How Did We Get Here? (2003)

by Dr. Timothy J. Clader, M.D.

This was an invited talk, scheduled to be given at 11:00 a. m. on 28 Nov/11 Dec, 2003, at the Clergy Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Nyack, New York. The talk was canceled.

 

 

Beloved Metropolitan, Archpastors, and Pastors: I ask for your blessings and for your prayers for my family and myself. Thank you for asking me to come to this conference. I am an American convert to Orthodoxy, and was invited to give the convert perspective on the issue at hand.

The prime issue at hand is not whether to normalize relations with the Moscow Patriarchate; rather, it is whether we can say categorically and with God's authority that the Moscow Patriarchate has grace.

My family's journey to the Orthodox Church began in the late 1970s. We began to realize that the watered-down Protestantism of our youth was missing something. When we first began to search for that something, we had no idea that it would lead us to the Orthodox Church. In fact, we spent quite some time visiting a variety of Protestant denominations, realizing with each visit that they lacked that "something" we were looking for. We both began to wonder if that "something" perhaps didn't even exist. After we had been at this search for some time, a friend of ours sent us a copy of a letter written by Bishop Ilarion in the late 19th century. This letter was his response to an invitation for the Russian Orthodox Church to join the then-fledgling World Council of Churches. (Even as Protestants, we realized that the whole concept of the W.C.C. was demonically inspired and smacked of a one-world church.) This same letter stated plainly that "we" (the Orthodox Church) had the truth, and there was no reason for us to join with the W.C.C., since the Russian Orthodox Church embodied the Truth. Bishop Ilarion then invited those churches (from the W.C.C.) to join the Orthodox Church. Because he made such an emphatic statement regarding the Truth, we realized that our own challenge was before us: To decide if this church did, in fact, embody the Truth.

We then bought a copy of Timothy Ware's book, The Orthodox Church, and read it over and over with hunger. After months of prayer, and with great anticipation and some fear (that we might be once more disappointed), in the summer of 1980 we decided to visit an Orthodox Church. What we found was an English-language mission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia attached to the Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration in Los Angeles, California. This mission was run in a small school room; it had a plywood iconostasis and paper icons. In spite of its small size, there were about 30 people crowded into the room, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, including some pious Old-Calendar Greek families who joined ROCOR because of the Calendar issue. The singing was off-key and alternated between Byzantine and Russian chants. It was August, and the temperature was well above 100 degrees. There was no air conditioning. The room was so crowded that we could barely fit inside (we had two small children with us who were both in diapers). When the Ektenia of the Catechumens began, we were ushered out into the hallway. As we stood in the hallway while the Ektenia of the Faithful progressed through the rest of the Divine Liturgy (and in spite of the spartan surroundings), we were both struck with the unambiguous realization that we were standing outside, and that God was inside, and that we were, at that moment, separated from Him – not only physically, but spiritually as well.

In spite of the heat, in spite of the singing, in spite of the plywood and paper, in spite of the children crying, we were both struck with an immutable fact that hit us like a sledgehammer: This Church had that "something". It wasn't until later that we began to realize that that "something" was God and His grace.

Since we became Orthodox, we have read and listened and learned what you, our beloved Bishops, have taught us.

We learned from Archbishop Averky [1] that the Russian Church in Exile has a love for the Truth, and that the Orthodox Church is the "pillar and ground of the Truth." [2] Further, that we are commanded by the Apostle to "walk in the Truth" [3] and, following the warning of the great Father of the Church St. Gregory the Theologian, we do not want to "become betrayers of the teaching of the faith and Truth, communing in the leaven of the Evil One and joining ourselves to the plague ridden... apostates from the Truth." [4] Archbishop Averky warned us, however, that "The Russian Church Abroad is dear to us beyond price, but only insofar as it actually remains the lawful heir of the previous Russian Orthodox Church." [5] Vladyka reminded us of the words of St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria:

"We must not serve time, but God."

Archbishop Averky warned us that there will not be a cry that says: "Forward! Forward! To the Antichrist!" No, he taught us, it will be much more subtle; it will seem on some levels to even be good; he taught us, however, that as members of the Russian Church Abroad the age-old motto of the true Church of Christ remains in full force:

Stand... remain unmoved! [6]

Although these times call for us to "move forward" and to "overlook our differences", Archbishop Averky states plainly: "For us, 'forward' is only the constant spreading, as predicted by the Word of God and the Holy Fathers of the Church, of 'Apostasy' and its crown: Antichrist, of whose near arrival so many are already so openly speaking." Vladyka warned us not to become the "salt which has lost its savor." He concluded by saying: "Whoever thinks otherwise, whoever is inclined to `march in step with the times,' consequently, has already entered into some sort of compromise with the `evil of this world,' leading to the Antichrist, and is not a member of the Russian Church Abroad, even if he formally continues to belong to it." [7]

Archbishop Averky taught us that – more than anything on earth – we should value our Church's freedom. [8] As an American convert, I am eternally grateful to the Russian Church Abroad for accepting my family where we may partake of the Mysteries of the True Faith. I also smile at the realization that - in spite of her own weaknesses and shortcomings – my own country, the United States of America, was entrusted by God Almighty to preserve this kernel of the True Faith when the Synod relocated here. Part of that decision, no doubt, came from the Synod hierarchy realizing that the spiritual freedom of the Church could, in fact, be preserved in this country.

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I also had to learn what it meant to be in a Church that is a "hierarchal" church. Not only did I read about the difficulties with the Greek Archdiocese and the calendar issue, but also the history of the Metropolia. Finally, following my entry into the Church, there was the crisis that centered around the Boston Monastery. Through these troubled times, we were led by our hierarchs, as we should have been. I was struck by the strong words of Dositheus:

"The dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church that without him neither the Church nor the name Christian could exist or be spoken of at all... He is the living image of God upon earth... the fountain of the Sacraments." [9]

You taught us further that the bishops of the Church were the sole source of authority for the presbyters: No priest had the "right" to celebrate the Mysteries except at the express appointment and authorization of his Bishop. Thus, the Orthodox Church and Its Faith are defined by its hierarchy. The hierarchs of the Church are the guardians of the Faith, and through them the grace and authority to perform the Holy Mysteries flow. Once one becomes a bishop, the Holy. Scriptures warn you to:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the Church of God." [10]

Further, the Scriptures demand that: "A bishop must be blameless as being the steward of God... holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to confute opponents. For there are also many disobedient, vain babblers and deceivers." [11]

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I was aghast at the utter cruelty and demonic force of the Communist state in Russia. During those initial years of uncertainty, the Soviets would intimidate the faithful in many heinous ways. One of the favorite means of shocking the faithful employed by the KGB was to greet parishioners who were arriving at church with their crucified priest hanging, naked, upside down spread-eagle over the center of the Royal Doors. The Soviet state would ask little children if their parents ever said prayers at home, or had icons. If the innocents said "Yes", their parents would disappear soon thereafter, never to be seen again. Those same children were then raised and indoctrinated by the state. Other parents would be cowed into submission and not tell their own children about the Faith at all. I could go on and on, but the tale of atrocities and murders and terrorism and blood baths seemed endless. Much of it was not aimed at political enemies; rather, it was aimed specifically at Orthodox Christians. Besides the many innocent clergy who perished during those years, the Tsar himself, having abdicated the throne, was a powerless layperson, but was – together with his family – nonetheless murdered because he was Orthodox.

