MP Commentator on the OCA autocephaly: “Epilogue,” or Psinka, Padlo, Svolota, and Nehuy do a number on America...

Alexey Rodionov | July 23, 2026

[The conclusion of the author’s Russian work entitled: “Unholy Autocephaly, or How the Independence of the OCA Began,” links below]

 

 

About fifteen years ago, I was greatly surprised when I read that Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) was highly skeptical of the very idea of autocephaly for the North American Metropolia (the present-day OCA). Thus, on the occasion of the repose of Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky), he wrote:

“If the Russian Orthodox Church in America, even after the repose of Metropolitan Theophilus, continues along the path of the Cleveland Council of 1946, it will inevitably face complete separation from Russian Orthodoxy, the abandonment of the sacred rules and customs of the Russian Orthodox Church, and apostasy from Holy Orthodoxy itself and from the Body of Christ, through which alone we can escape eternal condemnation and save our souls.”

(In Memory of Metropolitan Theophilus // Vitaly [Maximenko], Archbishop. The Motives of My Life. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1955, pp. 118–123.)

At that time, I was convinced that Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) had been mistaken and that the OCA, despite all its problems, had by no means departed from the teaching of the Orthodox Church. But the more I observe what is happening, the more convinced I become that, although Archbishop Vitaly may perhaps have spoken too heatedly, his skepticism was by no means groundless... To this day, people like to blame the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, and ROCOR in general, for everything, portraying its leadership as chiefly responsible for all the misfortunes of the Russian emigration. Yet a careful study of the events of a century ago, an account of which I posted here today, makes it possible to understand that this was by no means the case.

Links in Russian:

Part 1: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/465835.html

Part 2: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466109.html

Part 3: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466274.html

Part 4: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466483.html

Moreover, at that time, among all the parties to the conflict, it was precisely the ROCOR Synod that conducted itself most properly in this conflict. Although, of course, it too could not avoid making mistakes.

However, that is still not the main point. The question is whether the rupture with Metropolitan Evlogius could have been avoided. It could have been, but this would have required enormous effort, unquestionable diplomatic talent, perseverance, and, of course, tact. And ROCOR did have such a man—Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky), the future First Hierarch of ROCOR. He understood both theology and the human soul, and his patience was exceptional. But no one in Sremski Karlovci expected everything to unfold so rapidly and to become irreversible so quickly. He did not move to Sremski Karlovci until 1934. Nevertheless, I repeat, reconciliation was still achievable. By contrast, reaching an agreement with Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) was impossible from the outset. Indeed, how can one reach an agreement with someone whose life is devoid of any principles whatsoever? Moreover, the flock and clergy in North America differed greatly from those in Europe.

For the most part, it then consisted of Carpatho-Russians, Galicians, and Bukovinian Slavs who had come over from the Unia. Neither they nor their descendants had ever lived in the Russian Empire. They had always lived under a foreign yoke and had been treated as second- or even third-class people. Neither in Poland nor in Austria (and Austria-Hungary) did anyone take them seriously or attempt to educate or cultivate them. And as soon as the opportunity arose, they emigrated en masse to the United States, where life at that time was likewise often difficult, but where there was no such humiliation and there was an opportunity to make a career. Naturally, little held them to the Unia, into which they had been driven by force. And as soon as, in America itself, the local Roman Catholic bishop, John Ireland, began to oppress them, many immediately converted to Orthodoxy—or, more precisely, joined the North American Diocese of the Russian Church, where they were very warmly received.

But it would be a mistake to think that they immediately, or even after a couple of years, became ardent champions of the Orthodox Faith. There were some who did, but they did not constitute the majority. Moreover, in order to be a zealot of Orthodox teaching—and from 1923 to 1936 there was not a single Orthodox seminary in the United States, even one of the most mediocre kind. Alexander Dvorkin writes ironically in his book My America about what Galician-Carpathian faith often amounted to:

“In the Carpatho-Russian parishes, which had formed the backbone of the OCA since the old days, many strange customs had survived. Some of them were rooted in the Unia, which they had left at the end of the nineteenth century; others (such as having a flag in the church) had been acquired later; and still others arose from the peculiarities of the older, prewar generation of clergy, who in the 1960s and 1970s were gradually replaced by younger, better-educated priests.

