A review of the book ''Heresies of Patriarch Kirill''

The Complete Collection of Heresies

by Lera Furman,

Editor of the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta (New Newspaper)

 

 

American Orthodox activists Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris have published a book analyzing (and deconstructing) the religious teachings of Patriarch Kirill.

Putin's reign in Russia coincides with the most scandalous patriarchate in Russian history, embodied by Kirill (Gundyaev). Perhaps the most comprehensive analysis to date of his specific teachings and views has become publicly available —a book by Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris, "The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill." It is also available in Russian translation.

The hero and the authors

"The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill" is one of those books that would be a thankless task to retell. With astonishing meticulousness, the authors have compiled all available evidence of the incompatibility of Patriarch Kirill's teachings with Orthodoxy and Christianity in general, using the official resources of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. And as a response, they use the Bible, the canons, the sayings of saints, and other authorities on the subject.

Mr. Gundyaev's ideology has been subjected to theological and philosophical criticism before, but perhaps no one has yet taken the trouble to bring all his ideas together and present them as a system of views. And, it must be said, the resulting picture is both compelling and frightening. After reading the book, Patriarch Kirill's admission that we live in apocalyptic times and that he himself is a herald of the Apocalypse becomes more serious.

Kirill lacks any formal education; in 1970, he earned a diploma from the Leningrad Theological Academy almost automatically, thanks to the patronage of his mentor, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). However, history decreed that Kirill would become the chief prophet of the religion that plunged Russia into the abyss of militarism, xenophobia, chauvinism, and mass psychosis. While daily calling for an escalation of military conflict with the Orthodox Ukrainian people and the entire "satanic" West, Kirill continues to lead the world's largest Orthodox Church, uniting millions of believers, tens of thousands of clergy and parishes, proclaiming its monopoly on truth, and backed by the full might of the repressive apparatus of Putin's dictatorship.

The book's authors, Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris, are not professional theologians, which only enhances the value of their research. Their perspective is sincere and direct, devoid of the professional cynicism of specialists who have experienced the contradictions of Christian history. Wright, 38, comes from an African-American family and lives in a small town in Missouri. He converted to Orthodoxy seven years ago, cherishes Russian saints, and corresponds with Russian political prisoners.

Silouan Wright was the driving force behind the book's creation: he quit his day job for six months to write it, spending 70 hours a week researching the material. His co-author, 32-year-old Panagiotis Makris, was born into a traditional Orthodox family and remains a parishioner of the Greek Church, critical of its leadership's compromising stance. The authors saw their goal as presenting the reader with a contrast between the "patristic consensus"—traditional Orthodoxy—and the new teaching constructed by Kirill to satisfy the Kremlin's demands. "We made absolutely no profit from this; we offer this book as a burnt offering to our God," Silouan and Panagiotis admit.

History of the Heresy

In the first weeks of full-scale military action in Ukraine, on March 13, 2022, more than 500 Orthodox theologians from various countries (including seven from Russia!) signed a declaration criticizing the false teachings used by the Russian Orthodox Church leadership to justify the war. They believed these false teachings stem from a single root: "a totalitarian variety of Orthodox ethnophyletic religious fundamentalism known as the ' Russian World.'" The theologians characterized it as a heresy that replaces "the Kingdom of God, seen by the prophets, proclaimed and revealed to us by Christ, preached by the apostles... with a kingdom of this world," called "Holy Russia."

“We resolutely reject,” the theologians wrote, “all forms of government that deify the state… replacing obedience to the crucified and risen Lord with submission to any leader vested with authority.”

The heresies of the Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill have also been discussed at a higher Orthodox level —for example, by the heads of local Orthodox churches, including the "first in honor" Ecumenical Patriarch (of Constantinople), Bartholomew. Speaking at an international conference in December 2022, he suggested that Putin would not have attacked Ukraine if Kirill had not presented him with a ready-made doctrine of the "holy war of the 'Russian world.'"

One of the most erudite Russian theologians, Deacon Andrei Kuraev, exiled from the Russian Orthodox Church and Russia and accepted into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, has argued for many years that the religious views expounded by Kirill in his sermons are not Christian. They are a mixture of elements of late Soviet occultism (the theory of bioenergetics), atheism, and nationalistic paganism. Gundyaev secured the transfer of valuable icons from the Tretyakov Gallery collection to the Russian Orthodox Church because he believed that such icons accumulated enormous energy, which should be used as a weapon against the enemies of the Russian Federation. Kirill views worship, sacraments, and the church exclusively from a "bioenergetic," magical perspective: "The more people there are, the greater the likelihood that at every moment an energetic spiritual flow emanates from the church." He also perceives icons in an occult, materialistic way: “This ordinary physical substance, wood covered with paint, absorbs this energy and then gives it to people... A real flow of human energy towards God.”

Mr. Gundyaev also magically equates his own person with an icon: when people pray with the patriarch, he asserts, "an energetic message coming from the outside, like the most sensitive radar, picks up the signaling system." He knows of no spiritual life that doesn't fit into material manifestations: "Biochemical processes, as scientists say, the body performs certain functions of spiritual life." Kirill hopes that, in time, scientists will explain to us what prayer and grace are—apparently, the explanations given in the Bible or church tradition are unknown or uninteresting to him. From Kirill's perspective, a nation is also a bioenergetic unity that forms in the energy field of a church: "In holy places, the spiritual power of a people is concentrated. In our churches, people prayed to God, they transmitted their energy to Heaven. There is a certain energy here." Refuting the key Christian dogma of the Trinity, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church taught: “The Holy Spirit is a spiritual energetic force that encompasses the entire universe.”

Kuraev interprets Gundyaev's views as "one of the most enduring pagan beliefs: religion and ritual circulate the same energy... Maintaining order in the world, keeping the 'cosmos' from disintegrating into 'chaos,' requires considerable effort from the pagan gods. The gods' powers, however, are not limitless... The gods, exhausted by the labor of preserving the cosmos from disintegration, must be supported by humans." Kuraev considers another of Kirill's doctrines—on concentrating the energy of meditation in a material object—to be Buddhist and occultist, quoting St. Augustine: "To bind invisible spirits to visible things by some art means to create gods."

Father Andrei admits that, having become patriarch, Kirill tried to appear more respectable, “but the language of Juna, with whom Kirill was friends in the 1970s and 1980s, still ingrained him. And it is impossible to separate language from worldview... No one except Father Kirill preaches in this jargon.” Kuraev recalls an elementary Christian truth: “An icon does not work miracles. None. God works miracles.” The worship of a material substance that accumulates material energy (which Kirill preaches) was anathematized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). You don’t have to be a high-brow theologian to see through the “heresy of Kirill.” Ordinary listeners to his sermons quip:

"At the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, the Patriarch was guarded by National Guard soldiers with Kalashnikovs at the ready and extra ammunition in a pouch on their belts... The Patriarch talked about an 'invisible energy field,' but he himself remained unconnected to it?"

A popular Orthodox blogger from Vienna, Nun Vassa (Larina), draws attention to Kirill's heresies, directly related to the "SVO": "The Patriarch calls the aggressive war, the shelling and bombing of civilians, a 'Holy War'; he promises those who kill in this war that all their sins will be washed away if they themselves are killed, and he does this publicly... If I had children, I would do everything I could to protect them from contact with anyone or anyone who proclaims such lies from the church pulpit, from a holy place," writes Vassa. "This is 'an abomination of desolation in a holy place' (Matthew 24:15), from which the Lord commanded us to 'flee to the mountains.'" The nun draws attention to the replacement of the dogmas of the Christian faith in the Russian Orthodox Church with pagan imperial-chauvinistic teachings: the Holy Trinity is a prototype of the "trinity" of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples, and the meaning of life is not God, but "Russian tradition, the shrines of Russian civilization, and great Russian culture."

Russian Orthodox Church of the State

Wright and Makris begin their book with the traditional critique leveled at the Moscow Patriarchate by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Orthodox underground in the USSR. Its key point is known as the "heresy of Sergianism," named after the first leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recreated in 1943 by Stalin's order, Metropolitan (or, according to the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky). In 1927, Sergius signed a "declaration of loyalty to Soviet power," completely subordinating his administration to the "church department" of the OGPU. In 1930, he gave an interview published in Izvestia, in which he denied religious persecution in the USSR, claimed that churches were being closed at the request of believers, and called his arrested compatriots political criminals. Under wartime conditions, the Stalinist regime reevaluated the functions of the puppet church, particularly in the spheres of foreign policy and propaganda. Sergius's ideology—preserving the remnants of the church organization at the cost of its complete subordination to external (Chekist) control—was not supported by the vast majority of the hierarchs of his time, including the nominal primate, the imprisoned patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). Nevertheless, Sergius continued his line, proudly declaring, "I am saving the Church." The book cites numerous statements by holy new martyrs, including those canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church itself, who condemned Sergius and his policies.

