church that has lagged behind the times, but it is they that have fled to who knows where!"

"To what lengths of lunacy has contemporary mankind gone to! It is not difficult to arrive at this conclusion, if one observes what is transpiring in the world. Recently, there was a press report stating that the organization of the so-called World Council of Churches - which includes nearly all Christian denominations and Orthodox Churches, except one i.e. ROCA - has accepted as a full member, a new religious order that serves satan! Satanism has been embraced by the World Council of Churches!

Consequently, this means that the ill-fated person, which heads this frightening and ungodly teaching - Satanism, will be seated at the same table with representatives of Christian faiths, perhaps assisting in the formulation of ecumenical communion and services that will not displease anyone! This means that the WCC has secured a new brother-in-arms, a new colleague - the leader of this insane Satanism.

Incidentally, in passing, and as I stated before, nearly all Orthodox Churches have joined the World Council of Churches, the most recent being the partial entry of the American Red Sovietonomous Church, which has now existed for a number of years.

All these developments beg the question - where to now? This is to what extent of madness that humanity has reached! Yet they yell that the Church cannot keep up with them. But keep up with what? I reiterate - it's not the Church that has lagged behind the times, but these people that have created their new lifestyle. They are the ones that have fled from the Church to who knows where, and their demise will be frightening!"

In a later content of the book, Met.Philaret warns: "But we, brothers, must watch ourselves...."

In conclusion, Archbishop Hilarion's action invariably begs the question: "Why did he delete this priceless gem from Metropolitan Philaret's collection of sermons?"

Poems by St. Philaret

2011-01-20T16:31:00.001-08:00

LIBRARY:

"I will chant unto my God for as long as I have my being."

Poems written by Saint Philaret (Voznesenskiy).

Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth: think of the Lord with a good (heart,) and in simplicity of heart seek him.

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1

King of Heaven

O, King of Heaven, Father of the poor,
Defender of the weak and orphaned,
Have mercy on us and in days of gloom
Deprive us not of Thy bounty!

So hard to live! And so much pain
Around us... And our spirit fails -
Dog-tired of suffering in worldly tribulations
Among temptations and alarms...

You came into this world... The world You gave the word -
the Holy Gospel action word [verb];
But the world searched for a "leader" of another type,
And it failed to follow Thee...

No shine, no pomp, no purple
Didst Thou chose, no royal throne.
Such as Thee the world needs not,
Thou art too meek and humble.

Another will come - with his arrogance,
With treachery and falsehood, evil impudent,
With vicious sneering over holy high,
And over God's truth and goodness.

On the death of a friend
(In memory of hieromonk Methodius)

"With the saints give rest, O Christ, to the soul of thy servant..."

Life was cut... Long since that was
That he lived with us - and he died...
The tumulus took him to in,
And all is grief: "He’s gone from us”...
"He’s gone in full" ... In full ... True,
He is no longer in the bustle,
Amid a world full of injustice...
My friend, my brother – my co-pastor – where are you?
The grave keeps silent... O, silent tumulus...
The flowers only smell sweet.
O Lord! To the bereaved grant power
To endure the grief of loss!
Thou, in Whose hands the breath of life is,
Thou God of peace, of truth and love,
Thou King of the upper, sweetest homeland,
Doth hope revive in us!
Thou knewest the pursuits of his spirit -
To Thee he rushed with all his heart;
Doth accept him in Thine dwellings
And repose him with the saints.

Apocalyptic
(War of 1940-1945)

A time terrific! A time of test
Has come – as willed by the Creator;
Years pass – but the cup of suffering
We have not drunk up to the end.

In some strange form of sinister nightmare
People are dashing - but there’s no escape;
Kingdoms, and nations in bloody fallow
Are fighting to death, in search of "victories".

Words, doubts trouble the heart:
What happens next? What shall we live on?
In this grief and anguish who shall help
To soothe the soul and to strengthen the spirit?

So in these years of suffering and grief
The lighting lamp is shifted, and the torch is down;
Fiercely rages the sea of life,
All terribly rages - hour on hour.

God’s Truth – always unchanged,
All have forgotten, an idol erected
Peoples are dying, the universe trembles,
In its very foundations the World vacilates...

God Almighty! To Thee we lift up
Our mournful call: have mercy! Forgive!
In Thee Alone we put our trust
To find peace and joy for the soul...

Thy Word - unchanged for ever [and ever],
Thy truth and grace - know no boundaries,
Even in sufferings Thou nurture and save us,
And before Thee we prostrate flat.

Grant us Thy peace! Give us faith of the heart,
So that free from the heavy shackles
We may glorify Thy sweetness unending
Through generations - to generations to come.

For Thine is a state holy,
Thy mercy is a shrine for oppressed
And Thy kingdom, Thy power, Thy glory
Are now and forever and ever and ever!

Source: "Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan of New York and of Eastern America Philaret (Voznesenskiy) and the Russian Orthodox Church (1964-1985)", - Sankt Petersburg, 2007. Compilation and commentary by nun Kassia (T.A. Senina)

translated by Vladimir Djambov 2011/1/20

Vladimir Djambov, Eng

00359.885.455.189 - M/cell

00359.2.855.62.62 - H

En <> Bg translation, interpreting

http://members.multimania.co.uk/interpreting/newpage5.html

http://pra-blah.blogspot.com/

Instructions for an Orthodox Christian

2010-11-20T12:57:00.000-08:00

Instructions for an Orthodox Christian

St. Philaret of New York

1. Remember: you are a son (daughter) of the Orthodox Church. These are not empty words. Remember under what obligation this places you.

2. Earthly life is fleeting. You won't notice how it flashes by. But by this life, the eternal lot of your soul will be determined. Do not forget this not even for a moment.

3. Try to live piously. Pray to God in church; pray to God at home with reverence, with faith, with devotion to the will of the Lord. Carry out the holy and salvific rules of the Church, her regulations and commandments. Outside the Church, outside of obedience to her, there is no salvation.

4. The gift of speech is a great gift of God. It elevates a person to nobility, it immeasurably lifts him over other earthly creatures. But how mankind which has become perverse now abuses it. Protect this gift and know how to use the word in a Christian manner. Do not judge, do not speak idly. Fear as fire foulness of speech and seductive speaking. Do not forget the words of our Lord and Savior: “by thy words shalt thou be justified and by thy words shalt thou shall be condemned.” Do not permit lying. The Holy Scriptures sternly warn: “The Lord will destroy all those who speak a lie.”

5. Love your neighbor as yourself according to the Lord's commandment. Without love there is no Christianity. Remember: Christian love is self-sacrificing, and not egotistical. Do not miss an opportunity to perform a work of love and mercy.

6. Be modest, pure and chaste in your deeds, words and thoughts. Do not imitate the perverse. Do not take their example, and avoid any closeness to them. Without need, have nothing to do with unbelievers — unbelief is contagious. Observe modesty and decency always and everywhere; don't become infected with the shameless customs of our days.

7. Fear and flee from vainglory and pride. Pride cast down from the heavens the highest and most powerful of angels. You remember: thou art earth and unto the earth shalt thou return…. Deeply humble yourself.

8. The basic objective of life is to save the soul for eternity. Let this be the main objective and concern of your life. Woe unto him who destroys his soul through indifference and carelessness.

May the Lord bless you and help you.

Your spiritual father,

+Metropolitan Philaret

Abbot Adrian's Address

2010-02-12T19:36:00.000-08:00

ABBOT ADRIAN'S ADDRESS AT THE BANQUET FOLLOWING THE GLORIFICATION OF ST. PHILARET OF

NEW YORK

MAY 7/20, 2001

"First Orthodoxy! First God's Holy Church!"

ONE

Most Beloved Hierarchs, brother clergy, monastic strugglers, and brothers and sisters who are numbered among the

Faithful:

In this season of Paschal joy, we have together, at yesterday's vigil and today's Divine Liturgy, proclaimed that the sacred Hierarch, our Spiritual Father, the truly blessed Metropolitan Philaret, be numbered among the Saints. It is an affirmation - a recognition if you will - on our part, of something outside our worldly sphere that already in fact exists.

"Why seek ye the living among the dead. Why mourn ye the incorruptible amid corruption?" We know that these words have been written concerning our Holy Saviour Jesus Christ. As Orthodox Christians we also know that truly Orthodox Hierarchs are the living icons of Christ and so there is an apt application of these phrases of St John Damascene to those who have not only put on Christ but as the possessors of the fullness of grace have defined Christ's sacred image and likeness in themselves. Such was our beloved Hierarch and Father, St. Philaret, in his words, his deeds, his actions, and in his thoughts.

For 21 years, I lived with Metropolitan Philaret. It was he who initially sought that I be received properly into Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, through Holy Baptism and even wrote in defense of that stand to others who although knowing better chose to ignore, if not to disdain the Metropolitan's stand. It was he who requested I come to live at the Synodal headquarters, where I was baptized, and it was he who later tonsured me, giving me as a gift the very hand cross with which he himself had been tonsured. And yet later still, he it was who ordained me successively to both the diaconate and then the priesthood and later toward the end of his earthly sojourn raised me to the dignity of Abbot. There are certainly among us today many, especially among the clergy, that had contact with Metropolitan St. Philaret, and all, I am sure, who did, have come away from that encounter edified by his wisdom and depth. For he was a man whose whole being was focused on living Orthodoxy - the unique, salvific and grace-filled organism that is the Body of Christ. Many of you have undoubtedly read Metropolitan Philaret's biography - which we have been listening to during this celebratory meal. From that biography even those that have never had the occasion to meet or see St. Philaret can understand that he was a man of great courage, who despite trends, simply did not succumb to what I have always referred to as the unfortunate affliction (so endemic among the mainstream) of an inferiority complex of being genuinely Orthodox -- of the fear of willingly giving living witness to the righteousness and holiness that Christ's Church alone possesses. Metropolitan St. Philaret was not one who sought worldly acclaim but was one of whom the Psalmist writes, "Chose rather to be an outcast in the house of God than to dwell in the tents of sinners."

As a young hierodeacon, living at the Synodal Cathedral, I worked with the administration, as the secretary of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). I must tell you, the unique relationship shared between St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory guided the ark of Orthodoxy safely between many threatening and great temptations and obstacles, not the least of which were instigated by some fellow hierarchs, who were obviously not of like mind with them. This was evident to me from the very outset. Remember please that both St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory shared the same Spiritual Father and Confessor, who was the holy elder Archbishop Andrew of Novo Diveyevo Convent - a scion of Optina Hermitage's great wealth of Orthodox Spirituality and who was the unofficial "Godfather," so to speak, of Holy Transfiguration Monastery. These three hierarchs, St. Philaret, Archbishop Andrew and Bishop Gregory shared amongst themselves a genuine reflection of the mind of the Church. But I am not standing here before you today to tell you what I think of St. Philaret or of his role in our time but to share with you some reminiscences. I sought this privilege to speak to you because I was sure that you would like to hear what it was like to live with St Philaret.

As I have said earlier, I lived with Metropolitan Philaret at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York City for 21 years - all of the years that he was Metropolitan except for the first. The very first thing I noticed about Metropolitan Philaret was the holy quiet that seemed to emanate from him. At church services, whether he served or not his eyes were almost always closed and his head bent forward - not to be distracted in any way from his inner prayer. This was also due to an almost innate humility which pervaded every gesture of his. He was generous with his time for others, listening to complaints or appeals with utmost patience and compassion. His charity knew no bounds. Whatever he received he unhesitatingly gave away - whether it were money or even rare artifacts.

He always attended the daily services at the Cathedral and stood in the middle of the church on his monastic style stasidia - not some elaborate episcopal throne. He never spoke unnecessarily in the church during church services. If something or someone could not wait, he would step outside the confines of the church to address the matter. He constantly focused his whole being on the ensuing services - just as if, and he surely did, stand in the very presence of God Himself. When it came time at Matins to read the initial Six Psalms, he would relish the reading of them himself. He would read them with such compunction as to stir the soul, and although he held the book with the printed text in front of him, he never glanced at it really, having his eyes closed and his head inclined forward. Then there were other times that he would stand in the center of the church to perform some service that would be expected of a reader. He particularly loved to read the canons especially at Great Compline and Matins during Holy Week - when he himself would sing the exapostilarion. The Metropolitan did not have a sweet voice but he possessed a sonorous baritone that generated compunction.

He, of course, was a trained musician - he had studied the piano in his youth. He told me, though, that since being ordained and tonsured he no longer played any secular music. He played the piano only to compose his liturgical compositions, of which many remain extant. Those compositions were usually sung by the cathedral choir on his nameday.

I remember that every Saturday before the Triumph of Orthodoxy - shortly before or after the vigil - he would gather all the Cathedral clergy in the synodal hall where there was a grand piano - where he would sit himself upon the piano bench, with us all around the piano to practice the melody of the Anathema that the clergy were to sing on the next day at the service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. This he did, not to insure our pitches would be right, as some probably thought - but he wished to show by his own example, with what conviction and courage one ought to defend and maintain Orthodoxy. When he presided over this service the following day, he was a living paradigm of what an Orthodox Hierarch should be - compassionate but definite. His use of our time at these "rehearsals" was an affirmation of Orthodox theology - it was never a negative experience. It was because of his selfless involvement as an Orthodox Hierarch that he gained the criticism of many, recalling the words of our Saviour "If they hated Me, they will also hate you." His courage never waned. "First Orthodoxy! First God's Holy Church!"

TWO

One day during Holy Week - I can't remember exactly the year - Bishop Gregory received a very disturbing telephone call from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There was, they said, to be an attempt on the life of the Metropolitan. The agents of the FBI pleaded that the Metropolitan not take part in the scheduled procession on Holy and Great Friday Matins. The procession route would take us out the front door of the Synod building and up the long staircase in the Cathedral courtyard. Metropolitan thanked everyone for their concern but would not change his plans to participate in the procession no matter what threat. As we progressed down the stairs and then outside all of us clergy were prepared to deflect injury from the Metropolitan with our own lives if need be. We were surrounded by four FBI agents who insisted on accompanying the procession (two on either side of the Metropolitan - outside the clergy and the epitaphios). As conspicuous as they were they tried to blend into the crowd. As I gazed overhead, on the roofs of surrounding buildings stood police in anticipation of a potential incident and to ensure that there was no one there. Needless to say, nothing occurred, by the grace of God, but the perceived threat was palpable and Metropolitan St. Philaret demonstrated to all his unflinching courage - which history has recorded he had done consistently before and after that particular incident.

Certainly St. Philaret's staunch anti-Ecumenical stance as well as his immovable position regarding the Moscow Patriarchate put many to shame and on the defensive, provoking enemies, putting me in mind of St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Matthew 7:24. In speaking about the Apostles, he says: "[F]or when the waves of the whole world were beating against them, when both nations and princes; their own people and strangers; the evil spirits and the devil - and every engine was set in motion, they stood firmer than a rock and dispersed it all."

On another occasion, after Metropolitan St. Philaret's departure and extended stay on the West Coast, at Bishop Gregory's request I commenced an all-out and much overdo cleaning of St. Philaret's reception room where of course he received visitors, dignitaries, etc. The reception room was a responsibility we had since Bishop Gregory and I had raised the necessary funds to renovate this room and I myself had done a great deal of the renovation. While cleaning this room I lifted the dusty cover off of the anoloi in the icon comer to clean the shelves underneath. On the bottom shelf way m the back there was a strange looking apparatus - a round object - about the size of a ping-pong ball made of metal with a portion covered by metal screening. I had my suspicions, so I immediately informed the administration, who in turn brought someone with expertise enough, someone who worked for a governmental agency to determine what the object was. It was certainly no mystery to this gentleman who immediately took us out of the room and identified it as a sophisticated listening device - able to pick up discussions in the room and to broadcast them within a twelve mile radius. Mind you both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Soviet consul were just blocks away for starters. This gentleman quietly took this device and properly disposed of it. Mind you, as I said, this is the very room where Metropolitan met with petitioners, counseled those seeking his wisdom; where he officially received dignitaries and where he even sometimes heard confessions. You see then, yourself, to what extent certain powers would go to undermine or sabotage the Blessed Metropolitan's important work.

Metropolitan Philaret was renowned for, among other things, his sermons. Not only were they notable for their wise and spiritual content but also for their eloquent construction, as can well be attested to by the recent release of an entire collection of his tape-recorded sermons. And how we were blessed that St. Philaret often preached for not only did he preach at the Divine Liturgy but he almost always preached at every vigil and at nearly every Akathist before the Holy Icon of the "Virgin of Kursk" which was held every Wednesday evening. The Metropolitan himself, you will remember, was born in Kursk. There rolled from his blessed lips a well-spring of righteous wisdom which emanated from his own devout, pious and godly life. He had a phenomenal memory encompassing all that he had read including the Old and New Testaments - and the divinely blessed Holy Fathers from ancient times down to our own contemporaneous times. He often in his sermons quoted his beloved Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, who was himself a great ascetic. Whatever services Vladyka may have missed, outside of the Divine Liturgy, he read in his rooms. Vladyka St. Philaret was a very modest man in his demeanor and toward others. I remember an occasion where some enthusiastic clergyman had made a luxurious white ryassa for Vladyka (in Russia the married clergy and sometimes hierarchs, would wear a colored ryassa). Metropolitan wore it once only - and that because he felt pressured to do so. As soon as he reached his rooms, being visibly embarrassed, he tossed it off and never again wore it out of monastic modesty.

He was very dogmatic though about the services and personally corrected any mistakes that were made - even to (on rare occasions) coming to the kleros and taking the service book to change an incorrect word in his own hand.

He was also very frugal about the quantity of food he ate - not to mention the rare quarter of a small glass - never finished - of wine - on great and festal occasions.

Despite this severe image, Vladyka almost always displayed an easy wit and humor when he thought the occasion merited it. I remember censing the church one early morning before Divine Liturgy at the hours. As I passed by his monastic stasidia where he stood - he stepped down and with an extremely serious face and tone he confided, "Fr. Adrian, I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid you've grown a tail," as he pointed to the ground behind me. To my shock, in my fatigue I had not noticed that my monastic belt had come undone and fallen from underneath my priestly vestments onto the floor and indeed it was dragging like a tail behind me.

I am sure that some of you would be interested in knowing that Vladyka Philaret was quite an excellent chess player.

As a matter of fact, when he'd go in the summer to the Convent at Lesna, he and the abbess, Mother Magdalene (who was Bishop Gregory's sister by blood) would on occasion play chess, both of them being excellent players.

It was at prayer though and at the Divine Services while standing with Vladyka, especially around the Altar table, that you saw just how intense his prayer was. Never have I seen such unadulterated, concentrated and simple faith as when Vladyka St. Philaret prayed during the Epiclesis and gracefully lifted his sacred right hand in blessing over the Holy Gifts set before us. It was simple but awe-inspiring.

Although Bishop Gregory was, under normal circumstances, my confessor and spiritual father, on occasions when he had to be away for extended periods I would go to confession with the Metropolitan. Standing near him before the analoi with the Cross and Holy Gospel in his kellia, he would say all the pre-confession prayers from memory and in a most compunctionate manner. He was a compassionate confessor who listened attentively without interruption and then in a most humble way, this great spiritual physician, would seek to bring the soul consolation and peace without himself ever becoming judgmental. Of course, he readily quoted from the fathers and the lives of the Saints. So humble was he that on one occasion he suggested I go to speak to his spiritual father, Archbishop Andrew. Not that he himself was incapable of rendering help but because he thought that Vladyka Andrew's special grace-filled gifts could add dimension to this particular situation.

During a holiday service, I believe it was the Annunciation, one of Vladyka St. Philaret's most beloved holidays, a very frightening and unpleasant event took place. As Vladyka stood during the Divine Liturgy praying intently before the Altar table with the Royal Doors opened - all of a sudden before we could tell what was going on, a madman, inspired undoubtedly by the evil one, ran from the center of the church through the Royal Doors and picked up the fragile Metropolitan and hurled him across the Altar. Had it been any one else other than the Metropolitan they would have been beside themselves with fear and anger - which I assure you the rest of us were who were present. While subduing the man - which took the strength of most of us clergy present in the Altar - others helped Vladyka to his feet. Amazingly no harm had come to Vladyka. After reassuring us that he had suffered no bodily harm, with his usual strength of character he resumed the service as if nothing of any consequence had happened. But remember that he was already aged and infirm. Such was the strength of St. Philaret's inner peace and prayer.

THREE

Shortly after the publication of St. Philaret's Sorrowful Epistle, which had been translated into several languages, along with his letters to Athenagoras of Thyatira and Archbishop Iakovos, I traveled abroad to both Greece and the Holy Land. It was not unusual to find Metropolitan Philaret's photograph hanging in monasteries at that time on the Holy Mountain of Athos. While in Greece I had the distinct honor of meeting for the first time, His Eminence, Archbishop Auxentios, who kindly and generously extended the offer to personally show me some of the Holy sites and monastic communities not too distant from the Athens area. It was only then really and in the Holy Land as well, that I eventually realized just to what extent Vladyka Philaret was esteemed.

There was an especially moving occurrence that took place visiting the Convent of the Holy Dormition at Parthena, outside of Athens, where the recently reposed and blessed Abbess Euthymia shepherded the many nuns that lived there at that time. With the presence of Archbishop Auxentios she had the monastic flock summoned to the Catholicon. The Archbishop explained that I was his guest and that I was a hierodeacon of Metropolitan Philaret. This blessed woman with tears streaming down her face lifted up her voice and cried: "Ah, Philaret, the Metropolitan, he who is the champion of Orthodoxy." She then had each of the 100 or so nuns come and make a prostration before a rather embarrassed and humbled hierodeacon and asked me to take this lovely bouquet of prayerful love and respect back to Metropolitan Philaret. This account was read by Bishop Gregory at a Synod meeting and was included in its minutes.

Not everyone however esteemed Metropolitan St. Philaret with such deference. Some fellow-hierarchs of the Synod were initially quiet when taken aback by Metropolitan Philaret's daring stand. That however did not last long. Feeling out the possible reaction of the faithful, some of the hierarchs themselves reacted less cautiously and as we see over time especially since the repose of St. Philaret have altogether lost their sense of Orthodox propriety. His Grace, Bishop Gregory stated in his now well-known letter to Metropolitan Vitaly, "They may have disliked us but at least they respected us," alluding to Metropolitan's lonely stand against the tide of ecumenism and syncretism. Remark, if you will, that since the repose of these two exceptional Hierarchs, the rapid decline from every point of view continues to gather even more momentum. It was Metropolitan Vitaly himself - he who was at one time in complete harmony with the Orthodox ecclesiology of St. Philaret and the holy fathers - who shouted at Bishop Gregory's exhaustive efforts to maintain ecclesiological integrity at the last Sobor of Bishops that he (Bishop Gregory) was physically able to attend, "now is not the time for the canons."

All of us should beware, for the enlightened can fall just as easily as anyone else, perhaps ever more so. Even this perspective demonstrates for us the grace-filled influence that Metropolitan Philaret had on some of his fellow Hierarchs. Certainly the greatest cross for Metropolitan Philaret to bear had to have been the lukewarm reception, if not the outright antipathy and hostility expressed on the part of his brother hierarchs. None of us should however be so surprised by this as to forget that at the Council of Florence St. Mark of Ephesus stood basically alone.

Metropolitan Philaret in his difficult position as President of the Synod of bishops tenaciously clinging to the Orthodox stand of his two Predecessors Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), sought, through whatever means were available to him, through God's grace to raise to the rank of the episcopacy those who were of like Orthodox mind to balance out the scales if you will, even just a little, just as some of his saintly fellow hierarchs throughout the ages have seen the necessity also to do. So it was, that when Matushka Varvara Maximovna, the late wife of Protopresbyter George Grabbe, reposed, the Metropolitan sought his elevation to the episcopacy. The same thing happened with Archbishop Andrew of Novo-Diveyevo Convent, who was also elevated to the episcopacy after the repose of his late wife. The former, becoming Bishop Gregory, was opposed by many members of the Synod, not excluding the present Metropolitan, and the latter, Archbishop Andrew, was old and quite infirm. (After all, he rarely if ever was able to attend any of the regular meetings of the Synod.) But Metropolitan St. Philaret knew that they were allies. Then there was Archbishop Nathaniel of Vienna, who had lapsed in a personal matter but was restored to the episcopacy due to Metropolitan Philaret's enormous efforts. In that instance, the same group who opposed St. Philaret's choices before, fought him vigorously in this choice as well. We live in a time, however, when such economia at the hands of such a grace-filled hierarch is justifiably necessary. St. Philaret's sole concern was the Orthodox integrity of the Synod of which he was the presiding member. Every genuinely Orthodox voice, moreover, a hierarchical voice, made the greater difference.

Then there is the matter of which most people are completely ignorant - even to this day. The Metropolitan also clearly saw Holy Transfiguration Monastery as an ally in the encroaching battle for Orthodox truth. He loved the monastery and the convent dearly. He had enormous respect for Fr. Panteleimon, the elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and associates. I remember that it took some time for Metropolitan to convince Fr. Panteleimon to become an Archimandrite. The real struggle came when Metropolitan St. Philaret pleaded, on at least two occasions, with Fr. Panteleimon to become a bishop. Fr. Panteleimon vehemently declined for he knew his detractors would have a field day - "Aha" they would say, "that's why you went to the Russian Synod"; not to mention the resistance that he would have met with on the part of those who had already given St. Philaret grief about his other episcopal candidates. Of course, St. Philaret was grieved by Fr. Panteleimon's decision but it far from diminished his love for Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the fathers there as well as the mothers and sisters at Holy Nativity Convent. He often remarked how he felt more welcomed and at ease at Holy Transfiguration Monastery than, say, in the main Russian Monastery where, when he did go, he was either besieged with unbridled criticism or verbally abused. And to say the truth, as a monastic, he appreciated the more consistent idea of every monk attending all of the church services. He counted on the prayers of the beloved monastic flock of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and Holy Nativity Convent for him personally, as well as for the general well-being of the Holy Orthodox Church.

These, dear friends, are just some reminiscences which can hardly paint a complete picture of such as was our beloved Hierarch and True Shepherd, St. Philaret. Sharing them with you on this day of his glorification may bring you an added perspective to the uniqueness of the man.

Just one more thing though. Recently someone who ought to know better, but guided by other than the best of intentions, has published on the Internet that Metropolitan Philaret was simply putty in the hands of Bishop Gregory and that he in turn had his own agenda. Obviously, to someone who knew them both quite well, nothing could be further from the truth. That by the grace of God they complemented one another is more accurate. All of us are given talents and in their case what one lacked the other seemed to have. Metropolitan St. Philaret was not an administrator and most certainly Bishop Gregory was, for example. The grace-filled manner in which Metropolitan St. Philaret served, preached, taught, extolled, shepherded, confessed, showed compassion, struggled and championed Orthodoxy is the man himself. A person who has been consciously blind to the impact that Vladyka St. Philaret has had is indeed a person to be pitied.

St. John Chrysostom, whom St. Philaret quoted often in his sermons, writes in commentary on the text about the Good Shepherd found in St. John the Evangelist and Theologian: "It is a grave thing indeed to have the care of a church. It is a task that needs a measure of love and courage as great as that of which Christ spoke so that a man may lay down his life for his flock, may never abandon them and may boldly face the wolf. It is in this the shepherd differs from the hireling. For the latter, indifferent to the sheep, is ever watchful of his own safety while the former regardless of his own safety seeks that of his sheep."

When was it that Metropolitan, our beloved Vladyka and St. Philaret, was ever not concerned about his God-given flock?! Yet even now, dear esteemed shepherds and beloved rational flock, he remains concerned and hears our petitions

and lovingly intercedes on our behalf. Christ is Risen!

THE END

2010-02-12T19:11:00.001-08:00

ABBOT ADRIAN'S ADDRESS AT THE BANQUET FOLLOWING THE GLORIFICATION OF ST. PHILARET OF
NEW YORK
MAY 7/20, 2001
"First Orthodoxy! First God's Holy Church!"
ONE
Most Beloved Hierarchs, brother clergy, monastic strugglers, and brothers and sisters who are numbered among the
Faithful:
In this season of Paschal joy, we have together, at yesterday's vigil and today's Divine Liturgy, proclaimed that the
sacred Hierarch, our Spiritual Father, the truly blessed Metropolitan Philaret, be numbered among the Saints. It is an
affirmation - a recognition if you will - on our part, of something outside our worldly sphere that already in fact exists.
"Why seek ye the living among the dead. Why mourn ye the incorruptible amid corruption?" We know that these words
have been written concerning our Holy Saviour Jesus Christ. As Orthodox Christians we also know that truly Orthodox
Hierarchs are the living icons of Christ and so there is an apt application of these phrases of St John Damascene to those
who have not only put on Christ but as the possessors of the fullness of grace have defined Christ's sacred image and
likeness in themselves. Such was our beloved Hierarch and Father, St. Philaret, in his words, his deeds, his actions, and in
his thoughts.

For 21 years, I lived with Metropolitan Philaret. It was he who initially sought that I be received properly into
Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, through Holy Baptism and even wrote in defense of that stand to others who although
knowing better chose to ignore, if not to disdain the Metropolitan's stand. It was he who requested I come to live at the
Synodal headquarters, where I was baptized, and it was he who later tonsured me, giving me as a gift the very hand cross
with which he himself had been tonsured. And yet later still, he it was who ordained me successively to both the diaconate
and then the priesthood and later toward the end of his earthly sojourn raised me to the dignity of Abbot. There are
certainly among us today many, especially among the clergy, that had contact with Metropolitan St. Philaret, and all, I am
sure, who did, have come away from that encounter edified by his wisdom and depth. For he was a man whose whole
being was focused on living Orthodoxy - the unique, salvific and grace-filled organism that is the Body of Christ. Many of
you have undoubtedly read Metropolitan Philaret's biography - whichh we have been listening to during this celebratory
meal. From that biography even those that have never had the occasion to meet or see St. Philaret can understand that he
was a man of great courage, who despite trends, simply did not succumb to what I have always referred to as the
unfortunate affliction (so endemic among the mainstream) of an inferiority complex of being genuinely Orthodox -- of the
fear of willingly giving living witness to the righteousness and holiness that Christ's Church alone possesses. Metropolitan
St. Philaret was not one who sought worldly acclaim but was one of whom the Psalmist writes, "Chose rather to be an
outcast in the house of God than to dwell in the tents of sinners."
As a young hierodeacon, living at the Synodal Cathedral, I worked with the administration, as the secretary of Bishop
Gregory (Grabbe). I must tell you, the unique relationship shared between St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory guided the ark
of Orthodoxy safely between many threatening and great temptations and obstacles, not the least of which were instigated
by some fellow hierarchs, who were obviously not of like mind with them. This was evident to me from the very outset.
Remember please that both St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory shared the same Spiritual Father and Confessor, who was the
holy elder Archbishop Andrew of Novo Diveyevo Convent - a scion of Optina Hermitage's great wealth of Orthodox
Spirituality and who was the unofficial "Godfather," so to speak, of Holy Transfiguration Monastery. These three
hierarchs, St. Philaret, Archbishop Andrew and Bishop Gregory shared amongst themselves a genuine reflection of the
mind of the Church. But I am not standing here before you today to tell you what I think of St. Philaret or of his role in our
time but to share with you some reminiscences. I sought this privilege to speak to you because I was sure that you would
like to hear what it was like to live with St Philaret.