All of these atrocities were carried out by the Communist Soviet state: the same state to which Metropolitan Sergius pledged full allegiance (while tens of thousands of his fellow clergymen went to their deaths). Why was Sergius' capitulation so important? What difference did it make?

You taught us, dear Vladykas, that our Church is a Church defined by the Faith of its bishops. If Sergius defined the faith of his church, then how did Sergius' church choose its replacement bishops once many had fled Russia or were murdered?

There is no question that the main tool by which the Communist state implemented its terrorism and strong-armed its policies was with the KGB. [12] The KGB hand-picked its members from those people who were particularly cold and ruthless. One had to "prove" one's worthiness to become a member of the inner sanctum of the KGB. This proof could come in many forms: Murders and tortures of the faithful, ghastly acts of terrorism; destruction of churches and holy places; intimidation of the faithful, etc. This same KGB became the breeding ground and source for most – if not all – of the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. [12] These bishops were hand-picked by the KGB as looking and acting and seeming like pious pastors, but they were, in fact, KGB agents, selected for their viciousness and cruelty. The Mitrokhin Archives even names the KGB code names for their agents who became bishops in the Moscow Patriarchate. [13] Even the present "Patriarch" of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexsi II, came up through the ranks of the KGB. As a KGB agent, he was known as "Agent Drozdov." [14]

Following the annihilation of the hierarchy by Stalin, it was systematically replaced by Communist-state-approved bishops. [15] These "bishops" have then – following all of the "external" rituals of the Orthodox Church – systematically appointed many additional bishops. It can safely be said that all of the current bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are KGB operatives or were personally chosen by the same. [16]

The KGB also orchestrated the joining of the Moscow church to the World Council of Churches. This was useful as a political tool to the KGB: Its faithful hierarchs [17] and representatives to the W.C.C. denied – often indignantly – all reports of persecution of the Church by the Soviet state. Tales of outright deception, lying, and propaganda – all to aid the Soviet state – were the order of the day with the KGB agents in the W.C.C.

This method of infiltration of various organizations by the KGB, with the eventual aim of taking it over, has been their modus operandi for many years. It was used by the KGB to take over most of the Eastern bloc countries and other countries in Central America and throughout the world without ever even firing a shot. They simply infiltrated their agents within the body of the government, organization or church, and then began to take control with time. It is a highly successful method that they have used over and over and over. [18]

When Satan unleashed his unbridled fury on the Russian land in 1917, it was always assumed by many of the faithful that one of the evil one's goals was the destruction of religion. This fact seemed obvious because of the millions of clergy and pious laity that were imprisoned, tortured and murdered, and the tens of thousands of churches and monasteries that were physically destroyed. It is curious, however, that the evil one never seemed to quite finish the job. There were still a few churches standing; there were still some scattered services going on here and there; there were still a few bishops left. The Soviet state was simply preparing the church – the Moscow Patriarchate – to be remade in its own image. With the numbers decimated and the faithful cowed, the Central Committee recognized all along that the ultimate control of the Church rested in controlling the Episcopal ranks. The Evil One knew that the Faith of the Church was defined by Her Bishops.

The godless Soviet state has had 80 years to replace the ranks of the hierarchy with its own. How am I to believe that any of their present hierarchs are even Christians? Based on the simple truths of their selection and their background, I can only conclude that they all must be agents of the Antichrist. I have been presented with no data to support any other conclusion.

As converts to the Faith, you have taught us, holy fathers, that the Orthodox Church is a Church defined and upheld by its Bishops. How can we find grace in a church that has avowed enemies of Christ not only within it, but leading it? We have been told by some that the laity have maintained the faith, and that even though the hierarchy is corrupt, the Moscow Patriarchate still maintains its grace because of the deep faith of the laity.

I am sorry, but this statement flies in contrast to all that I have been taught by you and have learned about Orthodoxy.

You also taught me, dear bishops, that the day of reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate would come when several conditions were fulfilled. These included the glorification of the New Martyrs, the rejection of Sergianism, and the rejection of ecumenism. It also included the Apostolic injunction that any clergy who are traitors of Christ (apostates) must be defrocked and can only reenter the Church as laymen. [19]

If the rumors I have heard are true, it seems that we, as the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad, are not demanding their repentance and defrocking of these apostate bishops; instead, there are some who would even consider the Patriarchate to be grace-filled and submit to her "bishops". Glorification of the New Martyrs came about begrudgingly and half-heartedly; Sergius is now the topic of a book that calls him a "Man of God" and the MP still participates in the WCC and is expanding its interaction with the Vatican. So much for the fulfillment of the conditions.

In a letter to Sergius, Metropolitan Anthony declared Sergius' infamous declaration to be no less than an act of treason against the Church. Since the fundamental goal of the KGB is to eradicate religion, the dealings of the MP hierarchs who are KGB agents should be considered to be even worse than treason. [20]

How am I, a convert to the Orthodox Faith, to deal with all of this?

I am eternally grateful to the Church Abroad for showing me the fullness of Holy Orthodoxy. In spite of worldly pressures, poverty and dwindling numbers, the Faith has been preserved by the Church Abroad just as Patriarch Tikhon envisioned, and as our Lord promised:

"Upon this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [21]

I, for one, am not bothered by our lack of glorious cathedrals or swelling numbers. These are, after all, the last times.

Perhaps this odd topic of "unification" with the Patriarchal church is only a wild and vicious rumor. This is my most sincere hope. Sadly, I have also heard that the Patriarchate has offered the Synod autocephaly if only the Synod will recognize the grace of the Patriarchal church. I am not only reminded of the same type of actions being taken by the Pope with the Uniates, but – even more poignantly – I am reminded of the great temptation that Satan presented Christ:

"Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, 'All these things will I give Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.' Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth Him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him." [22]

I hope that you know that those of us who left our ethnic and familial roots to become Orthodox are particularly unnerved by this news, and are hoping against hope that the information on the website is false. Placing familial and cultural values at a higher level than the basic tenets of the Faith will completely negate the very reasons that I turned my back on my ethnic and cultural background – and much of my family – to become Orthodox.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" [23]

"Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the council of the ungodly...." [24]

It is my sincere hope that these talks of "reconciliation" and "unification" and "overlooking our little differences" are just talk. From my perspective as a convert to the Faith, it is certainly not easy to walk away from your comfortable ethnic and cultural background. Nonetheless, when you are making that trip from darkness into the Light of the Truth, it is precisely because you are searching for the Truth, and not some cultural equivalent. I am happy that I made that journey, and I hope and pray that it may give me the means to salvation, unworthy as I am. I also hope that those whom I know and love are not taking a walk in the opposite direction. [25]

"I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." [26]

Just as the Soviets – through all their persecutions, programs and propaganda over the past eight decades – have created a puppet Russian Orthodox Church to serve the state, and have now unleashed it by declaring it and their Fatherland to be free, so unwittingly have they provided us the freedom to establish our churches in Russia for the resurrection of the Holy Faith.

This is the same Holy Faith that was entrusted to us – the ROCOR – to maintain in its fullness over that same time. Let us rise to meet the challenge as the Church Militant on earth. Our path is clear: There can be no uniting of Christ with Belial. Let us bring back to the true Orthodox faithful in Russia the Church as She has flourished and been preserved in freedom from bondage to the Evil One and his Soviet state. Let us bring to them what the Soviet church cannot:

"[The] Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." [27]

Let us step away from the external trappings of the church: For just as the Divine Liturgy was served in that sweaty little classroom 23 years ago, and just as it was served on the breast of an imprisoned saint, and just as it has been served anywhere the faithful are gathered, so it can be celebrated without the beautiful Orthodox churches occupied by the Soviets and their agents. God does not need our stone or wooden edifices; He needs the hearts of the faithful!