Sergius' actions became the prototype of modern practices of the Russian Orthodox Church.

During World War II, he issued decrees condemning hierarchs and clergy serving in German-occupied territories. These clergy were repressed. The current Moscow Patriarchate publicly distanced itself from anti-war clergy, after which they were subjected to government repression (as was the case, for example, with Hieromonk John (Kurmoyarov), declared a "schismatic" and imprisoned for "discrediting the Russian Armed Forces").

Patriarch Kirill emphasizes his ideological connection with the Stalinist patriarch, calling him a “confessor” who “worthy walked his way of the cross.”

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church consecrated a monument to Sergius in his birthplace, Arzamas, and called criticism of "Sergianism" by saints martyred by the NKVD "false slanders."

Kirill claimed that Sergius' critics were "in a state of personal security," while they were imprisoned and exiled and ended their lives as martyrs. But this is not the path of today's Russian Orthodox Church.

While Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Local Council anathematized the Soviet regime in early 1918, Sergius and his successors (including Kirill) sacralized it, regardless of its crimes. The book's authors argue that the relevance of "Sergianism" is evidenced by Kirill's many years of service in the KGB under the pseudonym "Mikhailov" (as reported in Swiss media), his veneration of Soviet symbols (primarily the "eternal flame"), his sympathy for totalitarian regimes (for example, Cuba, China, and North Korea), and his unconditional acceptance of the power and authority of Putin, who is never wrong about anything.

For 20 years before his appointment as patriarch (since 1989), Kirill headed the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP), created at the suggestion of Lavrenty Beria in 1946. According to many former employees, the department was staffed 100% by KGB agents, primarily from the First Chief Directorate (foreign intelligence). "The employees of my department were KGB agents, including me," said Father Andrei Rybin, now serving in one of the "alternative" Orthodox churches, at a press conference in Moscow in February 1992. "I was recruited while still a seminarian. It was impossible to find work in this department in any other way" (Orthodox Life, vol. 42, no. 3). The specific nature of the DECR MP is noted in the KGB USSR document of July 28, 1970, “On the use by KGB bodies of the capabilities of the Russian Orthodox Church in counterintelligence activities within the country and abroad.”

In general, the absolute majority of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet era were recruited: according to the deputy chairman of the KGB of the USSR, Anatoly Oleynikov, only 15-20% of ordinary clergy managed to avoid cooperation,

But the leading church positions were occupied exclusively by secret service agents (Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Basic Books, 1999, p. 490). This fact was confirmed by a commission of the Supreme Soviet of Russia, headed by Lev Ponomarev and Father Gleb Yakunin, which worked in the KGB archives in early September 1991: thanks to them, the agent nicknames of the current hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, including Patriarch Alexy II (agent "Drozdov"), became known. The late Archbishop Chrysostom (Martishkin), the only hierarch to publicly repent of collaborating with the KGB (agent “Restorator”), described his brother, Metropolitan Methodius (Nemtsov) (agent “Pavel”), who now occupies the Perm diocese, as follows: “A KGB agent, an atheist, a depraved man” (Russkaya Mysl, April 24, 1992).

The Russian Orthodox Church's missions, monasteries, and churches abroad remain important intelligence centers for Russian intelligence agencies, as Novaya Evropa has reported. Wright and Makris cite the example of Priest Pavel Makarenko, rector of a newly built Russian Orthodox church in Västerås, Sweden. In November 2023, he was officially awarded the SVR medal "For Interaction" (No. 4023-PN), which was presented to him by the current head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Anthony (Sevryuk). At the same time, Archimandrite Vassian (Zmeyev) was expelled from Bulgaria "for activities incompatible with the status of a clergyman," and Archpriest Nikolai Lishchenyuk from the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky stated that the Russian Orthodox Church "is part of the Kremlin's repressive apparatus, involved in Russian influence operations."

The fruit of the poisonous tree

The "SVO theology" is the apotheosis of "Sergianism." The Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill personally had long been approaching a theological fusion of the army and the church; all that was missing, in the patriarch's parlance, was a powerful blow sufficient to erase the boundary between them. This blow was the attack on Ukraine, declared a "holy war," opening the way to paradise for all who enlist in the Russian Armed Forces and give their lives for Putin's "denazification." Last year, in a sermon at the "main church of the Russian Armed Forces" in Patriot Park near Moscow, Kirill proclaimed the Russian Orthodox Church and the army "a single, unified organism," pointing to the liturgical commemoration of the "host" at every service. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church theologically bases Russia's military actions on the territory of other states on the doctrine of the "restraining force" (in Greek, "katechon"). Apostle Paul uses this term in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (chapter 2, verses 6–7), warning that our world will not be destroyed as long as "the one who restrains" remains in it. Although the Russian Federation and the Russian people did not exist in Apostle Paul's time, Kirill boldly applies the prophecy about the "restrainer" to them.

The starting point of the patriarch's argument is Putin's statement that there is no need for a world without Russia. "The patriarch's formulations," the book's authors note, "verbatim repeat the president's political manifesto; the source of the doctrine becomes obvious: the Kremlin." The Russian Orthodox Church "has sacralized the state to such an extent that political dissent has become a religious crime. The logical conclusion is the deification of the national leader," who is perceived as a new messiah. Congratulating Putin on his latest "accession to the throne" on May 7, 2024, Kirill, citing his patriarchal charisma, predicted his reign "until the end of the century" in the biblical sense, reducing the formula "There is no need for a world without Russia" to "There will be no world without Putin."

The authors cite a large body of patristic quotations refuting another of Kirill's dogmas, that death in the "SVO" automatically "washes away all sins," that is, makes a deceased prisoner or Wagnerite a saint. The 13th Canon of St. Basil the Great, part of the canon law of the Orthodox Church, imposes a three-year excommunication from communion on those returning from war (note, defensive, not aggressive). According to St. Nicholas of Serbia, "pagans exterminated each other with pride and arrogance, while Christians go into battle with shame." Comparing himself to St. Sergius of Radonezh, Kirill asks in one of his sermons: should the saint have blessed the soldiers for the battle with the Mongol-Tatars on Kulikovo Field? If he should have, then "I bless you all today for your selfless service." But then it was a question of a defensive war against foreign enslavers, and now, as Wright and Makris emphasize, it is about an “aggressive war against Orthodox Christians.”

Remaining in the Russian Orthodox Church is "technically" impossible for an Orthodox Christian who wishes to fulfill the commandments of the Gospel: "The state, acting through the submissive church authorities, demands your participation in prayers blessing the aggressive war against your fellow Orthodox Christians. If you remain silent and participate, you become an accomplice. If you object, you risk being branded a traitor to both the state and the Church"—with all the legal consequences, as Kirill puts it.

The book refutes another "clue" used by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin to "spiritually" justify the "SVO": supposedly, the canonical children of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine are being persecuted and must be protected. "If Russia invaded to supposedly protect the UOC, why did the UOC completely condemn the invasion?" Wright and Macris ask. "Why did they immediately stop commemorating Patriarch Kirill? Why did they declare independence from Moscow on May 27, 2022? Patriarch Kirill's supporters have no quality answers to these questions, other than ad hominem and accusations of 'anti-Russianness,' Russophobia, and Western espionage."

If we accept the logic of the Russian Orthodox Church, then “any Orthodox country could invade any other where the Orthodox are experiencing difficulties,” Orthodoxy would turn into an eternal war of all against all, worse than any jihadism.

Incidentally, the authors cite numerous examples showing that Kirill is close to Islam in a number of ways, including in its radical interpretations.

"He betrayed us."