As I have said earlier, I lived with Metropolitan Philaret at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York City for
21 years - all of the years that he was Metropolitan except for the first. The very first thing I noticed about Metropolitan
Philaret was the holy quiet that seemed to emanate from him. At church services, whether he served or not his eyes were
almost always closed and his head bent forward - not to be distracted in any way from his inner prayer. This was also due
to an almost innate humility which pervaded every gesture of his. He was generous with his time for others, listening to
complaints or appeals with utmost patience and compassion. His charity knew no bounds. Whatever he received he
unhesitatingly gave away - whether it were money or even rare artifacts.
He always attended the daily services at the Cathedral and stood in the middle of the church on his monastic style
stasidia - not some elaborate episcopal throne. He never spoke unnecessarily in the church during church services. If
something or someone could not wait, he would step outside the confines of the church to address the matter. He
constantly focused his whole being on the ensuing services - just as if, and he surely did, stand in the very presence of God
Himself. When it came time at Matins to read the initial Six Psalms, he would relish the reading of them himself. He
would read them with such compunction as to stir the soul, and although he held the book with the printed text in front of
him, he never glanced at it really, having his eyes closed and his head inclined forward. Then there were other times that
he would stand in the center of the church to perform some service that would be expected of a reader. He particularly
loved to read the canons especially at Great Compline and Matins during Holy Week - when he himself would sing the
exapostilarion. The Metropolitan did not have a sweet voice but he possessed a sonorous baritone that generated
compunction.
He, of course, was a trained musician - he had studied the piano in his youth. He told me, though, that since being
ordained and tonsured he no longer played any secular music. He played the piano only to compose his liturgical
compositions, of which many remain extant. Those compositions were usually sung by the cathedral choir on his nameday.
I remember that every Saturday before the Triumph of Orthodoxy - shortly before or after the vigil - he would gather all
the Cathedral clergy in the synodal hall where there was a grand piano - where he would sit himself upon the piano bench,
with us all around the piano to practice the melody of the Anathema that the clergy were to sing on the next day at the
service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. This he did, not to insure our pitches would be right, as some probably thought - but
he wished to show by his own example, with what conviction and courage one ought to defend and maintain Orthodoxy.
When he presided over this service the following day, he was a living paradigm of what an Orthodox Hierarch should be -
compassionate but definite. His use of our time at these "rehearsals" was an affirmation of Orthodox theology - it was
never a negative experience. It was because of his selfless involvement as an Orthodox Hierarch that he gained the
criticism of many, recalling the words of our Saviour "If they hated Me, they will also hate you." His courage never waned.
"First Orthodoxy! First God's Holy Church!"
TWO
One day during Holy Week - I can't remember exactly the year - Bishop Gregory received a very disturbing telephone
call from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There was, they said, to be an attempt on the life of the Metropolitan. The
agents of the FBI pleaded that the Metropolitan not take part in the scheduled procession on Holy and Great Friday Matins.
The procession route would take us out the front door of the Synod building and up the long staircase in the Cathedral
courtyard. Metropolitan thanked everyone for their concern but would not change his plans to participate in the procession
no matter what threat. As we progressed down the stairs and then outside all of us clergy were prepared to deflect injury
from the Metropolitan with our own lives if need be. We were surrounded by four FBI agents who insisted on
accompanying the procession (two on either side of the Metropolitan - outside the clergy and the epitaphios). As
conspicuous as they were they tried to blend into the crowd. As I gazed overhead, on the roofs of surrounding buildings
stood police in anticipation of a potential incident and to ensure that there was no one there. Needless to say, nothing
occurred, by the grace of God, but the perceived threat was palpable and Metropolitan St. Philaret demonstrated to all his
unflinching courage - which history has recorded he had done consistently before and after that particular incident.
Certainly St. Philaret's staunch anti-Ecumenical stance as well as his immovable position regarding the Moscow
Patriarchate put many to shame and on the defensive, provoking enemies, putting me in mind of St. John Chrysostom's
commentary on Matthew 7:24. In speaking about the Apostles, he says: "[F]or when the waves of the whole world were
beating against them, when both nations and princes; their own people and strangers; the evil spirits and the devil - and
every engine was set in motion, they stood firmer than a rock and dispersed it all."
On another occasion, after Metropolitan St. Philaret's departure and extended stay on the West Coast, at Bishop
Gregory's request I commenced an all-out and much overdo cleaning of St. Philaret's reception room where of course he
received visitors, dignitaries, etc. The reception room was a responsibility we had since Bishop Gregory and I had raised
the necessary funds to renovate this room and I myself had done a great deal of the renovation. While cleaning this room I
lifted the dusty cover off of the anoloi in the icon comer to clean the shelves underneath. On the bottom shelf way m the
back there was a strange looking apparatus - a round object - about the size of a ping-pong ball made of metal with a
portion covered by metal screening. I had my suspicions, so I immediately informed the administration, who in turn
brought someone with expertise enough, someone who worked for a governmental agency to determine what the object
was. It was certainly no mystery to this gentleman who immediately took us out of the room and identified it as a
sophisticated listening device - able to pick up discussions in the room and to broadcast them within a twelve mile radius.
Mind you both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Soviet consul were just blocks away for starters. This gentleman quietly
took this device and properly disposed of it. Mind you, as I said, this is the very room where Metropolitan met with
petitioners, counseled those seeking his wisdom; where he officially received dignitaries and where he even sometimes
heard confessions. You see then, yourself, to what extent certain powers would go to undermine or sabotage the Blessed
Metropolitan's important work.
Metropolitan Philaret was renowned for, among other things, his sermons. Not only were they notable for their wise
and spiritual content but also for their eloquent construction, as can well be attested to by the recent release of an entire
collection of his tape-recorded sermons. And how we were blessed that St. Philaret often preached for not only did he
preach at the Divine Liturgy but he almost always preached at every vigil and at nearly every Akathist before the Holy Icon
of the "Virgin of Kursk" which was held every Wednesday evening. The Metropolitan himself, you will remember, was
born in Kursk. There rolled from his blessed lips a well-spring of righteous wisdom which emanated from his own devout,
pious and godly life. He had a phenomenal memory encompassing all that he had read including the Old and New
Testaments - and the divinely blessed Holy Fathers from ancient times down to our own contemporaneous times. He often
in his sermons quoted his beloved Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, who was himself a great ascetic. Whatever
services Vladyka may have missed, outside of the Divine Liturgy, he read in his rooms. Vladyka St. Philaret was a very
modest man in his demeanor and toward others. I remember an occasion where some enthusiastic clergyman had made a
luxurious white ryassa for Vladyka (in Russia the married clergy and sometimes hierarchs, would wear a colored ryassa).
Metropolitan wore it once only - and that because he felt pressured to do so. As soon as he reached his rooms, being
visibly embarrassed, he tossed it off and never again wore it out of monastic modesty.
He was very dogmatic though about the services and personally corrected any mistakes that were made - even to (on
rare occasions) coming to the kleros and taking the service book to change an incorrect word in his own hand.
He was also very frugal about the quantity of food he ate - not to mention the rare quarter of a small glass - never
finished - of wine - on great and festal occasions.
Despite this severe image, Vladyka almost always displayed an easy wit and humor when he thought the occasion
merited it. I remember censing the church one early morning before Divine Liturgy at the hours. As I passed by his
monastic stasidia where he stood - he stepped down and with an extremely serious face and tone he confided, "Fr. Adrian, I
have some bad news for you, I'm afraid you've grown a tail," as he pointed to the ground behind me. To my shock, in my
fatigue I had not noticed that my monastic belt had come undone and fallen from underneath my priestly vestments onto
the floor and indeed it was dragging like a tail behind me.
I am sure that some of you would be interested in knowing that Vladyka Philaret was quite an excellent chess player.
As a matter of fact, when he'd go in the summer to the Convent at Lesna, he and the abbess, Mother Magdalene (who was
Bishop Gregory's sister by blood) would on occasion play chess, both of them being excellent players.
It was at prayer though and at the Divine Services while standing with Vladyka, especially around the Altar table, that
you saw just how intense his prayer was. Never have I seen such unadulterated, concentrated and simple faith as when
Vladyka St. Philaret prayed during the Epiclesis and gracefully lifted his sacred right hand in blessing over the Holy Gifts
set before us. It was simple but awe-inspiring.
Although Bishop Gregory was, under normal circumstances, my confessor and spiritual father, on occasions when he
had to be away for extended periods I would go to confession with the Metropolitan. Standing near him before the analoi
with the Cross and Holy Gospel in his kellia, he would say all the pre-confession prayers from memory and in a most
compunctionate manner. He was a compassionate confessor who listened attentively without interruption and then in a
most humble way, this great spiritual physician, would seek to bring the soul consolation and peace without himself ever
becoming judgmental. Of course, he readily quoted from the fathers and the lives of the Saints. So humble was he that on
one occasion he suggested I go to speak to his spiritual father, Archbishop Andrew. Not that he himself was incapable of
rendering help but because he thought that Vladyka Andrew's special grace-filled gifts could add dimension to this
particular situation.
During a holiday service, I believe it was the Annunciation, one of Vladyka St. Philaret's most beloved holidays, a very
frightening and unpleasant event took place. As Vladyka stood during the Divine Liturgy praying intently before the Altar
table with the Royal Doors opened - all of a sudden before we could tell what was going on, a madman, inspired
undoubtedly by the evil one, ran from the center of the church through the Royal Doors and picked up the fragile
Metropolitan and hurled him across the Altar. Had it been any one else other than the Metropolitan they would have been
beside themselves with fear and anger - which I assure you the rest of us were who were present. While subduing the man
- which took the strength of most of us clergy present in the Altar - others helped Vladyka to his feet. Amazingly no harm
had come to Vladyka. After reassuring us that he had suffered no bodily harm, with his usual strength of character he
resumed the service as if nothing of any consequence had happened. But remember that he was already aged and infirm.
Such was the strength of St. Philaret's inner peace and prayer.
THREE
Shortly after the publication of St. Philaret's Sorrowful Epistle, which had been translated into several languages, along
with his letters to Athenagoras of Thyatira and Archbishop Iakovos, I traveled abroad to both Greece and the Holy Land. It
was not unusual to find Metropolitan Philaret's photograph hanging in monasteries at that time on the Holy Mountain of
Athos. While in Greece I had the distinct honor of meeting for the first time, His Eminence, Archbishop Auxentios, who
kindly and generously extended the offer to personally show me some of the Holy sites and monastic communities not too
distant from the Athens area. It was only then really and in the Holy Land as well, that I eventually realized just to what
extent Vladyka Philaret was esteemed.
There was an especially moving occurrence that took place visiting the Convent of the Holy Dormition at Parthena,
outside of Athens, where the recently reposed and blessed Abbess Euthymia shepherded the many nuns that lived there at
that time. With the presence of Archbishop Auxentios she had the monastic flock summoned to the Catholicon. The
Archbishop explained that I was his guest and that I was a hierodeacon of Metropolitan Philaret. This blessed woman with
tears streaming down her face lifted up her voice and cried: "Ah, Philaret, the Metropolitan, he who is the champion of
Orthodoxy." She then had each of the 100 or so nuns come and make a prostration before a rather embarrassed and
humbled hierodeacon and asked me to take this lovely bouquet of prayerful love and respect back to Metropolitan Philaret.
This account was read by Bishop Gregory at a Synod meeting and was included in its minutes.
Not everyone however esteemed Metropolitan St. Philaret with such deference. Some fellow-hierarchs of the Synod
were initially quiet when taken aback by Metropolitan Philaret's daring stand. That however did not last long. Feeling out
the possible reaction of the faithful, some of the hierarchs themselves reacted less cautiously and as we see over time
especially since the repose of St. Philaret have altogether lost their sense of Orthodox propriety. His Grace, Bishop
Gregory stated in his now well-known letter to Metropolitan Vitaly, "They may have disliked us but at least they respected
us," alluding to Metropolitan's lonely stand against the tide of ecumenism and syncretism. Remark, if you will, that since
the repose of these two exceptional Hierarchs, the rapid decline from every point of view continues to gather even more
momentum. It was Metropolitan Vitaly himself - he who was at one time in complete harmony with the Orthodox
ecclesiology of St. Philaret and the holy fathers - who shouted at Bishop Gregory's exhaustive efforts to maintain
ecclesiological integrity at the last Sobor of Bishops that he (Bishop Gregory) was physically able to attend, "now is not
the time for the canons."
All of us should beware, for the enlightened can fall just as easily as anyone else, perhaps ever more so. Even this
perspective demonstrates for us the grace-filled influence that Metropolitan Philaret had on some of his fellow Hierarchs.
Certainly the greatest cross for Metropolitan Philaret to bear had to have been the lukewarm reception, if not the outright
antipathy and hostility expressed on the part of his brother hierarchs. None of us should however be so surprised by this as
to forget that at the Council of Florence St. Mark of Ephesus stood basically alone.
Metropolitan Philaret in his difficult position as President of the Synod of bishops tenaciously clinging to the Orthodox
stand of his two Predecessors Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), sought,
through whatever means were available to him, through God's grace to raise to the rank of the episcopacy those who were
of like Orthodox mind to balance out the scales if you will, even just a little, just as some of his saintly fellow hierarchs
throughout the ages have seen the necessity also to do. So it was, that when Matushka Varvara Maximovna, the late wife
of Protopresbyter George Grabbe, reposed, the Metropolitan sought his elevation to the episcopacy. The same thing
happened with Archbishop Andrew of Novo-Diveyevo Convent, who was also elevated to the episcopacy after the repose
of his late wife. The former, becoming Bishop Gregory, was opposed by many members of the Synod, not excluding the
present Metropolitan, and the latter, Archbishop Andrew, was old and quite infirm. (After all, he rarely if ever was able to
attend any of the regular meetings of the Synod.) But Metropolitan St. Philaret knew that they were allies. Then there was
Archbishop Nathaniel of Vienna, who had lapsed in a personal matter but was restored to the episcopacy due to
Metropolitan Philaret's enormous efforts. In that instance, the same group who opposed St. Philaret's choices before,
fought him vigorously in this choice as well. We live in a time, however, when such economia at the hands of such a
grace-filled hierarch is justifiably necessary. St. Philaret's sole concern was the Orthodox integrity of the Synod of which
he was the presiding member. Every genuinely Orthodox voice, moreover, a hierarchical voice, made the greater
difference.
Then there is the matter of which most people are completely ignorant - even to this day. The Metropolitan also clearly
saw Holy Transfiguration Monastery as an ally in the encroaching battle for Orthodox truth. He loved the monastery and
the convent dearly. He had enormous respect for Fr. Panteleimon, the elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and
associates. I remember that it took some time for Metropolitan to convince Fr. Panteleimon to become an Archimandrite.
The real struggle came when Metropolitan St. Philaret pleaded, on at least two occasions, with Fr. Panteleimon to become
a bishop. Fr. Panteleimon vehemently declined for he knew his detractors would have a field day - "Aha" they would say,
"that's why you went to the Russian Synod"; not to mention the resistance that he would have met with on the part of those
who had already given St. Philaret grief about his other episcopal candidates. Of course, St. Philaret was grieved by Fr.
Panteleimon's decision but it far from diminished his love for Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the fathers there as well
as the mothers and sisters at Holy Nativity Convent. He often remarked how he felt more welcomed and at ease at Holy
Transfiguration Monastery than, say, in the main Russian Monastery where, when he did go, he was either besieged with
unbridled criticism or verbally abused. And to say the truth, as a monastic, he appreciated the more consistent idea of
every monk attending all of the church services. He counted on the prayers of the beloved monastic flock of Holy
Transfiguration Monastery and Holy Nativity Convent for him personally, as well as for the general well-being of the Holy
Orthodox Church.
These, dear friends, are just some reminiscences which can hardly paint a complete picture of such as was our beloved
Hierarch and True Shepherd, St. Philaret. Sharing them with you on this day of his glorification may bring you an added
perspective to the uniqueness of the man.
Just one more thing though. Recently someone who ought to know better, but guided by other than the best of
intentions, has published on the Internet that Metropolitan Philaret was simply putty in the hands of Bishop Gregory and
that he in turn had his own agenda. Obviously, to someone who knew them both quite well, nothing could be further from
the truth. That by the grace of God they complemented one another is more accurate. All of us are given talents and in
their case what one lacked the other seemed to have. Metropolitan St. Philaret was not an administrator and most certainly
Bishop Gregory was, for example. The grace-filled manner in which Metropolitan St. Philaret served, preached, taught,
extolled, shepherded, confessed, showed compassion, struggled and championed Orthodoxy is the man himself. A person
who has been consciously blind to the impact that Vladyka St. Philaret has had is indeed a person to be pitied.
St. John Chrysostom, whom St. Philaret quoted often in his sermons, writes in commentary on the text about the Good
Shepherd found in St. John the Evangelist and Theologian: "It is a grave thing indeed to have the care of a church. It is a
task that needs a measure of love and courage as great as that of which Christ spoke so that a man may lay down his life for
his flock, may never abandon them and may boldly face the wolf. It is in this the shepherd differs from the hireling. For
the latter, indifferent to the sheep, is ever watchful of his own safety while the former regardless of his own safety seeks
that of his sheep."
When was it that Metropolitan, our beloved Vladyka and St. Philaret, was ever not concerned about his God-given
flock?! Yet even now, dear esteemed shepherds and beloved rational flock, he remains concerned and hears our petitions
and lovingly intercedes on our behalf. Christ is Risen!
THE END

monasterypress.com

2010-01-26T14:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.monasterypress.com/mphilaret.html



The following article is being used with the kind permission of Saint John of Kronstadt Press. Linked material comes from various other sources of the Russian Church Abroad, past and present. On the feast of the Synaxis of the Archangel Michael and all the Bodiless Powers, 8/21 November 1985, His Eminence the Most Rev. Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, reposed in the Lord. Born George Nikolaevich. Voznesensky in the city of Kursk, Russia in 1903, he emigrated in 1920 with his family to Harbin, China, to escape the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution. After the death of his mother, his father received the monastic tonsure and was consecrated Bishop of Hailar; he was active in Russian Orthodox church life in Manchuria until the invasion of that country-by Soviet military forces, when he was repatriated to the USSR and died. As a young man, George Nikolaevitch completed his theological training in Manchuria in 1931. That same year he was ordained deacon, priest and received the monastic tonsure, with the new name Philaret, after Saint Philaret the Almsgiver. In 1934, he became hegumen (Abbott), and in 1937 Archimandrite. Archimandrite Philaret fulfilled various priestly duties in Harbin, Manchuria, until 1950. He became known for his opposition to the Soviets and rejection of the hope that any substantive change with regard to freedom of religion would be forthcoming in the USSR under Stalin's regime. He categorically refused to accept a Soviet passport, despite tremendous pressure from those Russians deluded by the Soviet propaganda, including his own ecclesiastical superiors. The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which had by then established itself in New York, tried persistently to obtain an exit visa for him. It was not until 1962, with the onset of Chairman Mao's "Cultural Revolution", that Archimandrite Philaret was finally permitted to travel to Hong Kong. From there he went immediately to Brisbane, Australia, where a considerable number of his former parishioners from Harbin had settled. Those parishioners deluged the Chancery of the Synod of Bishops with petitions urging his consecration as Bishop of Brisbane. This movement received the support of the late Archbishop Savva of Sydney, who felt the need of a vicar bishop, and in 1963 his consecration occurred. In 1964, when the elderly Metropolitan Anastassy of Blessed Memory announced his retirement as First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the Bishop of Brisbane, who had accompanied Archbishop Savva to the Council of Bishops, was chosen to replace him. As First Hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret distinguished himself by steadfastly opposing any organic participation of the Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical movement. His letters to the late Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and to Archbishop Iakovos in America, and his "Sorrowful Epistles" to all Orthodox bishops clearly set forth his stand in that respect, as did his criticism of the infamous"Thyateira Confession" published by the late Archbishop Athenagoras in Britain. In 1965, he presided over the glorification of St. John of Kronstadt in New York City (the first canonization of any saint celebrated in the United States). He subsequently oversaw the glorifications of St Herman of Alaska (1970, San Francisco), St Xenia of St. Petersburg (1978, New York) and All the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia who have shone forth under the persecution raised by the atheists (1981, New York). It should be noted as well that more saints and martyrs were canonized during Metropolitan Philaret's life than during that of any other ruling hierarch in the history of the Church. Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret showed a great spiritual concern for all the dioceses for which he was responsible as a Metropolitan. In England, after the repose of Archbishop Nikodem in 1977, he shouldered responsibility for the British Diocese, until Bishop Constantine was appointed. During that period, he several times visited England and showed a lively interest in the attempts to bear missionary witness there. It was under his loving guidance that the first plans were made for the reception and enshrinement of the sacred relics of Saint Edward the Confessor, and by his fiat a Brotherhood was established. Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret guided the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for some twenty-one years, during a very difficult period in her history. Through this period, many of the older Russian émigrés began to die, and soberly and carefully the Metropolitan encouraged the growth of small mission parishes and monastic sketes. Also during his episcopate, considerable numbers of Orthodox Christians from other ethnic backgrounds (particularly Greek Orthodox Christians) joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. They sought spiritual shelter from the gradual abandonment of Orthodox confession by their own hierarchs. The reception into a church that had hitherto been largely Russian of such groups and individuals was a matter that needed the Metropolitan's wise and careful pastoral oversight. Nearly a thousand people attended the Metropolitan's funeral, which was held at the Cathedral of the Mother of God of the Sign in New York, on the Sunday after his blessed repose. Eight hierarchs, thirty-one priests and eight deacons led the service. At the end of the ceremony, when the faithful had given their Archpastor the last kiss, his relics were taken to the convent of Novo-Diveevo in Spring Valley, where they rested the night. In the early morning they were taken to Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville. After the Divine Liturgy, they were laid to rest in the crypt of the Cemetery Chapel of the Dormition of the Mother of God. The handmaiden of God Nadia Mokhoff said, "This man was the kindest. He would take the youth that no one cared about and bring them into the church with nothing but kindness. He was a father to every single one of us." His care for the young people of the Church was something that did indeed characterize his episcopate. His instructions to young people have been published in English translation. Only a year before his blessed repose the Metropolitan presided at the consecration of his vicar, Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan, to whom he particularly entrusted the spiritual care of the youth. Larry Binins in Newsday (Monday, 25th November) caught the key-note of the Metropolitan's ministry by portraying him as "kind Bishop of Russian Orthodoxy" Let us all, good handmaidens and servants of our Holy Orthodox Church, never forget to pray for the memory of our most beloved blessed Metropolitan Philaret After Vladyka's repose, the following message was found in his typewriter. No date was indicated, but one must conclude that it was typed within a few days of his peaceful repose. For all us, his spiritual children, it is his spiritual legacy, a reminder for us to live as true Orthodox Christians. "Hold that fast which thou hast"These words from the Book of Revelation [Rev 3:11] have a particular significance in our time, our greatly sorrowful and wicked days which are full of temptation. They remind us of that priceless spiritual treasure that we possess, as children of the Orthodox Church. Yes, we are rich. This spiritual wealth is that which the Holy Church possesses. This is the wealth which belongs to all her faithful children... The teaching of the Faith! Our wonderful, salvific Orthodox Faith! The countless living examples of the lives of people who have lived according to the Faith and according to the lofty principles and laws which the Church sets before us. Those who have attained that spiritual purity and exalted state that is called sanctity, the beauty and magnificence of our Orthodox divine services, and a living participation in them through faith and prayer. The fullness of the spiritual life of grace which is accessible to each and every one. And, what is the crown of all, the unity of the children of the Church in that love Of which the savior said: "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" [Jn 13-35]. Metropolitan Philaret

Letter Concerning MP 1979

2010-01-03T20:44:00.000-08:00

A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY)
TO A PRIEST OF THE CHURCH ABROAD
CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO
AND THE MOSCOWPATRIARCHATE

Dear Father Victor,

For a long time now I have been intending to write a few words to you, but somehow I haven't managed to get around to it. But at last I have collected myself, and so I write.

When I, while still in Australia, began to receive information from America already post factum that here [in New York City] there had been protests, demonstrations, and even molebens in front of the Soviet consulate, I became quite alarmed and regretted that I was not here, since I would have decisively opposed much of what took place. In particular, holding a moleben in such a place. Did they not sing the Lord's song in a strange land? What cause was there to display the holy things of the Church's services before the gaze of the frenzied servants of Antichrist? Was it really not possible to pray in church?

I must say frankly that I am always seized by dismay when I hear of protests, demonstrations, and the like. In the USSR, life is governed by him (the one with horns) who fears only Christ and His Cross; and who fears nothing else in the world. And he merely chortles over protests and demonstrations. Public opinion? Why, the antichrist regime has nothing but the uttermost contempt for it! They wanted to seize Czechoslovakia and they seized it, paying no heed to the commotion that was raised. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and they invaded it, again paying no attention to the protests and threats of the various Carters & Co. All attempts to shape public opinion in the so-called Free World in favor of those suffering from Communism are powerless and fruitless, since the Free World stubbornly closes its eyes and imitates the ostrich, which hides its head under its wing and imagines that it cannot be seen...

In bewilderment did I read in the newspaper how one journalist approvingly cites your words: Father Victor is correct when he writes: Russia is arising from the dead! We must believe in this; for we believe in Christ the Saviour Who arose the dead.

I cannot understand what is the connection between the one and the other? Personally, I believe in the Resurrection of Christ for me this is the most precious thing in the world. But I absolutely cannot see why must I believe that Russia is resurrecting? I hope that she truly will rise, then all-powerful nod for it will be given by God. But at present, not only do I not share your enthusiasm, but I am greatly alarmed for the Russian people. The falsehood and emptiness of atheism is obvious to them. But alas, it is not true Orthodoxy that is being disseminated there. There, under the guise of Orthodoxy, the Russian people are being offered Bulgakovism, Berdyaevism, and similar rubbish of the Evlogian schism. The sects are flourishing there: the Baptists etc. The official Church preaches cooperation with the God-hating regime, lauding it in every possible way. The true Orthodox Church has gone to the catacombs, hidden from the common masses ... Is that, then, the rebirth of Orthodoxy?.. And are you not perhaps taking a bit too much upon yourself, proclaiming to the whole world that Orthodoxy is being reborn in Russia? God grant that the Truth should overcome all errors and should triumph over them. But for the present it is too soon to speak of it, since the influence of the anti-Orthodox elements is still so very strong there; not to mention the fact that the antichrist Soviet regime, as long as it rules Russia, will never permit the triumph of Orthodoxy. It is not without cause that the true Orthodox Church concealed herself in the catacombs and is fiercely persecuted.

Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.

From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being mentioned more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the members of the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines, immediately kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster might happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-ocracy. There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of lies. This lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging fact may turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a provocation...

Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the best, not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of his convictions, but simply noting the sad fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before the enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display courage and daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end.

Why?!

Because his activity took place outside of the true Church...

What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the concentration camps.

This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his infamous and apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession: having fallen under their own anathema! For in 1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of in the Apocalypse.

As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ.

And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the activities of Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the press that he is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in her. Has his spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the official church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit I am breaking off with the company of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church. Why, then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would have destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue of the fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we must not have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no communion in prayer, but not even ordinary contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have refused to remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from membership in her the barrier would no longer have applied to him.

I recall a marvellous case of the direct and miraculous aid of God to those who remained faithful to the end. They banished a group of nuns belonging to the Catacomb Church to Solovki. The Chekists told them: Get settled now, and tomorrow you will go to some sort of work. But they received an unexpected answer: We will not go and work. "What, have you gone out of your minds? Do you know what we will do with you? screamed the Chekists. There followed the calm reply of people who in their faithfulness feared nothing: What shall be, shall be but what is pleasing unto God shall be, and not what suits you executioners and criminals. You may do with us what you please: starve us, torture us, hang, shoot, or burn us with fire. But we give you notice once and for all: we do not recognize you, you servants of Antichrist, as the lawful authority, and we will not fulfill your orders in any way!..

In the morning the infuriated Chekists drove the nuns up onto the hill of death. Thus was called a high hill where in winter an icy wind always blew. In that wind a man would freeze to death within a quarter of an hour. The nuns, clad in their shabby ryassas, are led up the hill by Red Army men in their sheepskin coats. The nuns go happily, joyously along, chanting psalms and prayers. The soldiers left them at the top of the hill and then descended. They hear how they continue their chanting. Half hour, an hour, two, yet more all the while the sound of chanting carries from above. Night fell. The guards approach the nuns they are alive, unharmed, and continue chanting their prayers. The amazed soldiers led them home to the camp. News of this spread immediately throughout the entire camp. And when on the following day the guards were changed and yet the same thing happened, the camp authorities were bewildered and they left the nuns in peace...

Is this not a victory? Behold what it means to be faithful unto death as the marvellous words of Apocalypse say: Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. In this instance it's an obvious miracle, as it was with the three youths in the Babylonian furnace, only there the death-bearing element was fire, but here a death-dealing and killing cold. Behold how God rewards faithfulness!

And hear my heartfelt conviction: if the entire mass of the many millions of Russians would evidence a like faithfulness as did those nuns, and would refuse to obey the bandits who have been oppressing the Russian nation, then Communism would collapse in a second. For the succor of God, which had saved in a miraculous manner the nuns while on their way to certain death, would come likewise to the Russian people. But as long as the nation recognizes the regime and obeys it, even if all the while cursing it in their hearts, that regime will remain in place.

Of course, the nuns were strengthened by the power of God, just as the ancient martyrs; without this aid they would not have endured. But their podvig [martyric exploit] was accomplished within the true Church, filled with grace and Truth. For the true Church, according to the apostolic teaching, is the Body of Christ the Lord abides in her and leads her as her Divine Head.

Will anyone dare to assert that the Lord and His grace abide in the Church of the evil-doers, which lauds His demonized enemies and collaborates with them, which because of this is found under a twofold anathema, as indicated above? Can a church which has united with the God-haters possess grace?! The answer is obvious!

The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a terrible time was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and such while on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs, Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very same time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest betrayal of Christ.

To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not to condone many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people. But for him, Pimen was, and likely still is, his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us, it is not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution: on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of Pimen as unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as having no force or significance.

How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to do? Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful? Say the same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has already renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before when he preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the faithful and now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said that there is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for the one he just now made. But in order to do that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true Church, and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church will undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he will pass over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify him just as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant that he find the true and saving path.

I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't understand why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them, as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is along these lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.

The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch Saint Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the church canons in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy in their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this principle. And Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics do have; whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by those uniting [themselves to the Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said Vladyka Anthony.

In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.

In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several things out to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to fulfill the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First Hierarch bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact. On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct relations with Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko said: I am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could have entered into lively contact with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a violation of ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not answer him although I could have said much. By the way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great Entrance? Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but, ah, too impetuous fellow minister!

Peace to you and the mercy of the Lord. To Matushka and the children too.

With love,

Metropolitan Philaret
http://stpeteraleut.org/1979a.html

Glorification of the New-Martyrs

2009-11-24T17:51:00.000-08:00

AN EPISTLE

to All the Faithful Children of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

the Approaching Glorification of the New-Martyrs of Russia

Great is the feat of martyrdom!

In the holy Gospel we read the call of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, directed to those who wish to be His followers: "Strive to enter in at the strait gate" (Lk. 13: 24). "Strive" - walk the path of struggle, carry out the Christian struggle in your life. In other words, the Christian must be a struggler in his life. The ways and aspects of Christian struggle are diverse. Turning to the lives of the saints, we find their examples of holy, God-pleasing life under the most varied conditions of life. Among the saints glorified by the Church we find persons of the most disparate ages and widely different; states - from mighty sovereigns and exalted hierarchs of the Church, to sinners, hermits and recluses, and those, living in the world with families. Yet with the disparity of the external forms and conditions of their life, the spiritual foundation is one and the same - ; The all-embracing love for Christ and an unshakable loyalty to Him throughout all the temptations, tribulations and persecutions which they had to bear.

In particular, this undaunted loyalty to Christ shines forth clearly and triumphantly in the struggle of those whom Christian antiquity called "witnesses" (in Greek, "martyros"). This struggle, the struggle of martyrdom, is the struggle of those who bore witness to their loyalty, commitment and love for Christ by dying for Him, and did not spare even their very lives. And what beautiful, edifying examples of the feat of martyrdom we find in the lives of the saints! Behold, the holy Greatmartyr George the Victorious stands before us! A handsome, noble youth, wealthy, a favorite of the emperor, he was his faithful servant and could rely upon achieving a great measure of "success" in this life. But when he had to bear witness to his faith and loyalty to Christ, he turned from all the good things of this earth, manfully went forth to the tortures of martyrdom and death, and received a martyr's crown from the hand of Him for Whom he had suffered.

Behold, the beautiful Christian virgins, the Greatmartyrs Barbara and Catherine! Noble, richly gifted and comely themselves, they did not spare their youth, beauty or their very life, and in them were fulfilled the words of the Apocalypse: "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Rev. 2: 10).

One must keep in mind that the holy martyrs, men and women both, after courageously enduring the dreadful tortures, and torments to which their tormentors subjected them, went forth to their death as to a banquet; they went not as ones defeated, but as victors. The torturers used all the means at their disposal to induce them to renounce Christ. And only when they saw that their efforts were in vain did they send the faithful witnesses of Christ to their death - an act of sheer, impotent malice.

Although in the history of the Church of Christ we see examples of martyrdom in every age of her existence, prior to the Russian Revolution the feat of martyrdom took place chiefly in the first centuries of Christianity, when paganism strove to annihilate the Church with iron and blood. What we see now is something quite different. With the appearance and rise of God-hating communism in Russia, persecutions of the Faith were initiated which have been unprecedented in their cruelty and scope. In the words of one church writer, Orthodox Russia found itself on Golgotha, the Russian Church on the Cross. Of course, as was the case in antiquity, there have been incidents of apostasy. Yet at the same time, the Church of Russia and the Russian people have produced a multitude of cases of the manful endurance of torture and death for faith in Christ, indeed so great a number as to be incalculable with any precision; for it is beyond doubt that there have been so many cases of martyrdom throughout the long years of communism's existence in Russia, as to surpass any other era in the history of the human race. Here we are not speaking of hundreds or thousands, but of millions who have suffered for the Faith - an unprecedented and incredible phenomenon!

Throughout man's entire history, there has not been such an occurrence as we now behold - there has not been such an outpouring of evil, there has not been such a mindless and open rebellion of creation against the Creator as we now see in our much-suffering homeland, which has been enslaved by the communists. Never in history has there risen to Heaven such an abominable, mindless stench of blasphemy against God and all that is holy, as in Soviet Russia.

Yet if the enemies of God and the Church, demonic in their malice, have defiled our homeland, the Russian land, with their loathsome blasphemy and hatred for God, it is, at the same time, cleansed of this defilement by the sacred blood of the new-martyrs of Russia who have suffered for the Faith and for righteousness. With this blood the land of Russia is abundantly bedewed - bedewed, sanctified and purified of the mindlessness of the godless and those who struggle against God Himself.

The Holy Church, glorifying the new-martyrs, says that by their blood she is adorned, as with purple and fine linen - the richest, most beautiful and costly raiment. With this splendor of the feat of martyrdom, the Russian Church is now adorned - that Church which has not acknowledged the thieves' "authority" of the godless, has refused any dialogue and compromise with it whatsoever, and consequently bears the cross of faith and confession.

The day of the canonization is drawing nigh - the glorification of that innumerable assembly of martyrs and confessors of the Faith whom the Church of Russia and the Russian people have revealed to the world. It will be a day of the greatest triumph of the Orthodox Faith - not only in Russia and in the Russian (diaspora?) but in the world in every place where there are faithful children of the Orthodox Church. And every Russian Orthodox person must prepare himself to take part therein in a fitting manner.

Now, with the approach of the long-awaited day of the glorification of the new-martyrs, one often hears how the people say that the Church Abroad does not have the right to glorify them, that this can be done only by the whole Church of Russia in its entirety. Of course, this would be so if the Church of Russia were free! But we know well that the portion of the Church of Russia which has not accepted the communists ' "authority" as the lawful authority in Russia and has not submitted to it, has gone into the catacombs, and it is not possible to ask its opinion freely; and the hierarchy of the "official" Church has subjected itself to the authority of the godless and acts according to its orders. Therefore, it cannot be considered the real spokesman for the much-suffering, persecuted Church of Russia. Thus, the Church Abroad considers it her own responsibility to do what cannot now be done in Russia. And we know that from beyond the "Iron Curtain" many, many cries have reached us, not only expressing sympathy for the glorification of the new-martyrs, but begging that the glorification be performed as quickly as possible.

Great, yea, vast is the assembly of the new-martyrs of Russia It is headed by the sacred name of His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon, and the murdered Metropolitans Vladimir and Benjamin; moreover, Metropolitan Vladimir occupies a special place therein as the protomartyr, whose martyrdom constitutes the beginning of this glorious band. At the same time, quite a special place in the company of the new-martyrs is occupied by the Imperial Family, headed by the Tsar-martyr, Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich, who once said: "If a sacrifice is necessary for the salvation of Russia, I will be that sacrifice."

Much is now being said of the glorification of the Imperial Family. Many, many of the faithful children of the Orthodox Church - and not only among the Russians - await the day of glorification with joy and impatience. But there are also audible voices of dissent, which speak against the glorification of the Imperial Family. And in the majority of cases these voices say that the murder of the Imperial Family was a purely political act, that it was not a martyrdom in the sense of dying for the Faith.

Is this the case?

Turning to Russian history, we see a great number of examples of how the Church has glorified as saints of God many holy princes who were murdered; moreover, their murders were in no wise dependent upon any demand to renounce their faith in Christ the Savior. For example, from the life of the holy passion-bearers Princes Boris and Gleb, we know with what base and criminal considerations their murders were directed by Svyatopolk, who is rightly called "the accursed." But the question of their renunciation of the Faith did not enter into it in the least. Yet the Church glorified them first of all for their holy and righteous life which ended with the holy brothers' suffering and death.

If Sts. Boris and Gleb were thus glorified (as were many others), then it is all the more natural and correct to view in a positive light the question of the glorification of the Imperial Family. First of all, now, when the memory of the imperial victims has been cleansed of the filth and slander hurled at them in the years immediately following the Revolution, it has become known to the whole world that the family of the Holy Tsar-martyr was a model, a most splendid example of a true, Christian family. In particular, this became clear when we learned how the Imperial Family lived in their grievous imprisonment before their repose, and also when letters written by members of that family from prison were published - a priceless treasure, which they have left behind for the edification of the Russian Orthodox people who honor their sacred memory.

But this is not the crux of the matter. One should not forget that the communist malefactors, in slaying the Imperial Family, did so to annihilate the very memory of how Russia had lived for the many centuries of her existence. They have tried to smash, to put an end to, to destroy within the much-suffering Russian people that radiant spirit by which Holy Orthodox Russia lived - the spirit of the Orthodox state, and to implant in it the abominable spirit of God-hating and fratricidal communism. The criminal murder of the Imperial Family was not merely an act of malice and falsehood, not merely an act of political reprisal directed against enemies, but was precisely an act principally of the spiritual annihilation of Russian Orthodoxy, the aim of which was to instill an unnatural and evil communist spirit in the Russian people. The last tsar was murdered with his family precisely because he was a crowned ruler, the upholder of the splendid concept of the Orthodox state; he was murdered simply because he was an Orthodox tsar; he was murdered for his Orthodoxy!

Russian Orthodox people! Children of the Russian Church Abroad! We are preparing ourselves for a great triumph -- a triumph not only of the Russian Orthodox Church, but of the whole Church Universal, for the entire Orthodox Church is one in all her parts and lives a single spiritual life. Let this triumph of the Orthodox Faith and the beauty of the feat of martyrdom be not only a Church-wide triumph, but a personal triumph for each of us! We call upon all the children of the Church Abroad to ready themselves for it with earnest prayer, preparation, confession, and the communion of the holy Mysteries of Christ, that our whole Church, with one mouth and heart, may glorify Him from Whom comes every good gift and every perfect gift - God Who is wondrous in His saints.
+ Metropolitan Philar

http://www.roacusa.org/royalmartyrs.htm

Sermon: Entry of Theotokos

2009-08-09T11:30:00.000-07:00

3. HOMILY OF METROPOLITAN PHILARET OF NYC, OF BLESSED MEMORY AT THE ALL-NIGHT VIGIL OF THE ENTRY OF THE MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS INTO THE TEMPLE

translated by Dimitra Frost

The Holy Church now celebrates one of her great feasts -- a radiant and joyous event in the life of the Church. This is the entry into the temple of the Most-Blessed Virgin Mary, when her holy and righteous parents brought her into the holy temple when -Vie was still quite a three-year-old little Maid, in order to dedicate Her there to God according to the promise that they had given. Many, of course, know in what the essence of this feast consists.

I will point out some details, which are perhaps not known to all: First, when they brought Her into the temple, there also went with her maidens, little girls, with candles, accompanying Her with the chanting of Psalms, so that there went through the streets of Jerusalem a ceremonial procession, to which doubtless also other people joined. Finally, when they came to the temple of God, the Chief Priest, Zacharias, himself went out to meet them, knowing about the promise of the righteous parents. But here all were struck by the fact that -- while he was still at the top of the steps of the temple, and the steps were many, and they were tall -- the holy and pure Child, without any support, all on her own, climbed up all the steps. And then, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the chief priest Zacharias did that which at [any] other time he never would have done: he brought the maiden Mary into the Holy of Holies. Now one must bear in mind that a person could not approach the Holy of Holies. Even the priests could not enter therein. And only one day a year, on the so-called day of atonement, did the chief priest enter with sacrificial blood, as though offering sacrifice on behalf of the whole people. But this was not the day of atonement; on this day the Chief Priest could not go into the Holy of Holies, but, illumined by the Holy Spirit, he went in -- and he brought therein the Maiden Mary, and She, as tradition says, remaining in the temple continually, stayed in the Holy of Holies and there an Angel brought Her food and conversed with Her. Therefore the holy fathers said that when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Her -- an already nearly grown young woman -- in Nazareth with the word of the annunciation, not the very appearance of an angel frightened or disturbed her. She was used to converting with angels -- otherwise it was an unusual greeting with which the heavenly Messenger addressed her.

And so, after her ceremonial entrance, the Virgin Mary lived at the temple, the temple was Her home. But one must bear in mind that then there was only one (temple], the temple of the True God in the city of Jerusalem. Those who lived in Jerusalem, of course, had the opportunity to visit the temple often; but those who lived on the outskirts of the Holy Land, Palestine, came to the temple only from time to time, mainly, as say tradition and the Sacred scriptures, on the days of the great feasts: Pascha and Pentecost. (There are of course other feast days as well.) But we, who live in the New Testament and are being saved in the New Testament Church, are concerned with the fact that, as you all know, we have many temples of the True God. Moreover, our temples, as the holy fathers say, in their grace and holiness are higher that the Old Testament temple, for there all were prefigurings, related to the future, while here the grace of God and the Truth Himself, rests on the throne and is communicated to all who reverently are prevent and with faith pray in the temple of God. But do we visit our temples zealously enough? How often do we hear about the fact that people: rarely go to church, especially in the evening; "there is no time," others are afraid -- "it is terrible to go." But it is bitter and sorrowful to hear these excuses! Time and again right in this holy temple [I have heard] about the fact that many of those very people who say that they are afraid to go into the temple are at dances, theaters, and other establishments of entertainment...

What has become of the (Russian) Orthodox people in this regard? I shall detain your for a few more minutes and pass on to you a story about how a certain believing man was present at a Divine Service in Soviet Russia. Those who belonged to the Catacomb, secret Church became convinced of his trustworthiness and invited him to their place, to Vespers. The service was like this: he comes to quite a large, furnished room; it is full of young people -- they are all sitting down, conversing quietly... A little later a man dressed in secular working clothes comes in. A very radiant face of noble lines; they speak quietly to the guest: This is our Batiushka. Quietly and reverently all went up to him to get a blessing, he reverently and unhurriedly blesses, then everyone sat down again in their places, having placed books in front of him; in these books was the Divine Office of Vespers. The young people put, on a phonograph record that played so that people on the outside would think that the young people were having a party and dancing. The priest pronounced the last part of his prayer audibly, they answered him softly, and gradually, under the sounds of worldly music, they finished serving Vespers. They asked him to the liturgy, too, but they said that one could not serve the liturgy that way -- it would in the church. They brought him to the outskirts of town, by outward appearances to some sort of completely deserted, torn down barn, in which, inside, everything was arranged as in a church. And there they had the liturgy. He says that one must see how they prayed at this liturgy, all these unfortunate people. Now here one may also say that the deeper the affliction, the closer is God. We here are lazy and do not go to God's temple, where there is no danger at all, while there people at terrible risk go and pray to God. This man asked one of these young people, "Aren't you afraid? There have been incidents where they have uncovered such "Catacomb Christians" -- and there followed the most cruel punitive measures!" They calmly answered him, we are not afraid of anything; faith is dearer for us than everything. We are prepared to die for the Lord; neither unpleasantnesses, nor deprivations, nor oppressions, nor tortures, nor death frighten us -- nothing terrifies us. But the Lord keeps us."

But we, here -- living in freedom and having the opportunity to go to the temples of God as often we please -- regrettably, we do not take advantage of this mercy of God as we ought. Here we are today: a great feast, however, are there many people here in the temple? I repeat- if it's to go to a place of entertainment, then there will be a far more people there than here... But the Mother of God lived in the temple of God and this is our lesson, that parents and educators and all on whose conscience the upbringing of children lies, before all else accustom them to the temple of God. Bishop Theophan the Recluse very profoundly and touchingly used to talk about the fact that everything to do with the church is akin to the essence of a child's soul, it quickly becomes used to it [church] and clings to it. And blessed is that child who from his childhood continues to visit the temple of God, for here he will receive such a spiritual "seasoning", such spiritual wealth as he will receive in no other place. Therefore, brothers, we must not only go to God's temple ourselves, but 4..... and concern ourselves that our children be there as often as possible. I knew a fine family, where the children used to get up for the early liturgy earlier than their parents, and pressed them to bring them to church quickly. And this was not in the "good old days," but in most recent years, after the revolution we had, in the Par East.