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom." [28]

Looking back 2000 years at the Roman Empire, one can see how the world stage was set for the Advent of Christ. Looking today, one can see how the world stage has been set by the Soviet state and its relations with the U.N., and the W.C.C., with their mutual goal of establishing world peace through one-world government and a one-world church. Using the tools of satellite television and the internet, their mutual goal is more readily and instantly available through mass communications to all peoples throughout the world.

Is it possible that even our most esteemed and pious leaders could be drawn into this deceit? I hope and pray to God that this could not be so.

There is a holy and pious and heartfelt desire on the part of all of the faithful of the Russian diaspora that someday Russia would be (spiritually) resurrected. Since the dawn of the Communist revolution our premise has always been that Satan was seeking to completely destroy the Church; i.e., to obliterate it from the earth. It is abundantly clear, however, that this was not the Evil One's goal; rather, Satan sought to recreate the "Orthodox Church" in his own image: To present himself as an "angel of light." St. Paul warns us of this very possibility in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, and he speaks directly to the issue of the ranks of the bishops (apostles) in the Church:

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." [29]

Then what happened to the resurrection of Holy Russia? Are we to conclude that the blood of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Land had no voice before the throne of God? I would submit that this resurrection has already been taking place right in front of us. The New Martyrs were glorified. The Royal Martyrs have rightly assumed their place on the right hand of the Throne. Holy Orthodoxy has spread to all the ends of the world. These are the fruits of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and they are happening now, and have been happening all around us!

"But... but...," you say, "is this all there is? What about the glory of the Patriarchate? What about the huge churches, trimmed in gold, with booming deacons; what about the glory of the Fatherland?" It is this very thought that the Evil One has used to such effect with some of the pious faithful. As a convert to Orthodoxy, looking at this with non-Russian eyes, it is plain and clear to me that Satan has recreated the Moscow Patriarchate in his own image to provide this illusion to the faithful, and, in turn, to drag them unwittingly to the edge of the abyss.

I say: Awake, sleeping giant! It is time for the Church Abroad to take its rightful place in history and fight this "abomination of desolation" [30] [31] that has set itself up in Christ's place.

I am reminded by the words of our Savior regarding the last days, and hope that they are not upon us:

"And then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, He is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." [32]

Finally, I am reminded of Bishop Ilarion's response to the invitation from the W.C.C., which was to refuse to join them, but to instead ask them to join the Orthodox Church. It seems to me that it is once again time to refuse discourse with the MP in regards to joining it or recognizing its grace; rather, it is time to invite the MP to repent and join the True Church.

My prayers are with our little remnant of the True Church.

In Christ -

Timothy J. Clader, M.D. [as of 2020, Fr. Timothy Clader]

Choir Director and Parishioner

Protection of the Mother of God Russian Orthodox Church

Rochester, New York, USA

 

ENDNOTES

1. Archbishop Averky, On the Russian Church Abroad, from the writings of Archb. Averky, reprinted from Stand Fast in the Truth, compiled by Fr. Demetrios Serfes, pp. 3-5, and republished by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, Liberty, TN

2. I Tim 3:15

3. II John 1:4

4. Cf. the Works of St. Gregory, Part I, p. 192

5. Ibid., Archbishop Averky, On the Russian Church Abroad

6. Cf. the words of Bishop Theophan in On Orthodoxy, with Warnings about Errors against It, p. 7

7. Ibid., Archbishop Averky, On the Russian Church Abroad, p. 4

8. A particularly moving passage on this topic is found in I.M. Andreyev's masterpiece Russia's Catacomb Saints (St. Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, CA 1982, pp. 48-49), as follows:

"After the death of Patriarch [Tikhon], his successors one after another were banished. And then Metropolitan Sergius, becoming head of the church, published the Declaration known to everyone, which acknowledged the joys and sorrows of the Soviets as his own and declared all martyrs political criminals.

"All Orthodox Russia was shaken, and delegations with protests extended to Metr. Sergius from all corners of the land. "As a member of such a delegation from the Petrograd Diocese I [I. M. Andreyev] too came to Moscow. In the Metropolitan' reception room forty people were waiting, and everyone of whom I asked his reason for coming replied that he had come as a delegate to see the Metropolitan. Russia had not accepted the Declaration!

"The Metropolitan received us out of order. Finding out the reason why we had come, he reaffirmed everything written in the Declaration, and in answer to our convictions called us 'counter-revolutionaries' and 'schismatics.' Not taking his blessing, we left without obtaining anything.

"Soon the churches that did not accept the Declaration began to be closed. In Petrograd only one remained, but everyone who entered it was registered and later arrested. This was the time when the atheist Soviet power demanded of believers that they go to churches of the official Church. [i.e., the Moscow Patriarchate]

"I, too, was arrested and banished for five years. At Solovki I encountered many hierarchs of the true Church. And there we already had our Catacomb Church.

"In the concentration camps the persecution against faith was completely open: priests were shorn and shaved, forbidden to wear cassocks and crosses. For making the sign of the Cross a new term of imprisonment was given. Of course, there was no question of any open services. The relics of saints were exhibited for mockery in an anti-religious museum with blasphemous inscriptions – even the saints suffered with us! The monks of Solovki who remained there as specialist laborers were forbidden to have any contact with the prisoners under penalty of death. It was especially difficult before great feasts: it was impossible to gather even in twos, no one was allowed anywhere without special passes, night rounds were made more frequent, sentries were doubled. In order to pray one had to be ready at any minute for a martyr's death. And we were ready for it, always carrying with us, like the first Christians, a Particle of the Holy Gifts. I brought such a Particle abroad and gave it to Metropolitan Anastassy.

"And not only were we ready to die, but many did die, confident that somewhere there, outside the reach of the Soviet authorities, where there is freedom-there the Truth was shining in all its purity. There people were living by it and submitting to it. There people did not bow down to Antichrist. And what terror overwhelmed me when, fairly recently, I managed to come abroad and found out that some people here ‘spiritually’ recognize the Soviet church. Spiritually! Many of us there fell, `for fear of the Jews,' or giving in to the temptation of outward cooperation with the authorities. I knew priests of the official Church [MP] who, at home, tore their hair out, who smashed their heads making prostrations, begging forgiveness for their apostasy, calling themselves Cain – but nonetheless they did not have the strength to decide upon martyrdom. But even they spiritually did not recognize the Red Church. But these others abroad – it is precisely spiritually that they submit to it. What good fortune that our priest-martyrs, in dying, did not find out about this betrayal!"