While Patriarch Kirill's press service was preparing a response to the American Orthodox study, as if to confirm their arguments, a damning voice emerged from within the very church that the Russian Armed Forces allegedly intend to "defend." Evlogy (Gutchenko), Metropolitan of Sumy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (which the Moscow Patriarchate considers part of itself), gave an interview about the heresies of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He recalled that the concept of "holy war" does not exist in the Orthodox tradition, since "the Church of Christ has never known or accepted the idea of ​​sacralizing armed violence." In the Sumy Diocese, where active military action continues today, several dozen churches have been destroyed, and Evlogy is perplexed: "Is Patriarch Kirill really so cruel?" He deliberately "sided with our murderers... He believed that Ukraine was his canonical territory. After all, it is his flock that is being killed!" The Sumy Metropolitan sees the reason for this un-Christian choice in the fact that Kirill "is not a clergyman, he is a politician. He betrayed us, he renounced us."

At the very beginning of the "SVO," Patriarch Kirill promised Metropolitan Evlogy punishment "not only in the next century, but also in this one." Now these threats have been renewed by the patriarch's faithful disciple, Kirill Frolov, head of the Association of Orthodox Experts: "The liberation of Sumy is coming soon. So, we'll meet, and he'll receive his punishment according to the canons."

"Can anyone imagine an apostle being a KGB agent? The Holy Spirit does not dwell in those who became apostles on the recommendation of the KGB. The New Martyrs of Russia rejected this institution, which we today call the Church (ROC), and therefore this institution rejected the martyrs," Orthodox publicist Zoya Krakhmalnikova, who served five years in prison for her faith, emphasized in the early 1990s.

Perhaps the word "heresy" sounds too academic and, if you like, neutral to describe what the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church preaches. His views can be analyzed theologically, compared with the teachings of the Bible and the saints, as the authors of the book "The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill" meticulously do. But the living human heart, hearing the characteristic metallic voice of Kirill, calling for endless war, hatred, and bloodshed, reflexively flees from it, as described in the Gospel parable of the Good Shepherd (John 10:5). The religion of the "SVO" is based solely on fear and coercion.

 

English translator unknown.

Russian source: https://novayagazeta.eu/.../05/24/polnoe-sobranie-eresei

 

 

 

 

Liturgical Aspects of J. J. Overbeck’s Project of Revival of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy

A. A. Chumichev

This article is devoted to an insufficiently-studied page in the history of interconfessional relations in the second half of the nineteenth century: the project for the revival of Western Orthodoxy proposed by the German theologian living in England, J. J. Overbeck. Overbeck may rightly be regarded as a very enigmatic and undeservedly forgotten figure. At different times this theologian was a representative of three Christian confessions at once: Catholicism, Protestantism, and then Orthodoxy. Overbeck’s project is a unique phenomenon in the history of universal Orthodoxy, since it was he who first advanced the idea of using the Western rite within the Orthodox Church, in which for many centuries after the Great Schism only the Eastern rite had been practiced. In the 1870s, the plan put forward by Overbeck aroused unprecedented interest, and then support, on the part of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church. One of the chief questions on which a special Synodal commission worked was the discussion of the order of service he had compiled for the Orthodox Mass (Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis). This article touches upon the liturgical aspect of Overbeck’s project, examines the work of the commission of the Holy Synod on the text of the liturgy of the Western Orthodox Church, and also on certain other liturgical traditions that were intended for use in communities of Western-Rite Orthodoxy.

 

 

The project for establishing in England, and then throughout Europe, Orthodox communities practicing the Western liturgical rite for Anglicans and Catholics who had decided to convert to Orthodoxy was first officially presented to the Holy Synod of the Russian Church in January 1870. The author and chief inspiration behind this idea, which was without exaggeration revolutionary for the Orthodox Church, was the German scholar and theologian J. J. Overbeck. The uniqueness of the plan proposed by Overbeck consisted in the fact that it touched upon the problem of the universality of Orthodox doctrine. For Overbeck and his supporters, the chief idea was the preservation of the Western rite as the fruit of the activity of the saints of the ancient Western Church, reflecting the mentality of the peoples of Western Europe.

Julius Joseph Overbeck (1821–1905) was a Catholic priest and doctor of theology and philosophy who, on the eve of the First Vatican Council, protesting against centralization within the Catholic Church and the introduction of new dogmas, converted to Protestantism [1] and married. [2]

Scholarly interests compelled Overbeck to move with his family to Great Britain, where, in the 1860s, a number of his works on the history of the Ancient Church and the Syriac Holy Fathers were published in Oxford. According to the theologian’s own recollections, it was precisely the study of history that led him and his like-minded associates to the realization of the truth of Orthodoxy and of the authenticity of Orthodox doctrine as the doctrine of the Ancient Church, in contrast to other Christian confessions which, in their opinion, had lost this authenticity over the course of time. [3] Overbeck and his supporters decided to join Orthodoxy, but at the same time, to obtain from the Orthodox side permission to preserve the Western liturgical rite, which, in their opinion, would mean the revival of Western Orthodoxy as it had existed before the Great Schism. Overbeck’s supporters saw the realization of their ideas in rapprochement with the Russian Church.

In the 1860s, in London, the theologian became acquainted with the rector of the Dormition Church attached to the Russian Imperial Embassy, Archpriest Eugene Popov. In 1869, Overbeck was received by him into Orthodoxy through the sacrament of Chrismation. After his conversion to Orthodoxy, the theologian and his supporters sent to the Holy Synod of the Russian Church a petition requesting recognition of the possibility of celebrating the Western rite with the correction of the dogmatic errors of the Western Church. Initially the petition was signed by 106 people; [4] subsequently their number increased to 144. [5]

At the beginning of its existence, Overbeck’s project developed very rapidly and dynamically. The Synod took an interest in the theologian’s ideas. Overbeck was invited to work out his plan in detail and to come to St. Petersburg for its discussion. Archpriest Eugene Popov was instructed to accompany him personally on the journey to Russia. In order to examine the petition proposed by Overbeck, a special Synodal commission was formed in St. Petersburg, consisting of hierarchs and professors of the Saint Petersburg Theological Academy. The commission was headed by Isidore, Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg.

Let us try to trace the course of the commission’s work on the liturgical traditions that were intended for use in Orthodox communities of the Western rite, and also to answer the question of what the Holy Synod’s attitude toward the project was, and whether the members of the Synodal commission considered the realization of this idea possible. The most important topic for discussion by the commission of the Holy Synod was the project for an Orthodox liturgy of the Western rite—an Orthodox Mass—the celebration of which, according to Overbeck’s conception, was to become the central event in the realization of the project of Western Orthodoxy. Work on the text of the Orthodox Mass (Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis) was apparently begun by Overbeck immediately after his reception into Orthodoxy, still in 1869. However, during the theologian’s visit to Russia at the turn of 1869–1870, besides the text of the Mass itself, other important questions were also considered concerning the status and future liturgical practice of the communities of Western Orthodoxy. Let us dwell on this in more detail.

Liturgical Customs Intended for Use in Communities of the Orthodox Church of the Western Rite

Before his journey to St. Petersburg, Overbeck worked out the basic provisions of the Western-Rite Orthodox community he was establishing: concerning the canonical affiliation of the communities of Western Orthodoxy, the architecture and arrangement of churches, the place of the priest and the community during divine services, and also various liturgical traditions. All these questions were brought by him before the commission for discussion, and many proposals underwent substantial changes in the course of its work.

From the materials of the commission, however, it follows that its members approved in principle Overbeck’s idea concerning the possibility of the existence of different ritual forms that did not contradict Orthodox doctrine:

“Since Dr. Overbeck, in formulating his task, proceeded from a principle accepted by the Orthodox Church—to allow diversity in rites with unity of faith—the commission recognized his formulation of the task as correct, his motive as worthy of respect, his considerations as well-founded, and the rules adopted by him as guidance for the proper resolution of his task as sufficient.” [6]

The chief idea of the theologian and his supporters was not to attempt to reconstruct the Western rite in the form in which it had existed before the period of the Great Schism, but to adapt the contemporary rite of that time, cleansing it of the dogmatic distortions of the Catholic Church. [7]

The first question considered by the Synodal commission was the question of the canonical affiliation of the communities of Western Orthodoxy. This question had been discussed even before Overbeck’s arrival in Russia. According to the theologian’s proposal, the communities were initially to be subject to the Holy Synod of the Russian Church; subsequently, however, with the appearance of their own episcopate, they were to become independent national local Churches “in union of faith with the Eastern Patriarchs.” [8] This idea was approved by the commission with the following formulation:

“This close union of the newly created Western Orthodox-Catholic Church with the Eastern Church serves, not only at the present time but also in the future, as the surest and firmest guarantee of strict ecclesiastical unity and purity of faith for the newly created Orthodox Church in the West.” [9]

Church Architecture and Liturgical Vessels

The next group of questions considered by the commission was connected with the architecture of Western-rite churches. Disputes were provoked by the theologian’s ideas that the Orthodox church, in its arrangement, had preserved a greater similarity to the arrangement of the Old Testament temple, whereas Catholic churches had departed from this arrangement. Thus, the rectangular form had allegedly been replaced by the form of a cross only in the West. The commission pointed out to Overbeck that the form of the cross in the foundation of a church had first been used precisely in the Eastern Church, and not in the Western, where the form of a ship had originally been practiced. Thus, the question of church architecture was resolved in favor of preserving the existing Western architectural forms, which did not contradict the Eastern tradition.