Incidentally, many distinguished Carpatho-Russian archpriests bore surnames that sounded rather strange, to put it mildly: Father Michael Psinka, Father Paul Padlo, Father Tom Svolota, and even a certain Father John Nehuy. The last surname was pronounced in a very dignified manner: Nehue.

And now for the story itself. After graduating from the academy, one newly ordained young priest was assigned to an old Carpatho-Russian parish that had recently lost its extremely elderly and deeply revered rector, who had served there for no less than half a century. After some time, a delegation from this parish came to Father Paul [Lazor], asking him to take the new rector back and give them someone else in his place.

‘Why does he not suit you?’ Father Paul asked in surprise. ‘The priest is sincere, educated, and zealous.’

‘No, he is unbelievably lazy,’ the parishioners replied. ‘We do not want anyone so lazy!’

‘???’

‘On Holy Saturday, our old rector would begin driving around to the parishioners’ homes early in the morning to bless the Paschal foods. The parish is large, and so, in order to finish in time, he would arrive at the first homes at six in the morning. Their food was not yet ready, so he would sprinkle the empty oven with holy water, and he would not finish these visits until late in the evening. Now there was a hard worker! But your new priest does not go around.’

‘Then what does he do?’ Father Paul asked.

‘He spends all his time in church! He serves some kind of service,’ the parishioners replied irritably.”

(Dvorkin, A. L. My America: An Autobiographical Novel in Two Books, with a Prologue and Two Epilogues. 2nd corrected ed. Nizhny Novgorod: Christian Library Publishing House, 2013, pp. 501–502.)

I cannot refrain from recalling the words of an active, well-known, and educated cleric of the North American Metropolia, Archpriest Leonid Turkevich, a native of the city of Kremenets in Volhynia Governorate (now in Ternopil Oblast), which he published in 1926 in the pages of the American Orthodox Messenger. He asserted that Russian ideas, as it turns out, obscure ecclesiastical consciousness, and that the role of the Russian people in building the Universal Church must be brought to an end, since it supposedly impedes the Church’s “universality.” After being widowed, Archpriest Leonid Turkevich embraced monasticism and the episcopate and is now known as Leonty, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. I realize that the authorities of the Russian Empire sought to make their priests useful to society and the state rather than universally minded. But, forgive me, Galician émigrés are hardly the ones to teach us universality!

In this light, it becomes clear how important the mission of Fathers Georges Florovsky, Alexander Meyendorff, and John Meyendorff was. Without them, it would not have been possible to train an entire generation of priests who thought in a new way. And without such priests, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko’s) sorrowful prediction would almost certainly have come true. And yet one fundamental problem remained. The approach of Schmemann and Meyendorff, aimed at bringing everyday life into the Church and improving it without confronting it, “works” only on one condition: that society itself in the United States and Canada is not plunging into the abyss. But it most certainly is! And it is not merely plunging—it is accelerating its descent ever more rapidly. Thus, when one attempts to “church” something that is becoming increasingly horrible, the final result will invariably become increasingly horrible as well.

And one more point must be addressed. When the First Hierarch of a certain Local Church pursues a particular policy for many years, then even if, after his death, another Primate comes with different aims and approaches, what his predecessor accomplished does not disappear; it merely becomes less visible. And at any moment it is capable of “resurrecting.”

As I have already quoted:

“Close ties with the Episcopal Church, from which Metropolitan Platon received material assistance, pushed his structure onto the path of liberal and often ignorant reforms. <...> Within Metropolitan Platon’s jurisdiction, there were cases of ordination for money, the ordination of men who had been married twice, and also of Jews without any verification as to whether they had been baptized. <...> There were cases of unofficial concelebration and even joint Communion between representatives of the ‘Platonite’ clergy and the clergy of the Episcopal Church.”

(Kostryukov, A. A. The Russian Church Abroad in 1925–1938: Jurisdictional Conflicts and Relations with the Moscow Church Authorities. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2011, p. 273.)

Thus, a mere change of generations neither erases the sin that was committed nor safeguards against its repetition. Only a genuine recognition of the sin committed can save—and repentance for it. But, of course, repentance before God, not before any activists, whether in cassocks or out of them.