9. What is a Bishop?, published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, Liberty, TN

10. Acts 20:28

11. Titus 1:5, 7, 9-10

12. From the Records of the Council for Religious Affairs to the Members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, published in Russian 1974; English translation, Monastery Press, 8011 Champagneur Ave., Montreal, H3N 2K4 Que. 1981

13. Andrew C, and Mitrokhin V: The Sword and the Shield, the Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Published by Basic Books, A member of the Perseus Books Group, NY, NY 1999 ISBN 0-465-00310- 9 pp. 486-507

14. Ibid., p. 507

15. Ibid., p. 501

16. I. M. Andreyev: Russia's Catacomb Saints, St. Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, CA 1982

17. Ibid., p. 487

18. Crozier B: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union, 1999, Prima Lifestyles, ASN 0761520570

19. Apostolic Canon Number 62, The Rudder (Pedalion), English Translation of John Nicolaides, 5th Ed., Athens, Greece, 1908; Published by The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, Chicago, IL 1957, pp. 107-108

20. Last Will and Testament, Archbishop Antony of Los Angeles, 24 Nov/7 Dec 1995 21 Matt 16:18

21. Matt. 16:18

22. Matt. 4:8-11

23. II Cor. 6:14-15

24. Ps. 1:1

25. I.M. Andreyev: Russia's Catacomb Saints (St. Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, CA 1982, p. 51):

"This is why the question of our jurisdictional divisions is not a question of `quarrels of bishops over portfolios.' No, it is a question of cooperation (or tacit agreement) with the forerunners of Antichrist, or else uncompromising battle against them. This alone separates us from those who have broken away from the Truth; but it does not separate us from the Russian people, for there the soul, even if it is invisible, even if it has retracted within itself, is still alive, is not spiritually enslaved; it is drawn to the light of Truth."

26. II Cor. 6:16-18

27. Eph. 5:27

28. Luke 12:32

29. II Cor. 11:13-14

30. Matt. 24:15

31. Mark 14:14

32. Mark 13:21-22

 

Source: Living Orthodoxy, #155, September-October 2006, St. John of Kronstadt Press, Liberty, TN, pp. 21-27.

Archbishop Averky: His Significance for the Ecumenical Orthodox Church

“Alas! His golden lips have been silenced!”

 

 

Too often have we Orthodox Christians grown used to “taking for granted” the great men in our midst, of not valuing them as we ought until they have departed from us—and even then not evaluating them properly, and letting their significance and their teaching slip away from us into oblivion.

Archbishop Averky was one of the last of the giants of 20th-century Orthodoxy, not merely of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, or even of Russian Orthodoxy—but of the whole of the 20th-century Orthodox Church.

Born Alexander Pavlovich Taushev on October 19 (Nov. 1), 1906, in Kazan, Archbishop Averky was of a noble family. His father was a government official whose duties took him to many parts of Russia, allowing young Alexander to have a first-hand acquaintance with the heart of Holy Russia, its monasteries and holy places; the memory of these places remained with him all his life, even though he left his homeland while still a young teenager. Even at that tender age he was attracted to books of a spiritual nature, such as Unseen Warfare, and already from the age of seven or eight he began to feel an alienation from the ordinary life of the world and a subconscious attraction towards the monastic life.

In the midst of the civil war that followed on the Revolution of 1917, the Taushev family left Russia, in 1920, with great grief of soul. The family settled in the Bulgarian city of Varna, where Alexander attended school until 1926. The chief religious influence on him at this time was the local parish church and its priest, Father John Slunin.

Then, in 1925, a bishop came to Varna who was to give Alexander’s life its direction: Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, a strict monk, a man of prayer, and theologian in the true Patristic tradition. After meeting him, the young student resolved to undertake the monastic way of life. With Archbishop Theophan’s blessing, he attended the Theological Faculty of the University of Sophia, and on graduating from it with brilliant success in 1930 he went to Carpatho-Russia (in Czechoslovakia) with the intention of becoming a monk and serving the Russian Church. Tonsured a monk there in 1931, and ordained priestmonk the next year, he served several parishes and assisted the abbot of the monastery of St. Nicholas near the village of Iza. Soon he also undertook responsibilities as editor of the diocesan periodical and teacher of catechism in secondary schools.

When Carpatho-Russia was occupied by the Magyars in 1940, Father Averky went to Belgrade and served under Metropolitan Anastassy, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, conducting courses in religious subjects both for seminarians and laymen.

When the Synod of Bishops moved to Munich in 1945, he followed it and continued his work of the religious education of youth. In 1950 he was appointed by the Synod as chairman of its Missionary Education Committee. When he came to America in 1951 he was invited to the newly-organized Holy Trinity Seminary at Jordanville, New York, to teach New Testament, Liturgics, and Homiletics. In 1952 he became Rector of the Seminary, in 1953 Bishop of Syracuse, and in 1960, at the death of Archbishop Vitaly, Abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery. In these positions he continued until his death his life’s work of enlightening the Orthodox faithful, both the future pastors of the seminary (about 100 priests came from the seminary in these years) and all those who read the Monastery’s publications, which were all solid works of Orthodox piety and theology. His sermons appeared frequently in the Monastery’s bimonthly publication, Orthodox Russia, and his own books included textbooks on Homiletics and the interpretation of the New Testament (2 volumes), collections of his sermons and articles, and works on the life and letters of his beloved Abba, Archbishop Theophan.

All of the writings of Archbishop Averky bear one and the same character of love for God’s truth, righteous zeal in expressing it, and urgent exhortation to others to follow it.

The abundance with which his golden lips gushed the sweet honey of the pure teaching of Orthodoxy, especially in his most fruitful last years, has perhaps helped to hide from us the rarity and even uniqueness of his teaching in our evil days. We have grown so used to his flaming and bold words that we have not noticed that he was virtually the only hierarch of any Orthodox church writing in any language with such boldness and uprightness in defense of Orthodoxy.

In earlier centuries the Church had many Holy Fathers writing in defense of Orthodoxy against the numerous heresies which attacked her singly or together. But in our day, when Orthodox Christians are losing the savor of Orthodoxy and virtually all the Local Orthodox Churches are giving in to the apostasy of our times, his voice was almost the only one to continue speaking the truth with such vigor and boldness, even amid the many infirmities of his old age. Truly, he was a champion of Orthodoxy in our age when faith is growing cold.

His view of the contemporary world was sober, precise, and entirely inspired by the Sacred Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Church: He taught that we live in the age of the Apostasy, the falling away from true Christianity, when the “mystery of iniquity” has entered its final stage of preparation for the “man of sin,” Antichrist (II Thess. 2:3–12). Archbishop Averky traced the development of this Apostasy in particular from the time of the schism of the Church of Rome (1054), through the era of Humanism, the Renaissance and Reformation, the French Revolution, 19th-century materialism and communism, culminating in the Russian Revolution of 1917, which removed the last great barrier to the working of the mystery of iniquity and the coming of Antichrist. (See his book, True Orthodoxy and the Contemporary World, Jordanville, 1971, pp. 18–21; the quotes that follow are all from this book.)

In such an age, he writes, “to be a true Orthodox Christian, ready unto death to preserve one’s faithfulness to Christ the Saviour, in our days is much more difficult than in the first centuries of Christianity” (p. 17). Although often open (in the lands under communist control), the persecution against Christianity today is more often hidden. “Under the covering of a deceptive outward appearance that looks good and leads many into error, in actuality there is occurring everywhere today a hidden persecution against Christianity. . . . This persecution is much more dangerous and frightful than the previous open persecution, for it threatens a complete devastation of souls—spiritual death” (18). He often quoted the words of Bishop Theophan the Recluse about the latter times: “Although the name of Christian will be heard everywhere, and everywhere there will be churches and church services, all this will be only an appearance, while within there will be a true apostasy” (21).