However, the use of statues in church architecture, at Overbeck’s proposal, was prohibited; statues were to be replaced by icons. [10] The use of organ music during divine services was permitted by the commission:

“Taking into account, on the one hand, the centuries-old custom, and on the other, the indifference, from the dogmatic point of view, of the use or non-use of music during divine services, it considers it permissible to allow the use of organs during divine services in the future Orthodox churches of the West.” [11]

At the same time, certain restrictions were also adopted regarding the use of the organ, establishing distinctions between the new Western community and the practice of the Catholic Church. Thus, playing the organ could not be combined with the singing of the choir or with the exclamations of the priest and deacon; their singing likewise was not to be accompanied by organ playing. Accompaniment by organ music was permitted during the singing of the laity, in order to support the orderliness and harmony of their singing. All works of organ music that had a secular character were excluded by the commission’s decision.

The commission agreed with Overbeck’s proposal to abolish the Catholic practice of celebrating the liturgy simultaneously on several altars in one and the same church. The corporal, Latin corporale, which in the Western Church served as a certain analogue of the antimins, was proposed to be replaced by a true antimins. In addition, the commission pointed out the necessity of placing relics in the altar. Overbeck doubted the antiquity of this custom, regarding it as a later Western tradition, but he agreed with the commission’s arguments.

Overbeck’s proposal concerning the celebration of the Mass facing the people, so that the altar would stand between the parishioners and the priest, was perceived by the commission as an “innovation,” inconvenient in practice and contrary to Overbeck’s own thesis:

“...not, without extreme necessity, to trouble the popular feeling by departures from forms and rites to which the people had become accustomed, and which were not justified by any weighty reasons.” [12]

The laity were to be communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ under both kinds. In connection with this, the sacred vessels were to include: the chalice, diskos, spoon, and spear. The Eucharist was to be celebrated only on leavened bread. [13]

Liturgical Vestments

The vestments for the Orthodox Churches of the Western rite, according to Overbeck’s proposal, also had to undergo certain changes. The vestments were to become longer and to resemble ancient models. In all, five liturgical colors were established, and the times for wearing them were regulated: white was to be worn during feasts of the Lord and of the Theotokos, of the heavenly powers, holy virgins, and confessors; red during the celebration of Pentecost and in commemoration of martyrs; green on the Sunday after Theophany and Pentecost and on the weekdays of those weeks; violet was to be worn on the Sundays of Great Lent and on the days of the fast before the Nativity of Christ. [14]

Another proposal of Overbeck’s was to permit the wearing of the riassa, as in the Eastern Church, over the talar, Latin tunica talaris—the Latin analogue of the cassock. The commission approved these proposals. [15]

On the Types of Liturgies

Overbeck’s idea of abolishing the Catholic practice of classifying liturgies as “solemn,” “low,” and “private” was approved. In connection with this, many rites which Catholic liturgical practice of that time prescribed to be performed only during the celebration of the so-called solemn Mass were, by decision of the commission, recommended for use during the celebration of any liturgy. It was permitted only “to allow, on non-feast days, a more expedited celebration of the liturgy without singing, with clear and distinct pronunciation.” [16]

Discussion of the Project for the Order of Service of the Orthodox Mass

First of all, it must be noted that for Overbeck the most important aspect of the work of revising the text of the Roman Missal for the composition of the order of service of the Western Orthodox liturgy was practical, not theoretical. Since, because of the centralization of the Roman Church, all other liturgical practices had gradually been removed from use, he proposed taking as the basis for revision the contemporary text of the Roman, or Tridentine, Mass and removing from it those passages that contradicted Orthodox doctrine.

In the theologian’s opinion, the use of the Tridentine Mass was necessary because for many years it had been celebrated everywhere and was comprehensible to Western Christians. The Tridentine Mass was a continuation of the ancient Roman Missal, which had taken shape in the first centuries of Christianity’s existence. It became dominant among Roman Christians only at the end of the fourth century. For a long time, it remained only the liturgical practice of Rome and its immediate environs. The only exception was England, where the first missionaries arrived from Rome. However, with the rise of Charlemagne’s empire, the Roman liturgical tradition began to spread in Europe, displacing other liturgical practices.

Let us recall that Overbeck’s chief thesis in his work on the text of the Mass was not to carry out a reconstruction, but to use the contemporary text of the Mass. In his appeal to the Synod, he wrote:

“We strive to cleanse the Western liturgy of every trace of teaching contrary to Orthodoxy, and we have no need to enter into questions of purely archaeological antiquity.” [17]

However, in the initial version of the Mass that was presented to the Synod, it is evident that some “archaeological” work had nevertheless been carried out by him. Thus, for example, the Roman epiclesis was replaced by the more ancient epiclesis of the Mozarabic rite, which was practiced on the territory of modern Spain in the era preceding the Great Schism. More will be said about this below.

According to Overbeck, the Mass was to be celebrated not in Latin, but in the national languages. [18] However, in the materials of the Synodal commission there are no references concerning this question; the commission examined the Latin text.

Let us now turn to the corrections that were introduced by the Synodal commission into the order of service of the Roman Mass. These amendments may be divided into three groups: 1) those aimed at eliminating dogmatic positions that contradicted Orthodox doctrine; 2) those aimed at correcting inaccuracies of translation; 3) those aimed at eliminating certain rites that the commission recognized as inappropriate.

Let us consider these amendments in the order of the service.

In the Liturgy of the Catechumens, in the “prayers at the foot of the altar,” the following change was introduced: in the second part of the secret prayer pronounced by the priest: Oramus te, Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic sunt, et omnium Sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen (“We pray Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy saints, whose relics are here, and of all the saints, that Thou wouldst deign to forgive all my sins. Amen”), the form of the prayer per merita Sanctorum tuorum (“by the merits of Thy saints”) was replaced by the commission with per preces Sanctorum tuorum (“through the prayers of Thy saints”), in order to exclude any mention of the Latin teaching on supererogatory merits and indulgences. Also approved was the change introduced by Overbeck into the text of the Great Doxology (Gloria in excelsis): the Greek ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (“good will among men”), rendered in the traditional Latin version as hominibus bonae voluntatis (“to men of good will”), was replaced with hominibus beneplacitum (“good will to men”). This version of the translation was recognized by the commission as more exact and recommended for use. [19]

The next point was the use of the Trisagion in the order of the Mass. According to Overbeck’s conception, this prayer was to testify to unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He placed the prayer “Holy God” after the reading of the Apostle. The commission approved the idea of using this prayer, but proposed that it be used immediately before the reading of the Apostle, since this was practiced in the Orthodox Church. According to the theologian’s idea, this prayer was to be sung twice in Greek and the third time in the national language. The practice of the deacon blessing the people (Dominus vobiscum), which the theologian had retained in composing the Mass, was annulled, since, in the commission’s opinion, this blessing could be performed only by a priest.

Also abolished was the sign of the cross made in Latin practice over the text of the Gospel before its reading, “as not being in keeping with the character of the book.” [20]

From the text of the Creed (Credo), the words Deum de Deo were excluded as a pleonasm alongside the words Deum verum de Deo vero. The commission noted that these words were likewise absent from the Greek text of the Creed in use at that time.

In the Canon of the Mass (Canon Missae), in the commission’s opinion, there occurred an excessive repetition of the sign of the cross not only over the unconsecrated Holy Gifts, but also over the consecrated Holy Gifts. “Finding such repetition over the unconsecrated Gifts superfluous, and over the consecrated Gifts inappropriate,” [21] the commission proposed that Overbeck retain the making of the sign of the cross only during the consecration itself of the Holy Gifts. In addition, the commission succeeded in convincing Overbeck to accept the form of making the sign of the cross practiced in the Eastern Church, as the more ancient one.