Therefore, the persistent and numerous appeals of the former ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate, calling upon it to repent, were not empty words. On the contrary, they were extremely important. The only problem was that ROCOR itself was not accustomed to repenting either. The negotiations of the 2000s, meanwhile, essentially amounted to obscuring the mutual guilt of both sides in order to avoid responsibility for it. Likewise, the OCA needed autocephaly precisely so that it would no longer have to answer to anyone for what had been done.

But if the OCA was, and remains, so intent on distancing itself from the Russian Church, then what is it striving toward?

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/467448.html

 

 

A ROCOR Discussion on Ecumenism (1971)

A translation of the Minutes of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on September 3/16, 1971.

 

 

VIII. Protopresbyter George Grabbe reads his report on Ecumenism (Appendix 27).

Archbishop Vitaly reads aloud a letter from Athanasius Zacharides concerning certain aspects of church life connected with Ecumenism.

Archbishop Nikon believes that, in view of the contents of Protopresbyter George Grabbe’s report, a special resolution should be drawn up, and asks him what he would propose.

Protopresbyter George Grabbe replies that the Metropolitan should be asked to write to all the Primates of the Churches and to all Orthodox Hierarchs a second Sorrowful Epistle, pointing out the danger of Ecumenism.

Archbishop Averky believes that the time has come to declare Ecumenism a dangerous heresy that undermines the foundations of the Church.

The Chairman [Metropolitan Philaret] remarks that the speaker says the same thing.

Bishop Savva expresses doubt as to whether it would be beneficial to press the issue too sharply. Would we not thereby give the Eastern Churches grounds to place us under suspension?

It would be better to develop this question further, in order to present it to a future Council.

Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco says that he understands the zeal for God’s truth in this matter, but heresies were ordinarily dealt with by Councils specially convened for that purpose. Our Council, however, has assembled to address many matters, while this question stands among the other items on the agenda.

Protopresbyter George Grabbe replies that, in the history of the Church, the condemnation of a heresy was not immediately carried out by a great Council, but initially proceeded from the Council of some one particular Church.

Archbishop Nikon proposes the text of a resolution.

The Chairman remarks that we have already spoken about Ecumenism before. Archbishop Vitaly delivered an excellent report on the subject at the previous Council. Our new statement must now be still more resolute and forceful.

Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago proposes referring this question to the All-Diaspora Council.

The Chairman objects that an All-Diaspora Council with the participation of laypeople cannot examine dogmatic questions.

Archbishop Averky agrees with the Chairman. We have been speaking about Ecumenism for many years, and the faithful are awaiting a firm word from us. We have spoken definitively concerning the Moscow Patriarchate, but the sin of Ecumenism is even greater.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva agrees that an epistle must be issued, but that it should speak not of entire Churches as promoting Ecumenism, but of individual persons.

Archbishop Philotheus agrees that an epistle against Ecumenism is necessary, but that it must emphasize that the Moscow Patriarchate is following this path because it is not free. Our Russian Church Abroad is free and must defend the truth.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles believes that, if it is clear to us that Ecumenism is a heresy, then we must declare this openly. We may, of course, thereby damage our relations with some; in certain respects, this may be painful, but it must not deter us. The truth is more important than personal relations.

Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago objects that our relations with the Jerusalem Patriarchate are now improving somewhat, yet it sends representatives to ecumenical conferences. The Serbian Church does the same. The Serbs say that they participate in them for the sake of self-defense. In Germany, we make use of Catholic churches. In Cincinnati, we rent an Episcopal church. If we declare Ecumenism a heresy, then we must break off ordinary relations with heretics.

Archbishop Averky particularly welcomes the statement of Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, for decisive declarations are expected from us precisely now, when we are commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Church Abroad.

Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco agrees that we must bear witness to the truth, but it is more important for us to point out the errors of the unfree Church in the USSR. Then our role will be more modest.

Archbishop Averky, replying to Archbishop Seraphim, observes that the use of a church building does not in itself constitute Ecumenism.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva believes that we must judge Ecumenism, and not individual Churches.

Archbishop Vitaly agrees with Archbishop Anthony.

Archbishop Philotheus believes that it is Ecumenism itself that is a heresy, and not attendance at some gathering of ecumenists while defending the Orthodox faith there.