Once more I say: Blessed is that child who has the opportunity in his childhood years to receive as many holy impressions, grace-filled sanctifications, and illuminations in the temple of God as possible. The house of God is the house of prayer; in it the Lord, by His grace, is closer to people than anywhere else; therefore we ought to take pains ourselves in going to church, and continually accustom our successors, our children, to this. Amen.

http://nektarios.home.comcast.net/~nektarios/1544.html

Letter To Abbess Magdalena

2009-02-16T20:19:00.000-08:00

A Letter from Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) to Abbess Magdalena (Countess Grabbe), Superior of the Lesna Convent in France*

November 26 / December 9, 1979

Your Reverence,1

I am writing this letter en route — onboard the ocean liner Orion, which is sailing to Australia. The ship is a rather large one, 42,000 tons (that’s roughly the size of the Titanic)2 and comfortable enough. This morning my travelling companion, Protopriest Constantine,3 served Liturgy in our cabin, and I took Communion. We did the same yesterday, it being the apodosis of the Feast of the Entry of the Most-holy Theotokos, since neither on the actual day of the feast, nor on the day following did we manage to serve — the ship was continually tossing. But since Thursday the ocean has grown calm, and now we are sailing peacefully.

For a long time now I have been wanting to share some thoughts of mine with you — on issues concerning which we proved to be of differing views. Of course, I write not in order to initiate a sharp polemic, but rather an exchange of opinions.

You most likely recall that, not during my last visit to the Convent, but during the one previous to it, you and I had somewhat of an argument over the fact that the Convent4 receives into its church those who, in essence, are followers, members of the former Exarchate5, and not of the Church Abroad. And conversely, many of our spiritual children regularly attend [the churches of] the Parisians, and there they go to confession and receive “Communion”...

You pointed out that the Convent acts thus for missionary purposes, in order to give the erring ones the opportunity to pray and be sanctified by the Mysteries in a true Orthodox church. But to this I will say: that may very well be so, just as the emissaries of Holy Prince Vladimir attended the Greek Orthodox Church. However... and it’s a big “however”! The emissaries of the Prince reported to him concerning the beauty of the Orthodox Faith, and the result was that both they and the Prince himself did not remain in their error, but exchanged paganism for Christianity. And it seems clear to me that proper “missionary work” will exist in the Convent only then, when the Convent, while allowing “them” to visit the church, will, however, allow them to approach the Mysteries only upon the condition that, having received the Mysteries from us, they refuse the “Mysteries” performed at the “Rue Daru”6, and in general in the churches of the Exarchate.

Otherwise what is the outcome? The outcome is that everything with them is in order, and there is no need for them to change or correct anything. And we, by admitting them to the Mysteries and not demanding any integrity or constancy in this regard, confirm them more strongly in the conviction that everything is fine with them and that their path is the true and correct path.

At the Third Pan-Diaspora Sobor7 they started making speeches about how we should unite with the Parisians and with the American False-Autocephalites “in a spirit of love”. Love, you see, should unite us, and there is no need to emphasize our differences. But such talk ceased when I cited the words of one of the Holy Fathers which read thus: if we, supposedly in the name of love, so as not to trouble our neighbors, are going to keep quiet about their error and not explain to them that they are on a false path, then this is not love, but hatred! Does he do well who, upon seeing a blind man approaching a precipice, does not tell him about it, so as not to “trouble” him? Is that then love?

At the latest Bishops’ Sobor,8 Vladyka Anthony of Geneva9 began to deliver a speech in that vein... He said: as regards Paris, there we have a common flock (that is, we and the Exarchate). We both alike service one and the same Orthodox people. At that point I could not contain myself and I burst forth with a speech... First of all, I pointed out that we really do have a place where we have a flock in common with other ministers of the Orthodox Church. And that is Boston. We have our parishes there, and the monastery of Archimandrite Panteleimon10 is located there too.

And it has Greek practices and Typicon. All the faithful there attend both one and the other equally, since that monastery is of our jurisdiction, is absolutely Orthodox, and has our Orthodox “spirit”, despite the difference in Typicon and practices. And to which I then added: but tell me, what sort of “common flock” could I have with the Parisians, when their head, Archbishop Georgy,11 while passing by our Memorial Church in Brussels12, spits in its direction with the words — “Ugh, the Karlovci contagion!”.13 This was seen and heard by our people who were present there... But the Exarchate spits not only upon our churches but upon the Church Typicon and the canons. They perform weddings there on Saturdays, and generally whenever you like — just so long as you pay the money. They served a funeral there for an unbaptized Jew — as was reported to us with indignation by our “Zarubezhniki”.14 What kind of “common flock” could there be here and what could we have in common with them? When I was serving in Brussels for the Day of Mourning,15 a certain woman started to approach the Holy Cup. I said: ask her whether she went to confession. The answer: “no”. “Then you cannot receive Communion”. She began to make a commotion — what is this, all that is needed is a clear conscience, and so forth... But I, I didn’t get into an altercation with her, but only thought to myself: “Ugh, the Exarchate contagion”... For she was one of the “Parisians”.

I am accused of excessive strictness and of “fanaticism”. But I have sufficient basis for holding to my point of view, for behind me stand great authorities, both ancient and contemporary.

I shall begin with the ancient ones. First and foremost — was it, then, in the pres??ent spirit of “condescension” towards those who have broken away that these words were spoken: “but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”?16 We know Who said these words. Who then will dare to gainsay Him?...

Let us turn to the great authorities. Here we have the hierarch Saint Gregory the Theologian, the incarnation of meekness and pure Christian love towards all, and in particular towards those who have gone astray. However, he frankly states that not every peace is to be prized, nor is every war to be feared. “There is a shameful peace, and there is a good and praiseworthy division”, says Saint Gregory.17 And the context of these words clearly indicates that he had in view those who had broken away — who had gone off into schism.

Next is Saint Basil the Great — a man stricter than most. Yet we know that when it was a question of a schism that had only just begun to form, then the hierarch was in favor of showing the maximum condescension and, for the sake of facilitating for the fallen the matter of their return to the fold of the Church, strove in every way so that the least possible demands be made upon them as the condition for their return. But how drastically he shifts his position when he speaks of an obstinate and prolonged schism. “Such a schism”, says Saint Basil, “is already in all things like unto heresy, and one must treat such schismatics as one would heretics, not permitting any communion with them.”18

Severe and categorical. But even more severely and more categorically speaks the third of these great authorities, Saint John Chrysostom. It’s a pity that I do not have here at hand with me on the ship his marvelous sermons, preached precisely concerning schismatics. But I remember them well and shall strive to convey them as accurately as possible. 19

Saint John Chrysostom begins his talk on schism by citing the ancient testimony of that great saint, Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer. Saint Ignatius says that there is no sin worse than that which brings division into the Church, and he warns that this sin is so great, that not even the blood of martyrdom can wash it away!20 Corroborating this, Saint John Chrysostom says: I say this for those who indiscriminately go to all churches — both to ours and to those of the schismatics. If they teach differently than we do — then for that very reason, of course, one ought not go to them. But if they teach the very same as we do — then all the more cause why one ought not to go to them, for here is the sin of lust of authority...

Was it not for this very cause that Evlogy, of sorry memory, broke away and became a schismatic leader, because he could not endure the seniority of Metropolitan Anthony?21 Alas, it is so! I recall how my late father, Bishop Dimitry, upon returning [to China] from the famous “conference of the four”,22 for all his customary caution in making comments, said in grief: “ I did not imagine that an Orthodox hierarch could be as insincere as this Evlogy, whom one simply has no desire to call ‘Metropolitan’”. And Bishop Nestor,23 who, as a hierarch, received the minutes of the conference, showed them to Fr. Nathaniel.24 They contained, incidentally, these words of Vladyka Dimitry:

“Inasmuch as His Beatitude Evlogy is today saying the exact opposite of what he said yesterday, then I too am forced today to likewise say the opposite and I hereby declare my total disagreement with him”...

Saint John Chrysostom continues: Thou (he is addressing his interlocutor) sayest, “We are all the same — they serve, pray, and teach the same as we do.” Very well —why then are they not with us? One Lord, one Faith, one baptism!25 They have broken away — in that case, one of two things must be so: either all is well with us and they are in poor straits; or else all is well with them, and we are in trouble! What do these clear and categorical words of this Holy Father signify? They indicate nothing other than that schism is graceless. Christ was not divided, and His grace is one. If one is to believe in the “state of grace” of schism, then one must either admit that we do not have grace — those who broke away having taken it with them; or else admit that there are two graces (and obviously two true Churches, for grace is given only in the true Church).

Continuing to expound his thoughts, Saint John Chrysostom finally draws his conclusion — inevitable and incontrovertible: “I do say and affirm that schism is just as terrible an evil as heresy.” And heresy separates the human soul from the Church, from God, — and from salvation.

Here are some more voices from antiquity. Saint Peter of Alexandria saw the Saviour in a torn robe — the Lord was clutching it in His hands. The hierarch made so bold as to inquire: Who has rent Thy garment, O Saviour? There followed the mournful and indignant reply of the Saviour: Arius the madman — he has separated My sheep from Me which I have purchased with My blood...26

In the lives of the saints it is related that the righteous Gregory once had a revelation. He beheld the future Dread Judgment of Christ. And at that judgment the Lord summoned Arius to Himself and threateningly asked him: Am I not the God-man Christ, equal in Divinity to the Father and the Holy Spirit? How is it that you reduced My Divinity to the level of creation and have brought this assembly deceived by you (the followers of Arius) to eternal torment?...

What do these terrible words tell us? That the heretic leads his followers to eternal torment!... We have already seen that — not according to the present spineless reasoning, but according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers — schism is just as terrible an evil as heresy, and that obviously the end of it will be the same. I do not dare to pronounce judgment on our contemporary founder of schism, Metropolitan Evlogy; but I fear for his soul and I fear for all those who have been deceived by him and his successors and have been carried away into schism.

And I cannot understand the position taken on this issue by the late Vladyka John — a true minister of God and a man of God.27 Why didn’t he “dot the i “ from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians the total falsehood of their path and position? For it is precisely because of this, because it was not stated at once and clearly where the truth is and where falsehood (for two truths there cannot be), where is white and where black, where light and where darkness, which path is correct and which incorrect — there would not now exist this ‘‘inter-jurisdictional hodgepodge” and the position would be clear.28

That fact, that many from among the “Orthodox” indiscriminately attend whatever church, what does it tell us? Why simply that people do not hold the truth dear. For this very reason they don’t bother giving the matter much thought. “The services are identical, everything is the same — what need is there to philosophize?” Or, as our Fr. John Storozhev in Harbin (the last spiritual father of the murdered Imperial family), one of the best pastors of the Diaspora, used to say with poignant irony: “the bells ring; the popes29 serve; the singing is good — what more do you want?” To which may be added the oh, so familiar: “After all, God is one!”...

If only people loved the truth and cherished it — would they really be content with such indifference? No, and a thousand times no! Their soul would ache, and it would not rest content until it had discovered where is the truth, which can only be one — for two truths cannot be. How correct Vladyka Nektary30 is when he always affirms: there is no such thing as “different jurisdictions”; but there is only the Orthodox Church Abroad, and outside of her are schisms and heresies.

Now I should like to cite a contemporary authority, one not ancient, but an authority before whom we all must bow. This, of course, is that great “Abba of all abbas”, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky]. Vladyka Anthony, when presenting the abbess’ staff to Abbess Paula,31 said to her: “Be condescending to all, know how to converse with those weak in faith and with scoffers. Behave wisely with heretics, but never agree with them that they supposedly have the grace of the Holy Spirit; know that the Roman Catholics, the Mohammedans and all other heretics are without grace.” And we have already seen that the Holy Fathers equate obstinate and prolonged schism with heresy. Consequently?...

A quotation from a Paschal encyclical of Vladyka Anthony’s (1934):
“The present age is rich not in ascetical feats of piety and confession of faith, but in cheating, lies, and deceits. It is noteworthy that several hierarchs and their flocks, for the most part Russians, have already fallen away from Ecumenical unity, and to the question: “What dost thou believe?”32, reply with references to self-proclaimed heads of all sorts of schisms in Moscow, America, and Western Europe. It is clear that they have ceased to believe in the unity of the Church throughout the whole world and do not wish to admit it, attempting to bear calmly the refusal of the true Church to have relations with them, and imagining that one can supposedly save ones soul even without communion with Her... Those who have cut themselves off from Her deprive themselves of the hope of salvation, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council teach concerning this, having recognized the renegades as being totally devoid of grace, according to the word of Christ: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

“Unfortunately, some Orthodox laymen, even, alas, many priests (and hierarchs) have subjected themselves to this state of gracelessness, although still retaining the outward appearance of the church services and the apparent performance of the Mysteries.”

Ponder those last words of the great Abba: the apparent performance of the Mysteries... What horror! But these his words concur totally with my own conviction regarding the gracelessness and inefficacy of schismatic Mysteries. When at the Sobor I cited these words of Vladyka Anthony in support of my conviction, the hierarchs received them in silence — Vladyka Anthony [of Geneva]33 likewise held his peace. While Vladyka Filothei34 thanked me on behalf of the entire Sobor for such an exceptionally important explanation.35

Peace and God’s blessing be with you. May the Lord and His Most-pure Mother preserve you and the Holy Convent in health and prosperity!

┼ Metropolitan Philaret
“Enclosure”36

This letter has turned out to be rather long. But having re-read it, I see that I have not said all that I consider necessary to say, and so I add this enclosure. You, Matushka, have no doubt caught the basic trend of my thoughts. I consider (I speak, of course, only for myself) that the schismatics — American and Parisian — do not have grace, for otherwise one would have to admit the absurd: the existence of several true Churches, which do not recognize each other, nor have any spiritual communion among themselves.37 This is already manifestly absurd because the Divine Founder of the Church said: “I will build My Church”,38 and not “My Churches”. I was led to this conviction both by the words of the ancient Holy Fathers (cited by me above) and by the words of Abba Anthony concerning the apparent performance of the Mysteries among those who have broken away from the true Church. To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics’ “manipulations”, that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the “Parisians” nor from the American False-Autocephalites, lest in place of the Holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine.

But I have neglected still to emphasize that, the situation being such, it must be considered a most grievous thing that our “Zarubezhniki” also frequent the temples39 of the schismatics — to “confess” and “commune” there. Of what are they communing? If the Holy Mysteries, then that means that we do not have the Holy Mysteries, as Saint John Chrysostom has elucidated so clearly. But if we do have the Holy Mysteries, then they do not, and these poor people go there in vain. “Apparent” Mysteries, according to the definition of Abba Anthony — that is what the ministers of the schism offer to these credulous people.

I quite understand what turmoil it would bring into the lives of those Russian people who believe in the exarchate and the false autocephaly, if that which I have written here were to be published. But will it really be better to remain silent concerning all this and take comfort in the “peace and quiet”, as Vladyka Anthony [of Geneva]40 would have us do? Why, people are on a spiritually false path! This is terrifying! And will not the awesome judgment of God fall upon our heads, if we do not enlighten our erring brothers?

Some might raise an objection and say to me: Did not the Third Pan-Diaspora Sobor address both one and the other, the Parisians and the Americans, with a call for peace and unity? Yes, it did address them, but it addressed them not at all as was needed, and for that very cause this appeal produced no results, or rather, it produced a negative result. I had been certain that such would be the result. For we should have told them: you have gone astray, you have fallen away from the Church — strive to return to Her!

But the appeal as published speaks to them as though they were within the Church just as we are, with equal rights and position. Whereas what should have been told them then and there was: you are not some sort of “different jurisdictions”; you are simply schismatics, and have no rights whatsoever... Come to your senses and return in repentance!

Most likely such an appeal would have provoked only an outburst of rage from the leaders of the schism (God grant that I am mistaken; but then, we know their attitude). But among their “flock”, many, very many may have pondered it over and come to understand that matters do not at all stand well with them, just as the late Sandrik Filatev and many others who have broken with the schism came to understand after hearing the serious and convincing explanations of Fr. Gerasim41.

The question might be posed to me: why I didn’t mention at the Sobor that I felt the appeal to be inappropriate. I would reply: because I saw the attitude at the Sobor and I feared an explosion and a possible catastrophe. For I had been forewarned that the enemies of the Church wished to arrange such an explosion, in order to “blow up” the Sobor from within. Therefore I was compelled to avoid issues which might have provoked heated exchanges.

I wish to return to the issue of heresy and schism. His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anthony asks: is it permissible to be stern with heretics, who perhaps sincerely believe in the righteousness of their cause? One must never idealize heretics, he replies, since the basis for their departure is not virtue, but the passions and sins of pride, obstinacy, and malice. Sternness towards heretics, says Vladyka, is beneficial not only for the sake of protecting people from their influence, but also for the heretics themselves. We have seen that the Holy Fathers equate obstinate schismatics with heretics. Consequently, is it proper to coddle them as, unfortunately, occurs among us? And all this for the sake of an evil and false “peace”... If the Lord permits me to live until the next Bishops’ Sobor, at it I shall pose this question “point blank”.42

[Written along the left-hand margin, in the Metropolitan’s hand:]

P.S. This letter was completed onboard the ship, but is being sent only today, December 14/27, since I could not send it earlier — the mail system was overloaded before “Christmas”...43

*
Printed in Tserkovnie Novosti (Church News), No. 58, February 1997, by Matushka Anastasia Schatiloff (née Grabbe), niece of the recipient of this letter. As is evident from the photocopies of the original, this letter was typed on both sides of five sheets of Metropolitan Philaret’s familiar letterhead bearing this stylized Cross. (Compare this with his Last Message to the Flock found in his typewriter after his repose, copies of which were distributed at his funeral. A reproduction appears in Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. 19, No. 15, 1985, p. 2) The photocopies also show that certain personal references have been deleted by having strips of paper taped over them, apparently by whoever first put the copies into circulation, which was not Matushka Anastasia. Note that these references have only been masked, not cut out, which would have resulted in loss of text on the reverse side of these sheets. For the sake of precision these deletions have been noted below.
1 Here the second half of the salutation, apparently “Mother Magdalena”, has been masked in the photocopy.
2 Quotation marks, parentheses, all emphasis, and ellipsis marks are those of Metropolitan Philaret. All bracketed insertions and footnotes are the translator’s.
3 Protopriest Constantine Fedorov.
4 Here in the photocopy the name “Lesna” has apparently been masked before the word “Convent”.
5 The “Temporary Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Exarchate”, based in Paris, had been formed in 1931 when Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), having already withdrawn from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, placed himself and his flock under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Although the Exarchate itself was abolished in 1965 under pressure from Moscow, the present successors of Metropolitan Evlogy and his adherents remain in submission to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as its Russian Orthodox Archdiocese of Western Europe. For further information in English on this and other points of recent church history touched upon by Metropolitan Philaret in this letter, see: A History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1917-1971 (Seattle: Saint Nectarios Press, 1972).
6 The street in Paris on which the Church of Saint Alexander Nevsky, the cathedral of the Evlogians, is located.
7 The Third Pan-Diaspora Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad took place at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y. from Aug. 26/Sept. 8 to Sept. 6/19, 1974.
8 The previous Bishops’ Sobor had been held in September 1978 at Synod headquarters in New York.
9 Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva and Western Europe. Here in the photocopy
“Anthony of Geneva” has been masked to simply read: “Vladyka A.”.
10 Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
11 Archbishop George Wagner.
12 The Church of Saint Job the Much-suffering, consecrated in 1950 as a memorial to the martyred Imperial family and to all those who had lost their lives at the hands of the Communists in Russia.
13 “The Karlovci schism” was the disparaging term used for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad by its detractors. The name is derived from the Serbian town of Sremski Karlovci where the Synod of the ROCA first convened in 1921, and where its headquarters were located until the end of World War II.
14 Lit.: our “Diasporites” — a colloquialism for the members of the ROCA, formed from the Russian adjective zarubezhnaya (i.e., ‘abroad, in diaspora’), as in Zarubezhnaya Tserkov, the Church Abroad.
15 Apparently July 4/17, the anniversary of the execution of the Imperial family.
16 Mt. 18: 17.
17 Saint Gregory the Theologian Oration 6: 20. Of course, here and elsewhere in this letter the Metropolitan is citing the Holy Fathers from memory and not giving exact renderings from their works.
18 In like manner, Canon VI of the Second Ecumenical Council reads in part: “We call those heretics...who, though pretending to confess the sound faith, have schismatically separated and have gathered congregations in opposition to our canonical bishops.”
19 For the full text of this and the subsequent quotations from Saint John Chrysostom, see his: Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Homily XI.
20 Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, compiler of the Rudder, in turn cites this passage from Saint John Chrysostom in his own notes to Canon XXXI of the Apostolic Canons. Saint Cyprian of Carthage, in his Treatise I, On the Unity of the Church: 13, writes: “If such men were even slain in confession of the Christian name, not even by their blood is this stain washed away... He cannot be a Martyr, who is not in the Church.”
21 Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, first Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
22 This conference had been arranged through the mediation of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, with the approval of the other participants, in an attempt to reconcile these hierarchs and restore unity to the ROCA. It was convened in October 1935 in Sremski Karlovci with Patriarch Varnava presiding. The four Russian hierarchs participating were: Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky, on behalf of the ailing Metropolitan Anthony), Metropolitan Evlogy of Western Europe, Metropolitan Theophil (Pashkovsky) of America, and Bishop Dimitry of Hailar (Far East). Vladyka Dimitry also acted as secretary for the conference, with Count George Grabbe (the future Bishop Gregory) as his assistant.
23 Bishop Nestor (Anisimov) of Kamchatka.
24 Archimandrite Nathaniel (Lvov), subsequently Archbishop of Vienna.
25 Eph. 4: 5.
26 From the Life of Saint Peter, Pope of Alexandria, who is commemorated on November 24.
27 Archbishop John (Maximovich) had been the ruling hierarch of the ROCA Western European Diocese from 1951 to 1962, with his residence first in Paris and then in Brussels. In 1964 Archbishop John had been one of two candidates for Metropolitan of the Church Abroad before the Sobor elected its youngest member, Bishop Philaret of Australia, to the office. Vladyka John was glorified as a saint in 1994.
28 Although it is clear what the Metropolitan intends to say here, it appears that his thoughts were flowing more swiftly than he could write, and thus he seems to have gone on to the second clause without having completed the first. The translation reflects the original and nothing of the text has been inadvertently omitted here.
29 Pope: colloquial Russian for the simple village priest.
30 Bishop Nektary (Kontsevich) of Seattle.
31 Mother Paula (Kliueva) had been appointed in September of 1929 as Abbess of the Convent of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. She was to replace the ailing Abbess Elizabeth. Metropolitan Anthony presented her with her staff of office while she was still in Serbia, and Archbishop Anastasy conducted her enthronement when she arrived in the Holy Land in October. (Tserkovny Vedomosty, NN. 10&11, May 1930, p. 14. )
32 The question solemnly posed to a bishop at his consecration, to which he must reply publicly, declaring his confession of the Orthodox Faith and pledging to uphold the canons and teachings of the Church.
33 Here again in the photocopy this has been masked to read simply: “Vladyka A.”.
34 Archbishop Filothei (Narko) of Berlin.
35 At this point the bottom half of the front of this sheet of paper and three-fourths of the back side were taped over with blank white paper in order to mask the text when photocopied. The vertical strips of tape appear distinctly in the margins of the photocopy. In order to retain the Metropolitan’s signature, which stands at the bottom of the reverse side, the sheet was not cut, but merely covered over.
36 Metropolitan Philaret himself typed this title at the top of this separate sheet of paper.
37 And as Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) pointed out in an article which he wrote not long before his repose: “Our previous Bishops’ Sobors never raised the particular question concerning whether or not the New Calendarists have grace. But the fact that formerly concelebrations with them were never permitted already testifies with sufficient clarity that the Church Abroad considered them to be without grace.” See: Tserkovnie Novosti (Church News), No. 40, Sept.-Oct., 1994, pp. 2-4.
38 Mt. 16: 18.
39 The word employed here by the Metropolitan is not the usual khram, which can also be used (and is so used) for a Christian church, but rather kapishche, which designates a heathen temple only.
40 And again masked in the photocopy to read: “Vladyka A.”.
41 Fr. Gerasim Romanov.
42 Metropolitan Philaret was true to his word. The 1981 Bishops’ Sobor was convened in New York chiefly to celebrate the official ecclesiastical glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia; therefore regular church business was kept to a minimum. However, the Bishop’s Sobor met again in 1983 at the Holy Transfiguration Skete, near Mansonville, Quebec, to consider, among other things, the very issues raised by Metropolitan Philaret in this letter. The members of the Sobor resolved to solemnly condemn and anathematize the heresy of Ecumenism. The text of the Anathema, signed and promulgated by the fourteen hierarchs present at the Sobor, is as follows:
TO THOSE who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with those aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians: Anathema.
For a profound and sobering commentary on the ROCA Sobor of 1983, and the Anathema against Ecumenism, written by the then Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal, see: Pravoslavnaya Rus, No. 10, 1983, pp. 3-4. For an English translation of Vladyka Vitaly’s article, see: Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1984, pp. 2-6.
43 As can be seen, the Metropolitan wrote Christmas in English. His ship had docked in Sydney on Dec. 7/20.

Sermon: St. John Of The Ladder Sunday

2009-02-16T19:56:00.000-08:00

A SERMON OF

METROPOLITAN PHILARET

ON THE SUNDAY OF ST. JOHN OF THE LADDER

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

More than once, brethren, the fact has been mentioned that on each Sunday in the Great Fast there are other commemorations beside that of the Resurrection. Thus, on this day, the Church glorifies the righteous John of the Ladder, one of the greatest ascetics, which the Church, in speaking of them, calls "earthly angels and Heavenly men."

These great ascetics were extraordinary people. They commanded the elements; wild beasts willingly and readily obeyed them. For them, there were no maladies they could not cure. They walked on the waters as on dry land; all the elements of the world were subject to them, because they lived in God and had the power of grace to overcome the laws of terrestrial nature. One such ascetic was Saint John of the Ladder.

He was surnamed "of the Ladder" (Climacus) because he wrote an immortal work, the Ladder of Divine Ascent. In this work, we see how, by means of thirty steps, the Christian gradually ascends from below to the heights of supreme spiritual perfection. We see how one virtue leads to another, as a man rises higher and higher and finally attains to that height where there abides the crown of the virtues, which is called "Christian love."

Saint John wrote his immortal work especially for the monastics, but in the past his Ladder was always favorite reading in Russia for anyone zealous to live piously, though he were not a monk. Therein the Saint clearly demonstrates how a man passes from one step to the next.

Remember, Christian soul, that this ascent on high is indispensable for anyone who wishes to save his soul unto eternity.

When we throw a stone up, it ascends until the moment when the propelling force ceases to be effectual. So long as this force acts, the stone travels higher and higher in its ascent, overcoming the force of the earth’s gravity. But when this force is spent and ceases to act, then, as you know, the stone does not remain suspended in the air. Immediately, it begins to fall, and the further it falls the greater the speed of its fall. This, solely according to the physical laws of terrestrial gravity.

So it is also in the spiritual life. As a Christian gradually ascends, the force of spiritual and ascetical labours lifts him on high. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "Strive to enter in through the narrow gate." That is, the Christian ought to be an ascetic. Not only the monastic, but every Christian. He must take pains for his soul and his life. He must direct his life on the Christian path, and purge his soul of all filth and impurity.

Now, if the Christian, who is ascending upon this ladder of spiritual perfection by his struggles and ascetic labours, ceases from this work and ascetic toil, his soul will not remain in its former condition; but, like the stone, it will fall to the earth. More and more quickly will it drop until, finally, if the man does not come to his senses, it will cast him down into the very abyss of Hell.

It is necessary to remember this. People forget that the path of Christianity is indeed an ascetical labour. Last Sunday, we heard how the Lord said: "He that would come after Me, let him take up his cross, deny himself, and follow Me." The Lord said this with the greatest emphasis. Therefore, the Christian must be one who takes up his cross, and his life, likewise, must be an ascetic labour of bearing that cross. Whatever the outward circumstance of his life, be he monk or layman, it is of no consequence. In either case, if he does not force himself to mount upwards, then, of a certainty, he will fall lower and lower.

And in this regard, alas, people have confused thoughts. For example, a clergyman drops by a home during a fast. Cordially and thoughtfully, they offer him fast food, and say: "For you, fast food, of course!" To this, one of our hierarchs customarily replies: "Yes, I am Orthodox. But who gave you permission not to keep the fasts?" All the fasts of the Church, all the ordinances, are mandatory for every Orthodox person. Speaking of monastics, such ascetics as Saint John of the Ladder and those like him fasted much more rigorously than the Church prescribes; but this was a matter of their spiritual ardour, an instance of their personal ascetic labour. This the Church does not require of everyone, because it is not in accord with everyone’s strength. But the Church does require of every Orthodox the keeping of those fasts which She has established.

Oftentimes have I quoted the words of Saint Seraphim, and once again shall I mention them. Once there came to him a mother who was concerned about how she might arrange the best possible marriage for her young daughter. When she came to Saint Seraphim for advice, he said to her: "Before all else, ensure that he, whom your daughter chooses as her companion for life, keeps the fasts. If he does not, then he is not a Christian, whatever he may consider himself to be." You see how the greatest saint of the Russian Church, Saint Seraphim of Sarov, a man who, better than we, knew what Orthodoxy is, spoke concerning the fasts?

Let us remember this. Saint John Climacus has described the ladder of spiritual ascent; then let us not forget that each Christian must ascend thereon. The great ascetics ascended like swiftly-flying eagles; we scarcely ascend at all. Nonetheless, let us not forget that, unless we employ our efforts in correcting ourselves and our lives, we shall cease our ascent, and, most assuredly, we shall begin to fall. Amen.

source: http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Metrop_Philaret/11-Sermon%20St.%20JohnLadder.htm

Letter To Patriarch Athenagoras

2009-02-16T19:51:00.000-08:00

A PROTEST

to Patriarch Athenagoras

on the Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054

December 2/ 15 1965

Your Holiness,

We have inherited a legacy from the Holy Fathers that everything in the Church should be done in a legal way, unanimously, and conforming to ancient Traditions. If any of the bishops and even primates of one of the autocephalous churches does something which is not in agreement with the teaching of the whole Church, every member of the Church may protest against it. The 15th Canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople of the year 861 describes as "worthy to enjoy the honour which befits them among Orthodox Christians" those bishops and clergymen who secede from communion even with their patriarch if he publicly preaches heresy and openly teaches it in church. In that way we are all guardians of the truth of the Church, which was always protected through the care that nothing of general importance for the Church would be done without the consent of all.

Therefore our attitude toward various schisms outside of the local limits of particular autocephalous churches was never determined otherwise than by the common consensus of these churches.

If in the beginning our separation from Rome was declared in Constantinople, then later on it became a matter of concern to the whole Orthodox world. None of the autocephalous churches, and specifically not the highly esteemed Church of Constantinople from which our Russian Church has received the treasure of Orthodoxy, may change anything in this matter without the foregoing consent of everybody. Moreover we, the bishops ruling at present, may not make decisions with reference to the West which would disagree with the teaching of the Holy Fathers who lived before us, specifically the Saints Photios of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.

In the light of these principles, although being the youngest of the primates, as the head of the free autonomous part of the Church of Russia, we regard it our duty to state our categorical protest against the action of Your Holiness with reference to your simultaneous solemn declaration with the Pope of Rome in regard to the removal of the sentence of excommunication made by Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054.

We heard many expressions of perplexity when Your Holiness in the face of the whole world performed something quite new and uncommon to your predecessors as well as inconsistent with the 10th Canon of the Holy Apostles at your meeting with the Pope of Rome, Paul VI, in Jerusalem. We have heard that after that, many monasteries on the Holy Mount of Athos have refused to mention your name at religious services. Let us say frankly, the confusion was great. But now Your Holiness is going even further when, only by your own decision with the bishops of your Synod, you cancel the decision of Patriarch Michael Cerularius accepted by the whole Orthodox East. In that way Your Holiness is acting contrary to the attitude accepted by the whole of our Church in regard to Roman Catholicism. It is not a question of this or that evaluation of the behaviour of Cardinal Humbert. It is not a matter of a personal controversy between the Pope and the Patriarch which could be easily remedied by their mutual Christian forgiveness; no, the essence of the problem is in the deviation from Orthodoxy which took root in the Roman Church during the centuries, beginning with the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope which was definitively formulated at the First Vatican Council. The declaration of Your Holiness and the Pope with good reason recognises your gesture of "mutual pardon" as insufficient to end both old and more recent differences. But more than that, your gesture puts a sign of equality between error and truth. For centuries all the Orthodox Church believed with good reason that it has violated no doctrine of the Holy Ecumenical Councils; whereas the Church of Rome has introduced a number of innovations in its dogmatic teaching. The more such innovations were introduced, the deeper was to become the separation between the East and the West. The doctrinal deviations of Rome in the eleventh century did not yet contain the errors that were added later. Therefore, the cancellation of the mutual excommunication of 1054 could have been of meaning at that time; but now it is only an evidence of indifference in regard to the most important errors, namely new doctrines foreign to the ancient Church, of which some, having been exposed by St. Mark of Ephesus, were the reason why the Church rejected the Union of Florence.

We declare firmly and categorically:

No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can be restored with it without a decision of all churches, which, however, can hardly be possible before the liberation of the Church of Russia which at present has to live in catacombs. The hierarchy which is now under Patriarch Alexis cannot express the true voice of the Russian Church because it is under full control of the godless government. Primates of some other churches in countries dominated by communists also are not free.

Whereas the Vatican is not only a religious center but also a state, and whereas relations with it have also a political nature, as is evident from the visit of the Pope to the United Nations, one must reckon with the possibility of an influence in some sense of the godless authorities in the matter of the Church of Rome. History testifies to the fact that negotiations with the heterodox under pressure of political factors never brought the Church anything but confusion and schisms. Therefore we find it necessary to make a statement that our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as well as, certainly, the Russian Church which is at present in the catacombs, will not consent to any "dialogues" with other confessions and beforehand rejects any compromise with them, finding union with them possible only if they accept the Orthodox Faith as it is maintained until now in the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. While this has not happened, the excommunication proclaimed by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius is still valid, and the canceling of it by Your Holiness is an act both illegal and void.

Certainly we are not opposed to benevolent relations with representatives of other confessions as long as the truth of Orthodoxy is not betrayed. Therefore our Church in due time accepted the invitation to send its observers to the Second Vatican Council, as well as it used to send observers to the Assemblies of the World Council of Churches, in order to have firsthand information in regard to the work of these assemblies without any participation in their deliberations.

We appreciate the kind reception of our observers, and we are studying with interest their reports showing that many changes are being introduced into the Roman Church. We will thank God if these changes will serve the cause of bringing it closer to Orthodoxy. However, if Rome has much to change in order to return to the "expression of the Faith of the Apostles," the Orthodox Church, which has maintained that Faith impeccable up to now, has nothing to change.

The Tradition of the Church and the example of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. Rather than that, the Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to return to its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines.

A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participants to attain an agreement. As one can perceive from the Encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam," Pope Paul VI understands the dialogue as a plan for our union with Rome with the help of some formula which would, however, leave unaltered its doctrines, and particularly its dogmatic doctrine about the position of the Pope in the Church. However, any compromise with error is foreign to the history of the Orthodox Church and to the essence of the Church. It could not bring a harmony in the confessions of the Faith, but only an illusory outward unity similar to the conciliation of dissident Protestant communities in the ecumenical movement.

May such treason against Orthodoxy not enter between us.

We sincerely ask Your Holiness to put an end to the confusion, because the way you have chosen to follow, even if it would bring you to a union with the Roman Catholics, would provoke a schism in the Orthodox world. Surely even many of your spiritual children will prefer faithfulness to Orthodoxy instead of the idea of a compromising union with the heterodox without their full harmony with us in the truth.

Asking for your prayers, I am your Holiness’ humble servant,

X Metropolitan PHILARET

President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian

Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

source: http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Metrop_Philaret/1-To_Athenagoras_on_Lifting.htm

Sermon: St. Nicholas On The Bus

2009-02-16T19:42:00.000-08:00

Saint Nicholas on the bus

In February, 1965, a bus full of people was going toward a city. Next to the driver there was sitting an old man about seventy-five years of ages, with a white beard, tall, and "full of vigor". He wore a heavy coat with a fur collar, and a fur cap with flaps. The bus was going slowly because of the snow which was falling outside. At one turn, the chains of the back wheels came off. The bus skidded and almost collided with another full bus. All these things happened very quickly. The driver lost control of the bus, and everyone's heart jumped. Finally, the two busses halted at a distance of barely three-quarters of an inch apart, without any mishap.

Then the old man made the sign of the Cross and cried out: "Glory to Thee, O Lord, glory to Thee! Blessed be thy name, O my All-holy Mother of God, who has saved us…" In a few moments the other bus left. The driver and his assistant went out to put on the chains.

Smiling, one young man opened a conversation with the old man. "Forgive me, elder," he said, "but I could not hold back from laughing when I heard you call upon the non-existent Heavenly Powers and saw you make your Cross. Habit, of course, is second nature. I see that you wear also the distinguishing mark of a scientist. But in our times, in the year 1965, it is an incongruity."

The conversation attracted the attention of all. The old man, without becoming troubled, said, "gladly, my young comrade, shall I answer you. And if you want I will make a self-criticism…Wherefore, do you know what I think? All of us are somewhat hypocrites. All of us pretend that we are atheists, dedicated members of the Party, with profound knowledge of Marxism and many other things. And yet there comes a moment every once in a while when the real man in us expresses himself. Behold, just as it happened even now! This mishap was sufficient to demonstrate it. Since you sit in that place, you of course did not see what happened behind you. I, however, who sit sideways, saw at least another eight or ten making their Cross. It is something within us which we will never be able to uproot, because it would be like uprooting our very bowels. Thus, every day all of us fall into 'errors' - that is, we remember that there exists a certain great, unknown, and good Power Whom we pretend to ignore…"

I assure you that this personally never happens with me," said the young man.

The old man chuckled and said, "Your will permit me to prove you false, beloved comrade, because just previously you said, 'These things in our times, in the year 1965, are an incongruity.' What was the reason for you to remember that one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five years have passed from the time when the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, was born!"

"This," said the young man after having been taken aback a little, "is an evil remnant of an evil past, which must definitely be wiped out. The way you are speaking, you are going to convince us that even miracles take place!"

The old man was silent some moments, and afterwards said, "Yes, my beloved one, there are even miracles of God which you yourself will believe, just as all that are here will also believe. When, however, ye see them, you will be obliged to keep silent because, if you speak, there is danger that they will close you in some psychiatric clinic."