In fulfilment of these words in our own days, Archbishop Averky writes, “The Christian world, it is frightful to say, presents today a frightful, cheerless picture of the most profound religious and moral decadence” (22). The temptation of worldly comfort and prosperity drive God away from the soul. “The servants of antichrist more than anything else strive to force God out of the life of men, so that men, satisfied with their material comfort, might not feel any need to turn to God in prayer, might not remember God, but might live as though He did not exist. Therefore, the whole order of today’s life in the so-called ‘free’ countries, where there is no open bloody persecution against faith, where everyone has the right to believe as he wishes, is an even greater danger for the soul of a Christian (than open persecution), for it chains him entirely to the earth, compelling him to forget about heaven. The whole of contemporary ‘culture,’ directed to purely earthly attainments and the frantic whirlpool of life bound up with it, keeps a man in a constant state of emptiness and distraction which give no opportunity for one to go at least a little deeper into his soul, and so the spiritual life in him gradually dies out” (29). All of contemporary life, on the public level, is a preparation for the coming of Antichrist: “All that is happening today on the highest levels of religion, government, and public life . . . is nothing else than an intense work of preparation by the servants of the coming Antichrist for his future kingdom” (24), and this work is being done as much by “Christians” as by non-Christians (18).

After painting such a grim picture of the present and future, Archbishop Averky calls on Orthodox Christians to struggle against the spirit of this world that lies in evil. “All who in the present day desire to preserve faithfulness to Christ the Saviour must guard themselves especially against every attraction towards earthly goods and against being deceived by them. It is extremely dangerous to give oneself over to every desire to make a career for oneself, to make a name for oneself, to obtain authority and influence in society, to acquire wealth, to surround oneself with luxury and comfort” (28).

To those willing to struggle to preserve their faith, Archbishop Averky offers a sober and inspiring path of confession: “Now is the time of confession—of a firm standing, if need be even to death, for one’s Orthodox faith, which is being subjected everywhere to open and secret attacks, oppression, and persecution on the part of the servants of the coming Antichrist” (28). We must be true Christians, not giving in to the spirit of the times, making the Church the center of our lives (26). Giving thanks to God for the existence of our Russian Church Outside of Russia, “which has not tainted itself by submitting to the dark powers of Antichrist that are acting in the contemporary world” (24), we must be “its faithful and devoted children, and at the same time its missionaries, fighters for the true faith of Christ, both in the non-Orthodox environment that surrounds us and among the Russian people who have fallen away or are falling away from it” (27). We must lead a conscious life of prayer, nourished by the reading of Scripture and the Holy Fathers and by frequent confession and reception of Holy Communion (30).

The path ahead of us, despite the deceptive promises of modern “progress,” is a path of suffering: “The Lord has clearly said that it is not ‘progress’ that awaits us, but ever greater tribulations and misfortunes as a result of the increase of lawlessness and the growing cold of love; when He comes, He will scarcely find faith on earth (Luke 18:8).”

The strength of the true Christian in the terrible times ahead is the apocalyptic expectation of the Second Coming of Christ: “The spirit of a constant expectation of the Second Coming of Christ is the original Christian spirit, which cries out in prayer to the Lord: Even so, come, Lord Jesus (Apoc. 22:20). And the spirit opposed to this is undoubtedly the spirit of Antichrist, which strives by every means to draw Christians away from the thought of the Second Coming of Christ and the recompense which follows on it. Those who give in to this spirit subject themselves to the danger of not recognizing Antichrist when he comes and of falling into his nets. Precisely this is the most frightful thing in the contemporary world, which is filled with every possible deception and temptation. The servants of Antichrist, as the Lord Himself has forewarned us, will try, if possible, to deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:24). The thought of this, however, should not oppress or crush us, but on the contrary, as the Lord Himself says, Then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28).”

It is such a man, a true Holy Father of these latter times, filled with the Christian apocalyptic expectation of Christ’s Second Coming and with the sober Orthodox spirit of preparedness for it, who is the author of the following commentary on the culminating book of the New Testament Scriptures, the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian. Although his interpretation of the book is based solidly on the early Fathers of the Church, the very fact that he himself is so much in their spirit, and in the spirit of St. John, is a pledge for us of the accuracy of his commentary, as well as of the fact that it can speak not merely to our curious minds, but also and above all to our believing hearts. Archbishop Averky was an Orthodox scholar in the unbroken tradition of patristic thought which has come down to us from the ancient Fathers to our own days, and which he imbibed most of all in his own teachers, the 19th-century Theophan (the Recluse, †1894) and the 20th-century Theophan (of Poltava, †1940). An unblemished teacher of the Orthodox moral and spiritual life, he is also an unrivalled theological and patristic guide for us.

There are few saints left in our pitiful times. But even if we do not see about us now such upright and righteous ones as he, his teaching remains with us and can be our guiding beacon in the even darker days ahead which he foresaw, when the Church may have to go into the wilderness, like the Woman of the Apocalypse (ch. 12)—the Church of the last times.

 

Source: The Orthodox Word, Vol. 17, Nos. 5-6 (100-101), September-December 1981, pp. 219-226.

On the canonical distinction of “in actuality” and “potentially”

From the 1944 Pastoral Encyclical of St. Chrysostomos the New, Hierarch and Confessor, Concerning the breakaway bishops, Matthew of Vresthena and Germanos of the Cyclades

 

 

In our view of this matter, we are in harmony with the Pedalion of the universal Orthodox Church, which, in the first footnote on page 18, [26] makes a clear distinction between a potential and an actu­al schismatic and calls those who equate these two terms foolish and their language sacrilegious, since they do not understand that unless it is actually implemented by a Synod, the imperative force of the Can­ons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision.

For further proof of what we are saying, we cite verbatim the rele­vant footnote of the sacred Pedalion, so as to silence those who think and speak to the contrary:

We must know that the penalties which the Canons pre­scribe, that is, ‘let him be deposed,’ ‘let him be anathema,’ and ‘let him be excommunicated,’ are issued, according to gram­matical usage, in the third person, there being no one present to impose them. In such a case, of necessity, the presence of a second person is required if this injunction is to be enforced. I will explain this better. The Canons enjoin a Synod of living Bishops to depose Priests or to excommunicate or anathema­tize laymen who transgress the Canons. But if the Synod does not actually effect the deposition of the Priests, or the excom­munication or anathematization of the laymen, these Priests and laymen are neither actually deposed nor actually excom­municated nor anathematized. However, here on earth, they are liable to stand trial, with regard to deposition and excom­munication or anathematization, while in the hereafter they are subject to Divine retribution.... Hence, those foolish peo­ple greatly err who say that in the present times all clergy who have been Ordained contrary to the Canons are actual­ly deposed. Sacrilegious is the language of those who witlessly babble such words, not understanding that, unless it is actu­ally put into effect by a second person, that is, by a Synod, the imperative force of Canons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision. Later on, the same Divine Apostles clearly explain themselves in their Forty-sixth Canon, since they do not say that any Bishop or Presbyter who has received Baptism from heretics is immedi­ately and actually deposed, but ‘we enjoin that he be deposed,’ that is, ‘we enjoin that he stand trial and that, if it be proved that he did this, then let him be stripped of the Priesthood by your own decision.’ [27]

From this it follows that no clergyman who deviates from the boundaries of Orthodoxy is reckoned to be actually deposed. If he does not appear before a valid ecclesiastical tribunal, he can nonethe­less be considered such potentially, and prior to a Synodal verdict and a final decision about him.