Bishop Savva believes that we should not hurry to dot the i’s. Epistles have been written previously. The material must be worked out. It would be better to adopt this at an All-Diaspora Council. Although the people do not decide such questions, this would be more authoritative, for it would rest upon the support of the Church’s people. We have many other difficult questions.

The Chairman observes that, in that case, if we have troubles in Argentina or Australia, we should not concern ourselves with an important dogmatic question.

Archbishop Averky is likewise surprised at such a framing of the question. What is taking place in Argentina or Australia is insignificant in comparison with Ecumenism. It undermines the very foundations of the Church.

Archbishop Vitaly agrees with Archbishop Averky. Ecumenism is indifference toward Christ’s truth and destroys the boundaries of the Church.

Archbishop Averky believes that, in the way he has framed the question, Bishop Savva probably has in mind the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, which states that among us the guardian of the truth is the entire people. But this would apply to us if we were preaching falsehood; when we are refuting heresy, however, the people have no authority.

The Council adopts the following resolution: Having heard the detailed report of Protopresbyter George Grabbe on Ecumenism, and recognizing Ecumenism as a heresy against the dogma of the Church, the Council of Bishops requests that the Chairman of the Council address the Orthodox world with a New Sorrowful Epistle, warning it against this heresy.

 

Chairman of the Council:

+Metropolitan Philaret

 

Council Members:

+ Archbishop Nikon,

+ Archbishop Seraphim,

+ Archbishop Philotheus,

+ Archbishop Vitaly,

+ Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Averky,

 + Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Seraphim,

+ Bishop Sava,

+ Bishop Constantine,

+ Bishop Theodosius.

 

Secretaries of the Council:

+ Bishop Paul

+ Bishop Laurus

 

 

Russian Source: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201971%20Prot.htm

The Matthewite Response to the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism: An Example of Old Calendarist Sectarianism

 

On April 1, 1985 (Old Style), Thursday of the week following Thomas Sunday, the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy was convened for its second regular session under the presidency of His Beatitude Archbishop Andreas. Present were Their Eminences Metropolitans Gregory of Messenia, Matthew of Attica and Megaris, Nicholas of Piraeus and the Islands, Lazarus of Vresthena, Pachomius of Argolis, Theodosius of Phthiotis, and Titus of Servia and Kozani; the Chief Secretary, Hieromonk Kirykos; and the secretaries, Fr. Chrysostomos and Fr. Paul. Among other matters, it also took up the following subjects:

[…]

2) Russian Synod of the White Russians Outside of Russia.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following what had been presented a year earlier as a decision of this Russian Synod concerning the anathematization of Ecumenism.

A year ago, following the “anathematization of Ecumenism” by the Russian Synod, the Holy Synod sent, through the priest in America, Fr. Anthony Gavalas, the following letter, to which no reply whatsoever was given either by Fr. Anthony or by the Synod presided over by Metropolitan Philaret:

 

TO:
The Very Reverend Fr. Anthony Gavalas

Very Reverend Fr. Anthony, greetings in the Lord.

We inform you that your letter of October 25, 1983 (Old Style), together with the enclosed text of the anathema against Ecumenism, was brought before the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy (January 13-14, 1984), which, having studied it, judged that the decision in question of the Russian Synod does not constitute a Confession of Faith, since it contains no formulation whatsoever of an Orthodox Ecclesiological Confession regarding New Calendarism, precisely on account of which the spiritual communion of the Church of the G.O.C. with the Russian Synod was severed in 1976.

Likewise, the Holy Synod considers it imperative that the Russian Synod take into consideration our document No. 1158 of February 20, 1976, and especially its concluding paragraph, which reads as follows: “Any further relations with you shall depend upon your future position and upon any possible revision of your Creed regarding the Calendar question, concerning which we shall also pray to the Lord” (K.G.O., February 1976).