To the prayer Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Iesum Christum Filium Tuum (“Most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son”), the words una cum famulis Tuis patriarchis et Synudis orthodoxis (“together with Thy servants, the Orthodox Patriarchs and Synods”) were added before the words Antistite nostro NN (“and our Hierarch N.”), “as a sign of union with all the Orthodox Churches.” [22]

In the same prayer were included commemorations of the authorities of the country in which the liturgy is celebrated: after the words Memento, Domine (“Remember, O Lord”), the words Regis (Reginae) nostri, gubernii nostrii (“Remember, O Lord, our king/queen, our government”) were added, with the commission’s formulation: “in accordance with the rule of the Orthodox Church—to pray for the authorities that be.” [23]

The prayer of invocation of the Holy Spirit was borrowed by Overbeck from the Mozarabic liturgy. The epiclesis taken from the Mozarabic rite was, apparently, the most successful choice for Overbeck: on the one hand, it recalled the time when the Western rite existed merely as the fruit of the Western mentality within the common Orthodox Church; on the other hand, it recalled the time when other rites besides the Roman also existed in the Western Church. However, this prayer was found by the commission to be “not clearly expressing the meaning of the action being performed, and moreover lacking the sacred-actional formula of the Eucharistic change of the Holy Gifts.” [24] By agreement with Overbeck, it was replaced with the form of invocation and blessing used in the Orthodox Church in the epiclesis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It was inserted, by analogy with the place it occupies in the Orthodox liturgy, as a continuation of the prayer of the Roman rite: Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta (“Wherefore also we, O Lord, Thy servants, and Thy holy people”).

The Latin translation of the epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom was made by Overbeck himself:

S. Suplices Te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: mitte Spiritum Sanctum Tuum super nos et super haec Tua dona oblata: et fac panem huni pretesiosum corpus Christi Tui (Signans super panem) P. Amen.

“Priest: We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God: send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here offered, and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ (pointing to the bread). People: Amen.”

S. (Signans super calium) Et quod in hoc Calice est pretiosum sanguinem Christi Tui. P. Amen.

“Priest (pointing to the chalice): And that which is in this Chalice, the precious Blood of Thy Christ. People: Amen.)”

S. (benedicens utrumqe donum sanctum) Transubstantiando per Spiritum Sanctum Tuum. P. Amen, Amen, Amen.

“Priest (then, blessing the Holy Gifts together): Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. People: Amen, Amen, Amen.”

A part of the prayer Unde et memores (“Wherefore also we”), namely: donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae (“we offer unto Thy most glorious Majesty, from Thy good things and gifts, a pure sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice, the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation”), was removed by the commission without explanation of the reasons.

In addition, in the commission’s opinion, kneeling, adoration, and the elevation of the Gifts after the so-called words of institution were to be removed, “since the Eastern Church holds that the consecration of the Holy Gifts takes place only in the invocation of the Holy Spirit.” [25]

The Synod approved this project, declaring its readiness to support Overbeck’s plan with all its authority and to assist him in every way. Subsequently, in 1871, the text of the Mass was published in the journal issued by Overbeck, Orthodox Catholic Review. Having received initial approval from the Holy Synod, Overbeck and his supporters began work on translating liturgical books, orders of service, and prayers into English, among which were: the Octoechos, [26] the Hours, [27] akathists to the Savior [28] and to the Mother of God, [29] the Canon before Communion, the prayers of thanksgiving after Holy Communion, [30] the Great Penitential Canon of Andrew of Crete, [31] the Penitential Canon to our Lord Jesus Christ, [32] the Order of Services for Great Friday [33] and Great Saturday, [34] the service to the Holy Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of Britain, [35] and a number of other prayers.

Before many of the translations there was placed information about the existing practice of using the particular order of service being translated in the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church. Thus, before the Great Penitential Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, the life of this saint was published, the liturgical works composed by him were described, and an account was also given of the practice of the Orthodox Church in using this canon during Great Lent.

The purpose of the translations was to prepare liturgical texts for use in the Western Orthodox Church being created, and also to bring this Church closer to the spiritual tradition of the East by adapting it to local practice. [36]

Summing up everything said above, one may conclude that, in its work on adapting the liturgical practice of the Roman Church for use in the communities of Western-Rite Orthodoxy, the Synodal commission affirmed, as its chief principle, the principle proposed by Overbeck: the preservation, where this did not contradict Orthodox doctrine, of the practices of the Roman Church that existed at that time. In the most significant questions, however, such as, for example, the arrangement of the altar, it was decided to bring the Western tradition as close as possible to the Eastern. In composing the text of the Orthodox Mass, Overbeck adhered to two principles: 1) maximum closeness of the source text to the Western mentality, which is precisely why the text of the Tridentine Mass was taken as the basis; 2) correction of this text from dogmatic inaccuracies that reflected Catholic doctrine. In this connection, the order of service of the Mass, after the joint work of Overbeck and the commission, represented a synthesis of the liturgical practice of the Catholic Church and the theological-liturgical principles of the Orthodox Church. The changes introduced by Dr. Overbeck and the Synodal commission into the initial text of the Roman Missal affected practically all its parts; the greatest changes, however, concerned the anaphora, which, through the inclusion in it of the epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom, was brought as close as possible to the tradition of the Eastern Church.

The support given to Overbeck’s project by the Synod of the Russian Church gave impetus to the further development of the idea of the revival of Western Orthodoxy. The theologian’s supporters carried out extensive work on the translation of liturgical texts intended for use in Western-rite communities.

Thanks to archival data, one may conclude that, at the time when the plan presented by Overbeck was being examined, the members of the commission of the Holy Synod were convinced that the project of Western Orthodoxy could be implemented and that the idea of using the Western rite in the Orthodox Church was possible. In this connection, the reasons why the project was not realized remain a mystery and require special study.

 

NOTES

1. Huber P. Jenseits von Ost und West. Berlin, 2006, p. 35.

2. Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968, p. 16.

3. Abramtsov D. Dr. J. J. Overbeck and His Scheme for the Re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West. A.B., University of Pittsburgh, 1959, p. 4.

4. Kopylova E. A. “The Overbeck Case” in the Life of the Saint Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment // Bulletin of V. N. Tatishchev Volga University. Series “Humanities and Education.” Issue 4 (14), vol. II. Tolyatti, 2013, p. 172.

5. RGIA. Fond 796. Inventory 150. File 638. On the Establishment of a Special Commission for the Examination of Petitions Received from Persons of the Anglican Church. Fol. 132.

6. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27.

7. Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968, p. 63.

8. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 23.

9. Ibid.

10. Overbeck J. J. “The Indisputable Advantages of the Orthodox Catholic Church over Other Christian Confessions” // Christian Reading. 1883. Nos. 3–4, p. 418.

11. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27.

12. Ibid., fol. 27 verso.

13. Overbeck J. J. “The Orthodox Catholic Church. A Protest against the Papal Church and a Return to the Foundation of Catholic National Churches,” by J. J. Overbeck, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy // Christian Reading. 1868. No. 12, p. 822.

14. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 68.

15. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27 verso.

16. Ibid., fol. 27.

17. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 32.

18. Overbeck J. J. “The Providential Position of Orthodox Russia and Her Calling to Restore the Orthodox Western Catholic Church” // Christian Reading. 1870. No. 1, p. 173.

19. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 33 verso.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., fol. 34 verso.

23. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 34.

24. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2, fol. 34.

25. Ibid., fol. 34 verso.

26. Shann G. V. The First Tone of the Octoёchos // The Orthodox Catholic Review (далее —OCR.) / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1877. Vol. VI. P. 109-144.

27. Shann G. V. Divine and Sacred Horology // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1879. Vol. VIII. P. 162–191.

28. Shann G. V. The Suppliant Canon to our Lord Jesus Christ // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1876. Vol. V. P. 102–117.

29. Shann G. V. The Offi ce of the Acathistos Hymn to the Mother of God // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1875. Vol. IV. P. 117.

30. Shann G. V. Offi ce of the divine Metalepsis, or devotions for the Holy Communion // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1876. Vol. IV. P. 192–216.

31. The Great canon of S. Andrew of Creete, surnamed the Jerusalemite (translated by L.K.L) // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1875. Vol. IV. P. 35–50.