Thus, from a canonical standpoint, the following basic legal prin­ciple and dictum holds good: “No one is to be condemned without a defense.” Hence, in order for us to declare the innovating Hierarchs schismatics in actuality, as the conventicler Bishops have arbitrarily and uncanonically done, we would have to have all the requisite ecclesias­tical and canonical wherewithal for setting up an ecclesiastical tribu­nal. This cannot be done, except by a Church that is recognized by all the local Orthodox Churches as autocephalous and endowed with the right validly to condemn those of her clergy who sin, whether in faith or in morals.

We Old Calendarists, however, do not constitute a particular, inde­pendent Orthodox Church in Greece, because no Church has recog­nized us as such; rather, we exist within the recognized Autocephalous Greek Church as a sentinel that guards the institution of the Orthodox Festal Calendar, which was violated—as it should not have been—by the majority of the Hierarchy; and we, who are the resplendent and unsullied part of the Autocephalous Church of Greece,* are continuing her history in the spirit of Orthodoxy.

 

NOTES

26. Concerning the Third Canon of the Holy Apostles.

27. Πηδάλιον, pp. 4-5, n. 2.

* Characteristic is the case of Saint Gregory the Theologian, in which this illustrious luminary of Orthodoxy neither deposed his far more numerous Arian opponents, who had prevailed throughout Constantinople, nor proclaimed a Church of his own. What he did was to catechize his flock concerning the dreadful heresy of Arius and, by the example of his splendid and blameless life, to bring it back into the rational flock of Christ, which he also succeeded in doing by the Grace of God. Subsequently, when through superhuman efforts he had brought the ship of the Church back onto its canonical course, he convened an Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Arius and those who persisted in his heresy. By contrast, our own hierarchs [i.e., Matthew of Vresthena and Germanos of the Cyclades], without having [yet] undertaken any struggle, made any sacrifice, or accomplished any constructive work, but, on the contrary, amid scandals, quarrels, and violations of the Sacred Canons—and with most of them living like Eastern patriarchs, surrounded by nuns—declared the Mysteries of the New Calendarists invalid, thus widening the gulf between New Calendarists and Old Calendarists and cutting off even the slightest hope for the reunion of those who had been divided. We have cited the example of Saint Gregory in order to demonstrate that, had our Bishops followed in deed and word the example of that Ecumenical Teacher of the Church of Christ, Orthodoxy in our country today would be united into one body and would have prevailed in every sphere of daily life.

 

Translation of the Encyclical text and footnotes 26 and 27 from the published edition of the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.

Asterisk text translated from the original Greek in Ἅπαντα πρώην Φλωρίνης Xρυσοστόμου Kαβουρίδου (1871-1955) [The Complete Works of Chrysostomos Kavourides, Former Metropolitan of Florina], Gortynia, Greece: Holy Monastery of Saint Nikodemos, 1997, Vol. 2.

 

For more information on the Patristic distinction between “in actuality” and “potentially,” see

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/08/on-ecclesiastical-distinction-of.html

 

 

 

“The Last Communion of St. Jerome” - a Book to be Reckoned With

by Fr. Richard Cipolla

from the Roman Catholic blog Rorate Cæli

 

 

The Frick Museum in New York City is not too far from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And yet the venues are radically different. The Met is a large art museum with many rooms and lofty corridors and grand staircases.  But the Frick building was once a home, a large and lovely home indeed, one of the great mansions in New York City. The Frick mansion was built for the industrialist Henry Clay Frick in the mid-1920s in the Beaux Arts style. Frick built the home to house his art collection, mainly paintings, and planned for it to be an art museum after his death, which directive his wife and daughter fulfilled some years after his death.  The collection is amazing, including paintings from the late medieval period through the nineteenth century. My favorite room is the Living Hall, which includes paintings by Holbein, Giovani Bellini and Titian.  Above the fireplace in this room is the portrait of St. Jerome by El Greco. The artist paints St Jerome in full Cardinal’s robes. His face is somewhat gaunt, his hair and long beard are white, his cheek bones stick out, and his dark eyes gaze intently at someone or something just to his left. His face is a face of someone to be reckoned with. 

 

 

The recently published book on St. Jerome, written by Dom Basil Nixen, OSB, of the monastery of San Benedetto in Monte in Norcia, Italy, certainly “reckons with” St. Jerome but in an unusual way. Its title is The Last Communion of St. Jerome.

It certainly can be classified as a biography. But it is very different from the well-known biographies of this saint such as Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies by J. N. D. Kelly. For its vantage point is a fourteenth legend about the last Communion of St. Jerome, which was the subject of two famous paintings of this supra-historical event, one by Botticelli, the other by Domenichino. In this way the life of St. Jerome is seen through the prism of these paintings, and the first two chapters are devoted to eucharistic theology with ample quotes from St. Jerome that links strongly St. Jerome’s understanding of the relationship between belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the proper exegesis of Scripture itself. 

The first two chapters of the book could stand alone as a treatise on the Holy Eucharist. That it is written by a contemporary monk about a fourth century monk-scholar is important, for Dom Basil offers insights that a secular writer, even a secular priest, could not offer. This is very important at this time in the Church, in which there are real and good signs that the Traditional understanding of the Eucharist is becoming once again a real part of Catholic teaching and practice after the many years following the Second Vatican Council of liturgical chaos and devaluation of eucharistic piety.  

In this section of the book the author discusses at some length Jerome’s strong words on fasting before receiving Holy Communion. Such a discussion is sorely needed in a time when the eucharist fast has for all practical purposes disappeared in the Church today. Jerome does not insist, at least in words, on the traditional fast from midnight on Sunday, but he does insist that fasting is a necessary preparation for the reception of the Eucharist. But the author goes on to discuss St. Jerome’s extension of the fast of abstaining from food and drink to a fast of married couples abstaining from sexual intercourse the night before receiving Holy Communion. For a priest today to talk to his parishioners about fasting from food from midnight to Sunday morning takes a bit of courage.  But to speak about fasting from marital relations the night before receiving Holy Communion would seem to require a courage that is truly heroic and to be judged as “insensitive”.

How Dom Basil treats the relationship between Jerome’s understanding of the monastic life and his relationship to the priesthood is quite masterful. This is indeed a difficult subject to approach, since there seems to be a contradiction between Jerome’s firm instance on the absolute priority of his monastic life in relationship to the priesthood.  And yet Jerome knew that the grace of ordination to the priesthood would allow him to pursue his vocation both to the monastic life and his dedication to the translation of Holy Scripture. And so, with some reluctance on his part, he was ordained by the bishop Paulinus,* whose orthodoxy in a time of heterodoxy Jerome recognized and trusted.  And yet it seems that Jerome never offered Mass as a priest. This is difficult to understand, and yet the grace of the priesthood was surely part of the grace that enabled him to do the work for which he was born: the translation of the Scriptures into Latin, which became the foundation of the Catholic understanding of both the Old and the New Testament that formed an integral part of the Tradition. And yet Jerome identified himself so absolutely as someone who needed to be fed and not the one who feeds. And it was his calling to be a monk that formed the very center of his being as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Chapter 3 begins what could be seen as the main section of the book, as far as length goes. This chapter is biographical in content but never departs from the spiritual foundations of the first two chapters. It is from the very beginning of his manhood that Jerome was strongly attracted to the monastic life in the form in which it was being practiced in the fourth century by those who became known as the Desert Fathers, some of whose ascetic practices were considered by some even then as extreme and are certainly considered now as excessive or extreme by many Catholics. But it was to this understanding of monasticism to which the young Jerome was attracted, and he lived this life for several years. And while in later life he was called to live his life in towns and cities, he never lost that sense of the need for the desert, at least in his mind and heart. 