Beyond these matters, reasonable questions and perplexities arise concerning the decision in question.

a) What reasons moved the Russian Synod to adopt such a decision against Ecumenism, when in the past it considered itself incompetent to pronounce judgment upon New Calendarism, which is assuredly Ecumenism in theory and in practice?

b) Following the anathematization of Ecumenism, what is the position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism and, more generally, toward the new calendarist or old calendarist “Churches,” which participate in the ecumenical heresy through spiritual communion and New Calendarism?

c) Why is the decision against Ecumenism set forth apart from the relevant Encyclical and does not bear the signatures of the Synod?

d) What consistency does the Russian Synod show with regard to this decision of its own, or what consequences might this decision have for the Synod itself and the other members of the Russian Church?

e) Why did the Russian Synod send absolutely no official document to the Holy Synod of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, nor announce this decision of its own through any official publication (but completely ignored it), although the latter, from the beginning, had in practice repudiated both New Calendarism and Ecumenism and, precisely for this reason—that is, because of the incorrect ecclesiological position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism—severed spiritual communion with it (the Russian Synod) in 1976, and has since then, for approximately ten years, awaited its “revision of its Creed concerning the Calendar question”?

The Holy Synod particularly emphasizes that since 1976 it has awaited your Synod’s examination of the cause of the severance of ecclesiastical communion. Now again, on the occasion of the anathematization of Ecumenism, although it has received no official information whatsoever concerning this from your Synod, it desires and prays that, even today, a direct meeting through synodal representatives may take place for discussion of all the matters, both old and new.

Until that day, you too are personally requested to direct all your efforts toward this end. In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret is also requested to prohibit all interference by third parties in the ecclesiastical affairs of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, as well as any possible establishment of parishes or dependencies in Greece.

We ask you duly to inform Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod under him.

May the Lord bless every further action, that it may be to the glory of His Holy Name and for our salvation.

By order of the Holy Synod
The Chief Secretary
† Hieromonk Kirykos Kontogiannis

Unfortunately, the Russians maintained complete silence regarding the above letter. At the same time, although a more conservative course was expected from the Synod in question, it was unfortunately observed that it continued its common course with the Ecumenists.

Thus, the following points were noted concerning the Russian Synod:

a) Members of it prayed jointly not merely with New Calendarist Ecumenists, but also with the heterodox in England, during the official ceremony for the reception of the bones of Edward, King of England, whom they had recently proclaimed a Saint.

b) It accepts, in accordance with an Encyclical of Metropolitan Philaret, that the Filioque does not constitute an impediment to accepting someone as a Saint.

c) It accepts the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches as Orthodox and canonical Churches.

d) It accepts that the “anathematization” has a local character (expediency?) and is not valid for the other New Calendarist Churches.

e) It accepts the validity of the Mysteries of the schismatic Moscow Patriarchate (which is burdened not only by its common course with the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches and by its imparting of the Mysteries to the Papists, but also by the schism of 1927 through the subjection of the Church to the atheistic regime, which Patriarch Tikhon had already condemned by anathema).

f) It refers the question of New Calendarism–Ecumenism yet again to a future Ecumenical Council.

g) It maintains within its fold communities that follow the New Papal Calendar; and

h) It receives into its fold, without Baptism, heterodox persons who have not even received the form of Orthodox Baptism.

i) The performance of Baptism by pouring and sprinkling by Russian clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following reliable information received from a priest who had recently arrived from Russia and who stated to the Holy Synod that Baptism is not performed according to the Orthodox form, that is, by immersions and emersions, but by pouring water upon the head of the person being baptized or by sprinkling.

The Holy Synod judged the matter to be extremely serious, especially in conjunction with the fact that the same practice is also observed in many New Calendarist Churches abroad, where Baptism is not performed by canonical immersions and emersions.

This matter was also examined in conjunction with an earlier decision of the Holy Synod, according to which “Baptism” performed by pouring or sprinkling ought to be repeated. Owing to the seriousness of the matter, it was decided that the subject should be taken up again at a subsequent session of the Hierarchy.

[…]

 

Greek source: Κήρυξ Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων [Herald of the Genuine Orthodox], Vol. 30, No. 88, April 1985, pp. 99-101.

On ROCOR’s Attitude toward the Serbian Church in 1967

The Free Serbian Orthodox Church was formed in 1963, when the communist authorities in Yugoslavia attempted to bring the Serbian Metropolitan in America, Dionisije (Milivojević), under their control. Metropolitan Dionisije refused to cooperate with the communists and, under their pressure, was removed from his position. Refusing to recognize his removal as lawful, he withdrew from the official Serbian Church and founded an independent Serbian metropolitanate in the United States, which he named the Free Serbian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Dionisije was supported by Serbian parishes in Europe and Australia.