The bus had come into the main artery. The heavy snow stopped and thus the driver was able to increase the speed. At one moment, all - as many as were looking at and listening to the old man - saw his place empty! Two or three that were close to his seat made the sign of the Cross, saying, "Holy, Holy is God the Almighty." One of them turned toward the back of the bus and shouted, "Do you understand now who saved us from the collision? He himself, the old man with the white beard, was the Protector of our People…Saint Nicholas!" "I do not know what we are going to do, comrades," said one other in the meantime, "but wherever I may be, I am going to tell of this miracle of St. Nicholas! And let them lock me in a psychiatric ward if they can. I have you all as witnesses; and especially you, comrade…" The young communist covered his face with his hands for a long time.

After about two hours, the bus stopped and all got down to drink hot tea. The young communist approached several of his fellow-passengers, full of emotion. He asked for their addresses. He also gave them his. All the others also did the same among themselves. "Do you know what I propose, comrades?" said one young woman, "Let us not lose contact with one another. This which we say today and heard with our ears is a great thing. Very great. What can it forebode? Certainly something good, because the little old grandfather was the Protector of our people.

The above miracle was written by an eyewitness. "I can not write more," he says, "because I am overcome with emotion and am weeping. I also was on the bus."

source: http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Metrop_Philaret/Sermon_1970_Nicholas.htm

Sermon: Feast Of St. Nicholas

2009-02-16T19:27:00.000-08:00

Sermon by the late Metropolitan Philaret given on December 19/6, 1970, Feast of Saint Nicholas.

He was the Metropolitan of the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Among the hosts of those who pleased God there are many saintly bishops. Some lived lone ago; others lived more recently. Some are honored by the Church as a whole; others are venerated by local Churches such as our Russian Church.

But we would not be wrong if we said that perhaps the deepest impression on the Church was made by two saintly bishops: St. Nicholas and St. John Chrysostom.

St. John Chrysostom is one of the Three Hierarchs whose memory is celebrated on the same date, January the 30th: Ss. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. Each of them is great and glorious and, as they themselves revealed to a bishop of old, equal in glory before God.

All of them left to us their spiritually inspired works, but we have more of St. John Chrysostom's writings than of either St. Basil or St. Gregory. In this he is unique. But beside sermons and theological catechist, a bishop's work lies also in another field of endeavor: this is in his role as a pastor doing deeds of mercy and Christian love.

All the three universal hierarchs, of course, were rich in this virtue, but St. Nicholas is especially fame for his acts of Christian mercy and the miracles of his pastoral love, and the words of the Old Testament wise man, that the Lord directs the steps of man were literally fulfilled in him. For truly, the Lord led him upon a path which he did not expect. Not without reason states the Russian proverb: "Man proposes, God desposes".

We know that St. Nicholas devoted himself from an early age to prayers and asceticism, seeking his salvation through Faith, hope and Christian love in complete seclusion, where he relived the lives of the ancient desert fathers. The place of his struggles in Palestine is still to be found. There he probably expected to end his life. But this was not to be. For once, as he was praying, he heard a voice saying: "Nicholas, this is not the field where I expect you to bring forth fruit. Go to the people, and through you My name will be glorified."

And we know from the story of his life of the touching circumstances surrounding his election to the Episcopal seat left vacant by the death of the bishop.

A council was called, candidates were nominated, but the ballots seemed hopelessly split. The Lord at night revealed to an elderly bishop that he should go to the church where he would meet a man, by the name Nicholas. This man was God's own choice. Early in the morning the bishop went to the church and saw a priest entering. He asked him: "What is your name?" and was told humbly, "My name is Nicholas and I am the humble servant of your saintliness, Master." The jubilant bishop brought Nicholas and presented him to the council which elected him to the throne.

St. Nicholas now understood that he could no longer lead the secluded life he once lived, for he had been raised as a candle upon a candlestick and must so become an example of Christian life for his people.

St. Nicholas, as we see, followed the will of the Lord, but most people prefer to follow their own desires.

An elder known for his great ascetic struggles, St. Pimen the Great, used to say that with their will men build a brass wall between themselves and God. Our great Russian elder, Father Ambrose of Optina also indicated how often man's will contradicts the will of the Lord. This elder explained that God does not impose a cross upon man, but that man often burdens himself by contradicting the will of God resulting in a weighty cross.

May the Lord give us the strength to walk according to His will. And His will is, as expounded by St. Peter: "be holy, for I am Holy". Also, may He, through the intercession of St. Nicholas, have us seek this holiness for His glory. Amen.

source: http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Metrop_Philaret/Sermon_1970_Nicholas.htm

Sermon: St. Nicholas Saves Girl From Suicide

2009-02-16T19:14:00.000-08:00

Sermon by the late Metropolitan Philaret given on December 18/5, 1970.

He was the Metropolitan of the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Not long ago, only a few days ago in fact, we commemorated the memory of one of the Lord's righteous ones, St. Philaret the Merciful (). Tomorrow we will again glorify another great servant of the Lord, St. Nicholas of Myra in Lycia of Asia Minor. So impressed by his miracles and torrents of love was our nation, that we have called him "the Merciful Nicholas."

A veritable ocean of wonders streamed forth during and after the life of St. Nicholas.

No one, it seems to us, performed so many miracles except possibly the recently canonized St. John of Kronstadt, who also gushed forth a sea of miracles. Toward the end of his life St. John was so overcome by the grace of the Holy Spirit that one might say he performed miracles just as he walked along his way. A blind man comes with a request: "Father, pray for me!" After a short prayerful appeal to God, Father John touches his eyes with his sanctifying fingers and the former blind man walks away, his sight restored.

We know of many miracles performed by St. Nicholas, but I would like to tell you of which is little known.

At the end of the last century, when the Russian intelligentsia was taken by the idea of women's emancipation, a certain young girl was inflamed by the desire to go to the capital, there to study and help people.

Her mother, a God-fearing woman, pleaded tearfully against her going, because she foresaw no good was to come of it. But the girl was adamant. As she was leaving, her weeping mother blessed her with an icon of St. Nicholas; the girl accepted the icon and left. When she got to the city, however, one trouble followed the next. The little money she had taken with her did not last long. The landlady threatened to evict her. She couldn't go back - her young pride wouldn't permit it; besides, there wasn't enough money for the return trip.

She suffered hardship and hunger. The ad she had placed in the newspaper for a job teaching brought no response. In utter despair, she decided to commit suicide. Having prepared the poison, her tearful eyes caught sight of the icon of St. Nicholas hanging above her on the wall. She prayerfully turned to him and said: "St. Nicholas, forgive me the sinner; I see no way out." She lifted the glass of poison to her mouth…but suddenly something hit her hard on her head and hands. The glass of poison fell and broke. She turned and saw that the icon of St. Nicholas, without any reason at all, had fallen off the wall and right on her.

Shocked, she stood in tears as she heard the knock on the door. She opened the door and there stood a man, staring at the weeping girl who stood by the broken glass and spilled liquid. As it happened, he had come in answer to her ad and to offer her a very good job, which she accepted, thus ending her problems.

Thus did S. Nicholas save the girl, who was standing at the brink of destruction. We know that often her performs such acts of kindness even when we do not ask his assistance.

Though many prayerful appeals will be addressed to St. Nicholas on the day of his feast, have faith that he will hear your voice and will answer each call of your faith and prayer, now as in times gone by. We only need faithful prayer and hope, and his help will come speedily. Amen.

source: http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Metrop_Philaret/Sermon_December_1970.htm

A Sign Spoken Against

2009-02-16T18:06:00.000-08:00

“A SIGN SPOKEN AGAINST”

“Our God-bearing Fathers, who governed all things in the Church of God in a proper and God-pleasing manner, have left to us as a sacred heritage the God-given teaching, just as they themselves had received from the Holy Apostles, that the confession and defense of the True Orthodox Faith is the greatest of virtues. No other virtue, they tell us, is so great before God and so profitable for the Church.” So writes Archimandrite Justin Popovich.

The Lord Jesus Christ stands before us this day and says: I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by Me (John 14:6). The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:63). Thus speaks the God who does not lie (? ἀ?ευδὴ? Θ?ε?ὸ?ς? Titus 1:2).

The prophet Moses bears witness to Christ:

As for God, His works are true and all His ways are judgments. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; righteous and holy is the Lord (Deut. 32:4 LXX). When the Jews asked Christ for a sign, He replied that the only sign that would be given is the Sign of Jonah; for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt. 12:38-41). The sign He wrought out of His compassionate love for us was His resurrection from the dead showing Himself alive numerous times; furthermore, one of these appearances was to 500 men at one time (I Cor. 15:6). The prophecy of Jonah is fulfilled in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As Christ freed all men from Hades by His Holy Resurrection, so “love and confession of God’s Truth — that is to say, the True Faith of the Church — frees, enlightens and saves us men. This holy teaching is proclaimed especially by those holy Fathers who spent their entire lives struggling to preserve Christ’s true and saving Faith, by which alone men are saved and enter eternal life. This holy tradition of the Fathers, confirmed, as it is, and testified to by their entire lives, offers the greatest lesson for our own generation, a generation which, lacking zeal ‘for the love of the Truth’ (2 Thess. 2:10), has grown cold and hardened in its indifference toward the correct Faith.

“Among the ancient and great Fathers of the Church, perhaps the greatest zealots for the correct Faith and Truth of God were Ss. Athanasios the Great and Basil the Great. Yet our holy and God-bearing Fathers, Nikiforos, Patriarch of Constantinople under the Iconoclastic Emperor, Leo the Armenian and Photios the Great Confessor and Defender of the Orthodox Faith of Christ against Nicholas I, Pope of Rome are in no way inferior to them.

“Both of these saintly Patriarchs labored all their lives in the virtues that please God and bring deification. Remarkable is Saint Photios, instructor of Popes and all the world when he writes in his famous letter to Nicholas,

‘Nothing is dearer than the Truth.’

“Again, in the same letter, he noted:

‘It is truly necessary that we observe all things, but above all, that which pertains to matters of the Faith, in which but a small deviation represents a deadly sin.”

Continuing in the Patristic confession and defense of the true Orthodox Faith, a new Father of Fathers, Philaret Metropolitan of New York, the New Confessor, miraculously appeared in the Church. We now chant to him:

“the full incorruption of thy body is the seal and sign from heaven that thy confession was incorrupt.” (Vespers, Troparion.)

His words were plain. Very simply, he was, and is today,

A voice crying in the wilderness;

Prepare the way of the Lord,

make his paths straight (Lk. 3:4)

As a monastic, Saint Philaret stood with St. Isaac the Syrian who asks the Christian to examine the pathways in the heart and with St. Theodore the Studite who reminds us, “The work of a monk is not to tolerate even the least innovation in the Gospel of Christ”.

As an Orthodox Christian, he shaped his life to conform to the openhandness of his Patron Saint, Saint Philaret the Almsgiver. Our Saint Philaret kept nothing for himself; he cared for orphans and widows (James 1:27) and kept his life hidden in Christ.

As a Hierarch, he called others of his brethern to account for the direction in which their leadership was taking the Church.

Sorrowfully, sadly he addressed his fellow Hierarchs, those who are called individually, Angel of the Sovereign Lord (Malachi 2:7 LXX). In ‘Open Letters’ and ‘Sorrowful Epistles’ he asked them repeatedly if it might possibly be the case that their actions had laid them open to the prophet’s dire characterization of the men of Juda who said:

We will pursue our perverse ways

And we will perform each the lusts of his evil heart (Jer.16:12 LXX).

Silence is consent. In their deafening silence Saint Philaret heard the sobering response of the Bishops of “World Orthodoxy” to his queries, to his repeated pleas on behalf of the Lord’s truth. They replied to him:

Depart from me; I desire not to know Thy ways (Job 21:14 LXX).

After so many admonitions to the proponents of Ecumenism, cautions that fell on deaf ears, Metropolitan Philaret, together with the entire Holy Synod of the Church Abroad, issued the Anathema Against Ecumenism on the Sunday of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on October 14/27, 1983.

A Resolution Concerning the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that

Christ’s Church is divided into so-called branches which

differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church

does not exist visibly but will be formed in the future

when all branches or sects or denominations and even

religions will be united in one body and who do not

distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from

those of the heretics but say that the baptism and

eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;

therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with

these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate

or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext

of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated

Christians:

Anathema.

Saint Philaret was, and is today, a sign spoken against (Luke 2:34) on earth but not in the Land of the Living (Ps. 27:15, 52:5, 114:5, 141:7 LXX)

He was all his life a Sower of Christ’s truth in word and in deed (cf. Mt. 13:3-9), who, receiving monastic tonsure as an unmarried Priest, early in life set his face for Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51) and, in his love for his enemies, was granted sonship of the Most High (cf. Lk. 6:35)

Those who choose to follow him will be granted all that he, in his humility, called down from the Lord’s bounty for the saints always give away everything they have been given. The hands of the saints are ever open to such beggars and sinners as ourselves.

Saint Philaret, the new Athanasius, the new Mark of Ephesus, Philaret the Great, intercede ceaselessly out of thy great virtue before the Throne of the Most High for us sinners.

source: http://www.saintphilaret.org/A_Sign_Spoken_Against.asp

Life & Miracles-The Shepherd

2009-02-10T21:35:00.000-08:00

The Life of Our Holy Father Among the Saints PHILARET

Metropolitan of New York & Eastern America

THE HOLY HIERARCH PHILARET (in the world George Nicolaevich Voznesensky) was born in the city of Kursk on 22nd March / 4th April, 1903, into a pious Orthodox family. His father, the Archpriest Nicolas Voznesensky, was from a family of priests, and he was a zealous pastor and great man of prayer. Subsequently he was tonsured a monk with the name Demetrius, and became a Bishop (later Archbishop of Hailar).

There were five children in the family of Lydia and Nicolas Voznesensky, two sons and three daughters. From his very infancy the young George grew up in an atmosphere of Christian love and church-centredness. When he was about six or seven, he already loved to play “at services.”

In 1909, the Voznesensky family moved to the Far East, to Blagoveshchensk on the Amur. There George completed the eight-year grammar school course. As soon as the government in Priamur fell into the hands of the atheistic and theomachistic powers, the family of the future hierarch re-settled in Harbin. At that time Harbin was a provincial Russian town, where the old patriarchal traditions and church life were being maintained. In the town there were 26 Orthodox churches, which, on the church festivals, overflowed with the faithful.

In Harbin, George continued his education at the Polytechnic Institute. At this time he became acquainted with the works of the holy hierarch Ignatii Brianchaninov. The teaching of the Saint concerning the Christian life and concerning the constant remembrance of death evinced in the soul of the young man a real spiritual conversion. From this time on, life in the world ceased to interest him. In 1930, George was ordained to the order of the diaconate, and in 1931 a priest. In the same year, Father George completed the pastoral-theological course, and he received the monastic tonsure with the name Philaret in honour of Saint Philaret the Merciful, which, as it were, fore-ordained the course of his earthly life as a Christian: the heart of Vladyka Philaret was a heart of mercifulness.

Gradually in the House of Kindheartedness, where Father Philaret had received the monastic tonsure, a monastic community was formed. Daily services, the reading of the Holy Fathers, instructing the children in the orphanage and in Harbin’s schools in their catechism - such was the daily round that occupied the brethren. The spiritual guide of Hieromonk Philaret in those years was the Most Blessed Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) who, although he did not know him personally, nonetheless had a particularly heartfelt bond with him. Singling him out from among the number of the brethren, the Staretz-Metropolitan had a specially warm love for him and corresponded with him to the very end of his life in 1936.

Father Philaret truly had a merciful heart. He was accessible to all, he comforted and guided each one who came to him. Everything he had, and sometimes even his clothes, he would give away to those in need. Possessed of a great love for the word of God, Fr Philaret knew the whole Gospels from memory. One of the places in the Sacred Scriptures that the future hierarch loved best were the words of the Lord which denounced the lukewarmness of Christians in their faith. He loved to repeat that love for God, for Christ, must come in the first place: “Deny yourself and all that is close to your heart, and follow after Christ! This is the main thing!” The reverence of his serving and the sermons of this true pastor filled the churches with worshippers. The name of Father Philaret was known far and wide to the very borders of the Harbin eparchy. In 1933 he was appointed Hegoumen, and in 1937 Archimandrite.

In 1931, Manchuria was occupied by Japanese forces. In 1945 the Soviet armies crushingly defeated the Japanese army, and a communist regime was established in China. For those Russians who were unable to emigrate to the West or to Australia, a period of afflictions and trials began. The Soviet government began to require the Russian emigrants to take Soviet passports, affirming that in the USSR there was no oppression of believers.

The consequent involuntary canonical submission to the Moscow Patriarchate was particularly burdensome for Archimandrite Philaret, so much so that on more than one occasion he was close to laying aside his ministry. It was only his love for his flock that prevented him from taking this course.

At that time the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” declared that in the Soviet Union there was no persecution of the Church, and that the only conflict was with counter-revolutionaries. Furthermore, Lenin was proclaimed “the greatest genius and the benefactor of mankind.” This deeply disturbed Archimandrite Philaret. From the ambon in church he convicted the Moscow Patriarchate of falsehood, but none of the clergy supported him and he was forbidden to preach.

Having been raised in the tradition of the Holy Fathers, the future hierarch was not afraid to stand alone in the defence of God’s righteousness and Church truth. He instructed his children regarding the true situation of the Church in Soviet lands. Wherever he served, Archimandrite Philaret never once permitted the commemoration of the atheistic and God-fighting powers during the time of the services. Many times he was taken in for interrogation, on one of them they beat him, but this could in no wise change the stance that the future hierarch had taken. Then they set fire to his home, having first sealed up the windows and the door on the ground floor. But the Lord preserved the life of the zealous pastor, and he was able to escape in safety from it all by jumping from the first floor through the flames that were engulfing the house. However, he did suffer severe burns, and the lower part of his face was injured and the vertebrae in his neck.

Vladyka did not abandon his flock until all who had the opportunity to obtain visas had managed to get out of China. Thus it was only in 1962 that he left for Hong Kong. The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad had secured permission for him to leave.

Soon thereafter he re-settled in Australia, in Brisbane. In 1963 he became a Vicar Bishop in Australia. In 1964, Bishop Philaret attended the All-Diaspora Assembly of Hierarchs, which was held in New York. The Metropolitan Anastasy was then in deep old age and was going into retirement, and the Synod had by way of an election to resolve the question of a successor. The outcome of the election was that two candidates for the Metropolitanate were level pegging. So as to maintain peace in the Church, Archbishop (St) John of Shanghai and San Francisco proposed a third candidate - the relatively unknown Bishop Philaret, who was the most junior according to his consecration; and it was entrusted to him. So, in 1964, the Russian Church Abroad received a new, - the third in succession, - First Hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret.

In his activity as head of the Russian Church Abroad, Vladyka Philaret firmly stood for the Church’s non-intervention and non-participation in the political affairs of the State, thereby rejecting Sergianism, which is the principle of permitting the existence of the Church only on certain political conditions. With his flock, Vladyka forbade their engaging in any work in any way connected with governmental politics. He considered that a churchman could not work where his liberty was impinged upon, where he was required to modify his views as a Christian in accordance with any kind of ideological demand.

Vladyka Philaret’s first achievement during his tenure as First Hierarch was bringing peace and quelling discord within the Church Abroad. He devoted all his energies to establishing this, both in the earthly sense and in the highest spiritual sense. Metropolitan Philaret’s time as primate was marked by five Glorifications of Saints by the Russian Church Abroad: the Holy and Righteous John of Cronstadt (1964), the Venerable Herman of Alaska (1970), the Holy and Blessed Xenia of Petersburg (1978), the Assembly of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia (1981), and the Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky (1982).

Vladyka Philaret was a true pillar, guarding the purity of the teachings of the True Church. Refuting the “Branch Theory,” he thereby defended Orthodoxy from the danger of the heresy of Ecumenism. In 1969, 1972 and 1975, Metropolitan Philaret addressed the heads of the Local Churches with “Sorrowful Epistles,” cautioning the Archpastors against the heresy of Ecumenism and religious modernism. With his customary patience and meekness, Vladyka strove to defend church truth, but his voice was not heard. In 1983, the Assembly of Bishop anathematized Ecumenism.

Metropolitan Philaret cultivated the classical teaching concerning the synergy (working together) of the free will of man with the grace of God in the work of salvation. He devoted great attention to this, employing the three powers of the human soul: mind, desire and will.

Being uncompromising in the battle with sinful attachments, Vladyka Philaret was always emphatic with regard to the means to be employed in this warfare. “Take the knife and cut it off” - he would say to his spiritual children, if he saw that anything was hindering their spiritual life.

Vladyka Philaret was a lover of monasticism. In his own words: “According to the explanation of the Holy Fathers, the monastic way is, per se, the straight path to the Heavenly Kingdom, when it is accomplished as it should be.” He explained to his spiritual children that, through its being singled out from life in the world, monasticism gives one the possibility of consecrating oneself wholly to God.

While being a caring and loving pastor, the Holy Hierarch Philaret was extremely strict with himself. He led a truly ascetic life: he slept for two or three hours a day; he ate ordinary food, but in very restricted amounts. Vladyka was very attentive to the sorrows and joys of his flock, and spent the night in prayer for them. His spiritual children were the witnesses of his numerous miracles, which he worked both during his lifetime and after death. Their testimonies speak eloquently of the immense power of the prayers of a Spirit-bearing pastor, who in very truth laid down his life for his friends. Here we will give only two examples.

Elena Pikul: “When we emigrated to Australia, to Croydon, my family experienced difficult circumstances. Unexpectedly my sister fell seriously ill. I took her in. After an operation my son was brought out of hospital. My sister’s daughter was here too, a young girl. I needed to get away from it all. Besides all this, I had to go to work, which was heavy work. My strength had all but dried up. The doctor prescribed some medicine for me, but it only made me even worse. Apparently it acted upon my nervous system in such a way that I became really fearful. I was worried that I would go out of my mind. I went to the Croydon church. Metropolitan Philaret was serving. He was vested and sitting on the cathedra, engrossed in prayer, with his head bowed. A sudden thought came to me: Vladyka is here right now in the place of the Lord Jesus Christ. I shall touch his vestments, just like the woman with the issue of blood touched the Saviour’s and was made healthy, - and I will be well too! I came up from behind; Vladyka’s omophorion was hanging across the stool. So I came up to him and touched. Just then Vladyka suddenly turned round and our eyes met. How could he have felt it? But I was made well, my strength returned. To the very end of my days will not forget this miracle!”

Abbess Alexandra (Chernyavskaya) of the Monastery of Saint John: “In August, 2008, I was about my business in Odessa and was standing by the car which had just been parked; the doors of which were open. All of a sudden, backing in too sharply, a car came into the neighbouring parking space. The blow was so violent that the door swung back and slammed, and caught my right hand and leg. The pain was very sharp. The oncoming car threatened to crush me to death, and in my soul I cried out: “Vladyka Philaret! How can I die without Communion!” At that moment the car reversed. When I was able to extricate myself from the damaged car, my hand and my leg were both unharmed. I cannot say that this was anything other than a miracle. So, through the mediation of Metropolitan Philaret, I remain among the living.”

In his sermons, which were regularly short, Metropolitan Philaret came to the spiritual essence of his subject, setting it forth simply and clearly. According to the witness of many people, his oratory was like that of John Chrysostom. With particular trepidation, the Holy Hierarch Philaret approached the reception of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, reminding his flock that: “Communion - this is a Fire. No one can forbid it, if there are not serious canonical impediments. One must receive Communion as often as possible. It is for this reason that we have to receive Communion in front of the Royal Gates. This symbolizes our closeness to the Kingdom of Heaven, our rising on high, upwards!”

The life of Metropolitan Philaret, which was equal to that of the Angels, was crowned by his blessed falling asleep on 8th / 21st November, 1985, on the day of the Archistrategus [Archangel] Michael and all the Bodiless Powers.

Metropolitan Philaret was buried in the crypt of the cemetery Church of the Dormition in the Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville. Thirteen years after his demise, it was decided that the honourable remains of Vladyka Metropolitan should be transferred to a newly prepared resting place in the crypt under the altar of the Holy Trinity Cathedral at Jordanville. The opening of his grave was made on 28th October / 10th November, 1998. Archbishop Lavr of Syracuse and Holy Trinity, Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan, Archimandrite Luke and the brethren were present on this occasion. Then the complete incorruption of the relics was witnessed. The body was white and even soft. The vestments, cross and panagia were still bright.

The faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad accept the opening of the relics of the Holy Hierarch Philaret as a manifest miracle, given them by God for the strengthening of our faith.

Holy Hierarch Philaret, pay unto God for us!

source: http://www.saintedwardbrotherhood.org/0109/shepherd2.html

The Miracles of Our Father Among the Saints

PHILARET the New Confessor

Nikolai Jovanovich (Australia): From my early years I have suffered from sinus troubles and various allergies. On 20th April, 2005, I wrote the following in my diary: “Two weeks ago I had a strong sinus attack, accompanied by the flu, and my nose ran like a tap. The medicines, which I had been taking for three days, did not help. I was desperate, but just at this time Metropolitan Philaret came to mind. In China, Metropolitan Philaret had baptized me. I did not know - was it right or not? - but I asked the Lord to forgive me if I was doing anything wrong. I turned in prayer to Metropolitan Philaret, and asked God’s help from him. My running nose dried up. Within 30 minutes my nose was completely dry. Yesterday (19th April) again, while I was praying, my nose began to run. I prayed to Metropolitan Philaret, asking him to help me, and immediately it all passed.” From that time I have never taken any medication for my nose troubles.

Elena Pikul (Australia): From 1946, our family lived in Harbin. We attended the church attached to the House of Kindheartedness, where Father Philaret served. Once during the Winter of 1960, my elder son, Galik, fell ill. His temperature rose to over 40o. He was suffering greatly. We called a Chinese doctor, and he found that pneumonia was setting in. Before the doctor came, our daughter, Zina, ran to Fr Philaret, but he was not at home. She asked the neighbours to tell Batiushka that her brother had fallen ill. I sat by Galik’s bed; his temperature was 40 and higher; his heart was pounding. He was delirious… and then what? His temperature began to fall, it went down to 37o. Galik started breathing regularly, his pulse was normal; the patient peacefully fell asleep. When he woke up, he felt very much better. My daughter returned, we were both bewildered. What had happened? What had happened was this: soon after Zina had left [his place], Fr Philaret returned and went to the neighbours for a cup of tea. They told him about Zina’s visit. Immediately Batiushka jumped up from his place without finishing his tea, he quickly ran up the stairs to his apartment and began to pray. From what the neighbours reported it is evident that my son began to recover at the very same moment that Father Philaret prayed for him. His prayer is powerful!

O. Chistyakova (Australia): When I was in Harbin in 1955, in hospital I happened to be the witness of the healing from a nervous disorder of the sick T.M. The patient, a young woman, came down with a nervous disorder, and not only did she refuse to drink, but she even put the baby at her breast in the wardrobe! They committed her to hospital, and Father Philaret prayed for her. She improved gradually so that, meeting her some years later, one could only say that she was a normal young woman. Whether Archimandrite Philaret prayed for her in the hospital or at his place in the House of Kindheartedness, I cannot say. Members of her family are still alive, although she herself has died of a completely different illness.

Abbess Alexandra (Chernyavskaya), Monastery of St John: I became acquainted with Vladyka Philaret in my student days, and he became my spiritual father. The first miracle of Metropolitan Philaret is bound up with my family life. In 1967, I was expecting a second child and the doctor said that it was highly probable that the baby would be stillborn. I was totally desperate, and in my grief I went to Vladyka Philaret. Vladyka calmed me down, saying that everything was in God’s hands. After this, he anointed me with holy oil and blessed me. By turning to prayer, Vladyka saved my baby. The power of his prayer was such that shortly thereafter I safely gave birth to a healthy child. Just as the doctor on duty said, this was a manifest miracle.

The Nun Ioanna (Karlova), Monastery of St John: I was not well acquainted with Metropolitan Philaret’s legacy, but nonetheless, I was in two minds about whether he was a holy man. Then the thought would come to me that one could place him in the same rank as such a luminary as Vladyka John of Shanghai and San Francisco, in whose honour I was tonsured. On 14th December [n.s.], 2007, on the nameday of Vladyka Philaret, I was standing by the table in my cell and looking at the church calendar, and doubtful thoughts about the sanctity of Metropolitan Philaret again came into my head. Suddenly for no apparent reason I started to fall backwards. Behind my back there was a chair, which was then pushed over and turned on its side. Nothing was hurt, I fell onto the rug, lying alongside the bed. This was a very felicitous fall: physically I suffered nothing, but somehow at that very time the Lord showed me that Vladyka Philaret was indeed a saint. After this with reverence and with greater interest I read through his sermons.

Below we are appending some reports of miracles which are found in the book, “The Fiery Pillar,” which has been compiled by the Nun Cassia (Seninoy), published in Saint Petersburg, 2007.

Protodeacon Christopher Birchall (Canada): This story was told to me by Lydia Mikhailovna Klar, the wife of Evgenii Iosifovich Klar, the dean of the Seminary at Jordanville. In 1994, it became known that their daughter-in-law, Irina Klar, had contracted cancer. Her husband, Michael, a doctor by profession, was desperate. He prayed fervently for her recovery, and in time it appeared that the disease had departed. However, in 1997, there was a severe deterioration. Lydia Mikhailovna gave the pious wife a undershirt, which had belonged to Metropolitan Philaret and which she had been given by the holy hierarch’s cell attendant, Protodeacon Nikita Charikov. Irina put it on, and immediately she smelled a strong fragrance; she thought that someone in the premises had given up their soul. Irina and Michael prayed fervently all the evening, and at last Irina fell asleep still wearing this undershirt. Next morning she felt significantly better, and went to the hospital for a check-up. The result of the examination showed that the size of the cancerous tumour had diminished by 70 (!) times. There was no rational explanation for this, and the hospital staff were at a loss. At the end of 1998, Irina’s cancerous tumour began to grow again. After this, when the remains of Metropolitan Philaret had been uncovered and found to be incorrupt, Archimandrite Luke from Jordanville started to gather information about the miracles. Irina decided that she ought to tell of her healing, and she felt that she had been wrong when, earlier, she had been silent about this. After she had told father Luke about what had happened, she began to feel better again. Until now (a year has passed) she continues in good health. The cancerous tumour has not disappeared completely, but it has diminished to such an extent that Irina is able to carry on a normal life and dedicate herself to the upbringing of her children.

Elena Kudryabtseva (Moscow): In our little boy signs of an allergy appeared, which grew stronger and stronger day by day. The doctors could not give a clear reason for the rashes which broke out all over his body and, in places, developed into hard scabs. The medicine they prescribed gave hardly any alleviation, and taking these tablets was often noxious for the child. We did not know what was to be done, or what to do. An acquaintance of ours, a pious and sincere man, who revered Vladyka Philaret (Voznesensky), told the story of what had befallen a seriously ill patient in the clinic, whom the doctors already had no hope of curing. The sick man took a photo of the hierarch, and with faith placed it on the bad place. In a short time he came to recovery, an operation was not necessary, and he was healed of his severe infirmity. Remembering this story, we took a photograph of the hierarch Philaret, taken not long before his demise by Archpriest Constantine Fedorov, and placed it over the infant’s cot. On the next day, the scabs on the child’s legs began to come off, the rash diminished, and within a short time all signs of the allergy completely disappeared.

Milovoje Miliikovic (Belgrade): My 80 year-old Mama’s right hand was hurt. At first a smallish lump appeared on her hand, and then it began to hurt a lot. No medications were of any use, and the doctors did not know what it was. She took antibiotics and anaesthetics; they gave her fifteen injections of penicillin. Nothing helped and the afflicted area just got bigger. The day of the Holy Hierarch Philaret came, when our Fr Acacius always serves a particularly festive service. On this day from the Monastery of New Stenik on Mount Mikylii the nuns came with Abbess Evphrosyne, which was a big support for us all. After a remarkable service, we had a meal during which a life of the Holy Hierarch Philaret was read and a record of the miracles worked through his prayers. Through the endeavours of the nuns, everyone was given an akathist to the saint. Furthermore, with Fr Acacius’ blessing, the monk Joseph poured out some oil for me from the lamp before the icon of Saint Philaret. When I arrived home, I read the akathist to Saint Philaret and anointed the painful area on Mama’s hand with the oil - first with the sign of the Cross, and then completely over the whole area. Instantaneously the pain lessened. In the morning the wound had diminished to half the size, and it began to secrete pus. Furthermore, before the reading of the akathist, Mama felt so bad that she could not stand up and had to sit down....

Through the prayers of the Holy Hierarch Philaret, may the Lord have mercy on us all. Amen.

The Russian language text of the above was supplied by Abbess Alexandra of the Convent of St John (Maximovich) in Odessa, Ukraine. It included two additional miracles which were recorded within the Life that we published last month and which we have therefore not included here. The present compiler of “The Shepherd” can also recall the report of a miracle of the Saint, while the latter was still alive:-

IN 1970, a small group of seminarians from Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, myself included, went to the Kursk Root Icon Hermitage at Mahopac, N.Y., over the Thanksgiving weekend, to help despatch some books on the Coronations of the Russian Tsars, which had been published by the Russian Youth Committee. At that time a nun was staying at the Hermitage, and she greatly revered Metropolitan Philaret and told us that he knew the Four Gospels off by heart. She also told us that for many years she had suffered from very severe headaches, which at that time I did as well, which made me pay attention to what she had to say. She reported that on one occasion, she had a particularly bad headache and asked the Metropolitan to pray for her that she might be delivered from it. Out of humility, he said that he could not do such a thing, and so in desperation she fell at his feet and said she would not let him go until he did. He prayed, and not only did her headache leave her immediately, but from that day until the time she told us her tale she had not suffered another one.

source: http://www.saintedwardbrotherhood.org/0209/shepherd2.html

Eulogy of Orthodox America

2009-02-10T20:58:00.000-08:00

Orthodox America

Metropolitan Philaret - In Memoriam

“Like Unto One of the Ancients”

When, only a few weeks ago, we were printing a tribute to Metropolitan Anastassy, the second Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, on the 20th anniversary of his death, we did not even suspect that the next issue would contain the death notice for the third Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret, whose repose on Nov. 8/21, the Feast of the Archangel Michael, signals the end of an era. Although the Metropolitan, suffering from cancer of the prostate, had been in failing health for some time, his end came swiftly, only two months after a Bishops' Council in Canada.

Born George Nikolaivich Voznesensky at Kursk in 1903, the future metropolitan was first ordained a celibate priest and then entered monastic life. Much of his work was in the Far East, since his father, Archbishop Dimitri, served in China. He became bishop of Australia in the early 1960's and was elected Metropolitan in 1965. (Of the 18 bishops participating in his election, only five are still living.)

Only the third Metropolitan of the Synod of Bishops since the Revolution, Vladika Philaret's 21-year rule was not without significance. It seems that to each Metropolitan God has assigned specific tasks, laying different burdens on each one as if giving a crown of thorns with the white klobuk [1]. To the first, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) was given the awesome responsibility of carrying our New Martyr Patriarch Tikhon's decree ordering the formation of a Higher Church Authority outside Russia in the event of contact with the Patriarch becoming impossible or nonexistent due to Soviet interference. Coalescing and organizing the vast numbers of emigre and exiled clergy and laity into a meaningful and functional church unit was a difficult accomplishment, one for which Metropolitan Antony had to summon all his many rich gifts.

The second Chief Shepherd of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastassy, reigned for nearly thirty years, and his life and achievements have been written about extensively in the last OA. Like an aged Moses, he led the exiled Russian Church through the wilderness of post-World War II conditions and difficulties. Heavy as were many of the burdens of those days, luminous as was the spirit with which Met. Anastassy confronted the labors given him by God, it has come to seem that to his successor, Met. Philaret, was given what has proven to be the most difficult and important destiny of all.

Almost simultaneously with Vladika Philaret's election, massive changes in the spiritual climate of the world began affecting the Church Abroad. Modernizations in Roman Catholicism, innovations and ecumenism in other Orthodox jurisdictions , a thirst for genuine holiness even among people born and bred to the neo-paganism of modern life--all these forces manifested themselves in a veritable tidal wave of new people, new "tribes ," coming into the Church Abroad. And these came, not because they were Slavophiles or ethnic dilettantes in search of borrowed "roots," but because they sensed that the Russian Church in Exile had preserved the principles of other worldliness and ancient Christian tradition, and this living reality exerted an attraction compelling enough to bring hundreds, even thousands, of people into Holy Orthodoxy.

One of the most respected writers of the Russian Church Abroad, the late Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), himself a convert from Protestantism, was not a man given to exaggeration or overstatement, but Metropolitan Philaret's steadfast example so inspired him that in 1976 he wrote the fallowing evaluation of the Metro

"Among the primates of the Orthodox Churches today, there is only one from whom is always expected--and not only by members of his own Church, but by very many in a number of other Orthodox Churches as well-the clear voice of Orthodox righteousness and truth and conscience, untainted by political considerations or calculations of any kind. The voice of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, is the only fully Orthodox voice among ail the Orthodox primates. In this he is like to the Holy Fathers of ancient times, who placed purity of Orthodoxy above all else, and he stands in the midst of today's confused religious world as a solitary champion of Orthodoxy in the spirit of the Ecumenical Councils." (Orthodox Word, vol. 12, No. 1, Jan .-Feb., 1976)

Fr. Seraphim then explained that while those on what he called the "left" (liberal or reform-minded Orthodox) saw Vladika Metropolitan as an extremist, and those on the "right" with "zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10;2) also misunderstood him, the Metropolitan was in reality only and simply "Orthodox," not knowing left or right "wings," wanting only to call back to Orthodoxy all those who have departed from the age-old Faith.

Accordingly, in addition to his many pastoral letters as presiding bishop, Met. Philaret also wrote several "sorrowful Epistles to the hierarchies of other Orthodox jurisdictions in an effort to humbly but firmly remind them of their responsibilities as shepherds of their flocks and of the principles by which the Faith has always operated, in and out of season, when he saw signs of deviation from the True Faith.

As Fr. Seraphim said, "The Orthodox stand of Met. Philaret is rooted in his experience from childhood of the age-old Orthodox way of life .... In his uncompromising stand for true Orthodoxy he is very like his namesake in 19th-century Russia, Met. Philaret of Moscow, the champion of Patristic Orthodoxy against the anti-Orthodox influences coming from the West..."

Now the "second Philaret" is gone from our midst. This, the third great leader of a much-maligned and misunderstood Church, has gone ahead into the Kingdom of Heaven. We do not know what the future will bring. Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit will guide our bishops in the selection of a worthy and wise successor, and there are several suitable candidates in the Synod. That ours is an historic time, a moment of utmost gravity in the history of the R.C.A.--and, indeed, of all Orthodoxy in the free West, for which the Synod has often been a barometer of traditional Orthodoxy--is doubted by no one.