32. Shann G. V. The Suppliant Canon to our Lord Jesus Christ // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1877. Vol. V. P. 95.

33. Shann G. V. Four-and-twenty Stanzas to the Holy Cross // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1878. Vol. V. P. 102–117.

34. Shann G. V. The Order of the office for the Holy and Great Sunday of Easter / Translated from the Slavonic by the late Rev. Basil Popoff, and revised by G.V. Shann // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1878. Vol. III. P. 97–119.

35. Office of the Holly Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of Britain of Britain. Modelled on ancient pattern by J. T. S., M. D. // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L.,1876. Vol. III. P. 83–95.

36. Overbeck J. J. The Western Orthodox Catholic Church // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1871. Vol. III. P. 49.

 

Sources

Overbeck J. J. “The Indisputable Advantages of the Orthodox Catholic Church over Other Christian Confessions” // Christian Reading. 1883. Nos. 3–4.

Overbeck J. J. “The Orthodox Catholic Church. A Protest against the Papal Church and a Return to the Foundation of Catholic National Churches,” by J. J. Overbeck, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy // Christian Reading. 1868. No. 12.

Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev.

RGIA. Fond 796. Inventory 150. File 638. On the Establishment of a Special Commission for the Examination of Petitions Received from Persons of the Anglican Church.

RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church.

Office of the Holy Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of Britain. Modelled on ancient pattern by J. T. S., M.D. // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. III, pp. 83–95.

Shann G. V. “Four-and-Twenty Stanzas to the Holy Cross” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1878. Vol. V, pp. 102–117.

Shann G. V. “The Order of the Office for the Holy and Great Sunday of Easter.” Translated from the Slavonic by the late Rev. Basil Popoff, and revised by G. V. Shann // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1878. Vol. III, pp. 97–119.

Shann G. V. “The Suppliant Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1877. Vol. V, pp. 95–102.

Shann G. V. “Divine and Sacred Horology” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1879. Vol. VIII, pp. 162–191.

Shann G. V. “Office of the Divine Metalepsis, or Devotions for Holy Communion” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. IV, pp. 192–216.

Shann G. V. “The First Tone of the Octoechos” // The Orthodox Catholic Review (OCR) / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1877. Vol. VI, pp. 109–144.

Shann G. V. “The Suppliant Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. V, pp. 102–117.

“The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, Surnamed the Jerusalemite,” translated by L. K. L. // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1875. Vol. IV, pp. 35–50.

 

Bibliography

Kopylova E. A. “The Overbeck Case” in the Life of the Saint Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment // Bulletin of V. N. Tatishchev Volga University. Series “Humanities and Education.” Issue 4 (14), vol. II. Tolyatti, 2013, pp. 167–178.

Abramtcev D. Dr. J. J. Overbeck and His Scheme for the Re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West. University of Pittsburgh, 1959.

Huber P. Jenseits von Ost und West. Berlin, 2006.

Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968.

 

Russian source: St. Tikhon’s University Review, Series II: History. Russian Church History. 2017, Vol. 78., pp. 83–94.

 

The Spirit of Consumerism in the World and in the Church

Priest Tarasy Borozenets | April 24, 2026

 

 

Before speaking about the sinfulness of consumerism, it is important to understand: consumption in itself is not evil. Consumption is a natural element of our human life. Man is a dependent and needy being, and therefore it is natural for him to take and consume, especially in childhood. But as he grows older, man increasingly begins to give to others—to create, to help, to care. A mature person is a responsible, creative person, loving God and his neighbors, guided by the apostolic commandment: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

Evil lies not in consumption itself, but in its immoderation and perversion, in its absolutization. The more perfected a person is, the higher his psychological and spiritual aspirations are, the less egoistic consumption there is in him and the more constructive activity and creativity. The absolutization of consumption leads to degradation and infantilization, whereas the primacy of self-giving fosters personal growth, the strength of the family, and the vigor of society.

Consumerism in the Gospel

When the Lord went forth to preach, performed His miracles, and, most importantly, the miracles of the conversion and healing of human souls, leading them to repentance, humility, and love, He thereby satisfied all the pressing needs of people—both spiritual and bodily. His mercies were so full and manifest that hope arose among the people: now there is no need to do anything; simply be with Christ, and He will do everything and grant prosperity to all.

Therefore the people surrounding Him listened, but did not hear His warnings that He, and they after Him, would have to suffer, be killed, and rise again. Their consumerist consciousness simply could not contain this. Then, as today, people do not want this from God—not effort, responsibility, or ascetic struggle. They want “to have everything, and to have nothing happen to them for it.” They want to make use of things, to consume, and not to suffer and give of themselves. Let us recall the words of the Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you: you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (John 6:26). Here is the root of the problem: we seek not Christ, but services; not the Savior, but a free benefactor.

Two Principles of the Consumerist Consciousness

The consumerist attitude persists as long as there remains in a person even some measure of pride and egoism. Behind a consumerist attitude toward God, one’s neighbor, and the world there always stands egocentrism—the placing of oneself at the center of the universe, where even God is turned into a means of serving my Ego.

In the consumerist consciousness, man is a consumer, a client who is always right; God is a provider of services, obliged to do things as I want; the Church is a firm that provides these services; faith, the Mysteries, and prayers are instruments. Here two principles are at work: the first is “I want,” and the second is “Everyone owes me.”

Consumer Society as a Breeding Ground

Today’s capitalist society is rightly called a consumer society. The economy, art, education, upbringing, and culture are arranged so that people are constantly consuming something: goods and services, information, impressions—and so that they see in this the meaning of their life. Here everyone lives exclusively for himself, for the satisfaction of his own needs. Man becomes a buyer, and the world a vast supermarket. The Apostle John the Theologian warned:

“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father, but is of this world” (1 John 2:16).

Consumer society is the triumph of this “pride of life,” realized through the “lust of the flesh” and the “lust of the eyes.” The chief sin here is not murder or theft, but insufficient consumption.

The Spirit of Consumerism in the Church

It may seem that such consumerism concerns only society outside the Church, this world. Alas, it has also penetrated and metastasized in the consciousness and life of believers. We come to the Church from the consumerist world and do not automatically leave its cultural and value cocoon, even by confessing and receiving Communion. Often we bring into the church the same spirit of consumption, only redirecting it from things to holy things. People begin to treat God, faith, and the Church as services. They seek a faith “suited to themselves,” according to their own tastes, so that it will be convenient and comfortable. They choose a church as they would a store: where the “service” is more pleasant, the priest kinder, the choir more beautiful, the candles cheaper, the sermons shorter. Even the saints are chosen according to the principle of “who gives me what”: one for a headache, another for passing an exam. This is no longer faith, but religious consumption. The Lord says: “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). But modern man is sincerely convinced that one can: let God be on the list of service providers alongside the bank, the hairdresser, and the internet provider.

Most often people come to the Church not because life is going well, but out of need. They are not seeking dogmas, but a solution: how to save a dying husband, pull a son out of the captivity of drugs, preserve a family, or at least obtain a roof over their head. A person comes in order to receive: health, safety, well-being, the resolution of an unbearable problem. And the Lord does not slam the door shut before such a “petitioner.” He receives him, knowing the true price of this impulse—fear, pain, or calculation.

Why does God receive consumers? Because this is how the path of churching begins. As the holy fathers write, the soul passes through three stages: that of the slave, the hireling, and the son.

The stage of the slave: a person does not yet love God, but fears hell. He keeps the commandments because he has been terrified by the description of fiery Gehenna. This is faith expressing a religious instinct of self-preservation.

The stage of the hireling: a person already hopes for a reward. He fasts in order to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven, and prays for God’s gifts both in this life and in the life to come. This is a transaction: “I give You a candle; You give me a successful operation.”

The stage of the son: perfection, when a person serves God and his neighbor simply out of love, having forgotten about punishment and recompense.

In the first two stages, the Christian remains a consumer. He struggles ascetically not for Christ’s sake, but in order to avoid pain (the slave) or to receive dividends (the hireling). Of such an attitude people say: “Not for Jesus’ sake, but for a piece of bread.”

But here is the paradox of holiness: the Lord accepts even such distorted service. As a mother nurses an infant who is not yet capable of loving her, but is capable only of tasting milk (consuming), so also God nourishes the soul with grace through fear and the hope of reward. Gradually, by His Providence, He raises a person from the egoistic “give me” to the filial “I thank Thee.” The problem of contemporary church life is that many become complacent and remain stuck in the first two stages, unwilling to pass on to the third—to love wholly and truly.