The Russian Church Abroad found itself faced with a kind of choice. On the one hand, the Serbian Church and state, in the person of the martyred King Alexander, had rendered it decisive support by receiving it and securing its legitimacy. On the other hand, the communist authorities that had come to power in Yugoslavia sought to influence the Church, and the degree of freedom enjoyed by the official Serbian Church during the years of Tito’s communist regime raised questions.

I shall cite the words of Metropolitan Philaret from Minutes No. 11 of the 1967 Council of Bishops:

After the conclusion of both reports [on the Serbian Church], the Chairman stated that, owing to the lateness of the hour, their discussion could take place only on the following day. Nevertheless, for his own part, he wished to say a few words, with which the Council might perhaps agree. When he had previously spoken about the Serbian Church, he had repeatedly been accused of allegedly saying that the Serbian Church was free. He had never said this. There are different kinds of freedom, and different kinds of lack of freedom. The Church cannot be entirely free in a country ruled by a communist regime. But external freedom is one thing, and internal freedom is another. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon found himself in circumstances worse than those of the Church in Yugoslavia, yet he nevertheless did not lose his internal freedom. Who was outwardly less free than Patriarch Hermogenes? Yet he preserved his internal freedom. Therein lies the greatness of Patriarch Tikhon: at times he made certain outward concessions, but at the same time preserved the internal freedom of the Church. At the previous Council it was said that there was no certainty that the Serbian Patriarch had lost his internal freedom. Can a sign of equality be placed between the Serbian hierarchy and that of Moscow? In Australia, upon arriving there from China, Metropolitan Philaret—then an archimandrite—found full ecclesiastical communion with the Serbian Church. They served in one another’s churches and, at the request of the Serbian Patriarch, conferred ecclesiastical awards upon Serbian clerics. If one recalls Orthodox Russia in 1959, one may find there a report on the Serbian Patriarch’s stay in the Holy Land and his visit to our Ecclesiastical Mission, which he honored with his presence. Five years passed. In Yugoslavia there was the same regime and the same Patriarch. The Council of 1964 made no new decision, but merely recorded a practice that had long existed. On this account, Orthodox Russia declared that we had extended our hand to Antichrist. Father Constantine [Zaitsev, editor of Orthodox Russia] was then asked: at what point, in Father Constantine’s view, had our attitude toward the Serbian Patriarch changed so radically? It should be emphasized that the Council of 1964 established nothing new and included the proviso that, should anything new arise, the Synod would deliberate upon it. But in connection with the internal schism among the Serbs abroad, our position became more complicated. Accusations were directed against us that we had allegedly adopted a pro-communist position. Weighing these circumstances, the Synod decided to take the position that this question was external to us and, in order to avoid division, deemed it more useful to leave the matter to the conscience of each Bishop. The Bishops viewed the matter differently. As regards the Chairman’s own inner conviction, he agrees with Bishop Kirill that the decision should be left to the conscience of each hierarch, for he has no inner conviction that the Serbian hierarchy acts in the same manner as Moscow. But principle is one thing, while practical action dictated by tact is another. The Chairman is inclined toward making no new decision. The least painful course would be to stand aside and serve with neither side until the disputes cease. The question now concerns the creation of a Serbian Church Abroad. Who, if not we, should sympathize with such an undertaking? But when our Church was founded, its founder was such a hierarch as Metropolitan Anthony, who could rely upon the decree of Patriarch Tikhon. The Serbian Patriarchate treated him fraternally, but that was an external matter.

It was not the Serbian Patriarchate, but the Russian hierarchs themselves who created our Church. We have no right to provide a foundation for a new ecclesiastical branch. We could offer the Serbs nothing other than what we gave to the Romanians and Bulgarians. After these remarks, the Chairman stated that the reports would be discussed on another day, but for the time being proposed that the draft resolution prepared by Archbishop Athanasius be heard.

Thus, our hierarchs adopted, as it were, a wait-and-see position on the question of the Serbian division. Nevertheless, at this same Council of Bishops in 1967, a unanimous decision was adopted not to concelebrate with the hierarchy of the official Serbian Church.