Therefore, we pray that God will give our bishops wisdom to select from among themselves one who, while willing to stand above all factions, ambitions and family or "party" politics, will nonetheless be a man of righteous firmness, able and strong enough to help preserve the witness of our Church in the face of the many temptations that lie ahead. With a godly Metropolitan at the helm, our Synod may, by the Grace of God, remain as it has been now for so many difficult years, a beacon of genuine Orthodox otherworldliness and love of truth, and the Church Abroad may yet nourish the souls of many who thirst for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Let us await the guidance of the Holy Spirit. as our hierarchs gather in council, that after He has spoken through our archpastors, it may be said of us, as it was said of the orphaned flock of Orthodox Gaul when God brought them Gregory the Wonderworker to fill St. Martin's place:

"Applaud, O fortunate people, whose desire hath now been accomplished. Your hierarch arriveth; it is the hope of the flock that cometh. May lively childhood, may the old and bent with age celebrate this event; may each proclaim it, for it is the good fortune of all."

May God grant it be so.

[1] The monastic veil of a Russian metropolitan or patriarch is white, rather than the black worn by all other monastics and hierarchs.

[OA/_private/oabot.htm]
source: http://www.roca.org/OA/53-54/53c.htm

An Orthodox View of Heart Transplantations

2008-12-29T19:32:00.000-08:00

An Orthodox View of Heart Transplantations
by Metropolitan Philaret

The world, including most people who would identify themselves as "Christians, receives every new attainment of modern science as an undoubted blessing to be accepted as a matter of course. Orthodox Christians, however, must be more discriminating, for our hope is not in this world that passes, but in eternal life. Here the [former] chief hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad speaks on the latest such attainment, to and for those whose spiritual consciousness has not been totally deadened by modern worldliness and rationalism (Orthodox Russia, no. 4, 1968).

THIS AGE IS a strange age. We know that throughout the extent of human history there have been moments of spiritual and cultural crisis, of moral decline and restoration; there have been moments also of a so-called "revaluation of values." But only in our age has there arisen in the world a manifestation much more frightening and menacing: namely, the loss of values, their catastrophic disappearance from the life, from the spiritual and intellectual horizon, of contemporary humanity.

One may readily observe today the loss of normal conceptions of nation and family, the loss of the value of life itself, in itself and as the greatest gift of God, and the striving to get away from the obligation to live—in the fantasy-world of narcotics, so to speak in a temporary suicide And parallel to the disappearance of true values there appear counterfeit values. For today literally everything is counterfeited: Christianity is counterfeited, religiousness is counterfeited, the very Gospel is counterfeited; culture in its best manifestations, the striving for peace, etc., etc.—everything is steeped in lie and falsehood, and a man With a living soul and conscience suffocates in the reign of the lie and the counterfeit.

And in this stifling atmosphere of evident and undoubted spiritual decomposition, the "last word" is the most terrible of all. We speak of the newest "attainment" of medical science: the transplantation of the human heart.

Here before us is the most terrifying of all counterfeits: the counterfeit of life itself—this greatest gift of the Creator! A man lives out his life, his powers ebb, the organism dies away, and the heart, this center of the organism's life, is just about to stop... No medicines, no remedies or attempts to prolong, to detain this departing life, can help any longer... But now—a solution is found! The man is given a new, strange heart, and with this is introduced into his organism a new, strange life, belonging to another man...

The heart is the center, the mid-point of man's existence. And not only in the spiritual sense, where heart is the term for the center of one's spiritual person, one's "I"; in physical life, too, the physical heart is the chief organ and central point of the organism, being mysteriously and indissolubly connected with the experiences of one's soul. It is well known to all how a man's purely psychical and nervous experiences joy, anger, fright, etc.,—are reflected immediately in the action of the heart, and conversely how an unhealthy condition of the heart acts oppressively on the psyche and consciousness... Yes, here the bond is indissoluble—and if, instead of the continuation of a man's personal spiritual-bodily life, concentrated in his own heart, there is imposed on him a strange heart and some kind of strange life, until then totally unknown to him—then what is this if not a counterfeit of his departing life; what is this if not the annihilation of his spiritual-bodily life, his individuality, his personal "I"? And how and as whom will such a man present himself at the general resurrection?

But the new attainment does not end even here. It is intended also to introduce into the organism of a man the heart of an animal—i.e., so that after the general resurrection a "man" will stand at the Last Judgement with the heart of an ape (or a cat, or a pig, or whatever).* Can one imagine a more senseless and blasphemous mockery of human nature itself, created in the image and likeness of God?

Madness and horror! But what has called forth this nightmare of criminal interference in man's life—in that life, the lawful Master of which is its Creator alone, and no one else? The answer is not difficult to find. The loss of Christian hope, actual disbelief in the future life, failure to understand the Gospel and disbelief in it, in its Divine truthfulness—these are what have called forth these monstrous and blasphemous experiments on the personality and life of man. The Christian view of life and death, the Christian understanding and conception of earthly life as time given by God for preparation for eternity—have been completely lost. And from this the result is: terror in the face of death, seen as the absolute perishing of life and the annihilation of personality; and a clutching at earthly life—live, live, live, at any cost or means prolong earthly life, after which there is nothing!

How far from this is the radiant Christian view of life and death I Imagine a deeply-believing Christian who has labored his whole life on the fulfillment of the Lord's commandments and on the purification of his own heart, and who finally draws near to that Christian end for which he has prayed and for which he has been preparing his whole life; if suddenly one were to say to him: "Don't you want to live a while longer? Here—we will cut out your heart and put in its place a different one, perhaps an ape's—and you will live for a while yet..." What would a believing Christian answer to this but the words of the Gospel—Get thee behind me, Satan—thou savourest not the things that be of God, but these that be of men (St. Matt. 16: 23).

See then that ye walk circumspectly, cried once the Apostle, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5: 15-17). Oh, how circumspectly we must walk in our day—with caution, lest we apostatize spiritually and fall into the snare of the enemy. For in truth our days are yet more evil than the times of the Apostles... And it was not for nothing that in these latter, already post-revolutionary days, one of the Far-Eastern archpastors prayed constantly to God thus: "Cut off the allurement of lies, loosen pressing temptations, and With the power of Thy Grace protect and keep all of us, and grant our hearts to sense the truth."

For contemporary humanity for the most part has lost completely the feeling, the sense, the acceptance of truth and the ability to discern in its spiritual essence what is happening in the world. And the threatening, sorrowful prophecy of the Apostle is being accomplished concerning those who did not learn to love the truth: God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might he damned who believed not the truth, but bad pleasure in unrighteousness (II Thes. 2: 11-12).

Christian! Remember what life is, and what is death! And thanking your Creator for the most precious gift of His goodness—for your life—use this gift as is proper, so that at the end of your earthly life you may, without clutching faintheartedly at this passing life, die in such a way that upon you may be fulfilled the joyful promise of the Apocalypse: Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them (Apoc. 14: 13).

* Since this was written, a transplant has indeed been made into the human organism of a sheep's heart; and an unsuccessful attempt four years ago utilized a chimpanzee's heart. A recent operation in California presents yet another frightful picture: the transplant of the heart of a suicide. (Trans. note.)

From The Orthodox Word, Vol. 4, No. 3 (May-June 1968), pp. 134-137.

+ + +
Facts About the Faith
The Human Heart. It was a belief among the ancients—among physicians in the age of the Egyptian Pharaohs, for example—that the heart is the center of the body, responsible for regulating all of its functions. The teachings of the Orthodox Church also hold that the heart is the center of the person, containing not only our individual identity, but harboring, in its chambers, many of the spiritual virtues to which we strive. The hesychastic teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, drawn from an ancient tradition of the Church, concentrate human activity in the heart. It is the physical regulation of the heart beat and breathing which, in part, accounts for the intensity of concentrated prayer achieved by those who reach up in prayer with their bodies to touch and be transformed by the Grace of God. Our bodies correctly used, St. Gregory Palamas tells us, are not evil, but are the very temple of the Holy Spirit. And the heart is the repository of Divine Grace.

In our times, when the brain is considered the center of the human person and the repository of the personality, it seems absurd to imagine that the heart, a "mere pump," could literally play a role in spiritual life. For that reason, many Orthodox theologians have begun to speak of the heart as a metaphor for the soul and deny that the heart plays a physical role in our spiritual life.

Nonetheless, some contemporary scientists are beginning to take a new look at the heart. Dr. Nikolai Khokhlov, a member of the advisory board of the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, spoke informally at the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery some years ago of research that he was about to investigate during an appointment at the prestigious Max Planck Institute. This research suggested that the heart, contrary to current theory, is a kind of regulating mechanism for the human body, controlling metabolism, overall body functions, and even some brain activity. This research wholly supports the assumptions of the ancients and the experience and teachings of the Orthodox Fathers.

We must be very cautious, then, about dismissing the teachings of the Fathers on the human heart simply because modern science, which may not yet fully understand the more subtle workings of the heart, seems to attribute to the brain those things which the Fathers attribute to the heart. Science may yet vindicate the Fathers and once again show us the divine source of their knowledge.

Embalming and Autopsies. In the Orthodox Church we do not make the dualistic distinction be-tween the body and the soul that one finds in some ancient, pre-Christian sects and in certain early Christian heresies. The body and soul, according to Orthodox teaching, are integrally bound together. The good health and correct, moral use of the body can affect the soul, just as a healthy and sound soul can reflect itself in the external appearance of the body (and especially in the eyes).

When a Christian dies, we show tremendous respect to his body as the place where the spirit of the human being resided. The body of a holy person, for example, is highly revered, since even his flesh and blood have been permeated by the holiness of his life. To embalm and disfigure the dead body for no reason—and embalming is not required in most states in the U.S.—is to show disrespect to it. And autopsies, when they are done for no specific purpose and routinely, are blasphemous. One need only attend an autopsy to understand that this statement is not hyperbolic, but wholly accurate. Except when indicated by forensic considerations or specific needs in medical research, autopsies should be discouraged among Orthodox Christians.

The bodies of monastics and bishops, whose lives are dedicated to spiritual principles and aims, should under no circumstances be embalmed or, except in the case of suspected foul play, subjected to post-mortem examination. This is a rule which every Orthodox Christian physician should understand and one which he should attempt to uphold with every possible means. Since monastics should, if possible, repose in their monasteries—rather than in the hospital, as is usually the case in the Western world now—, Orthodox physicians should be available and ready to assist in the preparation of the needed certificates of death, so as to avoid the eventuality of an autopsy.

If our faith is one limited only to intellectual precepts, and not to the world of our bodies as well, then it is an artificial and incomplete faith.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII, No. 2, p. 15

source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/heart_trans.aspx?print=ok

Met. Philaret's Vestments Sent To Moscow

2008-11-27T23:01:00.000-08:00

DIOCESE OF EASTERN AMERICA AND NEW YORK: November 13, 2006
The Staff and Vestments of Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed Memory Are Sent to Moscow

On Sunday, November 12, with the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in fulfillment of the wishes of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) of blessed memory, and the will of his cell-attendant, Protodeacon Nikita Chakiroff, Mitred Protopriest Roman Lukianov, Rector of Epiphany Church in Roslindale, MA (near Boston), handed over the staff and vestments of the third First Hierarch of the Church Abroad to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia during a very ceremonious service. Fr Roman would have traveled to Russia himself but could not due to illness. Therefore, praying during Divine Liturgy, which was performed by Priest Victor Boldewskul, Deputy Rector of the parish, along with the other clergymen of the church, was Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), Rector of Sretensky Stavropighial Monastery in Moscow, sent there by the Patriarch. At the end of Liturgy, Fr Victor addressed the multitude of worshipers with the following words of edification:

"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

"Often, events occur during our lifetimes the meaning of which we do not fully comprehend. Twenty-five years ago, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by its First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, glorified the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. The path leading to their canonization was difficult, for there were various opinions on this matter, some people even being against the glorification of the Royal Family. Still, our bishops displayed their spiritual courage. The events that followed proved that this conciliar decision was the expression of Divine Will and a fateful act, which laid the groundwork for the rebirth of the life of the Holy Church in the homeland. The culmination of this expression of the freedom of the Church was the historic Jubilee Council of 2000 and the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia by the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"One of the three surviving members of the Council of Bishops that canonized the New Martyrs in 1981, Archbishop Alypy of Chicago and Detroit, in a recent Epistle to his flock, noted that church prayer has great significance in the life of our flock. Further, Vladyka writes: 'For over 70 years in the churches of the diaspora we have prayed that God would deliver our country from the godless authority and our Orthodox Church from cruel persecution. After the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian land, the Soviet regime finally began to crumble and fell apart several years later. This happened without any bloodshed, and in this we see the hand of God.'

"From a spiritual point of view, one can now say that after the glorification of the New Marytrs, a pre-conciliar period began, which concluded with the decision by the IV All-Diaspora Council held earlier this year on the need for the reunification of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"The courageous act of the glorification of the New Marytrs performed by Vladyka Philaret and his brethren bishops laid the groundwork for our joint prayer to them for the suffering Russian land. Our brethren in the homeland have now joined in this prayer. The end of the grave period of martyric sufferings of the Russian land must be understood as the expression of the great mercy of God, by the prayers of the host of New Martyrs and all the children of the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland and abroad. The convening and God-pleasing decisions of the IV All-Diaspora Council in turn are the direct result of the act of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and his fellow bishops who glorified the New Martyrs in 2000. This notion is expressed in the following excerpt from the IV All-Diaspora Council: 'Bowing down before the podvig [spiritual feats] of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, glorified both by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Russian Church in the Fatherland, we see within them the spiritual bridge which rises above the abyss of the lethal division in the Russian Church and makes possible the restoration of that unity which is desired by all.'

"Those of us who remember and who were fortunate enough to see Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret over his 20 years of service as First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad cannot picture him without his devoted assistant and cell- attendant, Father Protopriest Nikita Chakiroff. Fr Nikita spent all his energies, all his strength and his whole life to serving his Abba and spiritual father. Both during life and after the repose of Vladyka Philaret, Fr Nikita continued to fulfill his wishes and preserve his spiritual legacy.

"And what is the spiritual legacy of Vladyka? He can be seen not in the everyday responses to current, temporary church events of his day, but in the main prayer of his life, that is, for the rebirth of the Holy Church in Russia and the return of the Russian people to the ideals of Holy Russia.

"After the repose of Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret, Fr Nikita preserved some of his vestments as relics, since many revered Vladyka for his piety. With regard to his vestments, which Fr Nikita himself acquired for him, Vladyka Philaret, before his death, issued his oral instructions to him. Fr Nikita told of this to his close friend, Fr Roman, after Vladyka's death in 1985. Fr Nikita himself soon fell ill, and sent a letter to Fr Roman, in which he wrote the following:

Dear in the Lord Fr Roman! Bless me!

Soon after Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret's repose, with the knowledge of Vladyka Laurus, I left a second set of episcopal vestments of Vladyka First Hierarch, which I paid for with my own funds, so that it would be packed away and given to you, Fr Roman, for safekeeping.

My health is poor, and the doctors say that I will not live long; that is why I leave them to you to safeguard, and when the time comes, when the Lord frees Russia, our Homeland, when blessed days arrive, foretold by St Seraphim of Sarov the Wonder-worker, then take them to our Homeland. Give them to His Holiness the Patriarch of All Russia, and one set must be given to Diveevo Lavra, and tell them whose they were. Say that we preserved them as a treasure, and say that Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret, as he performed the rite of the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, in his sensitive soul, endured the suffering of every martyr and rejoiced at their staunchness and unwavering strength and devotion to the Truth.

Metropolitan Philaret performed the great deed of glorification in 1981. With conciliarity and with the whole people, in a great church ceremony he glorified the many millions of new Saints of God.

Here I end my letter. I ask you holy prayers and blessing.

With love in the Lord,

Protodeacon Nikita, the sinner.

"And new, dear brothers and sisters, the time has arrived to fulfill the wishes of Metropolitan Philaret and the will of Fr Nikita.

"Today, in our church, Fr Roman will hand over, through Archimandrite Tikhon, Prior of Sretensky Monastery in Moscow, the vestments of that First Hierarch who glorified the New Martyrs abroad to that First Hierarch who glorified them in Russia.

"Brothers and sisters, let us remember the power of prayer and the power of the All-Holy Spirit, Who will overcome our mortal failings and lead us unto Truth.

"The path towards the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs was not easy. The path to the adoption of the 'Act of Canonical Communion,' which combines in the Eucharist both parts of the Russian Church, was also difficult. But these spiritual feats were finalized successfully by conciliar decision of our archpastor after long, prayerful preparation.

"Fr Nikita's letter is remarkable! Who could have foreseen, in 1987, when Diveevo Monastery was still closed, when confessors continued to suffer for Christ under the godless regime, who could have foreseen the coming emancipation and transformation of church life in Russia? Who especially could have thought that this would come to be during the lifetime of Fr Roman? Fr Nikita's letter is nothing less than prophetic. And behind Fr Nikita's words in this letter, one hears the prophetic voice of Vladyka Philaret.

"Now we will serve a pannikhida for the late Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, and for Protopriest Nikita. In raising our prayers for their peace, let us thank the Lord that the 'blessed days foretold by St Seraphim of Sarov the Wonder-worker' have arrived, thanks to which we can now fulfill the testament of our spiritual father, Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret. Amen!"

After Divine Liturgy, the vestments intended for the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and for Diveevo Monastery, were taken out of the altar into the middle of the church and laid beside the pannikhida table, where Fr Roman led the commemorative service along with Fr Victor, Protopriest Alexei Mikrikov and the parish clergymen. After the singing of Eternal Memory , the Parish Rector then welcomed Fr Tikhon and spoke about the life of Vladyka Philaret. In a moving response, Archimandrite Tikhon noted the importance of this event for the Russian Orthodox Church and gave Fr Roman a pectoral cross from His Holiness, along with an icon of Holy New Martyr Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky) of Verey, containing a portion of his relics, for Epiphany Church. The choir, under the direction of Vladimir Pavlovich Roudenko, then sang Bortniansky's Tebe Boga khvalim , and for a long time, the multitude of worshipers approached to venerate the vestments of the third First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

See Fr Nikita's letter in pdf format here.

www.bostonrusschurch.org

DIOCESE OF EASTERN AMERICA AND NEW YORK: November 13, 2006
The Staff and Vestments of Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed Memory Are Sent to Moscow

On Sunday, November 12, with the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in fulfillment of the wishes of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) of blessed memory, and the will of his cell-attendant, Protodeacon Nikita Chakiroff, Mitred Protopriest Roman Lukianov, Rector of Epiphany Church in Roslindale, MA (near Boston), handed over the staff and vestments of the third First Hierarch of the Church Abroad to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia during a very ceremonious service. Fr Roman would have traveled to Russia himself but could not due to illness. Therefore, praying during Divine Liturgy, which was performed by Priest Victor Boldewskul, Deputy Rector of the parish, along with the other clergymen of the church, was Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), Rector of Sretensky Stavropighial Monastery in Moscow, sent there by the Patriarch. At the end of Liturgy, Fr Victor addressed the multitude of worshipers with the following words of edification:

"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

"Often, events occur during our lifetimes the meaning of which we do not fully comprehend. Twenty-five years ago, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by its First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, glorified the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. The path leading to their canonization was difficult, for there were various opinions on this matter, some people even being against the glorification of the Royal Family. Still, our bishops displayed their spiritual courage. The events that followed proved that this conciliar decision was the expression of Divine Will and a fateful act, which laid the groundwork for the rebirth of the life of the Holy Church in the homeland. The culmination of this expression of the freedom of the Church was the historic Jubilee Council of 2000 and the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia by the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"One of the three surviving members of the Council of Bishops that canonized the New Martyrs in 1981, Archbishop Alypy of Chicago and Detroit, in a recent Epistle to his flock, noted that church prayer has great significance in the life of our flock. Further, Vladyka writes: 'For over 70 years in the churches of the diaspora we have prayed that God would deliver our country from the godless authority and our Orthodox Church from cruel persecution. After the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian land, the Soviet regime finally began to crumble and fell apart several years later. This happened without any bloodshed, and in this we see the hand of God.'

"From a spiritual point of view, one can now say that after the glorification of the New Marytrs, a pre-conciliar period began, which concluded with the decision by the IV All-Diaspora Council held earlier this year on the need for the reunification of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"The courageous act of the glorification of the New Marytrs performed by Vladyka Philaret and his brethren bishops laid the groundwork for our joint prayer to them for the suffering Russian land. Our brethren in the homeland have now joined in this prayer. The end of the grave period of martyric sufferings of the Russian land must be understood as the expression of the great mercy of God, by the prayers of the host of New Martyrs and all the children of the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland and abroad. The convening and God-pleasing decisions of the IV All-Diaspora Council in turn are the direct result of the act of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and his fellow bishops who glorified the New Martyrs in 2000. This notion is expressed in the following excerpt from the IV All-Diaspora Council: 'Bowing down before the podvig [spiritual feats] of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, glorified both by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Russian Church in the Fatherland, we see within them the spiritual bridge which rises above the abyss of the lethal division in the Russian Church and makes possible the restoration of that unity which is desired by all.'

"Those of us who remember and who were fortunate enough to see Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret over his 20 years of service as First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad cannot picture him without his devoted assistant and cell- attendant, Father Protopriest Nikita Chakiroff. Fr Nikita spent all his energies, all his strength and his whole life to serving his Abba and spiritual father. Both during life and after the repose of Vladyka Philaret, Fr Nikita continued to fulfill his wishes and preserve his spiritual legacy.

"And what is the spiritual legacy of Vladyka? He can be seen not in the everyday responses to current, temporary church events of his day, but in the main prayer of his life, that is, for the rebirth of the Holy Church in Russia and the return of the Russian people to the ideals of Holy Russia.

"After the repose of Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret, Fr Nikita preserved some of his vestments as relics, since many revered Vladyka for his piety. With regard to his vestments, which Fr Nikita himself acquired for him, Vladyka Philaret, before his death, issued his oral instructions to him. Fr Nikita told of this to his close friend, Fr Roman, after Vladyka's death in 1985. Fr Nikita himself soon fell ill, and sent a letter to Fr Roman, in which he wrote the following:

Dear in the Lord Fr Roman! Bless me!

Soon after Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret's repose, with the knowledge of Vladyka Laurus, I left a second set of episcopal vestments of Vladyka First Hierarch, which I paid for with my own funds, so that it would be packed away and given to you, Fr Roman, for safekeeping.

My health is poor, and the doctors say that I will not live long; that is why I leave them to you to safeguard, and when the time comes, when the Lord frees Russia, our Homeland, when blessed days arrive, foretold by St Seraphim of Sarov the Wonder-worker, then take them to our Homeland. Give them to His Holiness the Patriarch of All Russia, and one set must be given to Diveevo Lavra, and tell them whose they were. Say that we preserved them as a treasure, and say that Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret, as he performed the rite of the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, in his sensitive soul, endured the suffering of every martyr and rejoiced at their staunchness and unwavering strength and devotion to the Truth.

Metropolitan Philaret performed the great deed of glorification in 1981. With conciliarity and with the whole people, in a great church ceremony he glorified the many millions of new Saints of God.

Here I end my letter. I ask you holy prayers and blessing.

With love in the Lord,

Protodeacon Nikita, the sinner.

"And new, dear brothers and sisters, the time has arrived to fulfill the wishes of Metropolitan Philaret and the will of Fr Nikita.

"Today, in our church, Fr Roman will hand over, through Archimandrite Tikhon, Prior of Sretensky Monastery in Moscow, the vestments of that First Hierarch who glorified the New Martyrs abroad to that First Hierarch who glorified them in Russia.

"Brothers and sisters, let us remember the power of prayer and the power of the All-Holy Spirit, Who will overcome our mortal failings and lead us unto Truth.

"The path towards the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs was not easy. The path to the adoption of the 'Act of Canonical Communion,' which combines in the Eucharist both parts of the Russian Church, was also difficult. But these spiritual feats were finalized successfully by conciliar decision of our archpastor after long, prayerful preparation.

"Fr Nikita's letter is remarkable! Who could have foreseen, in 1987, when Diveevo Monastery was still closed, when confessors continued to suffer for Christ under the godless regime, who could have foreseen the coming emancipation and transformation of church life in Russia? Who especially could have thought that this would come to be during the lifetime of Fr Roman? Fr Nikita's letter is nothing less than prophetic. And behind Fr Nikita's words in this letter, one hears the prophetic voice of Vladyka Philaret.

"Now we will serve a pannikhida for the late Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, and for Protopriest Nikita. In raising our prayers for their peace, let us thank the Lord that the 'blessed days foretold by St Seraphim of Sarov the Wonder-worker' have arrived, thanks to which we can now fulfill the testament of our spiritual father, Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret. Amen!"

After Divine Liturgy, the vestments intended for the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and for Diveevo Monastery, were taken out of the altar into the middle of the church and laid beside the pannikhida table, where Fr Roman led the commemorative service along with Fr Victor, Protopriest Alexei Mikrikov and the parish clergymen. After the singing of Eternal Memory , the Parish Rector then welcomed Fr Tikhon and spoke about the life of Vladyka Philaret. In a moving response, Archimandrite Tikhon noted the importance of this event for the Russian Orthodox Church and gave Fr Roman a pectoral cross from His Holiness, along with an icon of Holy New Martyr Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky) of Verey, containing a portion of his relics, for Epiphany Church. The choir, under the direction of Vladimir Pavlovich Roudenko, then sang Bortniansky's Tebe Boga khvalim , and for a long time, the multitude of worshipers approached to venerate the vestments of the third First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

See Fr Nikita's letter in pdf format here.

www.bostonrusschurch.org

source: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/11enboston.html

Epistle of 1965

2008-11-25T17:46:00.000-08:00

Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret to Orthodox Bishops and All Who Hold Dear the Fate of the Russian Church (1965)

In recent days the Soviet Government in Moscow and various parts of the world celebrated a new anniversary of the October Revolution of 1917 which brought it to power.

We, on the other hand, call to mind in these days the beginning of the way of the cross for the Russian Orthodox Church, upon which from that time, as it were, all the powers of hell have fallen.

Meeting resistance on the part of Archpastors, pastors, and laymen strong in spirit, the Communist power, in its fight with religion, began from the very first days the attempt to weaken the Church not only by killing those of her leaders who were strongest in spirit, but also by means of the artificial creation of schisms.

Thus arose the so-called ''Living Church" and the renovation movement, which had the character of a Church tied to a Protestant-Communist reformation. Notwithstanding the support of the Government, this schism was crushed by the inner power of the Church. It was too clear to believers that the "Renovated Church" was uncanonical and altered Orthodoxy. For this reason people did not follow it.

The second attempt, after the death of Patriarch Tikhon and the rest of the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Peter, had greater success. The Soviet power succeeded in 1927 in sundering in part the inner unity of the Church. By confinement in prison, torture, and special methods it broke the will of the vicar of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergy, and secured from him the proclamation of a declaration of the complete loyalty of the Church to the Soviet power, even to the point where the joys and successes of the Soviet Union were declared by the Metropolitan to the joys and successes of the Church, and its failures to be her failures. What can be more blasphemous than such an idea, which was justly appraised by many at that time as an attempt to unite light with darkness, and Christ with Belial. Both Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter, as well as others who served as locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, had earlier refused to sign a similar declaration, for which they were subjected to arrest, imprisonment, and banishment.

Protesting against this declaration—which was proclaimed by Metr. Sergy by himself alone, without the agreement of the suppressed majority of the episcopate of the Russian Church, violating thus the 34th Apostolic Rule [1]—many bishops who were then in the death camp at Solovki [2] wrote to the Metropolitan: "Any government can sometimes make decisions that are foolish, unjust, cruel, to which the Church is forced to submit, but which she cannot rejoice over or approve. One of the aims of the Soviet Government is the extirpation of religion, but the Church cannot acknowledge its successes in this direction as her own successes" (Open Letter from Solovki, Sept. 27, 1927).

The courageous majority of the sons of the Russian Church did not accept the declaration of Metr. Sergy, considering that a union of the Church with the godless Soviet State, which had set itself the goal of annihilating Christianity in general, could not exist on principle.

But a schism nonetheless occurred. The minority, accepting the declaration, formed a central administration, the so-called "Moscow Patriarchate," which, while being supposedly officially recognized by the authorities, in actual fact received no legal rights whatever from them; for they continued, now without hindrance, a most cruel persecution of the Church. In the words of Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd, Metr. Sergy, having proclaimed the declaration, entered upon the path of "monstrous arbitrariness, flattery, and betrayal of the Church to the interests of atheism and the destruction of the Church."

The majority, renouncing the declaration, began an illegal ecclesiastical existence. Almost all the bishops were tortured and killed in death camps, among them the locum tenens Metr. Peter, Metr. Cyril of Kazan, who was respected by all, and Metr. Joseph of Petrograd, who was shot to death at the end of 1938, as well as many other bishops and thousands of priests, monks, nuns, and courageous laymen. Those bishops and clergy who miraculously remained alive began to live illegally and to serve Divine services secretly, hiding themselves from the authorities and originating in this fashion the Catacomb Church in the Soviet Union.

Little news of this Church has come to the free world. The Soviet press long kept silent about her, wishing to give the impression that all believers in the USSR stood behind the Moscow Patriarchate. They even attempted to deny entirely the existence of the Catacomb Church.

But then, after the death of Stalin and the exposure of his activity, and especially after the fall of Khrushchev, the Soviet press has begun to write more and more often on the secret Church in the USSR, calling it the "sect" of True-Orthodox Christians. It was apparently impossible to keep silence about it any longer; its numbers are too great and it causes the authorities too much alarm.

Unexpectedly in the "Atheist Dictionary" (State Political Literature Publishers, Moscow, 1964), on pp 123 and 124 the Catacomb Church is openly discussed. ''True-Orthodox Christians," we read in the "Dictionary," "an Orthodox sect, originating in the years 1922-24. It was organized in 1927, when Metr. Sergy proclaimed the principle of loyalty to the Soviet power." "Monarchist" (we would say ecclesiastical) "elements, having united around Metr. Joseph (Petrovykh) of Leningrad'' (Petrograd) '—Josephites,'' or, as the same Dictionary says, Tikhonites, formed in 1928 a guiding center, the True-Orthodox Church, and united all groups and elements which came out against the Soviet order" (we may add from ourselves, "atheist" order). "The True-Orthodox Church directed unto the villages a multitude of monks and nuns," for the most part of course priests, we add again from ourselves, who celebrated Divine services and rites secretly and "conducted propaganda against the leadership of the Orthodox Church," i.e, against the Moscow Patriarchate which had given in to the Soviet power, "appealing to people not to submit to Soviet laws," which are directed, quite apparently, against the Church of Christ and faith.

By the testimony of the "Atheist Dictionary," the True-Orthodox Christians organized and continue to organize house, ' i.e., secret, catacomb churches and monasteries... preserving in full the doctrine and rites of Orthodoxy." They "do not acknowledge the authority of the Orthodox Patriarch," i.e., the successor of Metr. Sergy, Patriarch Alexy.

"Striving to fence off" the True-Orthodox Christians "from the influence of Soviet reality," chiefly of course from atheist propaganda, "their leaders... make use of the myth of Antichrist, who has supposedly been ruling in the world since 1917." The anti-Christian nature of the Soviet power is undoubted for any sound-thinking person, and all the more for a Christian.

True Orthodox Christians "usually refuse to participate in elections," which in the Soviet Union, a country deprived of freedom, are simply a comedy, "and other public functions; they do not accept pensions, do not allow their children to go to school beyond the fourth class..." Here is an unexpected Soviet testimony of the truth, to which nothing need be added.

Honor and praise to the True-Orthodox Christians, heroes of the spirit and confessors, who have not bowed before the terrible power, which can stand only by terror and force and has become accustomed to the abject flattery of its subjects. The Soviet rulers fall into a rage over the fact that there exist people who fear God more than men. They are powerless before the millions of True-Orthodox Christians.

However, besides the True Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union and the Moscow Patriarchate, which have communion neither of prayer nor of any other kind with each other, there exists yet a third part of the Russian Church—free from oppression and persecution by the atheists the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. She has never broken the spiritual and prayerful bonds with the Catacomb Church in the home land. After the last war many members of this Church appeared abroad and entered into the Russian Church Outside Russia, and thus the bond between these two Churches was strengthened yet more—a bond which has been sustained illegally up to the present time. As time goes on, it becomes all the stronger and better established.

The part of the Russian Church that is abroad and free is called upon to speak in the free world in the name of the persecuted Catacomb Church in the Soviet Union; she reveals to all the truly tragic condition of believers in the USSR, which the atheist power so carefully hushes up, with the aid of the Moscow Patriarchate, she calls on those who have not lost shame and conscience to help the persecuted.

This is why it is our sacred duty to watch over the existence of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. The Lord, the searcher of hearts, having permitted His Church to be subjected to oppression, persecution, and deprivation of all rights in the godless Soviet State, has given us, Russian exiles, in the free world the talent of freedom, and He expects from us the increase of this talent and a skillful use of it. And we have not the right to hide it in the earth. Let no one dare to say to us that we should do this, let no one push us to a mortal sin.

For the fate of our Russian Church we, Russian bishops, are responsible before God, and no one in the world can free us from this sacred obligation. No one can understand better than we what is happening in our homeland, of which no one can have any doubt. Many times foreigners, even Orthodox people and those vested with high ecclesiastical rank, have made gross errors in connection with the Russian Church and false conclusions concerning her present condition. May God forgive them this, since they do not know what they are doing.

This is why, whether it pleases anyone or not, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will continue to exist and will raise her voice in the defense of the faith.

She will not be silent:

1. As long as the Soviet power shall conduct a merciless battle against the Church and believers, about which the whole Soviet press also testifies, except for the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.

2. As long as, by the testimony of the same press, there exists in the USSR a secret, Catacomb True-Orthodox Church, by its very existence testifying to persecutions against the faith and to complete absence of freedom of religion.

3. As long as the Soviet power shall force the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate manifestly to lie and affirm that there are no persecutions against the Church in the USSR and that the Church there supposedly enjoys complete freedom in accordance with the Soviet constitution (Metropolitans Pimen, Nikodim, John of New York, Archbp. Alexy, and others).

4. As long as the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, at the demand of the authorities, does not mention even a single church that has been closed and destroyed, while at the same time Soviet newspapers speak of hundreds and thousands.

5. As long as churches in the USSR shall be defiled by atheists, being converted into movie-houses, storehouses, museums, clubs, apartments, etc., of which fact there are living witnesses in the persons of tourists who have been to Soviet Union.

6. Until the thousands of destroyed and defiled churches shall be restored as churches of God.

7. Until the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate in clerical robes shall cease agitating in the free world in the interest of the godless Soviet power, in this way dressing the wolf in sheep's clothing.

8. Until the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate end their evil denial of the terrible and dreadful devastation of the Pochaev Lavra and other monasteries, and stop the almost complete liquidation of monks there and the terrible persecutions of her pilgrims, even to killing and murder (letters from the USSR).

9. Until priests accused by Soviet courts shall receive the right to defend themselves freely though the Soviet press.

10. Until there shall cease calumny and ridicule of faith, the Church, priests, monks, and believing Christians in the Soviet press.

11. Until freedom shall be given to every believer in the USSR openly to confess his faith and defend it.

12. Until it shall be officially permitted children and young people to know the foundations of their faith, to visit the churches of God, to participate in Divine services and receive communion of the Holy Mysteries.

13. Until it shall be permitted parents who are believers to baptize their children without hindrance and without sad consequences for their official careers and personal happiness.

14. Until parents who raise their children religiously shall cease from being accused of crippling them, parents and children both being deprived of freedom for this and shut up in mental institutions or prison.

15. Until freedom of thought, speech, action, and voting shall be given not only to every believer, but also to every citizen of the Soviet Union, first of all to writers and creative thinkers, against whom the godless power is now waging an especially bitter battle using intolerable means.

16. Until the Church and religious societies in general in the USSR shall receive the most elementary rights, if only the right to be a legal person before Soviet laws, the right to own property, to direct one's own affairs in actual fact, to designate and transfer rectors of parishes and priests, to open and dedicate new churches, to preach Christianity openly not only in churches, but outside them also, especially among young people, etc. In other words, until the condition of all religious societies shall cease from being, one and the same, without rights.

Until all this shall come about, we shall not cease to accuse the godless persecutors of faith and those who evilly cooperate with them under the exterior of supposed representatives of the Church. In this the Russian Church Outside of Russia has always seen one of her important tasks. Knowing this, the Soviet power through its agents wages with her a stubborn battle, not hesitating to use any means: lies, bribes, gifts, and intimidation. We, however, shall not suspend our accusation.

Declaring this before the face of the whole world, I appeal to all our brothers in Christ—Orthodox bishops—and to all people who hold dear the fate of the persecuted Russian Church as a part of the Universal Church of Christ, for understanding, support, and their holy prayers. As for our spiritual children, we call on them to hold firmly to the truth of Orthodoxy, witnessing of her both by one's word and especially by a prayerful, devout Christian life.

Endnotes
1. Which reads: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and count him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent... But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all. . ."