In these chapters dealing with Jerome’s life, Dom Basil provides extensive quotes from Jerome’s own writings, that not only trace his development as a writer and scholar and monk but also gives us great insights into the problems--doctrinal, social and moral--that were part of the life and development of the teaching Church.  Jerome’s position as secretary to Pope Damasus--meaning the Pope’s close right-hand man--and his involvement in opposing the Antiochian schism affords us a real glimpse of what the religious and intellectual life was like in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.  This section may be most valuable to the laity of the Catholic Church, for reading these chapters affords one a real feeling for that time in the Church during which the fundamental understanding of the answer to the question “who is Jesus Christ?” was being debated and defined in the first four Ecumenical Council that lie at the very heart of the Catholic faith. 

Dom Basil does not gloss over Jerome’s use of strong invective in his letters to those whom he saw as deserving of such language, such as those charlatans in priests’ robes, those who espoused heretical views of the Faith, and those who despised him because of their jealousy of his remarkable knowledge of Latin and Greek (and later Hebrew) that he displayed in his translations of the New Testament, which became the foundation for all such translations up to the modern era.  Dom Basil quotes the letter to Helvetius as an example of Jerome’s use of invective.  He situates the style of the letter within the Classical tradition that Jerome inherited from writers like Cicero, one of the masters of this art in his Orations against Catiline. Dom Basil suggests, with humility, that perhaps such methods of argument may not be appropriate in the world in which we live.  I hope that Dom Basil and I can have a conversation about his suggestion.

Jerome’s remarkable relationship to the deeply pious and intelligent Christian women living on the Aventine in Rome in that period of his life when he lived in Rome affords a view of him that has been often overlooked. His devotion as a spiritual guide and a true friend grounded in the person of Jesus Christ is one of the stars in his crown as a saint of the Church.  His treatise addressed to one of these women, Eustachium, remains as one of the great spiritual treatises in the treasury of the Catholic Church.  

The last chapter of this book is perhaps where not only the chapters in Jerome’s life come together as writer, as inspired translator, as a spiritual friend, as a man of the formative years of the Church, but also above all as a monk.  For being--in the deepest sense of that word--being a monk was at the very heart of the person that Saint Jerome was and still is.  

Dom Basil returns towards the end of this final chapter to the mystery of Jerome’s renunciation of the power of his priesthood, which for some, perhaps most, would be seen as a waste of grace.  Dom Basil quotes once again Jerome’s comment to Heliodorus in his relative youth:

The objective, however of Monks, is different from that of clerics....

Clerics feed the sheep; I am fed. They live from the altar; but mine

is the fate of the barren tree, to whose base the ax is laid, if I fail to

bring a gift to the altar.

And that, for St. Jerome, is the heart of the matter and the matter of the heart.

 

Source:

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-last-communion-of-st-jerome-book-to.html

 

* It should be noted Bishop Paulinus of Antioch was a “parallel bishop” and leader of the so-called "Eustathians" (supporters of the unjustly exiled St. Eustathios of Antioch) who was recognized by the Orthodox West (that is, the patriarchal Sees of Rome and Alexandria), while the Orthodox East generally recognized St. Meletios of Antioch, the East being internally divided between Orthodox believers and Semi-Arians at the time. - Blog Administrator note.

The Blessed and Dumb

Marina Biryukova | February 28, 2020

 

 

An acquaintance of mine, an elderly woman with a pure heart, decided to pray for her sick cat. But how was she supposed to do it? We pray for people this way: “Lord, have mercy on Thy servant so-and-so.” However, you can’t refer to a cat as a “servant of God.” In the end she said the following prayer: “Lord, have mercy on Thy cat, Vasily.”

And the pet recovered! Perhaps it is not a matter of the cat’s nine lives. Perhaps the Creator of the universe simply answered the prayer of the woman who had unconsciously obeyed the following commandment: Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 18:3). Indeed it is not a matter of the cat: it is a matter of that woman. Or the cat, too? What is the place of the animals in God’s universe? How are we supposed to perceive them? Are Christians expected to love and have pity on them? Can we pray for them, and, if so, how?

Let them have dominion…

In chapter 1 of Genesis we read about the creation of the universe:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth… And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Gen. 1:20-23, 26).

And in chapter 2 we read how God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof (Gen. 2:19).

Thus the dumb creatures were blessed by the Creator Who saw that they were good, and the earth became beautiful and glorious as they filled it; and He ordained man to be the master of them all. What kind of master? Of course, a good and responsible one. After all, this is what the world before the fall was like. There was no evil yet. Evil entered the world later. The whole creation fell victim to the fall of man, as the Apostle Paul writes: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God… The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Rom. 8:20-22). We hear the following words in the canon during the Matins of the feast of Theophany:

“Let the whole of earthly creation be clothed in white, for this day it is raised up from its fall to heaven; and, washed and most splendidly cleansed in the flowing waters by the Word, by Whom all things are preserved, it has escaped from its former sins.”

Since the moment of the fall, the relationship between man, who still considers himself to be “the king of nature”, and nature has been anything but idyllic. As for the animals, not only does man eat them and wear clothing made from their skins, fur, etc.; he also treats them with the unthinkable cruelty, finds pleasure in exterminating and tormenting them, destroying their natural habitats and dooming many species to death. It was only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, very late from a historical perspective, that humanity (first in the person of some individuals and then in the person of particular countries) began to take care of, save and love wildlife. And today we are no longer surprised when we see rescuers evacuating koala bears from Australian forest fires, putting their own lives at risk. But the problem is not solved at all; so, on the first Sunday of September our Church sings the hymn for the preservation of God’s creation. This service is called to remind us that we are still answerable to the Creator for this earth, including “the dumb beasts”—the animals.

Saints and wild animals

“Lifting up his eyes, Abba Zosimas saw a big lion standing close to the saint’s body and licking her feet. At the sight of the lion he trembled with fear…, but guarding himself with the sign of the cross, the thought came to him that the power of the one lying there would protect him and keep him unharmed. The lion drew nearer to him, expressing affection by every movement. Zosimas said to the lion: ‘The Great One ordered that her body was to be buried. But I am old and have not the strength to dig the grave…, so can you carry out the work with your claws?’ The lion with his front paws began to dig a hole deep enough to bury the body. The elder covered the body with earth in the presence of the lion. Then both departed. The lion went off into the depth of the desert like a lamb, while Zosimas returned to the monastery, glorifying and blessing Christ.” [1]

This is the Life of St. Mary of Egypt. St. Seraphim of Sarov is often depicted with a bear. Some 500 years before, another bear had been on friendly terms with St. Sergius of Radonezh. Earlier still, St. Gerasimus of the Jordan (the fifth century) had healed an injured lion, and this event was reflected in his iconography. We can also recall the beasts of prey in the Roman circuses that would unexpectedly refuse to maul and eat Christians…

Why are animals drawn to saints? Why is it that they are not afraid of ascetics in forests and deserts, don’t show aggression to them and refuse to kill them? To be a saint means to be filled with grace; it is someone’s transformation and drawing closer to the state in which man (the divinely-ordained good master of the unharmed harmonious world) was before his fall. The irrational creatures sense the fragrance of Paradise and feel drawn to holy people. When all of us—humans, beasts and birds—see a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1), we will recall the Prophet Isaiah who in the sixth century B.C. foresaw the restored harmony of the creation, the overcoming of antagonism and the struggle for life in the Kingdom of the Messiah, a branch out of the roots of Jesse (cf. Is. 11:1):

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them (Is. 11:6).