Top Secret

To Minutes No. 13 of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

May 19/June 1, 1967.

In addition to the present Council of Bishops’ resolution concerning relations with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the proposal of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch and Chairman of the Council of Bishops, is unanimously adopted and approved: that all the Right Reverend hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad refrain from concelebrating with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Chairman of the Council of Bishops: + Metropolitan Philaret

Members of the Council [listed in Minutes No. 1]: + Alexander, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany; + Athanasius, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Argentina; + Archbishop Philotheos; + Leonty, Archbishop of Santiago and Chile-Peru; + Seraphim, Archbishop of Chicago and Detroit; + Nikon, Archbishop of Washington and Florida; + Vitaly, Archbishop of Montreal and Canada; + Anthony, Archbishop of Los Angeles and Texas; + Averky, Archbishop of Syracuse and Holy Trinity; + Anthony, Archbishop of Geneva and Western Europe; + Seraphim, Bishop of Caracas and Venezuela; Savva, Bishop of Edmonton; + Anthony, Bishop of Melbourne; + Nektary, Bishop of Seattle; + Kirill, Bishop of Toledo and Toronto.

 

 

Russian source: http://www.internetsobor.org/index.php/novosti/rptsz/1967

 

1967 ROCOR Decision on Conciliarity in the Church

Decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, dated May 19/June 1, 1967.

 

After further exchange of opinions, the following definition is unanimously adopted:

The Council of Bishops held the judgment that within the flock there has appeared a movement striving to limit the canonical authority of bishops, which belongs to them by Divine right and by the sacred canons. As a result of this, there arises a danger of distortion of the dogma of the Holy Church, the preservation of which in uncorrupted purity constitutes one of the most important tasks of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

The most vivid expression of this public movement is:

1. In California, the establishment of a “Society of Laity,” registered under civil laws, interfering in church affairs, and

2. In Eastern America, the appearance of a “Conference of Church Workers.”

The latter, perhaps even out of good intentions, published in the month of February 1967 an appeal, sent to the Most Reverend Bishops, parishes, and certain private individuals, with accusations against the hierarchy of an alleged striving of the bishops to establish in the Church a “dictatorship of Bishops,” and with the demand to broaden the participation of the laity in the governance of the Church.

In view of this, the Council of Bishops explains that in Christ’s Church, beginning with the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 after the Nativity of Christ, and according to the canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, the supreme ecclesiastical authority belongs to the Bishops, as successors of the holy Apostles, to whom was given from the Lord the command concerning the establishment and governance of the Holy Church, as well as the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of priesthood, for the fulfillment of this ministry. Representatives of the clergy and laity may be invited to participate in church construction as co-workers of the Hierarchy, however, not as bearers of ecclesiastical authority, but as participants in the building of church life in conciliar cooperation with the Hierarchy.

Such an order of church life is clearly defined by the sacred canons, which state:

39th Apostolic Canon: “Presbyters and deacons shall do nothing without the will of the bishop, for it is to him that the Lord’s people are entrusted, and he will render an account for their souls.”

It should be explained that if presbyters and deacons cannot perform anything in the Church without the will of the bishop, then all the more must this be said about the laity, concerning whose authority in the Church the canons say absolutely nothing, but clearly indicate the necessity for the laity to be subject to the bishops.

8th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states: “Clergy at hospices, monasteries, and martyr shrines shall remain, according to the tradition of the holy fathers, under the authority of the bishop of each city, and they shall not be torn away, out of presumption, from the administration of their bishop. But those who dare to violate this decree in any way, and who do not submit to their bishop—if they are clerics, let them be punished according to the canons; but if they are monastics or laymen, let them be excluded from ecclesiastical communion.”

41st Apostolic Canon: “We command that the bishop have authority over church property; for if precious human souls must be entrusted to him, then how much more should he be entrusted with money, so that he may manage all things by his authority.”

The same is stated in the 24th Canon of the Council of Antioch: “It is a good thing that church possessions be preserved with all diligence and a good conscience, and with faith in God, the All-seeing and Judge; and it is fitting that the bishop, to whom all the souls of those assembling in the church are entrusted, should manage them with discernment and authority.”

Since the Bishop is the successor of the Apostles and the spiritual father of his flock, the sacred canons uphold the authority of the Bishop, as well as that of the presbyter.