2. Solovki: the Solovetski Islands in the White Sea, where one of Russia's coenobitic monasteries was situated. Founded by Sts. Zossima and Savvati in the 15th century, the Transfiguration Monastery was the heart of the "Northern Thebaid" and a source of Christian enlightenment and culture for the whole of the northern regions. After the Revolution of 1917 the Soviet Government turned the monastery into a forced-labor concentration camp, where thousands of innocent clergymen and laymen died, enriching with their martyrs' blood the already rich hagiography of the holy islands. [Ivan Andreyev, Russia's Catacomb Saints (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1982), 566]

Sermon: Every Christian Must Bear His Cross

2008-10-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

№46 (209) June, 2006

EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST BEAR HIS CROSS

By Metropolitan Philaret Third First Hierarch of the ROCOR
(†8/21 November, 1985)

At today's Divine Liturgy we heard that the Lord Jesus Christ said that a Christian must carry his cross: whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me (Mark 8:33). He Himself carried His cross His whole life. Not only did He carry to Golgotha a heavy wooden cross upon which He was about to be crucified; He bore His cross His entire earthly life! Consider that the eternal God joined Himself to humankind, and thus as the God-man, He lived among men, sharing their lives with them. He brought to this earth His love and mercy. Judging no one, he forgave everyone, worked innumerable miraculous works of mercy, love, forgiveness, and healing. And as even more and more He shone that light of love among men, so tighter and tighter did the noose of satanic hatred encircle Him. His embittered enemies closed ranks against Him, coming at Him from every side, ultimately nailing Him to the cross.
As you have heard it commanded, the true Christian may only follow Him in like manner only if he will take up his cross and follow Him. That holy cross is composed of three parts as explained by St. Theophan the Recluse. The first aspect of this cross is all those trials born by a person desiring to live in a pious and Christian manner, and who sees that it is very bad to falter due to sinful habits, for sinful habits can take full possession of him and hold him back. How very often this happens: initially, the soul of a person burns with desire to live a good Christian life, but his habitual sins, which he has become accustomed to committing, irresistibly draw him back to them again and again. And where he would not have gone, he finds himself being pulled in every direction at the same time. That is why Bishop Theophan says that a man in a sinful state is like a person walking around with a rotting and decaying corpse tied to his back. He has become bound to that corpse, refusing to cast it off and run away. So it is with a fallen and sinful nature. As the saying goes, "you cannot run away from yourself."
The second aspect of the cross is to struggle to endure all the trials and tribulations of our earthly existence. This is most commonly known as one's cross, which includes all sorrows, illnesses, personal losses, and so on. Here we need to state that if a person humbly and obediently accepts all those sorrows as having been sent to him by the providence of God for his spiritual benefit, he will receive something completely different. If he should grumble, be rebellious, and become indignant, he will become disheartened. On the other hand, when he ceases to grumble, but humbly and submissively accepts these trials as coming from the right hand of the Lord, he will see everything around him in a completely different manner; all these trials bring only peace with the firm Christian conviction that all is as it should be. The Lord, the Heavenly Father, does not send a stone instead of bread, but when He does send sorrows, they must be borne in a Christian manner.
The third aspect of the cross, and of which Theophan the Recluse speaks from experience, for it is well-known that he himself was a great ascetic, is the temptation which attacks a person who has overcome the seduction of habitual sins, which occurs with spiritual strugglers. Such persons have already struggled , not giving in to habitual sins. Then a spirit descends upon them, the abyss of the most dangerous temptation, the temptation of pride. At times the strugglers were exhausted in the fight with these temptations, with prideful thoughts. This type of cross is known only to those who bear it, such as Theophan himself. None the less it is our duty is to carry our own cross, and to be a cross-bearer, for our Lord does not acknowledge any other followers. Amen.

(Translated from "Sermons" (in Russian), vol. II, pp. 9-10,
by Metropolitan Philaret)

Русскiй Инокъ (На главную)
Все права защищены и охраняются законом
Copyright © The Russian Inok (USA). All rights reserved.
source: http://www.russian-inok.org/

Sorrowful Epistle: A Rejoinder to Fr. A. Schmemann

2008-10-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

The "Sorrowful Epistle" of Metropolitan Philaret
A Rejoinder to Fr. Alexander Schmemann

by Father Michael Azkoul
Recent months have seen an intensification of efforts on the part especially of the American Metropolia and its ‘theologians’ to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which has offered an outspoken and uncompromising opposition to Orthodox apostasy in general and to the Metropolia’s recent ‘autocephaly’ in particular. The unfairness of these attacks has been noticed by those outside the Russian Church situation, and—an indication of the signs of these times—the most thorough reply to the most serious of these attacks has come from a priest of the Syrian Archdiocese.

Father Michael Azkoul holds a theological degree from St. Vladimir’s Seminary in New York and a PhD in Ancient and Mediaeval History from Michigan State University. He is a contributing editor of The Logos, a director of the Institute of Byzantine Studies, and a contributor of patristic studies to several scholarly journals. Ordained to the priesthood by the late Archbishop Anthony Bashir in 1958, he has since then held pastoral positions in several parishes in the Midwest. His articles in The Logos and other Orthodox periodicals have been notable for their solid patristic foundation and sober logic; among them have been several articles in defense of the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

In May of this year Father Michael himself followed "Where the Truth Leads" (see his article in The Logos, January, 1970), obtaining a canonical release from the Syrian Archdiocese and joining the Russian Church Outside of Russia. This fall he will be teaching in the St. Louis area and will organize a parish there. The present article was, however, written while he was still within the Syrian Archdiocese and should be, therefore, all the more a voice to those outside The jurisdiction of the Russian Synod.

As the influence of the Russian Synod is increasingly felt among Orthodox, criticism of her seems also to be rising. The latest falls from the pen of the eminent Orthodox theologian, Father Alexander Schmemann, Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary. It has been more than six months since the appearance of his polemic in The Orthodox Church (Nov., 1969), the official publication of the Russian Metropolia, and no response has been made to it in English. One should be made, because Father Schmemann’s remarks are unjust and directed at a sister-Church.

It is unfortunate that a theologian of his reputation should castigate the Russian Synod, the Supreme Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and that he should use the "Sorrowful Epistle" of Metropolitan Philaret, her leading prelate, as the occasion for his polemic. I wonder, however, if it is significant that his uncharitable reproof appeared on the eve of the disclosure that the Metropolia had been secretly negotiating with the Moscow Patriarchate for autocephaly. I wonder if it is significant that Father Alexander never answers Metropolitan Philaret’s critique of Uppsala. I wonder if it is significant that the charges against the Synod—which have been made and refuted so often before—are compulsively repeated. I wonder if these three matters are related.

In more than three thousand words, Father Schmemann seeks to smack down the Russian Synod, a perturbing "gadfly" which has been haughtily buzzing around the great body of Orthodox ecumenism. Indeed, from the very beginning of his article, the author assumes that his position imposes upon him the responsibility of liquidating this nuisance. Thus, he never concedes that the challenge of the Synod to the present course of Orthodox ecumenism—and its folly—has any validity, and the story of the "other side" is never given. His object does not seem to be the truth, but the negation of all opposition to that religious ideal to which he, and those like him, have committed themselves.

The reader is not told that, until recently, the canonicity of the Synod was questioned by no one (save Moscow); that not until the reigns of Basil III and Meletios Metaxakis did the Constantinopolean Patriarchs ever doubt it. Both Basil and Metaxakis supported the so-called "Living Church" movement in Russia and the latter, like Athenagoras I, was a Freemason. It is true, moreover, that His Eminence, Chrysostom Papadopoulos, Archbishop of Athens, was displeased with the opposition of the Russian Church Abroad to the New Calendar; however, he was in friendly correspondence with the Synod. Neither, indeed, does Father Schmemann even mention Patriarch Tikhon’s famous Ukase 362, nor Canon 39 of Quinisext or Apostolic Canon 34, which gave the Synod her right to exist; or the Sremsky-Carlovtzy Convention which gave her form.

Nevertheless, Father Schmemann denies the canonicity of the Synod. He refers to the flight of the Russian bishops before the Bolsheviks as "having abandoned their dioceses... and therefore formally deprived of their jurisdictional rights which a bishop can exercise only within his diocese, but certainly not at large. He would be right if under ordinary circumstances these bishops had "abandoned" their dioceses; but, as we have said, the canon law recognizes the possibility of bishops and churches in exile [1]—even as civil law recognizes governments in exile. He is further unfair to the Synod, because he knows that the bishops who left Russia did, in many instances, take their flocks with them. He knows, too, that the bishops were often driven out and involuntarily cut off from their dioceses. And he is wrong when he says that these bishops may necessarily be considered as no longer possessing "jurisdictional rights" over those flocks which they left. Was St. Athanasius no longer Bishop of Alexandria because he was banished five times by the Roman authorities? Was St. John Chrysostom no longer Patriarch of Constantinople when he was sent into exile by the Emperor? Was St. Martin I no longer Patriarch of Rome when he was brought to Constantinople by order of the Emperor Constans II, and then imprisoned at Cherson where he subsequently died (653)? In other words, historical and political circumstances, as the Fathers and the canons attest, do alter the usual understanding of that relationship which customarily exists between a bishop and his diocese.

In connection with this same matter, Father Alexander states that the Russian Synod was "challenged and not recognized by other Russian jurisdictions which arose out of the same tragedy" (i.e., the Communist Revolution and its aftermath). The other "jurisdictions" to which he alludes are the Paris emigres under Metropolitan Evlogy, the Metropolia, and, of course, the restored Moscow Patriarchate. Leaving aside the latter for the moment, abroad it was after all only the Synod that emerged from the Revolution. Both Metropolitans Evlogy of Paris and Platon of North America were originally members of the Synod Abroad; and in fact the Metropolia was nothing more than the North American administration of the Synod from 1921 to 1926 and from 1935 to 1946. In 1927, the other "jurisdictions" attempted to submit themselves to Moscow, but finding the Soviet demands insupportable, Evlogy in 1930 went under the Patriarch of Constantinople le (after suspension by Metropolitan Sergius), while Platon decided upon autocephaly. In 1935, the Patriarch of Serbia, Varnava, undertook to reconcile the Russian churches, and a conference was held in Serbia. The result was that both Theophilus (the new Metropolitan of North America) and Evlogy vowed fidelity to the Russian Synod Abroad. Their agreement was put in writing and signed. The reunification of the Russian exiles was announced by Metropolitan Theophilus at the 1936 Pittsburgh Sobor [2] and in 1937 in New York. Evlogy, on returning to Paris, broke his promise, and eleven years later, at the Cleveland Sobor, the Metropolia followed suit.

The Synod Abroad, therefore, considers both the Paris emigres and the Metropolia as "schismatic." Many United States civil courts agree with the contentions of the Synod. For example, the Opinion of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles (Judge Joseph W. Vickers) stated in 1949 regarding the Metropolia, "In November 1946, at an All-American Sobor held in Cleveland, a resolution was adopted which purported to terminate the 1935 Provisional Agreement and to sever all relationship with the Church Abroad. The effect of the resolution was to declare the North American District (Metropolia) to be autonomous and subject only to such relationship as it could establish with Patriarch Alexy and his Holy Synod of Moscow." Elsewhere the Opinion continues, "If Metropolitan Theophilus and the Sobor had believed that Patriarch Alexy and his Synod was the Supreme Church Administration, they would have had no choice in the matter and would not have admitted that they had not theretofore been subservient thereto or attempted to place any conditions upon their recognition of its supremacy. In addition, the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad has repeatedly declared that a canonical Supreme Administration has not been restored in Russia. Since it appears from the pleadings, the evidence and the admissions and contentions of all parties that free church life has not been restored in Russia, the court must find that the Church Abroad is still the Supreme Administration of Russia." The Conclusion of the Opinion refers to the Metropolia as "a schismatic and unlawful faction or group." The Synod, consequently, was awarded the Holy Transfiguration church. Even if we chose not to accept this Opinion, it is, at least, significant that a disinterested third party found in favor of the Russian Synod. The picture which Father Schmemann paints may be a little distorted.

If the Synod "is still the Supreme Administration of Russia," then the Eviogian Parisian emigres are also "a schismatic and unlawful faction or group." Of course, the Synod Abroad never recognized either Sergius or Alexy as the legitimate successors to Patriarch Tikhon. There is some reason to believe she is correct if these men are puppets of the Soviet government. Sergius did publish an agreement on July 16/29, 1927, in which he promised to be loyal to the Soviet regime both ‘in word’ and ‘good conscience.’ That Alexy has ever deviated from that promise cannot be demonstrated by the evidence. He has supported Communist policies in almost every instance, and there is some reason to think that many clergy in the Moscow Patriarchate are agents or, at least, selections of the Communist government. In the words of Metropolia Archbishop John (Shahovskoy) of San Francisco, "the Moscow Patriarchate is unable to express the voice of the Church of Christ freely" (see D. Grigorieff, "Historical Background of Orthodoxy in America," Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, vol. V, 1-2 (1961), 44). Under these circumstances, then, Father Schmemann is wrong and it is the Synod alone which may judge "the Russian ecclesiastical problem," for she is the only free part of the Mother Church, while the other "jurisdictions" are dissidents. Moreover, the entire matter seems to have been taken out of their hands, because the Moscow Patriarchate officially intends to give Holy Communion to Roman Catholics.[3] Its status within Orthodoxy is open to review.

I do not think Father Schmemann himself can draw any other conclusion from the facts. He instructed us at the seminary that "intercommunion" must presuppose a common faith and life. If he still believes what he taught us, he must further admit that "intercommunion" without this imperative implies an ecclesiology to which Orthodox cannot adhere. What, then, are the consequences for the Metropolia which seeks autocephaly from Moscow? But more important than this seven-year deception, is it to be denied that, underlying it, we find "the spirit of the times"? Is not ecumenism an offspring of the zeitgeist? Is it not the deleterious effect of ecumenism upon Orthodoxy which has drawn Moscow and the Metropolia together and away from the Russian Synod Abroad? Has it not so enervated the conscience of Orthodox that "forgiveness" has become a pretext to ignore Christian doctrines, canons and moral precepts?

I think Father Schmemann is cognizant of the role played by ecumenism in the new arrangement between the Metropolia and Moscow. He knows and resents the Synod’s stinging criticism of that "arrangement." For example, was not the "secret meeting" between the Metropolia and Moscow at Geneva under the auspices of the WCC? Were not representatives of the WCC present at the recent meeting in New York? It follows, then, that his defense of the ecumenical movement had to involve the dissolution of Synodal opposition to it. Moreover, he has had to anticipate those serious and embarrassing questions which the people of the Metropolia will ask upon hearing that Moscow will grant autocephaly—why after so many years has the Moscow Patriarchate suddenly become acceptable to us? How can we believe that it can now act independently of its Communist masters? Why did we not receive autocephaly in 1946? What did we give away to get it? Then, the people might begin to believe that the answers to these questions are somehow connected with the changing mood of both hierarchies. It might occur to them that the ecumenical movement—and the WCC is involved—might be overrated, that the Synod might be right about everything, that 1946 was a mistake. [4] Two Metropolia parishes have returned to the Synod already and others are threatening to do the same.

Therefore, Father Alexander must defend ecumenism and discredit the Synod. The first step must be to minimize her claim to virginal Orthodoxy, to the Fathers, the Bible and, particularly, to the canons. Strangely, citations from these sources are conspicuously absent from his article, except for one lonely quotation from the New Testament (I John 2: 18). He does not even bother to quote modern authorities in support of his arguments. It is also strange that he deliberately avoids mentioning that the Synod’s attitude toward ecumenism per se has never been closed, e.g., her representatives were present at the Faith and Order Meeting of 1937. She rejects only the heresy that ecumenism has become. Although he alludes to the fact that Metropolitan Philaret’s "Sorrowful Epistle" admits conditions under which participation in this movement is possible, his article nowhere discusses either these conditions or the arguments by the Synod against participation without those conditions. In fact, he hesitates to concede anything without qualification—"she may be right or wrong, but . . ." Whenever the issue becomes sticky and it appears that he might have to surrender a point to the Synod, he makes a hasty retreat to the handy ecclesiastical cliche, "this is for the entire Church to decide." Throughout his attack upon the Synod and Metropolitan Philaret’s Epistle one is struck by Father Schmemann’s patent bias.

Father Alexander is forced, nonetheless, to admit that one should distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad ecumenism.’ But he fails to define either. He does not, because he cannot. He his already argued that "there is no consensus on ecumenism." The contradiction is glaring: if there is no consensus at all, then it is impossible for him to distinguish ‘good’ and ‘bad ecumenism.’ No consensus means no criterion. Again, if there is no consensus whatsoever, then there is no consensus for ecumenism. Why, then, have we joined the WCC? On what basis? Why scold Metropolitan Philaret as if his opposition to ecumenism were wrong?

In any case, a consensus does exist and the Metropolitan employs it. One may contend that there is no formal spatial consensus, but there is an available temporal consensus, the judgement of history. The words of Saint Vincent of Lerins should be instructive: "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all... . We shall hold to the rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from the interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike... . What will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? ... He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a portion of it? Then, he will take care to cleave to antiquity which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. But what if in antiquity itself two or three men, of it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils... . But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort can be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers... . And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this to be held by him without the slightest hesitation" (Commonitorium, II: 3 - III: 4).

There is, then, a consensus—one which is to be preferred to spatial consensus: the consensus of time. Upon its scales, ecumenism stands in historical judgement, a judgement which Metropolitan Philaret’s Epistle manifests. He appeals to the Orthodox episcopacy "knowing perfectly well" the consensus of historical Orthodoxy.

But let us assume for a moment that an Orthodox Council is convened to determine the attitude of the Church towards ecumenism. What will be its criterion in its evaluation of this movement? Will it not be the witness of the Holy Scriptures, Holy Councils and Fathers and, to be sure, recent declarations of our spokesmen at Lambeth, Amsterdam, Evanston, etc.? If not, then by what standard of judgement? Will it be extra-ecclesial? By what principle will this extra-ecclesial standard or criterion be chosen? By another principle itself extra-Orthodox? If the new Council finds new standards, then, either it must accept theological and/or cultural relativism or confess a new Revelation from God. In either case, it will render its decisions relative, open to continual revision and, consequently, discredit itself and the timeless truths of Christ. It will, then, also introduce a horrendous host of new problems, such as demonstrating its reasons for relativizing our past and, at the same time, justifying the truth, necessity and applicability of the new theological criteria and categories.

On the other hand, if the Council receives our Orthodox inheritance with honor, trust and obedience, its conclusions can be nothing other than that which has already been proclaimed by the Russian Synod. Thus, Protestants and Papists are heretics, because, to use the words of St. Basil the Great, their difference (he diaphora) with us relates directly to ‘the faith in God itself’ (peri tes autes tes eis Theon pisteous. Canon 1). Father Alexander is surely aware of the innumerable conciliar decisions and patriarchal epistles (e.g., the Three Answers of Jeremiah II, Confessio Dosithei, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), the Council of Constantinople (1872), etc.) which have encouraged the heterodox to enter the Orthodox Church, ‘the Ark of Salvation’ (Holy Russian Synod, 1904). Indeed, our relationship to all heretics in all times has been clearly delineated by the Scriptures (Eph. 4: 14, II Tim. 2: 15-18, Tit. 2: 9-10, Gal. 1: 8-9, and Heb. 13: 9); by the canons (Apostolic Canons 10, 11, 45, 65; St. Timothy of Alexandria, Canon 9, etc.); and the writings of the Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresus; St. Cyprian of Carthage, De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae; St. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, etc. In other words, the consensus in time has determined and must determine the consensus in space if Orthodoxy is to remain faithful to her spiritual and doctrinal heritage. There is a judgement upon current ecumenism, and the "appeal" of Metropolitan Philaret to his episcopal brethren is no more than a call to confirm, formally and publicly, their obedience to that judgement.

The demand of that "judgement," the Metropolitan maintains, is that the ecumenical movement, as it is, must be condemned. To be sure, there is "good ecumenism," that is, to confront the heterodox with the Apostolic Tradition. to explain and defend it. Although we might assemble with the non-Orthodox for this purpose, neither common prayer or worship nor spiritual intimacy is possible. On the other hand. "bad ecumenism" is participation in this movement with little or no regard for the dictates of Orthodox life, law and doctrine. Therefore, we can participate in this movement only on the basis that our presence be understood as a testimony, a mission, not as a dialogue between equals. However, the WCC and the NCC, the entire "ecumenical movement" has become something incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology. For example, the WCC is gradually being secularized. i.e., offering mankind the "social Gospel" instead of salvation in Jesus Christ. In its demeanor, utterances and its liturgies, the WCC gives clear indication that it has passed from the initial stage of definition or ‘form’ to the present stage of ‘function.’

A propos this contention is the Ecumenical Service of the At-One-Ment, held at the First United Presbyterian Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma (Jan. 26, 1969). The liturgy begins with an Organ Prelude, then, The Call to Worship, the Processional Hymn, the Invocation, the Anthem, the Offertory and the Doxology. The entire Service is Protestant in structure and interdenominational in spirit. The clear impression is that all the ‘churches’ belonging to the WCC compose the Church. Thus, the ‘Leader,’ as he is called, reads a list of names—some of them are Orthodox Fathers, Confessors and Martyrs—then follow such ‘ecumenical saints’ as Dante, Michelangelo, Bach, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Cranmer, John Knox, Milton, Fox, Wesley, Walter Rauchenbach, Albert Schweitzer, Kagawa, John XXIII, Martin Luther King, Eugene Carson Blake, Julian Bond, Karl Barth, Harvey Cox, Gandhi, etc. Then, the words of the People’s response: "Reform your Church, Father, and give her the courage to be, to follow you and do your word; May she cease in her attempts to dominate men; May she make no more demands and claim no more privileges, but only try to contribute to men’s happiness; May she neither repel nor exclude anyone by the words she uses or the ideas she has, but be open to everyone who seeks to live a happy and creative life. . . ." After a few more similar verses, the Leader and People together proclaim, "I saw the city of God, the new holy Jerusalem... ." Then, the sermon by M. M. Thomas, an Anthem, Closing Hymn, Benediction, Recessional and the Organ Postlude, "Built on the Rock the Church Doth Stand."

As Father Schmemann is fond of saying, lex orandi, lex credendi—law of worship or prayer is the law of belief;" or, in another way, worship is the ‘epiphany’ of faith. If he is correct, then the ecumenical Service of the At-One-Ment—in which Orthodox participated—is the lex orandi of the ecumenical lex credendi. Hence, his statement that "the unity of ‘ecumenism’ is a myth which makes it impossible to use this term of a ‘heresy’ for it" —is nonsense. Its lack of ‘unity’ proves nothing. Neither the ‘unity’ nor ‘disunity’ of a sect has anything to do with its heterodoxy. Neither the ancient Gnostics nor modern Protestants are unified, nor were the ancient Nestorians or (until this decade) Papism without unity. Moreover, the lack of ‘unity’ in ecumenism may be the very nature of the heresy. (We must wait and see whether it becomes something other than a potpourri of denominations.) Ecumenism now is reminiscent of Freemasonry: a common-denominator deity, a common morality and worship, the peculiar theological beliefs of each member left to himself. The result, of course, is religious subjectivism.

Ecumenism, however, has a discernable substantia—it is a soteriological heresy which is at once the context and apex of all those heresies which preceded it. The triadological, christological, mariological, cosmological, ecclesiological and anthropological heresies each in its turn came forward to entice the Church and failed. Now, however, they are regrouped and united, led in their assault by ecumenism, the religious progeny of a long Western epistemological nightmare. Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada comes to a similar conclusion:

"Ecumenism is the heresy of heresies, because until now every separate heresy in the history of the Church has striven itself to stand in the place of the true Church, while the ecumenical movement, having united all heresies, invites them all together to honor themselves as the one true Church. Here ancient Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, Pelagianism, and simply every possible superstition of the contemporary sects under completely different names, have united and charge to attack the Church. This phenomenon is undoubtedly of an apocalyptic character ("Ecumenism," The Orthodox Word, July-August, 1969, p. 155.)

Since ecumenism is an encompassing perversion of Christian doctrine, it strikes at the very heart of the Christian Economy: salvation; and because it is the anti-type of the Catholic Church, it ironically relates ‘salvation’ and the ‘Church.’ But it is a ‘salvation’ and a ‘Church’ without the Truth. It denies to Orthodoxy, of course, and to itself the possession of the divine and saving Truth. To say as it was said, "To seek the Truth, which we have not known. . . . (Invoc. Prayer, Uppsala, 1968) is to assert a belief utterly foreign to Orthodox experience. It is tantamount to denying the Church Her deifying powers. It offers an evolutionary, vitalist and utopian ecclesiology, abrogates the scandalon of the Church and prepares ‘the Church’ for her secular quest.

Yet, Father Schmemann refuses to call ecumenism a heresy or those ‘Orthodox’ who have become an organic part of the WCC, apostates. He is content to denounce Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod for calling Archbishop Iakovos and Patriarch Athenagoras pseudo-bishops. He contends that Metropolitan Philaret has ‘prejudged’ them and, therefore, characterizes his Epistle as ‘hypocritical.’ Why, Father inquires, call for a judgement upon those men when you have already condemned them? "The very purpose of the appeal is precisely to call the brother-bishops to judge and evaluate another bishop’s action," he declares. But the Metropolitan nowhere in his Epistle states that he seeks a vote from his ‘brother-bishops,’ only concurrence with the Orthodox Tradition. His ‘appeal,’ then, is no summation to the jury; it is an exhortation to obedience. Metropolitan Philaret wants agreement with the temporal consensus—not his own personal intuitions.

Anyone who teaches, as does the Ecumenical Patriarch, that the Church should be ‘refounded’ (Christmas Message, 1967) or espouses a crypto-branch theory of the Church, such as that propounded by Archbishop Iakovos (The Orthodox Observer, April, 1961) stands condemned. Metropolitan Philaret does not condemn them.

Nevertheless, Father Alexander will admit only that these men have "provoked serious controversy" in the Church. The value of their opinions (and Metropolitan Philaret’s) must await conciliar decision—which, he says, the Metropolitan urges while, at the same time, ‘prejudging’ the issue. Again, Father Schmemann errs, for he fails to reckon with the explicit teaching of the Church that a council is unnecessary when a bishop ‘publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church.’ And, to be sure, those who withdraw from him or sever relations with him ‘before synodical clarification’ are not ‘subject to canonical penalty’ and ‘have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they sought earnestly to deliver Her’ (Council of Constantinople, 861, Canon XV). What is commended and sanctioned by this canon is the immediate concurrence with temporal consensus and separation from a ‘false bishop.’ Metropolitan Philaret clearly acted in the spirit of this canon.

But who is it that Father Schmemann accuses of ‘schism’? —the Synod. How strange it is that a church whose "fidelity to the teachings of the Orthodox Church . . . Apostolic Succession ... the piety of the clergy or laity" cannot be denied, as St. Vladimir’s Professor Bogolepov wrote in his Towards an American Orthodox Church (New York, 1963), should find herself ostracized by Orthodox for the sake of ecumenism and heretics. And is it not curious that those ‘Orthodox’ who openly and blatantly break the canons, advocate the ‘branch theory’ or some form of it, who offer Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, are honored as great Christians and good sons of the Church? Now Father Alexander, not unaware of the Synod’s faithfulness to Orthodoxy, cleverly seeks to sidestep the real problem. He states not that the Synod has been declared ‘schismatic’—and, therefore, uncanonical—but has ‘of her own volition’ withdrawn from the Universal Church—I assume he means the Orthodox Church. Then, he compares the Synod to the Donatists of the 4th century, an analogy which is inapplicable. The Donatists were in fact heretics, because they departed from the traditional sacramentology of the Church and identified themselves as the Catholic Church. Blessed Augustine made this same observation and refuted them in eleven different treatises.

Another indication of the Synod’s ‘schismatic mentality,’ according to Father Schmemann, is the presumption with which she ‘rebaptizes’ heretics coming to Orthodoxy. He says that the "leaders of ‘the Russian Church Outside of Russia’ know perfectly well that the Russian Church, whose tradition they claim to maintain, for the last three hundred years did not rebaptize the heterodox whose baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity she could ascertain His statement is misleading for many reasons: (1) that the Synod may ‘rebaptize’ Christian converts is permissable, since, as Father ‘knows perfectly well,’ the heterodox have no ‘baptism.’ Thus, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, "None but heretics are rebaptized, because their former ‘baptism’ was no baptism" (Procat., 7); and (2) that ‘the Russian Church’ has not ‘rebaptized’ the heterodox for three hundred years is unimportant. The Orthodox Church of Russia has ‘rebaptized’ heretics in the past—a canonical and theological precedent exists; (3) that ‘the Russian Church’ has received heretics without immersion is not the same as accepting them without baptism, for, as Father Alexander ‘knows perfectly well,’ the entire rite of initiation, the sacramental rite of incorporation into the Church—baptism—includes not only sanctified water, but also chrism and Holy Communion; (4) the Orthodox Church has applied the principles of canonical akrebia (strictness) and economia (accomodation) according to her needs. Those principles have not always been applied uniformly; thus, the Orthodox Church of Greece may use one while the Orthodox Church of Russia employs the other. In times of greatest danger, the Churches invariably turn to akrebia, as the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Cyril V and Paisius II, did in the face of the 18th-century Jesuit menace. The Synod looks upon ecumenism as a threat; therefore, some of her clergy are following a traditional practice of the Church by ‘rebaptizing’ Christian converts; and (5) Father Alexander speaks of ‘the Russian Church’ as if she were not a member of the Universal Church, as if the ‘tradition’ of ‘the Russian Church’ were distinct from the Apostolic Tradition which governs all Orthodox Churches. It is true that the Tradition has circumstantial application, but the ‘tradition’ of ‘the Russian Church’ remains the Tradition of the Universal Church. Consequently, even if the Russian Church during some 300 years had no local precedent on ‘rebaptism,’ the Synod could appeal to the Church at large.

Ignoring such facts, Father Schmemann, throughout his polemic against Metropolitan Philaret, continues to misrepresent the position of the Synod. These misrepresentations arise often from his own ambivalence and uncertainty. Thus, Father Alexander’s article tends to oscillate between whether the Synod is ab initio uncanonical or uncanonical by virtue of her ostensible withdrawal from communion with the universal Orthodox episcopate. He may not in fact know that originally the canonicity of the Synod was accepted by virtually every other Orthodox Church. Not even Archbishop Iakovos questioned it until Metropolitan Philaret’s Open Letter to him in 1968. From the very first, the Synod was invited to become a member of the Standing Conference of Canonical [sic*]Orthodox Bishops in America. It was only when a similar invitation was extended to the Moscow Exarch that she declined to join. "We never and nowhere will sit at one table with them," writes Archpriest George Grabbe, "but by this our spiritual communion with the Universal Church is not broken." [5]

Evidentally, Father Grabbe is right, because, despite the eventual recognition of the post-1927 Moscow Patriarchate by the other Orthodox churches and the ban it placed upon the Synod, the latter remained within the Universal Church. For example, in the Near East, Synodal priests served in Greek churches and vice-versa. In 1955, His Beatitude, Christopher, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, requested that the late Metropolitan Anastassy take part in the consecration of a bishop for his jurisdiction. In 1968, Metropolitan Ignatius of Latakia (Antioch) participated in the consecration of Bishop Nicander as Suffragan Bishop of Sao Paolo, Brazil. Elsewhere, the Greek Bishop Dionysius of New Zealand collaborated in the order by which Metropolitan Philaret was designated Bishop of Brisbane (1964). In the United States, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) of New York assisted at the elevation of the late Syrian Metropolitan, Antony Bashir (1936), on the request of the Patriarch of Antioch. On the death of Metropolitan Anastassy, Patriarch Athenagoras sent the people of the Synod a telegram of condolence, and Archbishop Iakovos chanted a Trisagion over the remains of the late Metropolitan.

Now with the spread of "ecumania" and the vocal opposition of Metropolitan Philaret to it, the Synod is viewed as ‘schismatic’ and ‘uncanonical.’ It is true that she has ‘voluntarily’ broken communion with some Orthodox churches, but it is likewise not inaccurate to say that the Synod has been isolated. Therefore, the idea that the Synod has ‘of her own volition’ gone into schism is false. Rather should it be said that she has followed the Biblical injunction—We command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from all brethren that walk disorderly, and not after the tradition that you have received from us (II Thes. 3: 6). The Synod has ‘withdrawn’ from apostasy—or been separated from it.

But Father Schmemann construes that ‘separation’ as a schism of the Russian Synod and therefore inquires: "One may ask, to which ‘brothers,’ to which ‘Primates’ is the ‘Sorrowful Epistle’ addressed? Since the Synod believes all other Orthodox bishops to be in schism and heresy—as a result of their ecumenism—and, therefore, no longer Orthodox, no longer members of the Church, no longer Bishops, the ‘appeal’ to the Orthodox episcopate as ‘brothers’ is, to say the least, illogical and meaningless. One cannot pretend to uphold the canons and at the same time deny canonical protection to those whom she has already condemned." He then lists four steps by which a ‘church’ falls into ‘schism’ and, eventually, ‘heresy’ through her denial of ‘the action of the Holy Spirit’ in the body from which she has seceded. The suggestion here is that the Synod has fallen or will fall into heresy if she refuses to desist from her present course.

Father Alexander’s theology here is poor. In the first place, that some Orthodox bishops have succumbed to the heresy of ecumenism, that many have violated the canons, does not constitute a Synodal schism. Again, that some Orthodox bishops have apostacized or gone into schism is not a verdict of the Synod, but of the Apostolic Tradition. Neither is it the Synod which denies those bishops ‘canonical protection,’ but the canons themselves. Furthermore, Father Alexander fails to distinguish between ‘heresy’—theological departure from the Faith—and ‘schism’—an administrative rupture. Although heretics are not members of the Church, schismatics retain their membership (I Const., Canon 6). Thus, violation of canon law which may, in some instances, lead to schism does not necessarily involve apostasy. To break a canon law may be impious, but in itself it is not heretical. As far as I know, the Synod has accused only a few ‘Orthodox’ ecumenists of heresy, others of schism; she remains in communion with a number of Orthodox Churches and is looked to as a beacon of Orthodoxy by the Catacomb Church of Russia, by the monks of Mount Athos, and by the Greek Old Calendarists. Therefore, it may be said that despite the ‘ecumenism’ of the Orthodox episcopacy in general, her individual members are within the Orthodox Church, that is to say, so long as those ecumenists do not consciously repudiate the teachings of the Church nor adopt ecumenical ecclesiology and soteriology. Since most of our bishops are misguided and not heretical, it would seem that Metropolitan Philaret’s ‘Sorrowful Epistle’ is logical, meaningful and urgent.

We suggest, therefore, a serious re-appraisal of the Russian Synod and of our participation in the so-called ‘ecumenical movement.’ It should be clear to all that the only effect of our current involvement with the heterodox is a scandal to those who wish their Orthodoxy pristine, further confusion to weak Orthodox, greater comfort to the indifferent, and continued compromise by the ‘liberal mentality’ whose ecumenical posture the continuous stream of ugly polemic against the Synod seeks to justify. Despite whatever sins she may have, the Synod is correct. Father Schmemann cannot shake this fact by falsely accusing the Synod of "adding new divisions to our Church, for creating an atmosphere of suspicion and ultimately schism." Such imprecations might more profitably be leveled at Athenagoras of Constantinople, Iakovos, Athenagoras of London, Nikodim of Leningrad-Novgorod, the Metropolia’s John Shahovskoy, etc. There is no justification for Father Alexander’s diatribe against the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, save that her bold witness to Orthodoxy is a constant reproach to those who seek to revise "the faith once delivered to the saints."

Likewise, it would be advisable not to charge the Synod with negating "canons and procedures, jurisdictional rights and due process." Whatever may be the ecumenists’ concern for such things, their own actions prove that they use them arbitrarily, selectively, and when it suits their own convenience. Again, Father Alexander argues that the Synod behaves as if there were a consensus against ecumenism when in fact, he says, there is none. But ecumenists act as if there were a consensus for ecumenism and behave as if the canons did not exist. He maintains that the Synod condemns such hierarchs as Iakovos and ‘the Ecumenical Patriarch’ without ‘due process,’ but he and the other anti-Synodalists have pronounced the Synod schismatic—virtually heretical—without ‘due process.’ He says that the Synod raids other jurisdictions, pilfering their priests, when Father Alexander ‘knows perfectly well’ that she has the duty to receive those in flight from apostasy; and he should know that the Synod otherwise never accepts other clergy without an official and canonical release. He mentions the irregular conduct and attitude of the Synod towards other Orthodox jurisdictions, but he utters not a word about the members of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops who do not recognize each others’ ‘canonicity.’ He likes to think of the Synod as trouble-maker, but he overlooks the ‘trouble-makers’ who undermine the entire episcopal structure of the Orthodox Church by their contempt for canon law and the spiritual life.

One may very well call it ironical that a Church which has produced such men as Archbishop Leonty of Geneva, Archbishop John Maximovitch, Archbishop Tikhon of San Francisco, Metropolitan Anastassy—all of whom reposed with divine odor—a Church which has innumerable monastic centers, which publishes journals such as Orthodox Life, The Orthodox Word, La foi transmise, etc., which has translated countless liturgical, ascetical and patristic works into various languages, which has organized missions in America and abroad and which has suffered persecution and slander for the sake of our Holy Faith, should be branded ‘uncanonical,’ ‘schismatic,’ ‘trouble-maker’ by her own brethren, There is no explanation but the devil working through this present age. The Scriptures have rightly said that in Godless times, in the last days, ‘righteousness’ will be called ‘unrighteousness,’ ‘light, darkness,’ ‘truth, falsehood,’ and ‘good, evil’... .

Endnotes
1. The head of the "Holy Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox Church-in-Exile," Archbishop Palladios, is a member of the Standing Conference of Canonical Bishops in America. Apparently, the Standing Conference recognizes "churches-in-exile," the opinion of Fr. Schmemann notwithstanding.

2. In 1936, a Sobor of Bishops was convoked in Pittsburgh at which was announced: "With great joy, beloved, we inform you that we unanimously accept the temporary status of the Russian Church Abroad... . All our archpastors with our Metropolitan (Theophilus) at the head, join themselves to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is the highest Church organ for all our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which at the same time remains an integral part of the All-Russian Church" (Quoted, "The Historical Path of the Russian Orthodox Church in America," Novoye Russkoe Slovo, Feb. 7, 1970).

3. The Holy Fathers forbid the giving of the Holy Communion to the heterodox. "With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast your Pearls before swine, lest we become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation For if union is in truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly voluntarily united also, with all those who partake with us... . " (St John Damascus, De Fid. Orth., IV, 13)

4. It cannot be doubted that the Metropolia was part of the Russian Synod Abroad, but separated from her in 1946. The Cleveland Sobor, writes Dimitry Grigorieff, "promulgated the withdrawal of the American Metropolia from membership in the Russian Synod of Bishops Abroad. Since then the Synodical group has become a distinctively separated church organization in America once again" ("The Historical Background of Orthodoxy in America," Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Ibid., p. 41. Mr. Grigorieff gives no reason for the ‘withdrawal’.

5. "An Answer to Archbishop John and Fr. Joseph Pishtey," Orthodox Life, I (1970), 29.

* Fr. Michael incorrectly inserts the word "Canonical" in the SCOBA acronym. This word was not in the original acronym, but has unfortunately crept into it through frequent usage.

Fr. Michael's rejoinder appeared in The Orthodox Word, Vol. VI, No. 3 (May-June 1970), pp. 128-143. For an Orthodox treatment of the concepts of "unity," "schism," and "heresy", etc., see the Ecumenism Awareness: References and Terms page. Also, Metropolitan Philaret wrote two more "Sorrowful Epistles" after the one Fr. Alexander criticized.

source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul2.aspx

On the Importance of Observing Lent

2008-10-18T12:06:00.000-07:00

"On the Importance of Observing Lent" by Met. Philaret [Voznesenky]

It is amazing with what little concern so many of us regard the Church fasts. These fasts are broken and not observed by people with such a quiet conscience, as if a trifling and insignificant matter were occurring. The Church's view is altogether different. According to its teaching, breakers of lent, without a worthy reason, must be denied Holy Communion for several years. St. Seraphim of Sarov said straightforwardly:

"He who does not observe lent is not a Christian, regardless of who he considers himself to be or what he calls himself...."