The Choice: Consumption or Service

Today every Christian is faced with a clear choice: egoistic consumption or sacrificial service. Hardened consumers regard even one another as commodities. They relate to other people exclusively as means for satisfying their own needs. Another person has no intrinsic value; he is valuable only insofar as he can be useful, pleasant, or profitable. In this way people unwittingly reduce themselves to the level of commodities that have a monetary price. “How much are you worth?” is the chief question of the consumerist world. A person believes that his dignity is measured by salary, brands, and status. In this world everything is sold and bought: the body, talents, time, conscience, love, friendship, even a place in Paradise, as it seems to those who order forty-day commemorations without repentance. But Christ reminds us: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26). The soul has no price, for it is the image of God. He who looks upon his neighbor as a commodity first of all devalues himself, for according to the word of the Lord: “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:2).

Two Types of Consumerism

The most terrible thing is that this sore also afflicts fully churched Christians. In the depths of our soul, we often relate to Christ as a source of well-being. As long as everything is going well—health, prosperity, peace in the family—we willingly go to church, pray, and receive Communion. But as soon as misfortune occurs, a person falls into despondency, abandons prayer, stops going to church, and murmurs: “Why? I served Thee so much!” This is pure consumerism: I give God my religiosity, and He is obliged to give me a comfortable life. The Lord warned:

“But that which fell upon the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13).

Churching without the root of humility and readiness to bear the cross inevitably turns into a transaction.

Paradoxically, worldly people manifest consumerism in precisely the opposite way. As long as everything is going well for them—health, money, success—they do not even want to think about church, regarding faith as the lot of the weak. But as soon as misfortune comes—illness, collapse, the death of loved ones—they “remember” God and run to church to light a candle, order a forty-day commemoration, confess, and receive Communion, treating God as a crisis manager. Folk wisdom has accurately observed: “Until the thunder strikes, the peasant will not cross himself.”

In both the first and the second case, there is one and the same consumerist consciousness: God is needed not as Father and Lord, but as a fire brigade or service personnel. The only difference is that the “churched” person has become accustomed to “service” in good times, while the unchurched person seeks it only in bad times. But both do not want one thing: to be with God always—in joy and in sorrow, in health and in sickness, in abundance and in poverty, serving Him not for something, but out of humble, grateful love for His own sake.

A False Picture of the World and Right Dispositions

Consumerism today poisons and perverts not only church life, but all spheres of society: education, upbringing, science, and art—leading them to vulgarization and degradation. People imagine the world as a supermarket of goods and services. But this is an entirely false picture.

At the foundation of life we should place dispositions opposite to pride and consumerism: “I owe others,” “No one owes me anything,” “One must give more and take less,” “Do not demand and do not take things for granted, but ask and give thanks for everything as for an undeserved gift.” This is what the Liturgy teaches us as a common work, and the Eucharist as thanksgiving. The Lord Himself is the highest example: He “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

From Passivity to Synergy and the Cross

Consumerism presupposes passivity, work directed toward receiving rather than giving. The opposite disposition—constructive activity—calls for active cooperation with God, for synergy with His grace. As Scripture says: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). Folk wisdom echoes this: “Water does not flow under a lying stone.” Without our will and active participation, God cannot save us. The path of the Christian is hard labor. Its heaviness lies in the efforts to overcome the spirit of pride and consumerism, in uprooting them from the soul and heart.

After conversion, He at first pours out His mercy superabundantly, plainly showing His care and openly demonstrating His presence. It may seem to the newly converted person that it will always be this way. But then the Lord “withdraws” and “releases” the person onto a free path, urging him toward independent cooperation and the bearing of his own cross. He does this so that the person will not become a spiritual consumer, will not become rooted in laziness and pride, but will become a co-worker and a cross-bearer, a builder of his own salvation and of the salvation of his neighbors. It is said: “The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force, and those who use force seize it” (Matt. 11:12). Christ Himself calls: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Mark 8:34). True Christian life consists in self-denying service to God and one’s neighbors, and not in demanding that one be served.

 

Russian source: https://pravoslavie.ru/177118.html

Greek translation: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/05/blog-post_23.html

 

On the Christian Spiritual Struggle

St. Vasily of Kanev, Confessor (+1933)

Homily on Friday of the Second Week of Great Lent, February 20, 1904

 

 

Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38

 

This is why constant spiritual watchfulness, spiritual sobriety, and continual attentive concern for oneself, for one’s inner life, are necessary: our spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. As is evident from the Gospels, the spirit of Christ’s disciples was willing; they were always ready for the greatest sorrows, privations, sufferings, even for death itself for the sake of their Beloved Teacher. Nothing, according to their words, could ever separate them from the Lord.

When once Christ the Savior asked two of His closest apostles whether they could drink the cup which He had to accept—the cup of sufferings, of the most shameful Cross, the cup of the greatest torments and reproaches—they boldly and fearlessly answered: “We are able” (Matt. 20:22). There was not the slightest shadow of doubt in their words, not the slightest wavering in this holy resolve to follow the Lord everywhere and to endure all things for His sake.

On another occasion, when Christ the Savior spoke prophetically: All ye shall be offended because of Me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad, the Apostle Peter answers: Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended (Matt. 26:31, 33). What “willingness” of spirit, what holy zeal, what unconditional devotion to Him for Whose sake everything had been left behind—both house, and brothers, and sisters! (Matt. 19:27). The same holy Apostle Peter expresses his boundless love for the Lord still more strongly and decisively: Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee (Matt. 26:35). The same thing is repeated also by the other disciples of the Lord (Matt. 26:35).

But what do we see afterward?… The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38). The most zealous confessor of faith in Christ, the Apostle Peter, denies his Beloved Teacher “for fear of the Jews,” and earnestly swears that he does not know this Man (Matt. 26:69 ff.); when the Lord is taken into custody, all the disciples leave Him in fear and flee (Matt. 26:56 and parallel passages).

And in the Garden of Gethsemane, on that great night, in those hours of prayer concerning the cup, the chosen and closest Apostles of Christ cannot “watch” with their Lord even one hour, and give themselves over to sleep at the very time when the soul of their Teacher is sorrowful even unto death, when, in His heavy ascetic struggle of prayer, bloody sweat appears upon His face, when He grieves and is deeply distressed, and an angel of the Lord strengthens Him (Matt. 26:37; Luke 22:42–44).

Such, in general, is the property of our nature: our spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Our spirit is a divine principle; it is a flame from the divine flame; it is from heaven, and therefore, naturally, turns toward heaven as to its true fatherland, where it can find complete repose for itself. It thirsts for righteousness, strives toward truth, inclines toward eternal and unchanging beauty; it seeks the things above, and delights only in the law of God (Rom. 7:22).

But, O wretched man that I am: who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom. 7:24)… The flesh, or carnality, fastens us to what is earthly, external, and sensual; it weakens or even entirely suppresses the Godlike impulses of our spirit. With my mind, says the holy Apostle, I serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin (Rom. 7:25). For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh (Gal. 5:17).

Let us look attentively into our inner, spiritual life, and we shall clearly see this constant, tormenting discord within us between the eternal and the temporal, the heavenly and the earthly, the spiritual and the carnal.

We are often inspired by the most exalted, noble, and pure desires and aspirations. To live according to God, to do everything from the soul, to accomplish everything according to conscience, according to a sense of duty—this is what stands before us as something absolutely necessary on our part, something without which our very life is unthinkable and will lose its true meaning. Truth, honesty, complete disinterestedness, unceasing labor for the good of others—this is what inspires us.

We are ready to come forward as self-sacrificing fighters for every trampled justice, to stand firmly in defense of the offended and oppressed person. The highest ideals of goodness shine before us as a bright guiding star… What, we think, is our self-loving person, our petty worldly interests, our empty ambition?… All this must be offered as a sacrifice to our neighbor; one must think less of oneself and more of others; for in love is the fullness of life, in love man is perfected. Forgive, endure, love, struggle, suffer—be ready to embrace all in your arms: this is true life.

And deeds—we think—how many deeds there are in every field, deeds of the most fruitful and life-giving kind, where it is necessary to apply one’s strength self-sacrificially; for the harvest in every field is plentiful, but the laborers are few. And how, we wonder, do people live without being conscious of all this—without being conscious of that which gives life its true value? No, we sincerely repeat: “Though all should deny Him, we will not deny Him.”