In his commentaries to the Book of Isaiah, the great Russian Bible commentator Alexander Lopukhin (1852—1904) wrote:

“The animals will meet the new man after being renewed just as they once met the primordial Adam. And the prophet portrays this world in regard to the relations between animals in full agreement with Genesis narration of the state of the primordial world.”

The Spirit of God teaches us to love all living creatures

From the notes of St. Silouan of Mt. Athos:

“Once I needlessly killed a fly. The poor thing crawled on the ground, hurt and mangled, and for three whole days I wept over my cruelty to a living creature, and to this day the incident remains in my memory.

“One day, going from the monastery to Old (Nagorny) Rusik, I saw a dead snake on my path which had been chopped into pieces, and each piece writhed convulsively, and I was filled with pity for every living creature, every suffering thing in creation, and I wept bitterly before God. [2]

“Once bats infested the balcony of my shop, and I threw hot water on them to get rid of them, and again shed many tears because of that; and I have not offended any living creatures ever since.

“The Spirit of God teaches the soul to love every living thing, so it does not want to do any harm to even a green leaf on a tree, or trample underfoot a flower of the field. Thus the Spirit of God teaches love towards all, and the soul feels compassion for every being, loves even enemies and pities even the demons because they have fallen away from good.”

The above-mentioned progress in the way people treat animals took place largely under the influence of Christianity; the soul enlightened and warmed up by the rays of Christ’s love (even if not as much as the soul of the Athonite ascetic Silouan was) cannot but suffer seeing other creatures’ suffering. The acuteness of this pain (sympathy for tormented animals) is probably explained by the fact that the animals are irrational beings, and, as such, they don’t understand what is happening to them and are helpless before humans. By tormenting an animal someone tortures both his “little brother” and the one he is responsible for—that is why it’s a sin, and deliberately inflicting pain on animals for entertainment is a sign of a serious mental disease.

On folly for the soul

However, some may be confused after reading the following citation from St. Silouan the Athonite:

“There are people who grow attached to animals, stroke, caress them and talk with them; and they have abandoned the love of God, and thus the love between brothers, for which Christ died in terrible agony, is lost. It is foolish to do so. Feed animals and cattle, and do not beat them—in this consists man’s duty of kindness towards them; but to become attached, to love, caress and talk to them—that is folly for the soul.

“The soul that has gotten to know the Lord always stands before Him in love and awe; how can it be possible to love, stroke and talk with cattle, cats and dogs at the same time? This means that someone has forgotten the commandment of Christ to love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Mt. 22:37)...”

True, it is hard for us to accept these words: is there anyone among us who has never patted a dog, or stroked a cat or talked to them, thus expressing their love for them? Moreover, they too need our love: just feeding them is not sufficient. They are emotional creatures: dogs, for instance, experience a whole gamut of emotions. Though instead of arguing with the holy Athonite we now should comprehend something useful for us in these strict (maybe even too strict) words.

What is wrong is when affection (or, rather, attachment for a pet) replaces our love for people and God, making up for a lack or a complete absence of the latter. Adolf Hitler adored his German Shepherd Blondi! That is an extreme example. But I have seen quite a few instances when people easily combined (almost hysterical) compassion for homeless puppies with coldness and cruelty towards fellow humans, often towards those closest to them. You can hear from these people that “in general, animals are better than human beings…” In fact, the truth is that it is easier to love animals than to love people; it doesn’t require any moral and spiritual labor, self-criticism, patience, and humility… That’s why they cunningly make a substitution. Someone who has not learned to love his neighbors is lonely—by close bonds with animals he tries to find a way out of his loneliness or quench his emotional hunger. And he doesn’t notice that his dog, cat or Guinea pig has become closer to him than his fellow-humans, which is indeed folly for the soul and a violation against the hierarchy—the Creator’s plan for creation.

Love between people is a complex thing as well. There is our love for someone, and there is a desire to be loved by someone—that is, to use the person whose love we seek. But people often have trouble distinguishing between these things. “I don’t so much love him (her) as I want his (her) love”; and many families have been destroyed because of the failure to discern the difference. The same thing can often be seen in relations between human beings and animals: what is usually hidden behind the words of “love for pets” is the desire to use them for entertainment or gratify their ego. People pay a lot of money for a pedigree cat and at the same time indifferently step over an abandoned kitten near their own homes. I am not against pure-bred animals, particularly dogs—the synergy between man and nature give birth to some breeds that are true masterpieces. But in order to keep a dog of one or another type you need to know its special traits, find a way to deal with it, and ensure that it feels comfortable. I used to run a column about dogs and cats in a town newspaper and remember how many tragedies were connected with pedigree dogs whose owners simply understood nothing about them and had no idea how to handle them. From husky dogs, who, unable to live in a cramped and confined space, escape and run away heaven knows where, to American Staffordshire terriers who mutilate children under their parents’ very eyes… And the same question arises over and over again: why did they buy these dogs in the first place? “We just wanted this particular breed of dog!” But what has this to do with love?

And, reverting to the main question: Are we allowed to pray for cats?

True, the idea that human beings and animals are equal is sinful and it’s a serious delusion. Intuitively, we really shudder when we hear that some Christian denominations have celebrated church services for pets and even offered “Communion” for dogs…

Nevertheless, they live near us, they are part of our lives, they need our care… and sometimes even our prayers. Priests are very frequently asked whether or not it is allowed to pray for domestic animals—and that is not a coincidence. Did the above-mentioned woman commit a sin by praying for the health of “cat of God Vasily”? Certainly not. But still, I struggle and hesitate whenever I have an urge to pray for my own cat when he has a terrible boil on his side or a bad fever… The following thought (partly influenced by the notes of Elder Silouan) crosses my mind: “How dare I pray to the Master of the universe for some cat?” I am afraid to slide and replace prayer by some sort of an infantile, sentimental outburst.

Of course, we cure them—these poor things. That is, we act. And every action and good work should be preceded by prayer. This way, quietly, without affectedness, hysterics, or sentimentality: “Lord, please help. St. Gerasimus, who bandages the lion’s paw on icons, please intercede. No one but us will care for them. We, humans, once domesticated them and took them into our homes, and, therefore, we are responsible for them.” Thus, a reasonable and necessary action helps me maintain a mental and spiritual level most favorable both for myself and my sick cat.

Undoubtedly, we are called to love animals and admire them as God’s beautiful creatures. Look how many times beasts and birds are mentioned in the Bible, and how rich its cosmos is: Here we find the hart that panteth after the water brooks (Ps. 41:2); yelling lion’s cubs (cf. Jer. 51:38); the stork, whose house is the fir trees (cf. Ps. 103:17); the hawk that stretches its wings towards the south (Job 39:26); hedgehogs, bats; the conies whose refuge is the rocks (cf. Ps. 103:18); and, of course, the fowls of the air, that sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feedeth them (Mt. 6:26).

However, there is the continuation in the same verse: Are ye not much better than they? And it reminds us, rational and talking creatures, about our special place in the universe and our responsibility towards it.

 

1. The citation source: https://stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/life.htm

2. The citation source: http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2015/8/28/love-for-all-creation

Source: https://orthochristian.com/128796.html