Lent is unconditionally necessary for man. Externally, lent is a spiritual struggle of absolute, filial obedience to the Church, which teaching should be sacred to him, not something to be neglected or trampled. Internally, lent is a struggle of self-denial. In this lies its great value and meaning insofar as a strict observance of lent tempers man's will and successively improves his character, making him steadfast in his religious convictions and actions. Let us not forget that Christ Himself fasted and foretold that His Apostles would also fast. He said of the evil diabolical power that,

"That kind does not leave except by prayer and fasting."

It is often said today that lent is harmful for our health, Of course, instances occur when an organism does not need fasting but increased nourishment. The Church does not demand a strict fast from the sick, but only according to their strength. The main thing which we must remember is that only people who do not observe lent themselves speak about the "harmfulness" of lent. Those who observe lent will never say this for they know that lent is not only harmless but positively beneficial for physical health, from their own personal experience. We are convinced of this historical reality. It is well known how strictly our ancestors used to fast, amazing other Slavs and Greeks, not to mention the heterodox with their firmness and endurance. Who will say that our ancestors were weaker than we, that we are more tenacious and stronger than they? We are not even mentioning the fact that our doctors, in many cases, start the treatment of illness with a fasting diet.

Of course, lent is not only the restriction of physical food. During the days of lent, the Church sings:

"Fasting physically, let us also fast spiritually ... Let us give the hungry bread and lead the homeless into our house ... A true fast is the alienation of evil, the curbing of the tongue, the putting aside of fury, the removal of lust, speaking evil, deceit, and oath breaking ..."

For a Christian, lent is a time of denial and self-education in all respects. The Christian fast, required from the faithful, gives them great moral satisfaction, A great teacher of shining Christian asceticism, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, says the following about lent:

"Lent seems to be gloomy until you enter into its sphere of action; but only begin and you will see that this is light after night, freedom after fetters, alleviation after a burdened life."

"Essays on Moral Theology for Young Students", Harbin 1936

The Calendar Question

2008-10-07T11:02:00.001-07:00

THE CALENDAR QUESTION
by Reverend Basile Sakkas
Translated from the French by Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston

INTRODUCTION by Blessed Philaret

The Holy apostle commands us saying, “Hold fast the traditions which ye
have received, whether by word of mouth or through an epistle of ours.” (2 Thes. 11:15). It is therefore with genuine joy that we recommend to you this present study written by a Greek brother, Fr. Basil Sakkas, who is a priest under our Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia serving in Geneva, Switzerland. It is the voice of a true Orthodox Christian of the Greek Church, which Church has been afflicted for the last fifty years with divisions, and contention, and persecution on account of the innovation of the New Calendar which was brought about in 1924 by modernists in a hasty and most uncanonical manner.

Fr. Basil sets forth in a clear fashion the reasons why many of our Greek
Orthodox brethren refused to follow after the uncanonical change of the calendar in their Church in 1924 and, being aided by the fathers of the Holy Mountain Athos, courageously and justly withstood this innovation which was the beginning of an inundation of innovations perpetuated by the modernists until the sorry state in which we are found today of the heresy of Ecumenism.

All serious and concerned Orthodox Christians should pay attention to this work of Fr. Basil, especially today when there is talk by the modernists of changing the Orthodox Paschalia. The translation and printing of this study is especially precious since the texts of the three condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar enacted by Pan-Orthodox councils in the 16th Century and the Pan- Orthodox condemnation of modernism last century presided over by Patriarch Anthemus appear for the first time in English.

These condemnations were never lifted by any later council -- they still
stand and are binding for all Orthodox Christians. The innovation of the New Calendar brought about schism in all the local churches that adopted it. Thus, Greece, Cyprus, Rumania, and now Bulgaria have tasted the fruits of disobedience. It is only to be regretted that the Orthodox peoples of the above-mentioned Churches were not able to all rise up together and as a great wave overcome and put down this tide of innovations, as the Russian people put down the modernism of the “Living Church” in this century.

Our own Russian Church in the person of the then Archbishop Anastassy of blessed memory, later Metropolitan and the First Hierarch of our Synod, strongly and resolutely protested the innovation of the New Calendar and the other modernisms of Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis of sorry memory at the gathering in Constantinople in 1923, which is wrongly referred to as Pan-Orthodox since the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem and the Church of Cyprus did not attend. Most hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople also refused to attend, thus protesting the uncanonicity of the forced political appointment of Meletius as Ecumenical Patriarch. The Primate of our Church at that time, Metropolitan Anthony, also protested against that reform in his correspondence with the Eastern Patriarchs and received answers supporting his stand.

“Glory and honor,” therefore, in the words of the Holy Apostle, to all who
hold fast the traditions and keep the Faith as we have received it without additions or subtractions even though they be slandered and persecuted.

†Metropolitan Philaret

The 14th of April, 1972
Feast of St. Martin the Confessor, pope of Rome,
and the bishop confessors with him in the West.

source:http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20CALENDAR%20QUESTION.pdf

Sermon: Holy Cross 3rd Sunday Lent

2008-09-28T12:37:00.000-07:00

Translated by Eugenia and edited by Joanna

for the final version see Living Orthodoxy magazine issue # 185 or later.

From the Collection of Sermons by St. Metropolitan Philaret, Vol. I, pp 123-126

The Holy Life-giving Cross of the Lord

“Rejoice, O life-giving Cross," "the invincible victory of piety," "the heavenly door," "confirmation of the faithful," "protection of the Church," "for by it the curse is destroyed" and "abolished," and the "reign of death is trampled" and "we are raised up from earthly to heavenly things," "invincible weapon," "resistance of demons," "glory of martyrs," the true "adornment of the saints", the "haven of salvation," "granting to the world great mercy.” With these words (and many others) today the Church magnifies and glorifies the life-giving Cross, this weapon of our salvation.

We all know, of course, that the life-giving cross is our main holy object, our main spiritual treasure. And the Church glorifies this holy object in a special manner. During the course of the entire year, on Wednesdays and Fridays, in Church hymns and practically on every Sunday, the Cross is glorified. It is brought out triumphantly three times during the year for veneration: in the summer, on the first of August [old style], we commemorate the procession of the Cross out from the cathedral in Constantinople and along the streets of that royal city; on the 14th of September [old style] we commemorate the main feast, the triumphant and elevation of the Cross; and on today's feast, we commemorate the Cross in the middle of the Great Lent.

Why is it that the Church namely on this day, the third Sunday of Great Lent, so particularly offers us the Cross for prayer and veneration?

In the Old Testament there was an episode which the Holy Bible relates, when the Hebrew people who were wandering in the desert under the leadership of the prophet and God-seer Moses, were walking along the desert for a long time without water, and finally they began to grow weak from thirst. Finally they saw a spring with water. Exhausted, and at the height of their suffering they ran to this spring, but alas, the water turned out to be so unbearably bitter, that it was impossible to drink. They called out to Moses. Moses directly turns to the Lord Himself in prayer, pointing out to Him the woeful state of the people and this spring of water; and the Lord indicates to him a tree which he must with prayer immerse into the water of this spring. When Moses did this, a wondrous change occurred with the water, and it became pleasant to the taste and refreshing, as it happens only with the best and purest sources of water.

And it was this particular miracle, as the Holy Fathers pointed out, that was a prefiguration of how the Life-giving Cross sweetens the turbulent and bitter waters of the sea of life in which you and I now find ourselves.

But particularly now, during the Great Lent, the Church reminds us of the Cross and offers it to us, in order to give us courage and strengthen us for the continuation of our podvig of carrying the cross.

Of course, for him who does not fast, this is incomprehensible – he sees no need for this; but for him who observes the fasts, he knows that human frailty becomes apparent during this labor of fasting and that a person grows weak; and in order to encourage him and spiritually strengthen him, the Church reminds him of the Cross, of what the Lord Jesus Christ did for us people, how He took upon Himself our sins, nailed them to the Cross, became nailed Himself to it and through His sufferings upon the Cross, obtained for us our salvation and clemency from Divine Justice.

This is particularly comprehensible for great fasters and ascetics, true monks in strict monasteries. In such places they fast strictly, harshly, not sparing themselves. Certain fasters spend entire days completely without food and drink. And in order to strengthen human frailty, which weakens with such fasting feats, ascetics turn to the wood of the Cross. It speaks to us of what the Lord endured for us, and by this gives us wings for new labors, new podvigs.

But remember, when we bow down in veneration before the Life-giving Cross, venerate it and kiss it, as our holy object, as our treasure which sanctifies us, we must always keep in mind remembrance of what occurred on the Cross.

The mystery of the Savior's podvig on the Cross consists in His being nailed to the Cross in His Human nature and in this nature he received all sufferings of crucifixion. But at the same time, since He was not merely a man, but God-man, His divine, omniscient nature revealed to Him the full knowledge of all the sins of all people of all ages. And of ours as well. And when He was suffering there, experiencing grievously in these torments the sins of all mankind, our own sins were also there in front of Him, and He sorrowed for them and received crucifixion for them – for the sins of each one of us.

Concerning this, the Holy Fathers tell us the following: since the power of His podvig on the Cross, its salvific effect, extends over all times, and consequently touches all mankind's sins, then each time, when you and I commit a sin, it is as if we exacerbate the suffering which the Lord endures on the Cross for us. The Holy Fathers said this directly; that sinners who sin impenitently are crucifying the Son of God a second time, as if nailing Him to the Cross again, as if personally participating in the terrible blows under which the nails of the Cross pierced the body of our Lord.

There is an account concerning the miracle-working icon of the Mother of God “Unexpected Joy”, where it is said, that a certain man, a sinner, often walked by the Icon of the Mother of God, despite the fact that he was on his way to commit his sins, yet with faith and reverence glorified Her, pronouncing the angelic salutation “Rejoice O Virgin Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed art Thou among women.” And then one day, after such a greeting, he suddenly sees with horror, how the image seems to have come alive, that the Mother of God and the Savior seem to be alive on it, and from the wounds of the Savior, live blood is streaming. He began to shake, and falling before the image in horror, he asks the Mother of God: “Mother of Mercy, intercede for me a sinner before Thy Son, that He would forgive me my lawlessness.” And She answers him: “You call me Mother of Mercy, yet you are not merciful to My Son, for each time when you sin impenitently, you nail Him a second time to the Cross.” The sinful man implored and persuaded her. She obtained forgiveness for him from Her Son – but what an edification is this for us!

Remember this, Christian, and when bowing down before the cross and kissing it, pray to the Lord, that the Lord, through the power of the Cross, would strengthen you in your battle against sin, so that you might not sin impenitently and through this unrepented sin, not nail again your Lord to the cross. Amen.

NFTU News Of Blessed Philaret's Glorification

2008-09-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

Notes From The Underground
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenskiy) to be Glorified-- Again!

(NFTU) Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), the third First-hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, is scheduled to be officially glorified by the ROCOR-PSCA in November of this year, in the fourth recorded ceremony known to us at this website. The level of certainty that Metropolitan Philaret is a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church among Russian True Orthodox Christians is extremely impressive, considering the scope of their divisions.

Metropolitan Philaret was the Primate of the Russian Church Abroad from 1964 until 1985, the year of his repose. His relics were opened and revealed to be incorrupt in 1998. The first official glorification service of Metropolitan Philaret was performed under the auspices of the ROAC (Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church) on April 30 and May 1, 2001.

Shortly afterwards, the HOCNA, a group which broke from the ROCOR in 1986, officially glorified Metropolitan Philaret on May 19 and May 20, 2001.

On the basis of the incorrupt relics, a cultus to Metropolitan Philaret began in what would become the ROCOR (V), which formed in late 2001 after the fourth First-Hierarch of ROCOR left the communion of the ROCOR. Since then, a number of splits have taken place within the ROCOR (V). The last remaining original faction of the ROCOR (V), under Bishops Vladimir of North America and Anastassy of the Eurasian district, decided to glorify Metropolitan Philaret in April of this year.

The holy Metropolitan Philaret is perhaps best known for the four most controversial documents in the recent history of Orthodoxy-- the three Sorrowful Epistles to the Patriarchs of World Orthodoxy and the Anathema against Ecumenism, which are widely regarded as impressive, if isolated, appeals which at least to some degree changed the direction of the ecumenical movement within Orthodoxy. A priest of the OCA once kindly remarked on the matter, "Metropolitan Philaret drew the line." With these glorifications, in death and as a marker between Churches for and against the ecumenical movement, the Metropolitan is increasingly becoming the line itself.

The glorification on the part of the ROCOR-PSCA will take place between November 21-23, 2008, at Holy Trinity Church in Astoria, NY.

source: http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2008/09/metropolitan-philaret-voznesenskiy-to.html

Reminiscences Fr. Aleksey Mikrikov

2008-09-07T21:29:00.000-07:00

Reminiscences of a Russian Clergyman About Saint Philaret Metropolitan of New York, the New Confessor.
REMINISCENCES OF A RUSSIAN CLERGYMAN
ABOUT SAINT PHILARET
METROPOLITAN OF NEW YORK,
THE NEW CONFESSOR.
(Primarily About His Years in China)

ONE

From 1904 to 1945 the Japanese occupied Manchuria. The Japanese tried at
all costs to keep this Chinese province in their hands, since it supplied huge
supplies for Japan and gave them a foothold on the continent, and to them this
made strong international military‐political sense.

But the Japanese were hampered by the Russian immigrants, who had a
different mentality. To use the Russian young people in the military the Japanese
first attempted to destroy the social‐religious mentality of our immigration. To
this end they placed an idol of the goddess Amateresu opposite St. Nicholas
Cathedral so that the Russian people, going to the divine services, had first to
bow to the idol, and then they could go to pray to Christ God.

Metropolitan Melety reacted immediately: he issued a proclamation in
which he explained the inadmissibility of bowing to an idol. Then the Japanese
began to accuse Metropolitan Melety and the clergy with contradicting their
authority. Archimandrite Philaret especially decisively objected to the Japanese.
The Japanese seized him and began to torture him. They lacerated his cheek and
almost tore out an eye, but he survived the torture.

The head torturer then said to Fr. Philaret: “We have an electronically
heated tool, under whose influence all have agreed to fulfill our requests; you
will agree also! (Fr. Philaret personally told me this himself.) The torturer
brought out the glowing electrical tool. Then Fr. Philaret prayed to St. Nicholas
the Miracle‐worker with the words: “Holy Hierarch Nicholas, help me, otherwise
I might fall into betrayal.”

It was time for the torture. The torturer bared him to the belt and began to
burn his back with the hot iron. And, O, the miracle! Fr. Philaret smelled the
smell of the burned flesh, but he did not feel pain. Happiness was in his soul. The
tormentor did not understand, why does he keep silent, why does he not scream,
why does he not writhe in unbearable pain? Then the tormentor turned and
looked at the face of Fr. Philaret. And when he saw his face, he threw up his
hands amazed, and muttered something in Japanese, and ran off, conquered by
the superhuman force of patience. No one could endure such tortures without
Christ’s divine aid. But the tortures were so cruel that he was close to death. The
almost dying Fr. Philaret was given back to his relatives. This will give you some
idea of it: later he said to me: “I was in hell itself.”

But God did not let him die. The wounds healed, only his eye was
somewhat deformed. And the Japanese no longer demanded the bows from
Orthodox people. All this I heard from Fr. Philaret, but I said nothing since I
thought everyone knew all this.

TWO

In 1945 Soviet troops occupied China and established total Soviet control.
The Soviet regime immediately named all the Russian emigrants “enemies of the
people,” and in six months arrested 50,000—young and old. All 50,000 from
Harbin China were deported to the USSR. At the station of Atpor they shot
14,000 of them, and the remaining 36,000 they sent into the concentration camps,
where they were starved to death.

Every third young person in Harbin was seized by the Soviet regime, and
was taken to the USSR and annihilated in the concentration camps. The Soviet
totalitarian tyranny annihilated them for their Orthodoxy, for non‐recognition of
the Sergianist heresy, which teaches one to obey the God‐fighters
conscientiously. Generally, the Soviet regime killed nearly 70 million Orthodox
people, destroyed more than 30,000 church buildings, took away the land and
property, arranged the genocide of the Orthodox people, introduced social
hostility, blasphemed God, and tore out belief in God by fear and terror. Who
could obey this authority in good conscience and collaborate with it?

The Russian people remaining in Harbin were coerced into accepting
Soviet citizenship. However this Archimandrite Philaret openly refused to do so.
And when he served the Divine Liturgy he never commemorated the Soviet
regime. Instead, he delivered thundering sermons about truth and lies, after the
hearing of which it seemed to us that it would be the last day of his life. He
served a public memorial service for the slain Tsar Nicholas II and the entire
Imperial Family, and the main thing he said in the sermon was that the Great—
Martyr Tsar Nicholas shared the mind of Christ, therefore he was not
brainwashed, he did not have the ruinous spirit of anti‐Christ, which took hold
of the entirety of Russia. Also he arranged a youth circle, at whose meetings he
explained Christ’s teachings.

We young people living in China under the Soviet regime and
experiencing its violence and fear of death, rapidly grasped its anti‐Christian
nature. We understood that if God does not stop it, then everyone would
spiritually break, would become zombies, and would have to serve this world‐
wide evil. It became clear that in the Declaration of 1927 that Metropolitan
Sergius, on the advice of flesh and blood, from fear of losing his life, had fallen
into delusion [prelest], and issued a call for us to obey the Soviet regime in good
conscience and to collaborate with it.

If the Lord said: “Of what benefit is it to a man, if he gains the whole
world, and harms his own soul?” (Mk. 8:36), then Sergius by his Declaration
tried to save the bodies of people, without being attentive to the eternal damage
to their souls. In this we find precisely a pagan concept of good and evil.

The answer to the question “What, then is Sergianism?” became clear to
me. It is a modification of Orthodox consciousness by the pagan understanding
of good and evil, through violence and the fear of death of the population by the
Soviet regime with the aid of the highest Church leadership. An uncomforting
answer, but it is taken from personal practical life, and the obvious case of the life
and service to the Russian Orthodox Church of Archimandrite Philaret. Father
Philaret and Metropolitan Melety with the entire clergy did not bow to the idol
of Amateresu, but Metropolitan Sergius bowed to the godless government,
leading the entire clergy and people into error and sin.

Fr. Philaret took another path. He rejected Sergianism; he did not
collaborate with the government...and gained immense authority as a spiritual
leader in the Russian emigration in Harbin. Then the Soviet regime, in October,
1960, full of spite, decided to destroy him with fire.

THREE

This is how it happened: one night, from Saturday to Sunday,
Archimandrite Philaret arose at about 2:00 a.m. because of a strange smell in his
house, and he went into the living room, in the corner of which was a storeroom.
As he said, smoke was coming from under the doors of the storeroom with a
caustic, bitter smell. He went into the bathroom, poured a basin of water, and
returned to the storeroom, and, after opening its door, splashed water towards
the side where the smoke was coming from. Suddenly, there was an explosion
and a fierce fire. The fire burned him and the force of the explosion was so great,
it lifted him up and threw him across the entire length of the living room so he
struck against the door. Fortunately the door opened outwards, because the bolts
were torn away by the impact of his flying body, and he fell to earth stunned, but
alive. After coming to, he saw the house, which was burning like a torch.
Archimandrite Philaret understood that a fire‐bomb had exploded, which burnt
the house down in a matter of minutes.

On this night, a certain Zinaida Lvovna, one of the sisters from the church
of the House of Mercy, left her house about midnight, situated opposite the
church and saw fire engines in the street near the church—but no fire. This
incomprehensible and extraordinary group of fire engines amazed her. Two
hours later when the sound of the bomb explosion woke her, she immediately
went out into the street and saw the almost entirely burned house, which the
firemen already had stopped putting out. But Archimandrite Philaret stood on
the church porch, shaking from the cold, and suffering from severe burns and
contusion. Zinaida Lvovna immediately understood that the fire had been
arranged by the Soviets for the purpose of killing Fr. Philaret. She rapidly
crossed the street and invited him to come to her house.

But the Chinese fire authorities, seeing Archimandrite Philaret alive,
blamed him for starting the fire and wanted to arrest him. However, the
resourceful Zinaida Lvovna quickly turned to the Chinese authorities and said:
“Does this fit with the fact that you previously brought up the fire engines,
knowing that the fire would start? Who told you in advance about the fire?
The leader of the firemen was at a loss and could not answer. But
meanwhile Zinaida Lvovna together with Archimandrite Philaret went into her
house in which there was a room with no windows. She put Archimandrite
Philaret there because she knew that the Soviet murderers could come through
the window and kill him.

The next day, Sunday, some young people arrived early for the service,
but the church was closed, and the house where the rector lived was burnt to the
ground. I was able to find Zinaida Lvovna and learn from her what had occurred
that night. I asked permission to see Fr. Philaret.

From the first glance I saw that Fr. Philaret was completely exhausted
physically and in pain. His burnt face was dark brown. But his eyes expressed a
firm submission to the will of God and a joyous fearlessness to serve Him and
the Orthodox people. I was speechless from the shock of his appearance, and it
was immediately understandable that he was a hairsbreadth from death. He had
avoided death by some miracle. Then suddenly I heard his greeting: “I greet you
with the Feast.” He said this greeting the way we say on Pascha: “Christ Is
Risen!” Tears came to my eyes instead of an answer. I had not cried from my
youth. But now being a twenty‐year old adult, I knelt before him speechless, with
tears rolling down my face, and kissed his blessing hand.

I understood that, like a fourth Babylonian youth, he had remained
unconsumed by the Chinese furnace heat of the 20th century set by the God‐
fighter Khrushchev seventy times hotter than the Babylonian furnace, lit by
Nabuchodonosor in the sixth century B.C. It was obvious that the grace of God
had saved Fr. Philaret for the resolute and fearless fulfilment of holy Patriarch
Tikhon’s legacy.

FOUR

Two months went by. He again began to serve, and after half a year could already live independently in the separate balcony above the church. But suddenly, he again went to Zinaida Lvovnaʹs. She told me privately that on one occasion Archimandrite Philaret got to his cell after a service, unlocked his door and went in. But suddenly he saw the toes of two large boots protruding from under the curtains. After understanding that a murderer was standing there, sent by the Soviets, he went to a chest of drawers and took something for appearancesʹ sake, and rapidly left the cell, after locking it up. After this episode men from the Chinese police came to Zinaida Lvovna to ask “Why does Archimandrite Philaret not pass the nights in his cell?” She immediately understood what was up and answered: due to his physical weakness and indisposition.

Soon after this Fr. Philaret with spiritual clairvoyance revealed that under the altar in the church of the House of Mercy was a portrait of satan. The portrait was immediately removed. The Soviet godless authorities did not know how to deal with and how to mock a man that has apostolic boldness and faith, which made him a bearer of the unconquerable Grace of God.

A third time there was an attempt on his life in the 70ʹs, at Pascha, when he already had become Metropolitan and First Hierarch of the ROCOR and lived in the USA. But the attempt did not succeed. The fourth attempt occurred aboard a ship, when Metropolitan Philaret was returning from France, after visiting the Lesna convent.

Sailing back to New York City, an extraordinary phenomenon in the boiler of the steamship occurred: suddenly, in broad daylight in the firebox of the boiler there burnt a fire with such force that a pipe heated white hot. The captain of the steamship, not seeing any way to extinguish the fire that threatened to melt the pipe which would then spread the fire over the entire steamship, consuming all on board, went at the critical minute to Vladyka Philaret and asked him to pray, because, in his opinion, only God could save the ship and passengers. Vladyka Philaret listened to the captain and immediately began to pray to God. Ten to twenty minutes passed and the pipe began to redden. But in an hour it had already returned to black. Rescue was given by
God! The captain again went to Metropolitan Philaret, kissed his hand, and emotionally thanked him for his prayers...

Now let us ask ourselves, how could the heat of the boiler acquire such catastrophic force? Did this occur by itself? Or, as before, did the evil hand of the KGB interfere in order to destroy Vladyka?

After passing through all temptations, after passing through fire and water in the spiritual and literal sense, Saint Philaret obtained from the Lord this gift: whoever might turn to him with a request about any matter, by his prayer the Lord fulfilled that request.

And this gift only increased after his repose.

By his holy prayers may the Lord preserve us
in “the Faith one delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3),
and grant us His heavenly Kingdom. Amen.

The author of the above Reminiscences is:
Father Aleksey Mikrikov
Priest attached at one time to
Holy Trinity Monastery
Jordanville, New York
(From the Russian Newspaper
“Nasha Strana”, No. 2791, pp.5‐6. March 2006)
On‐line in Russian: http://portal‐credo.ru/site/?act=news&id+53968&type=view
On‐line in English at our diocesan page:
http://www.homb.net/SaintPhilaretinChinaFULL.pdf
Source for the English:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox‐tradition/message/85454
THE END

source: http://www.saintphilaret.org/Documents/China.pdf

Short Life by SJKP

2008-09-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

The following article is being used with the kind permission of Saint John of Kronstadt Press.

On the feast of the Synaxis of the Archangel Michael and all the Bodiless Powers, 8/21 November 1985, His Eminence the Most Rev. Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, reposed in the Lord.

Born George Nikolaevich. Voznesensky in the city of Kursk, Russia in 1903, he emigrated in 1920 with his family to Harbin, China, to escape the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution. After the death of his mother, his father received the monastic tonsure and was consecrated Bishop of Hailar; he was active in Russian Orthodox church life in Manchuria until the invasion of that country-by Soviet military forces, when he was repatriated to the USSR and died.

As a young man, George Nikolaevitch completed his theological training in Manchuria in 1931. That same year he was ordained deacon, priest and received the monastic tonsure, with the new name Philaret, after Saint Philaret the Almsgiver. In 1934, he became hegumen (Abbott), and in 1937 Archimandrite.

Archimandrite Philaret fulfilled various priestly duties in Harbin, Manchuria, until 1950. He became known for his opposition to the Soviets and rejection of the hope that any substantive change with regard to freedom of religion would be forthcoming in the USSR under Stalin's regime. He categorically refused to accept a Soviet passport, despite tremendous pressure from those Russians deluded by the Soviet propaganda, including his own ecclesiastical superiors.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which had by then established itself in New York, tried persistently to obtain an exit visa for him. It was not until 1962, with the onset of Chairman Mao's "Cultural Revolution", that Archimandrite Philaret was finally permitted to travel to Hong Kong. From there he went immediately to Brisbane, Australia, where a considerable number of his former parishioners from Harbin had settled. Those parishioners deluged the Chancery of the Synod of Bishops with petitions urging his consecration as Bishop of Brisbane. This movement received the support of the late Archbishop Savva of Sydney, who felt the need of a vicar bishop, and in 1963 his consecration occurred.

In 1964, when the elderly Metropolitan Anastassy of Blessed Memory announced his retirement as First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the Bishop of Brisbane, who had accompanied Archbishop Savva to the Council of Bishops, was chosen to replace him.

As First Hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret distinguished himself by steadfastly opposing any organic participation of the Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical movement. His letters to the late Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and to Archbishop Iakovos in America, and his "Sorrowful Epistles" to all Orthodox bishops clearly set forth his stand in that respect, as did his criticism of the infamous "Thyateira Confession" published by the late Archbishop Athenagoras in Britain.

In 1965, he presided over the glorification of St. John of Kronstadt in New York City (the first canonization of any saint celebrated in the United States). He subsequently oversaw the glorifications of St Herman of Alaska (1970, San Francisco), St Xenia of St. Petersburg (1978, New York) and All the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia who have shone forth under the persecution raised by the atheists (1981, New York). It should be noted as well that more saints and martyrs were canonized during Metropolitan Philaret's life than during that of any other ruling hierarch in the history of the Church.

Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret showed a great spiritual concern for all the dioceses for which he was responsible as a Metropolitan. In England, after the repose of Archbishop Nikodem in 1977, he shouldered responsibility for the British Diocese, until Bishop Constantine was appointed. During that period, he several times visited England and showed a lively interest in the attempts to bear missionary witness there. It was under his loving guidance that the first plans were made for the reception and enshrinement of the sacred relics of Saint Edward the Confessor, and by his fiat a Brotherhood was established.

Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret guided the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for some twenty-one years, during a very difficult period in her history. Through this period, many of the older Russian émigrés began to die, and soberly and carefully the Metropolitan encouraged the growth of small mission parishes and monastic sketes. Also during his episcopate, considerable numbers of Orthodox Christians from other ethnic backgrounds (particularly Greek Orthodox Christians) joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. They sought spiritual shelter from the gradual abandonment of Orthodox confession by their own hierarchs. The reception into a church that had hitherto been largely Russian of such groups and individuals was a matter that needed the Metropolitan's wise and careful pastoral oversight.

Nearly a thousand people attended the Metropolitan's funeral, which was held at the Cathedral of the Mother of God of the Sign in New York, on the Sunday after his blessed repose. Eight hierarchs, thirty-one priests and eight deacons led the service. At the end of the ceremony, when the faithful had given their Archpastor the last kiss, his relics were taken to the convent of Novo-Diveevo in Spring Valley, where they rested the night. In the early morning they were taken to Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville. After the Divine Liturgy, they were laid to rest in the crypt of the Cemetery Chapel of the Dormition of the Mother of God.

The handmaiden of God Nadia Mokhoff said, "This man was the kindest. He would take the youth that no one cared about and bring them into the church with nothing but kindness. He was a father to every single one of us." His care for the young people of the Church was something that did indeed characterize his episcopate. His instructions to young people have been published in English translation. Only a year before his blessed repose the Metropolitan presided at the consecration of his vicar, Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan, to whom he particularly entrusted the spiritual care of the youth. Larry Binins in Newsday (Monday, 25th November) caught the key-note of the Metropolitan's ministry by portraying him as "kind Bishop of Russian Orthodoxy"

Let us all, good handmaidens and servants of our Holy Orthodox Church, never forget to pray for the memory of our most beloved blessed Metropolitan Philaret

After Vladyka's repose, the following message was found in his typewriter. No date was indicated, but one must conclude that it was typed within a few days of his peaceful repose. For all us, his spiritual children, it is his spiritual legacy, a reminder for us to live as true Orthodox Christians.

"Hold that fast which thou hast"

These words from the Book of Revelation [Rev 3:11] have a particular significance in our time, our greatly sorrowful and wicked days which are full of temptation. They remind us of that priceless spiritual treasure that we possess, as children of the Orthodox Church. Yes, we are rich. This spiritual wealth is that which the Holy Church possesses. This is the wealth which belongs to all her faithful children... The teaching of the Faith! Our wonderful, salvific Orthodox Faith! The countless living examples of the lives of people who have lived according to the Faith and according to the lofty principles and laws which the Church sets before us. Those who have attained that spiritual purity and exalted state that is called sanctity, the beauty and magnificence of our Orthodox divine services, and a living participation in them through faith and prayer. The fullness of the spiritual life of grace which is accessible to each and every one. And, what is the crown of all, the unity of the children of the Church in that love Of which the savior said: "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" [Jn 13-35].

Metropolitan Philaret

source: http://www.monasterypress.com/mphilaret.html

Uncovering Relics - Informal Account

2008-09-05T20:42:00.000-07:00

The following is an informal account from a believer about the
translation of the remains of Metropolitan Philaret:

"On the third of November, 1998 (O.S.), the coffin of Vladika Metropolitan Philaret was opened in the presence of some priests. I spoke with two of these priests.

They found Vladika's body all covered with a white substance. There was some white mold on the clothes. When they cleaned off this white mold they found the face and hands of Vladika to be completely intact. It was even noted that the body and the skin were in better shape and lighter in color than Vladika John's of Shanghai. The priest washed his hands and face with water and wine. He said that you could see the veins under the skin; and his beard was completely soft. His face was recognizable; even his mouth, which had a little paralysis on the left could be seen. They saw a part of the leg which was also completely intact and soft. They didn't look through the whole body because this is needed to be done by a commission appointed by a decision of the Synod.

What really surprised them was that the material in the coffin surrounding the body was still shining white. A funeral director remarked about this that usually after the third year this material turns black. The vestments of Vladika were shining and bright. The prayer rope in his hand, a green chotki, was like brand new. The piece of paper in the hand (Prayer of Absolution), had no mold and was very clean like fresh paper. On his mitre were paper icons that were bright and had no signs of fading or disintegration. The cloth that covered his face (which is put over the Holy Gifts on the Altar table), was also bright, like brand new.

One thing was affected by decay. The metal clasps on the Gospel were corroded and went to pieces when touched. This is important to note. It was being said by some that the reason for the incorruption of Vladika's body was due to the cold place, "like a refrigerator", in which his coffin had been laid . But the funeral director said that this is not the case at all. The metal parts which were corroded show the condition of the moisture in the coffin. The paper, the fabrics inside the coffin, and the body of Vladika were not affected.

Another point of note was the coffin of Vladika. It was painted black with a white cross. It was like brand new, as if it had been painted yesterday. There were no signs of rotting. The same was true of the mantia covering Vladika's body. It was clean and shining. One person who was there noted that a button on the mantia was corroded by the moisture.

I asked one of the priests what was the feeling when the coffin was opened. He said it was very peaceful, very calm, very solemn.

Then Vladika Laurus came and put a seal on the coffin. After that pannikhidas were served each day during that week, from Monday to Friday. I was there a couple of times. When people venerated his coffin they said they felt it was not an ordinary coffin; they felt some special grace there.

On Friday, the 8th of November (O.S.), the coffin was taken to the main church. It was a rainy day. There were lots of people in the church. A pannikhida was served. The coffin was put in the middle of the church at the beginning of the service, then it was put to the side, on the right, near where the confessions are usually heard. I noticed many people were coming with candles to the coffin and venerating it all during the service.

The next morning, Saturday, the Feast of the Archangel Michael and All Angels, there were about 300 people in church. There were about 30 clergy serving; there was Vladika Laurus, about eleven deacons, and the rest were priests.

At the Liturgy, Fr. Valery Lukianov gave the homily. He remarked on the last words found in Metropolitan Philaret's typewriter: "...hold that fast which thou hast...", (Rev. 3:11). Father Valery said that this is what we must do; to obey and be truthful to the Faith of the Church. He said that maybe Vladika wasn't so good an administrator, but he was a great man of prayer and a true faster. After Liturgies, they would gather to eat and Vladika wouldn't eat after all these services, just have some tea. A few times he would have a little something, but he would eat like a bird. This would surprise everybody because of all his praying and serving. Where did he get such strength?

He told how Vladika was a very merciful man. He helped many people. He helped many people with money and nobody knew about it; he did it in secret. Fr. Valery knew of one woman who came to Vladika; she was broke, with two children, whose husband had abandoned them. Vladika helped her. When Vladika was in his coffin, this same woman was there standing by his coffin, weeping with tears of gratitude for what he had done for her and her children.

Vladika was a very educated man, theologically, and knew the Fathers of the Church very well. Vladika's teaching against ecumenism was rooted in his knowledge of the teachings of the Fathers; it wasn't made up on his own. The greatest events took place while he was Metropolitan. He oversaw the glorification of many Saints: in 1981, the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, including the Royal Martyrs, also St. Herman of Alaska, Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and St. John of Kronstadt. These are truly significant events.

Vladika loved children and young people. At Synod he would have tea parties for boys and girls. He would invite them to talk and discuss things about Church life and the Bible. He truly loved the young generation and cared for their souls. There are many now (no longer young), who can remember how Vladika paid attention to them. He was very calm and very prayerful. He really was a great man of prayer. This and many more things did Father Valery say in his sermon.

After the Divine Liturgy, there was a Pannihkida. Vladika Laurus came out and spoke a few words then. What he said really surprised everybody. Many people who came were disappointed that the coffin was not opened. Some people came to Vladika Laurus to ask him about this. Vladika said that today, once more, we are saying "good-bye" to Vladika Philaret. He was a great man and he was sure that he will be glorified. He explained to the people, who were sorrowful that the coffin was not opened the reasons for this. There are some who felt that the coffin should be buried; let soil go back to soil. If he would open the coffin now it would already be like a veneration of relics and this shouldn't be done yet, as it is against canons. Some are ready to see his body as relics, but some are not ready to see his body as relics; so to prevent some wrong thoughts or feelings, the coffin wouldn't be opened. Vladika Philaret loved the canons, he obeyed them, so now we have to do everything according to the canons. Now a presentation will be made at the meeting of the Synod and we will wait for whatever the Synod will decide. We will just put the coffin in the hole, but not put soil over it. He repeated that people should not be sorrowful that the coffin was closed; Vladika is still with us. He was a holy man and he is with God, and now after seeing that his body was intact, it is an invitation for us to pray to Vladika. And if miracles occur, then it will be a sign, a confirmation to us for the glorification of Vladika Philaret, which he believes will soon take place. It will take place soon. Thirteen years Vladika has lain there and many times he received a request to move his coffin to a different place. Providentially, it did not happen. Now that we have opened the coffin and knowing the conditions where the coffin was, we can see how God showed glory in this man.

Some people said that they were not surprised that Vladika's remains were found incorrupt, because he was a holy man. The people who knew him well and were close to him knew him as a man of deep prayer, a wise spiritual struggler , a faster, and an immovable rock in upholding the integrity of the Faith."

source: http://www.monasterypress.com/relicsaccmphil.html

Enthronement

2008-09-05T20:27:00.000-07:00

The enthronement of Metropolitan Philaret, which took place on Saturday and Sunday, May 17/30 - 18/31, developed into an unprecedented solemn feast which left a deep and abiding impression upon all. To a degree perhaps never before experienced by such a multitude. Participants in this feast felt themselves engulfed by the grace-endowing and holy mystery of the Church. Of great influence was the fact that the entire service, both on Saturday and on Sunday was, so to say, spiritually imbued with the continuing act of elevation to the head of the Church of the new metropolitan.
It was Dimitry Alexandrov (presently Bishop Daniel), graduate of Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary and firm worshipper of the Russian Church's ancient traditions, who was fortunate enough to come upon the original text of the enthroning ceremony which was used in old Moscow.

Thus, by the grace of God, our humble Church in Exile was, so to speak, especially called upon to feel Herself even in Her present humble and exile-induced appearance the very same Russian Orthodox Church of old, and that specifically by finding Herself today beyond the boundaries of Her beloved native land. In the continuing act of enthronisation, the consciousness in the faithful of BEING THE CHURCH received incarnation.

All experienced quite an exceptional lifting of the spirit when at the end of the First Hour the whole church was suddenly plunged into the sea of lights, the Royal Gates swung open and Metropolitan Philaret emerged, arrayed in the usual bishop's violet mantle and a black cowl with its diamond cross. All the bishops disposed themselves in a semi-circle on either side of him. The metropolitan's blue mantle was brought out by Archbishop John; Archbishop Alexander carried the metropolitan's white cowl on a salver. (Both the mantle and cowl had just then been consecrated in the altar by Metropolitan Anastassy.) The sub-deacons removed the bishop's mantle from Metropolitan Philaret's shoulders and Archbishop John handed him the metropolitan's mantle. "Axios". - was his cry. "Axios" - was the cry of all the bishops and clergy. "Axios" - thundered the two choirs in succession. The impression was that these words were coming from the hearts of all those present, who had approached close to each other right up to the ambo. Archbishop Alexander then presents the white cowl on the platter to the new metropolitan. And again "Axios" is proclaimed in the same order as before, making it seem as if immeasurably more was being done here than the normal elevation to the high order of metropolitan ... The subsequent congratulations of the new metropolitan and the receipt of his blessing by all was conducted in an uncommonly warm atmosphere. All spoke of the great miracle that had been worked upon us by the Lord. Many wept from happiness and emotion ....