But all these noble thoughts and desires of ours grow pale and, with the passage of time, evaporate like smoke. We hear the reproachful words of the Lord: Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour? (Mark 14:37). Where is our former spiritual watchfulness, where is the lofty exaltation and exertion of our spiritual powers? Where are the former youthful, holy ideals that inspired us?… Where?… “Simon! Sleepest thou?”…

Having entered into life, for the Lord’s sake, for the fulfillment of His holy will, we often cannot watch with Him even one hour. Where are our former holy aspirations and impulses?… Mammon has stifled them, as thorns choke the growing grain of the earth (Matt. 13:7). And we become slaves of petty worldly care and vanity, which make us base and cowardly; slaves of our self-love—this most powerful master, with its whole crowd of various servants in the form of diverse sensual impulses and passions.

Yes, our spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Let us look attentively into our spiritual life. What do we see? Like the publican of the Gospel, we cry out: “God, be merciful to me a sinner,” and with the Pharisee of the Gospel we think: I am not as other men are (Luke 18:11). With the thief we cry: “Remember me, O Lord,” and with the unbelieving Gadarenes we do not wish to receive the Lord Who comes to us.

From the depth of our soul we cry: “Open unto me the doors of repentance, O Giver of Life,” and again we remain in our former impenitence, again we return to our habitual sins. We weep and fall down, and pray together with Mary Magdalene, but we do not do the deeds of this holy woman… O wretched man that I am: who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom. 7:24).

From this the necessity of constant spiritual watchfulness, of spiritual sobriety, is clearly revealed; the latter is accomplished only with the help of the all-powerful grace of God, which heals our infirmities, and not by our own weak powers. Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might (Eph. 6:10)—in hope in the Lord, in trust in His almighty power (Eph. 3:20).

Christianity requires from all of us a moral struggle, an unceasing spiritual warfare. It does not call everyone into deserts and monasteries, but it commands everyone to subject his flesh to the spirit. There are different forms of Christian asceticism, but in essence the life of a Christian is ascetic discipline: a constant active striving to give triumph to the spiritual principle over the carnal, to make the body a worthy instrument of the spirit, and, through the development of the spirit, already here, insofar as this is possible, to transform the natural body into a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44 ff.).

“The foundations of life in the deserts… are identical with the general Christian foundations of life: there the evangelical universal human ideal was given and developed, or more precisely, clarified… The Church considers the ascetic element in Christianity to be a common component of the life of the Christian, and recognizes ascetic labor as obligatory not only for the hermit or the monk, but also for everyone who wishes to live in Christ and according to Christ, both in the world, and in the family, and in society.”

How mistaken, therefore, are those who at the present time so zealously defend the “flesh,” the natural human element taken in itself, resolutely affirming that this human element contains in itself no unconditional impurity, and that it must be received by Christianity and united with it, for the path to the supernatural, to the Christian, lies for us only from this natural, human element taken in itself.

He who knows the Scripture and who looks attentively into his inner spiritual life knows well that this human, natural element in us is darkened, infected, sinful; in it there is no unity and harmony, but a constant discord is observed between the spirit and the flesh. Here are the works of the flesh: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, quarrels, envy, anger, strife, dissensions, temptations, heresies, hatred, murders, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and the like (Gal. 5:19–21). And here are the works of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, temperance (Gal. 5:22–23).

Therefore, Christianity cannot receive the human element in its immediate naturalness, but must transform it, spiritualize it. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (John 3:6); it always bears upon itself the stamp of sensuality, carnality, sinfulness. Christ the Savior assumed our flesh, apart from sin, and therefore the God-manhood of Christ the Savior by no means speaks of the existence in us of “holy flesh.”

And what, one may ask, is the point of this praise of the natural human element taken in itself, this proud self-complacency over the purity of human nature, when Christianity also does not deny in us the beginnings of good, though darkened, and does not suppress the better aspects of the human, but only cleanses the latter from every kind of tare that has grown upon it? Is it good for a sick man, who can become healthy with proper medical help, to keep insisting that he is perfectly healthy and requires no physician? Is it good for a man who does not know, but who can possess knowledge, to keep saying that he knows much and has no need of the help of education? Does this not mean leading us into obvious deception, weakening in us the spiritual energy we need? And this is precisely how these defenders of “holy flesh” act.

Many console themselves with the thought that the time for struggle, for spiritual sobriety, for attentive self-observation, is still ahead, and that for now it is better simply to live—to take from life everything it gives, to experience every kind of amusement and sensual pleasure.

Oh, this is a dangerous path in life!… One must fight the enemy when he is still only approaching us, when he is plotting against us and devising his cunning snares against us. But when the enemy has surrounded us on every side and taken away from us all our best possession, then the struggle against him is difficult, and often completely impossible.

How many precious lives perish precisely because the first temptations, the first assaults of the enemy, were not repelled; and, gradually submitting more and more to his destructive influence, they were finally captured alive in the nets of the devil. Do we not see a handsome, healthy young man, raised in a truly Christian family, who, failing to repel the first unhealthy pleasures of his youth, perished prematurely in the storm of passions burning him up? Do we not see a girl pure as an angel of heaven, who did not understand the first impulses of her loving heart and likewise perished prematurely?…

And this unfortunate man, exhausted, broken, barely dragging his feet, having almost lost human appearance!… Who is he? He has been ruined by those same passions which, like a serpent, crept up to him and gradually sucked out of him all that was best… We regret the life we have lived, we scourge and curse ourselves, but it is already too late: the enemy has taken possession of us.

Spiritual struggle, spiritual watchfulness, and sobriety are always necessary. In this spiritual warfare the Christian is not left to his own infirm powers, but divine weapons are given to him, capable of destroying every stronghold of the enemy (2 Cor. 10:4).

“Take,” the holy Apostle teaches us, “the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having overcome all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the readiness to preach the gospel of peace; and above all, take the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the spiritual sword, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:13–17).

The most important Christian weapon in spiritual warfare is faith, which serves for the Christian warrior as a great shield, protecting him from the strongest assaults of the enemy. From faith comes truth, girding the loins of the Christian’s thought, directing his thoughts upward and not allowing them to be scattered in worldly vanity; from faith comes righteousness, or a virtuous life, protecting the Christian warrior like a breastplate from the evil that clings to him. Faith also gives birth to self-sacrificing readiness for the struggle with the enemy, in the name of the Gospel of God, which has brought us peace. Faith provides the spiritual helmet, which is salvation or redemption, granted to us in Christ; from faith and according to faith comes the speech of God, or the evangelical word, sharper than any two-edged sword.

We hear the reproachful words of the Lord: Simon, sleepest thou? (Mark 14:37). Could ye not watch with Me one hour? (Matt. 26:40). But we also hear other words: Lord, teach us to pray (Luke 11:1); Increase our faith! (Luke 17:5). Under the action of living faith and pure, strong prayer, “we shall overcome all things by the power of Him Who loved us”; then nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39). Then no struggle will be fearful to us; the Lord will send us the boldness of Peter and John (Acts 4:13).

Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41). Stand, says the holy Apostle, praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18). If ever, then especially now, spiritual watchfulness and sobriety are needful for us, because the struggle with the external enemy can be successful only when the inner struggle is being waged victoriously by us—the inner purification of ourselves.

Thanks be to God, our spirit is willing! We have risen up, as one man, against the pagan enemy who tramples upon every Christian relation. What unity, indeed, has been manifested among us!… What a lofty elevation of spirit!… What fervent prayers!… What boundless readiness to offer everything in sacrifice to the Tsar and the fatherland!… It is impossible to hear without true heartfelt compunction how many deprive themselves at times even of the most necessary things, only so as to bring their own modest contribution to the great Russian cause, to the defense of the glory and honor of Holy Rus’.

In the name of the Gospel of peace, let us boldly, in hope of God’s help, wage the struggle against the enemy who has violated our blessed peace. We have many ill-wishers who look with envy upon our strength and might, our external and internal growth, but the Lord will deliver us from them all. Great are the prayers of our Russian hierarchs, and great is the spirit of our people in the hour of grievous trials.

Thanks be to God, our spirit is willing! May the infirmity of our flesh, then, not weaken it! “Watch and pray!” Amen.

 

Russian source: Труды Киевской духовной академии, 1904, No. 1, pp. 359–368.