One cannot help mentioning the blessed effect of Paschal hymns which continued to sound through out the service. Our spiritual joy took on a special tint which transformed everything we experienced into a second Pascha.

If the church had been sufficiently filled during vespers on Saturday night, then it was literally packed right from the beginning of Divine Services on Sunday morning for Divine Liturgy: worshippers stood close to each other right up to the ambo.

At 10:00 a. m. the new metropolitan was welcomed as he arrived in church. All the bishops with their crosiers and clergy arranged themselves on either side of the church entrance. The metropolitan is escorted into the church by the two senior prelates - Archbishops John and Alexander. After the entrance prayers and the singing of "Ton despotin... ." the same archbishops lead His Eminence to the cathedra in the center of the church.

"Axios." - proclaim Archbishops John and Alexander, followed by the bishops and clergy, and finally by the choir. The new metropolitan blesses the people on all four sides around him. The vesting of the metropolitan begins. The mitre is brought out by the two senior clergymen - Archimandrite Panteleimon and Protopresbyter George Grabbe.

The usual service begins. The Divine Liturgy flows on in triumphant and holy solemnity, peculiar to services conducted by a multitude of bishops - there are sixteen prelates! But the solemnity is far from being a surface one: prayers rise to God from all hearts with a fervor perhaps never reached in this hallowed place of worship. The Church, here and now, is living a full life, fusing all into one holy Entity . . . In such. a spiritual state, physical fatigue is not felt, and the overcrowding itself is felt as an outward sign of the inner spiritual closeness. An endurance appears which will afterwards surprise many as they look back upon this solemn day .. Wonderful are Thy works, O Lord!

Metropolitan Philaret delivers a sermon. There is simplicity in all his words and actions: there is nothing artificial about him. "Be, and not merely appear to be" - this testament of his famous namesake seems to be incarnated in His Eminence. "Why, he is a born metropolitan!" - could later be heard from many. And the fact that there was not the merest trace of anything superficial in this simplicity forced one to not only admire the new metropolitan, but to become imbued with a feeling of deep personal affection for him. Unassumingly, calmly, naturally and with confident simplicity was each expected movement executed and each word delivered by him .... and this only increased the ineffable majesty of what was taking place. For it was not only that the youngest among the bishops was being suddenly elevated to the highest position which was significant, but this very height received a new meaning, opening up for us perspectives which only yesterday seemed to have been antiquated.

Metropolitan Philaret delivered a sermon on the subject of the day's Gospel reading. In retelling with perfect accuracy, Christ's conversation with the woman from Samaria at Jacob's well, His Eminence underlined the extreme theological depth of this conversation, especially the unprecedented circumstantiality with which Our Lord replied to the woman's questions: He had never spoken so openly even with His disciples! And finally - those clear and great words of the Messiah, which also had not yet been heard by His disciples:

"I that speak unto thee am he!"

At this point the preacher turns his attention directly upon his listeners.

To whom is Our Lord speaking in this manner? Is it not to a wanton and sinful woman? Would we not have condemned her immediately, having recognized her as being depraved and morally worthless? Our Lord and God is here teaching us a lesson: not to despise even the most terrible sinners. For this follows from the first and most important commandment: love - which does not condemn anyone, but is forbearing and compassionate.

But there is yet an even greater lesson here. Admittedly, the life of the woman from Samaria was burdened with passions and great sins -her heart was not alien to what? KNOWLEDGE OF GOD! That is why Our Lord was able to reveal Himself as the Messiah -specifically to her! The preacher then reminds his listeners of the publican Zacchaeus - treated with contempt by all as a morally worthless individual. In him, too, Our Lord saw a spark of goodness, thus converting it into a roaring flame. To all their environment, both the woman from Samaria and the publican were fallen souls: all around them could see nothing else in them. Our Lord noticed this spark in them and how brightly did he make it burn! This woman from Samaria - did she not become the first preacher of Christ?

Let us not, then, condemn anyone. Let us try to discover a spark of goodness at least in each and every one. Can there be such a person who would lack even this measure? For this to be true, a human being must become a veritable demon! Let us regard each other with love, for love does not condemn anyone; it regards everyone with forbearance and compassion. And may the Lord of all be with us. Amen.

At the end of the service - another memorable event, without which that spiritual happiness and fervent hope which were increasingly enveloping everyone, could not have reached fulfillment. The beatific "staretz", the new metropolitan, all the bishops and clergy -all move out of the altar to the center of the church. Archbishop John brings out the panagia on a salver. Metropolitan Philaret makes an address to Metropolitan Anastassy. He reminds him of how mindful were all the members of the Sobor of Bishops to the Holy Father's word of farewell. He reminds him how earnestly the Sobor had begged His Lordship not to carry out his decision to step down. The Lord Metropolitan had remained adamant, and the Sobor had bowed before this decision. A successor was elected ... But Metropolitan Anastassy continues to be, spiritually and morally, the head and the father of all. "All of us are your spiritual children. And the Sobor of Bishops has instructed me to place upon you, together with the title of Beatific, a second panagia. I ask you to submit to the will of the whole Sobor and to accept this expression of our filial love toward Your Beatitude."

"Axios!" - exclaims Metropolitan Philaret, and this echoed in turn by the bishops and the clergy, and by the choirs.

The fullness of joy has been attained. The wise and beatific father remains close to the new Primate. His Beatitude has not retired into seclusion. His wise leadership has merely taken on a new form, now leaning upon the filial loyalty of the new head of our Church. The Te Deum is sung with a new prayerful exhilaration.

At the end of the Te Deum, Archbishop John hands Metropolitan Philaret his crosier, while Archbishop Alexander loudly repeats (mutatis mutandis) the very words which, many centuries ago, were heard by new metropolitans in old Moscow:

:"The Almighty and Life-endowing Holy Trinity, Immeasurable Dominion and Indivisible Kingdom, is granting you this great throne of prelates, the Metropolis and Primacy in the Russian Church Abroad, by the act of election by your brothers, Russian Orthodox bishops. And now, Lord and brother, take this crosier of pastorship and ascend the throne of the holy primacy in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and beseech His Most Pure Mother on behalf of all Orthodox Christendom and those Russian people in exile who have been placed in your charge, and tend them like a good shepherd, and may the Lord God grant you the health and life for many years."

The choir sings: "Ispolla etti despota."

Metropolitan Philaret replies:

"May the Almighty and All-containing Right Hand of the Most High protect and strengthen all of you. May He grant peace and contentment to His Holy Church and deliverance to our native land. And to you my brothers, prelates of the Russian Church Abroad, to all the Russian people presently in exile and to all Orthodox Christians, may He grant health and life for many years."

The choirs again sing: "Many years." The enthronisation ceremony has come to its end.

All surge forward toward Metropolitan Anastassy to receive his blessing. The fear of his early departure is so great that, people push and jostle each other to get near. Many are fortunate enough to receive the blessings of both metropolitans. The love of all who have gathered is directed toward both: to the well-known and personally close to all, beatific father metropolitan, and to the new ruling head who, prior to this, was known to hardly anyone, but who, literally within the short space of a few hours, became just as close and just as dear. This makes the flood of congratulations a natural conclusion to the blessed emotions experienced during this great and solemn feast. A full hour went by for all to express their warm feelings to the new metropolitan.

The two metropolitans, bishops and clergy unite with some of the laity at a reception held in the refectory, where many have an opportunity to express their feelings.

Archbishop Averky, on behalf of Holy Trinity Monastery, presented Metropolitan Philaret with an icon of Our Lady of Pochaev, and in a brief welcoming address, begged the new Primate's prayers and paternal attention for the monastery, with its printing-office and seminary, so that it may continue to fruitfully develop and strengthen its activities in the service of the Russian Church Abroad.

Metropolitan Anastassy was the last to speak. With tender emotion he speaks of the grace Our Lord had sent. In the midst of unprecedented trials and tribulations, something also unprecedented arose, which elevated the youngest among us to the position of head over all. His Beatitude called upon everyone to rejoice in the firm belief that this event's beneficent effects would be felt even by following generations. We must beseech God to further strengthen and increase the many noble qualities which Metropolitan Philaret, in his humility, refused to recognize in himself. Virtually glowing with happiness, Metropolitan Anastassy repeats these thoughts in various forms, as if to implant them firmly in the hearts of his listeners. In conclusion, he recalls how Metropolitan Philaret had always been joyful by nature, even in his school days; how he had been a comfort to all who knew him. His soul, ever sound, had always sought to be united with others in sound joyfulness, which he had the ability to transmit to others as no one else could. His Beatitude felt a deep satisfaction now over the fact that all members of the Church had immediately accepted Metropolitan Philaret as a shepherd after their own heart. May the good Lord not take him away from us! May our hearts rejoice in the Lord! Let us pray to Him so that now, when there is so little happiness on earth, He may preserve our Church in happiness. May the risen God defeat His enemies. Christ is Risen! ....

A public assembly was arranged for 6:00 p. m. in a nearby building belonging to the Presbyterian Church. The huge hall was crowded. The Sobor of Bishops, headed by the two metropolitans, sat at the speakers' table. At the center of attention was, of course, Metropolitan Philaret, the first to speak. After a few introductory remarks, His Eminence felt it incumbent upon him to direct particular attention of his listeners to the sad state of neglect of the Gospel in our time. It would appear self-evident that everyone had to be familiar with the Gospels, yet in fact what do we find? Whenever some specialist, such as a physicist or a mathematician, picks up a book dealing with his field, he is immediately able to find what he wants in it. While we Orthodox, whenever some of us have to find something in the Gospels, - do we not find ourselves helplessly lost in the Holy Book? Do we not find it a stranger to us? And yet it is only there that we will find an answer to all our problems, and nowhere else will we be able to obtain an answer. Let us turn to the Holy Book with the questions puzzling us.

In the Gospel according to St. John we will find recounted Our Lord's conversation with Pilate. The Roman governor asked Our Lord: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered him: "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" Pilate answered: "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: What hast thou done"?

And what did Our Saviour reply to this? "My Kingdom is not of This world ......

Here you have the clear and exact answer to the problem which is worrying all of us and which easily becomes a dividing issue. May the Church serve political ends? Of course not! This does not mean, however, that the Church should remain indifferent to what is happening around her. To provide an example, His Eminence quite naturally referred to what was experienced in the Far East.

Some high dignitaries of the Soviet Church appeared there one day. They made public speeches and were excellent orators. Many were charmed and delighted by their sermons. Not so the present speaker: on him they had an opposite effect. Things in no way deserving of praise were presented in glowing colors and any criticism was forbidden. St Gregory Nazianzen says that by silence is the truth often betrayed. Did not Metropolitan Philip accuse Ivan the Terrible? Was that interference in politics? No! Philip had spoken out as a loyal subject. He was not meddling in politics, but illuminating what was going on around him with the bright rays of the Gospel's eternal truth.

Do we not, then, receive a clear indication in the Gospels as to the Church's attitude towards politics?

His Eminence returns to Christ's conversation with Pilate. Pilate said unto him: "Art thou a king then?" Jesus answered: "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was, I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." "What is truth?" replies Pilate, and leaves. Truth Incarnate stood before Pilate, yet he turns away from Her, attempting to justify this action with his scornful question .... Once again, is it not directly to us that exact indication is given of the Gospel's attitude towards what is today at the center of the world's attention? Ecumenism! What is its mission, toward the realization of which it is attracting everyone? To search for the Truth! It is alleged that fragments of this Truth are to be found everywhere and that it merely remains to bring these segments together for the fullness of Truth to be revealed! How could our Church possibly agree to such a thing? By so doing She would only be delivering the Truth up to abuse and ridicule. No, our Holy Church has not committed, nor will She ever commit, this crime. Let all around us seek after the Truth, let them unite in the name of this task. The Orthodox Church is not a party to this quest: She has no need to look for the Truth - She possesses Her in full measure.

Metropolitan Philaret returns to the Far East in his recollections. There the Church had been preserved unimpaired. Only the vaguest rumours were heard of Western disagreements. The terrible trials arose with the coming of the Japanese. Great courage was displayed by the frail and ailing Metropolitan Meletius when the Japanese began to demand obeisance from all before their goddess Amaterasu. Even worse trials arose with the name of this task. The Orthodox Church is not a party to the Far Eastern Church's absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate, but pointed out a number of mitigating circumstances behind the tragedy. This made him all the more grateful to our Church in Exile for Her continued loyalty to Orthodoxy. And all of us must likewise become completely imbued with this feeling of gratitude. It is only the Russian Church Abroad which today continues to openly denounce godlessness. Her way is that of the Cross, but it is also the road to salvation. And here too, the Gospels will serve as our guide - so long as we firmly remember that there is only one purpose in the Church's existence: to prepare souls for eternity.

A number of other speakers followed, and all were heard with undivided attention by the vast auditorium. All were imbued with the one spirit. And the heart felt expressions of goodwill were equally warm as the speakers addressed themselves to His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anastassy, and to his successor who was now being honoured. There was no loss felt because both metropolitans were regarded as one in the public eye. This conception was fully justified in the closing addresses of the two metropolitans.

The meeting was coming to a close. Of deep significance was Metropolitan Philaret's reply to the many welcoming addresses he had received. Having thanked all for their kind words, he cast his mind into the future. It was unknown to us. But do not all of us see what is happening in the world? Attempts are being made to reconcile the irreconcilable, everything is being dumped into one pile .... for what purpose? For the sake of material welfare and prosperity! Everyone keeps talking about peace - but will Our Lord grant peace to the wicked? We can only expect things to get worse in the future. Great trials and tribulations await us. High spiritual qualities, great courage and an unshakable faith will be required of all of us in order to withstand. And all these qualities - to the highest degree - will be demanded, first of all, from the head of the Church. He will have to possess the combined virtues of Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom .... His Eminence is unable to discover the barest trace of these gifts within himself. But he does not lose courage: prayer can do anything! Through the prayers of many even the weakest receive the strength of the Holy Spirit .... He implores all to remember him in their daily prayers ....

The final note was sounded in the gentle words of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anastassy. Let there be darkness ahead; his radiant and joyful outlook remained unclouded.

The Lord had heard our prayers. Our Lord had not abandoned His Church and had given us great comfort at the very time when we were in the direst need of it. We all manifestly experienced His grace. Our new head has brought us not only love, but strength of the Holy Spirit as well. Let us take his words close to heart ad let us pray the Lord to grant us all that spiritual strength without which a rebirth is impossible. May the Lord multiply His life-giving strength in His Church, -- He alone works miracles! He alone has the power to restore Holy Russia.

Many good wishes we have heard here today, emanating from the fullness of heart. But all these wishes come to but one thing, without which we will show ourselves powerless of doing anything truly good: we must be reborn in the Holy Spirit and unite in Him. For Satan himself has now appeared in the world. Terrible times are approaching. Only the grace of God can help us, and we have every reason to firmly believe we will receive His assistance. This day is a famous and historical day. Our Lord has manifestly extended His help to us. All around us the very depths of Hell are rapidly destroying all the foundations of the world. But the Lord is our strength. What can we ourselves do? Our strength is not in us, but in God. And He is with us. Let us pray to the Lord not to abandon us also in the days to come and to crush the head of the serpent with His power. Christ is Risen?

Thus ended this truly "historical and famous day", opening up a new era in the history of our Church in Exile .... Her only? ....

source: http://www.monasterypress.com/newmet.html

Soviet Passport

2008-09-05T20:05:00.000-07:00

After the occupation of Manchuria by soviet troops, Harbin fell upon troubled and difficult times. Having been deceived by false information about the position of the Church in the U. S. S. R., the very old Metropolitan Meletius recognized the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate over himself and his clergy.

Now, while Archimandrite Philaret was a member of the clergy at that time, he absolutely refused to accept Soviet citizenship. When, in an interview by a newspaper reporter, he was asked how he regarded "the wise move of the Soviet Government in offering the Russian population of Harbin the right, once again, of becoming citizens of their native land", the reporter received the following bold reply:

"I do not consider it possible to accept soviet citizenship, nor will I accept it, until such time as I am one hundred per cent convinced - by facts and beyond any shadow of doubt - that the persecution of religion, anti-religious propaganda and baiting of the Church's servants have ceased completely; when the Church, which is not merely "separated" but has in fact been banished from the State, once again takes Her rightful position within it."

And His Eminence never did take out Soviet papers throughout the many years of his stay under communist rule in China, despite the grave danger in which such a stand placed him.

On another occasion Archimandrite Philaret was subjected to certain disciplinary measures for his outspokenness. Having read in an issue of the Moscow Patriarchate's Journal the name of Lenin included in a list of geniuses and benefactors of the human race, Archimandrite Philaret expressed his indignation openly in a sermon from his pulpit which became widely known.

In spite of frequent warnings and threats, Archimandrite Philaret repeatedly urged his flock to refrain from all pro-Soviet declarations and demonstrations. In his own words, he "never defiled his mouth and his prayers by praying for Antichrist's servants." At the same time, in the course of quite a number of years, he had kept in touch with His Eminence, Metropolitan Anastassy by various means, disregarding the real danger connected with these activities.

The Holy Synod had been taking all possible measures to get Archimandrite Philaret out of China since 1953. Visas to various country were obtained for him repeatedly, but no advantage was taken of them. Sometimes this would be owing to the fact that he refused to leave his flock to the mercy of fate; at others, the communists would not issue an exit permit. And so His Eminence remained in a position which he himself described as that of a hunted rabbit being pursued by a pack of hounds.

Next is an excerpt from an address from Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitzev) of Jordanville Monastery, NY.

"All that has been said here must be kept firmly in mind, insofar as we come to comprehend the spiritual state of the world. Do we remain successively tied to our holy past to such an extent, as to look through its eyes on all that is happening around us? If we have blended with our environment, making common cause with it - all is over! We are already not with Christ. We are already incapable of "hearing" not only "Moses and the prophets," but the Risen Christ Himself. We are in the power of that, by which an apostate world is living: faith in Lie!

Nor is there any need to think that immersion into this dark element is the result of some, so to speak, formal act of renunciation of Christ's Truth. In infinitely varied forms does Falsehood creep up upon us, poisoning, and finally, also substituting our consciousness, if only we do not stand on constant spiritual guard over our witnessing. How many similar occurrences happened to be observed in the Far East, where the paths of God and the paths of Antichrist were fantastically interlaced in the vain hustle and bustle of life. One event is to me especially memorable. I came to be under one roof for a certain time with a very worthy priest (batiushka) under conditions when around us was taking place one of those paroxysms of fascination for sovietism, of which there were many among Russians abroad. He was an invalid who moved about with difficulty, but quite capable of serving. Well, one day he says that he has decided to go over to the Soviet Church: there is no danger in this for him, as he is perfectly well aware of what she really represents, but in his invalid state he does not have the strength to employ himself in any other way ... This shift took place immediately, easily and simply. We continued to live under the one roof - and I, in one conversation with him, happen to use the habitual expression "Soviet church." He interrupts me: - "What, Soviet church? There is only a Russian Church!"... Within a few days - a complete metamorphosis. And this came to be observed constantly. When a man took a Soviet passport -he became a different person. You walk around Shanghai with the cross and come to the home of one such "returnee" - already there is something wrong, both in the manners and appearance of people. A substitution has occurred of the inner "I". And one may well ponder here, over what mystic significance a signature has. Invariably in the Soviet consulate, after general and friendly discussions, it was offered in conclusion to: - please affix your signature! But quite apart from Christ-selling formalism, the very inclusion of oneself into this atmosphere of conciliation - let it take the most seemingly innocent forms - was capable of changing a man ."

Taken from: "The Spiritual State of the Contemporary World" by Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev) an address delivered at the Diocesan Council of the Russian Church Abroad in New York City between November 1/14 - 3/16, 1965. Published in "Orthodox Life" #6 1965

source: http://www.monasterypress.com/sovport.html

Repose And Funeral

2008-09-05T19:58:00.000-07:00

The Repose and Funeral Service of
Metropolitan Philaret

First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret had been ailing for quite some time, and, in August of 1985, had undergone minor surgery. After the operation, his physicians assured both Vladika Metropolitan and the Secretary of the Synod that his health would hold for another five years. However, their hopes were not justified, and about a month before Vladyka's repose he began to decline. Mastering himself, he nonetheless attended the liturgy in church on a nearly daily basis, and on feastdays, even if he was not able to serve, he still vested in his mantle and preached the sermon, seated on the ambo.

Sunday, 10 November, was the last day he appeared in the Synodal cathedral. Vladyka was no longer able to serve by himself, but stood in his customary place near the right cliros. That day, His Grace, Bishop Gregory served. For those who were close to Vladyka and had known him for a long time, it was obvious that it took a tremendous effort for him to stand up to return the bow of the serving hierarch. That day, Vladyka received Communion in the altar, and afterwards, having vested in mantle and omophorion, delivered his last sermon.

At about 4:00 A.M., on Monday, Vladyka summoned his spiritual father, His Grace, Bishop Gregory, to hear his confession and to receive Communion. Vladyka Metropolitan was very apologetic for disturbing him at such an early hour, and Bishop Gregory noticed the intense suffering the Metropolitan was experiencing. Vladyka's personal physician, when summoned, said that an operation was essential, but warned that it would be complicated and serious. Search then began for a vacant room in a hospital, and on Thursday, 8/21 November, Vladyka was to be admitted prior to this surgery. But the Lord judged otherwise. On the morning of the feast of the Archangel Michael, Vladyka reposed peacefully in his sleep.

Vladyka's cell attendant, discovering that he was no longer breathing, hurriedly called His Grace, Bishop Gregory and then proceeded to call in the doctor and an ambulance. The paramedics' attempts to revive Vladyka Metropolitan did not meet with success. While they were laboring over the lifeless body of the Metropolitan, Archimandrite Gelassy began the reading of the canon for the departure of the soul. Vladyka's dining room, adjacent to his cell , rapidly filled with agitated parishioners, among whom the sad news had spread with the speed of lightning.

The departed First Hierarch had always had an aversion to the hospital environment, and to medical treatment in general. Submitting only when absolutely necessary, he reluctantly gave his permission for medical examination and a few tests. With his physical condition already weakened by loss of blood, it was doubtful that he would have survived such a serious operation. In sending him a peaceful end in his sleep, in his own bedroom, the Lord delivered him from the hands of the coroner's office personnel. Vladyka was clothed and vested by the hands of his own clergy and placed by them in the coffin brought in for that purpose.

News of the repose of the Metropolitan spread with such rapidity that the receptionist and the chancery of the Synod could barely cope with the incessant calls. Nearly thirty priests and more than a hundred people attended the first pannykhida, held that evening at 7:00 P.M.

His Grace, Archbishop Vitaly, the Deputy President of the Synod, arrived from Canada for the pannykhida, which he concelebrated with their Graces, Bishop Gregory of Washington and Florida, and Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan. Bishop Gregory delivered the sermon at that pannykhida. He emphasized that the name of Metropolitan Philaret would go down in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as that of a hierarch who presided over four canonizations of saints. Despite his mild character, Vladyka at times had to stand for his own opinion, as was noticeable in the question of several of the names of the New Martyrs of Russia. Vladyka knew well and loved the divine services, and was a great man of prayer, in which he serves as an example for us all.

Right up to the day of the burial, the pannykhidas, which were served morning and evening, invariably brought together many clergymen and layman, who hastened to bow down before the body of their First Hierarch.

The all-night vigil on Saturday was preceded by an amply-attended pannykhida served by Archbishops Vitaly of Canada, Anthony of San Francisco, Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, as well as Bishops Constantine of Richmond and Great Britain, Gregory of Washington and Florida, Alypy of Cleveland, and Hilarion of Manhattan.

The vigil began with the chanting of the introductory Psalm to a setting composed by the late First Hierarch. Almost twenty priests, eight protodeacons and deacons, and a multitude of acolytes, went forth at the polyeleos. There were a great many people in church as well.

The whole while, from the first hour after the repose of Metropolitan Philaret until his burial, the Holy Gospel was read over his coffin without interruption, except during the divine services and pannykhidas.

On the following day, Sunday, the liturgy began in the Synodal cathedral at 10:30 A.M. The choir, under the direction of Alexander B. Ledkovsky, made a special effort to perform all the compositions of the late Metropolitan with which they were acquainted, at the liturgy.

The liturgy was concelebrated by their Graces: Archbishops Vitaly of Montreal and Canada, Anthony of Western American and San Francisco, Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity, Bishops Gregory of Washington and Florida, Alypy of Cleveland, and Hilarion of Manhattan. Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago, Detroit and the Midwest, and Bishop Constantine of Richmond and Great Britain, remained in the altar. Thirty priests, five protodeacons and four deacons, with a great many acolytes, also served.

During the liturgy, the flock, grieved by the repose of their archpastor, was unexpectedly gladdened by the arrival in the church of the myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon, which remained for the length of the funeral services. The liturgy concluded at 1:20 P.M., and the funeral began immediately afterwards. More priests, from nearby parishes, arrived, so that there were forty-six priests and nine deacons, plus acolytes of all ages, in the middle of the church. The cathedral was, as at Pascha, full to overflowing.

During the communion of the clergy, a beautiful sermon was delivered by Protopresbyter John Legky. A second sermon was given by Fr. Alexander Kiselev in the middle of the funeral service, and towards the end, His Eminence, Archbishop Vitaly delivered a brief sermon, also reading the spiritual testament to the flock which had been found among Metropolitan Philaret's papers just after his repose. This statement was signed by Vladyka Metropolitan, probably three days before his repose, and reinserted into the typewriter. Photocopies of this page were distributed to all who attended the funeral.

Solemn and magnificent, without any significant omissions, the funeral produced a sense of compunction among those attending. Especially moving was the moment when the clergy lifted the coffin of the Metropolitan upon their shoulders and bore it to the ambo, and thence, during the chanting of the Eirmos: "A helper and protector . ." carried it around the inner walls of the church and set it back in the center of the church, allowing everyone an opportunity to bid farewell to the departed hierarch. This leave-taking ended at about 7:00 P.M., and the coffin was borne out into the courtyard of the Synod, to be placed in a hearse for transportation to Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, where the interment was to take place.

The Burial took place in the monastery on the following day, Monday. At 9:30 the Liturgy began, after which a pannykhida was celebrated by all of the above-mentioned hierarchs, thirty priests, and seven deacons. The choir of the monastery chanted with compunction. After the liturgy, His Eminence Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco delivered a eulogy, and Archbishop Laurus spoke after the pannykhida. There also the church was filled with people who had traveled from New York, as well as parishioners of the Diocese of Syracuse. A large group of Greeks arrived from Canada to bid farewell to their departed First Hierarch.

At the conclusion of the pannykhida the clergy again shouldered the coffin and bore it around the church, and then to the Church of the Dormition in the cemetery, when a litia was served and the coffin placed in a niche in the crypt under the Church. A group of those who honor the late Metropolitan intend to erect a fitting chapel near the Holy Trinity Cathedral, where the remains of the First Hierarch will ultimately be interred.

The Synod of Bishops received a number of expressions of sympathy from the heads of several Orthodox Churches, as well as from prominent lay persons and organizations, several of whom gave donations to the Synod of Bishops ''in lieu of flowers."

Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret achieved world-wide fame for his ''Sorrowful Epistles,'' addressed to all the Orthodox bishops of the world, in which he warned them of the danger of ecumenism. With his repose an important page in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has been turned.

His repose was reported in The New York Times (twice), The [N.Y.] Daily News, Newsday, and in numerous newspapers throughout the nation which received the information through the Associated Press News Service. A short announcement was telecast over New York's channel 7 television station (the ABC television network), and broadcast over the radio.

source: http://www.monasterypress.com/funphil.html

Letter Concerning Fr. Dimitry Dudko and MP

2008-09-05T17:59:00.000-07:00

A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

His Eminence Philaret's letter attached below was inspired by the story of Dimitry Dudko, a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, or, more precisely, by the sentiment within the Russian Church Abroad that gave an aura of idolatry to those rare clergymen of the Soviet Orthodox Church who were courageous enough to stand up against the anti-religious authorities. In the 1970, Reverend Dimitry was perhaps the best-known of such clergymen. Even Reverend Seraphim Ruz has left a few relatively enthusiastic comments on Reverend Dimitry behind him. Reverend Dimitry was always in the midst of young people (one of the gravest forms of misdemeanor for a priest in the Soviet Union), and he had books published in the West. All of a sudden, following his brief arrest in 1980, Reverend Dimitry came up with a TV repentance - a televised interview during which he confessed that he had been involved in anti-Soviet politics under the guise of religious activity, begged the Soviet authorities' forgiveness, and promised to behave from then on. He was released shortly after his confession. This is the point in the life of Reverend Dudko to which Metropolitan Philaret's letter refers. We will not reproduce His Eminence's words here; it is our intent to dwell on certain later events which, to an extent, the letter anticipated.

When out of prison, Reverend Dimitry was once again assigned a parish near Moscow, and most of his former parishioners returned to him. Many of his parishioners pardoned Reverend Dimitry for his degradation. Many of them knew about KGB's then-raging campaign against dissident religious leaders: they were arrested and subjected to hard pressure in order to coerce them into such a TV confession (the term itself was coined in the early 1980s). Needless to say, there was no audience for a formal public confession. However, Rev. Dudko did not leave the Patriarchate at that point, nor at any time thereafter. He is still a respectable priest trying hard to hold his parishioners back from all manner of extremes of immoderate dogmatism. Dogmatism - in fact, the word is purity of Orthodox teachings - was far from being the principal message of Rev. Dudko's preaching even in the 1970s.

Did His Eminence Philaret's warning to ROCA clergy work? It is hard to give a definitive answer. Paradoxical as it may seem, some very important and highly classified transactions between ROCA hierarchs and Russian Catacomb communities went through Rev. Dudko in 1982, two years after his TV repentance. His Eminence Philaret was still alive at that time.

June 26/July 9, 1980
Dear Father ________,
For a long time now I have been intending to write a few words to you, but somehow I haven't managed to get around to it. But at last I have collected myself, and so I write.

When I, while still in Australia, began to receive information from America already post factum that here [in New York City] there had been protests, demonstrations, and even molebens in front of the Soviet consulate, I became quite alarmed and regretted that I was not here, since I would have decisively opposed much of what took place. In particular, holding a moleben in such a place. Did they not sing the Lord's song in a strange land? What cause was there to display the holy things of the Church's services before the gaze of the frenzied servants of Antichrist? Was it really not possible to pray in church?

I must say frankly that I am always seized by dismay when I hear of protests, demonstrations, and the like. In the USSR, life is governed by him (the one with horns) who fears only Christ and His Cross; and who fears nothing else in the world. And he merely chortles over protests and demonstrations. Public opinion? Why, the antichrist regime has nothing but the uttermost contempt for it! They wanted to seize Czechoslovakia and they seized it, paying no heed to the commotion that was raised. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and they invaded it, again paying no attention to the protests and threats of the various Carters @ Co. All attempts to shape public opinion in the so-called Free World in favor of those suffering from Communism are powerless and fruitless, since the Free World stubbornly closes its eyes and imitates the ostrich, which hides its head under its wing and imagines that it cannot be seen...

In bewilderment did I read in the newspaper how one journalist approvingly cites your words: Father __ is correct when he writes: Russia is arising from the dead! We must believe in this; for we believe in Christ the Saviour Who arose the dead.

I cannot understand what is the connection between the one and the other? Personally, I believe in the Resurrection of Christ for me this is the most precious thing in the world. But I absolutely cannot see why must I believe that Russia is resurrecting? I hope that she truly will rise, then all-powerful nod for it will be given by God. But at present, not only do I not share your enthusiasm, but I am greatly alarmed for the Russian people. The falsehood and emptiness of atheism is obvious to them. But alas, it is not true Orthodoxy that is being disseminated there. There, under the guise of Orthodoxy, the Russian people are being offered Bulgakovism, Berdyaevism, and similar rubbish of the Evlogian schism. The sects are flourishing there: the Baptists etc. The official Church preaches cooperation with the God-hating regime, lauding it in every possible way. The true Orthodox Church has gone to the catacombs, hidden from the common masses ... Is that, then, the rebirth of Orthodoxy?.. And are you not perhaps taking a bit too much upon yourself, proclaiming to the whole world that Orthodoxy is being reborn in Russia? God grant that the Truth should overcome all errors and should triumph over them. But for the present it is too soon to speak of it, since the influence of the anti-Orthodox elements is still so very strong there; not to mention the fact that the antichrist Soviet regime, as long as it rules Russia, will never permit the triumph of Orthodoxy. It is not without cause that the true Orthodox Church concealed herself in the catacombs and is fiercely persecuted.

Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.

From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being mentioned more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the members of the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines, immediately kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster might happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-ocracy. There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of lies. This lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging fact may turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a provocation...

Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the best, not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of his convictions, but simply noting the sad fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before the enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display courage and daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?!

Because his activity took place outside of the true Church...

What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the concentration camps.

This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his infamous and apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession: having fallen under their own anathema! For in 1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of in the Apocalypse.

As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ.

And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the activities of Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the press that he is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in her. Has his spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the official church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit I am breaking off with the company of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church. Why, then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would have destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue of the fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we must not have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no communion in prayer, but not even ordinary contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have refused to remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from membership in her the barrier would no longer have applied to him.

I recall a marvellous case of the direct and miraculous aid of God to those who remained faithful to the end. They banished a group of nuns belonging to the Catacomb Church to Solovki. The Chekists told them: Get settled now, and tomorrow you will go to some sort of work. But they received an unexpected answer: We will not go and work.

What, have you gone out of your minds? Do you know what we will do with you? screamed the Chekists. There followed the calm reply of people who in their faithfulness feared nothing: What shall be, shall be but what is pleasing unto God shall be, and not what suits you executioners and criminals. You may do with us what you please: starve us, torture us, hang, shoot, or burn us with fire. But we give you notice once and for all: we do not recognize you, you servants of Antichrist, as the lawful authority, and we will not fulfill your orders in any way!..

In the morning the infuriated Chekists drove the nuns up onto the hill of death. Thus was called a high hill where in winter an icy wind always blew. In that wind a man would freeze to death within a quarter of an hour. The nuns, clad in their shabby rassas, are led up the hill by Red Army men in their sheepskin coats. The nuns go happily, joyously along, chanting psalms and prayers. The soldiers left them at the top of the hill and then descended. They hear how they continue their chanting. Half hour, an hour, two, yet more all the while the sound of chanting carries from above. Night fell. The guards approach the nuns they are alive, unharmed, and continue chanting their prayers. The amazed soldiers led them home to the camp. News of this spread immediately throughout the entire camp. And when on the following day the guards were changed and yet the same thing happened, the camp authorities were bewildered and they left the nuns in peace...

Is this not a victory? Behold what it means to be faithful unto death as the marvellous words of Apocalypse say: Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. In this instance it's an obvious miracle, as it was with the three youths in the Babylonian furnace, only there the death-bearing element was fire, but here a death-dealing and killing cold. Behold how God rewards faithfulness!

And hear my heartfelt conviction: if the entire mass of the many millions of Russians would evidence a like faithfulness as did those nuns, and would refuse to obey the bandits who have been oppressing the Russian nation, then Communism would collapse in a second. For the succor of God, which had saved in a miraculous manner the nuns while on their way to certain death, would come likewise to the Russian people. But as long as the nation recognizes the regime and obeys it, even if all the while cursing it in their hearts, that regime will remain in place.

Of course, the nuns were strengthened by the power of God, just as the ancient martyrs; without this aid they would not have endured. But their podvig [martyric exploit] was accomplished within the true Church, filled with grace and Truth. For the true Church, according to the apostolic teaching, is the Body of Christ the Lord abides in her and leads her as her Divine Head.

Will anyone dare to assert that the Lord and His grace abide in the Church of the evil-doers, which lauds His demonized enemies and collaborates with them, which because of this is found under a twofold anathema, as indicated above? Can a church which has united with the God-haters possess grace?! The answer is obvious!

The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a terrible time was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and such while on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs, Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very same time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest betrayal of Christ.

To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not to condone many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people. But for him, Pimen was, and likely still is, his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us, it is not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution: on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of Pimen as unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as having no force or significance.

How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to do? Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful? Say the same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has already renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before when he preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the faithful and now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said that there is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for the one he just now made. But in order to do that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true Church, and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church will undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he will pass over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify him just as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant that he find the true and saving path.

I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't understand why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them, as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is along these lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.

The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch Saint Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the church canons in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy in their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this principle. And Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics do have; whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by those uniting [themselves to the Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said Vladyka Anthony.

In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.

In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several things out to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to fulfill the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First Hierarch bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact. On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct relations with Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko said: I am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could have entered into lively contact with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a violation of ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not answer him although I could have said much. By the way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great Entrance? Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but, ah, too impetuous fellow minister!

Peace to you and the mercy of the Lord. To Matushka and the children too.

With love,
Metropolitan Philaret

source: http://private.peterlink.ru/alektor/v4.htm#potapov

St. Philaret of New York

old photo

Hilarion Censors Met. Philaret

Poems by St. Philaret

Instructions for an Orthodox Christian

Abbot Adrian's Address

monasterypress.com

The following article is being used with the kind permission of Saint John of Kronstadt Press. Linked material comes from various other sources of the Russian Church Abroad, past and present.

Letter Concerning MP 1979

Glorification of the New-Martyrs

Sermon: Entry of Theotokos

Letter To Abbess Magdalena

Sermon: St. John Of The Ladder Sunday

Letter To Patriarch Athenagoras

Sermon: St. Nicholas On The Bus

Sermon: Feast Of St. Nicholas

Sermon: St. Nicholas Saves Girl From Suicide

A Sign Spoken Against

Life & Miracles-The Shepherd

Eulogy of Orthodox America

An Orthodox View of Heart Transplantations

Met. Philaret's Vestments Sent To Moscow

Epistle of 1965

Sermon: Every Christian Must Bear His Cross

Sorrowful Epistle: A Rejoinder to Fr. A. Schmemann

On the Importance of Observing Lent

The Calendar Question

Sermon: Holy Cross 3rd Sunday Lent

NFTU News Of Blessed Philaret's Glorification

Reminiscences Fr. Aleksey Mikrikov

Short Life by SJKP

Uncovering Relics - Informal Account

Enthronement

Soviet Passport

Repose And Funeral

Letter Concerning Fr. Dimitry Dudko and MP