The 55th Apostolic Canon states: “If anyone from the clergy offends the bishop, let him be deposed. For ‘you shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people’ (Acts 23:5).”

The 56th Apostolic Canon states: “If anyone from the clergy offends a presbyter or a deacon, let him be excluded from ecclesiastical communion.”

The sacred canons forbid the making of censures directed against hierarchical authority, and, recognizing the sinfulness of such actions, strictly warn against them.

Thus, the 18th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states: “Conspiracy or the forming of gatherings, as a crime, is completely forbidden even by the external laws; how much more must it be forbidden in the Church of God, so that this may not occur. If, therefore, certain of the clergy or monastics are found binding one another by an oath, or plotting against bishops or their fellow clergy, let them be entirely deposed from their rank.”

At the same time, the Church requires due respect toward the rank of the clergy, even in those cases when the clergy are guilty of something.

In the Nomocanon appended to the Great Trebnik is found the 121st rule:

“It is not fitting for a layman to reproach a priest, or to strike him, or to revile him, or to slander him, or to rebuke him to his face, even if these things be true (that is, even when the priest is in the wrong). But if he dares to do this, let the layman be accursed, let him be cast out of the Church, for he is separated from the Holy Trinity, and he shall be sent to the place of Judas.”

Thus, the fullness of authority in a diocese belongs to the Bishop, and in the entire Church – to the Council of Bishops, as is clearly stated in Apostolic Canon 37, the 5th of the First Ecumenical Council, the 6th of the Second Ecumenical Council, the 19th and 28th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 8th of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The sacred canons know nothing of councils with laity. There does not exist a single canon which would speak of the participation of laity in councils.

The governance of the Church is carried out jointly – by the First-Hierarch and the Council of Bishops, as is indicated in the 34th Apostolic Canon: “It behooves the bishops of every nation to know the one who is first among them, and to acknowledge him as head, and to do nothing exceeding their authority without his consideration. But each one should do only that which pertains to his own diocese and to the places belonging to it. Yet the first should do nothing without the consideration of all. For thus there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

We know well that in antiquity, in the history of the Church, there were Councils with the participation of clergy and laity, who were present at the Councils as representatives of their Bishops (for example, papal legates), or as theologians (for example, Athanasius the Great in the rank of deacon at the First Ecumenical Council), or as representatives of the emperor, or confessors of the faith of Christ (monks at the Seventh Ecumenical Council), but not as elected representatives of their parishes or dioceses, in the manner of popular sovereignty. Only in later times were elected, as well as appointed, representatives of clergy and laity invited to Councils, but with the indispensable condition that the final decisive word remained with the hierarchy, as was the case at the All-Russian Moscow Council of 1917–18 and at the Councils Abroad in Sremski Karlovci, in 1921 and 1938.

Thus, to the hierarchy belongs the canonical right of involving clergy and laity in participation in Councils and in the ordering of church life, but only when this is required by the benefit of the Church.

Such also is the participation of the laity in the administration of the diocese. Diocesan assemblies and councils are auxiliary bodies under the bishop.

In what then does true conciliarity consist, according to the teaching of the Church of Christ?

Obviously, not in this: that Bishops should be deprived of authority in the Church, and that ecclesiastical authority, according to the principle of popular sovereignty, should be handed over jointly to bishops, clergy, and laity.

The Longer Orthodox Catechism, in response to the question: “Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is to say, Universal or Ecumenical?” answers:

“Because it is not limited by any place, nor time, nor people, but embraces within itself all the truly faithful of all places, times, and peoples.”

Here nothing is said about the authority of the laity in the Church.

The conciliarity of the Church consists in the fact that the Church is composed of all people, without distinction of their class or social affiliations and nationalities. Conciliarity also consists in the fact that the children of the Church must be in complete unanimity in their beliefs and in their life with their Church, confessing everything that the Church has preached from the beginning of its foundation. The conciliarity of the Church also consists in the way of life of the members of the Church, both in their relations with one another, bound by the ties of Christian love, and in the observance of the entire order of church life.

If, however, any of the laity should seize authority in the Church and place themselves on a level with the Bishops, appropriating to themselves the functions of episcopal authority, then this will no longer be conciliarity, or even democracy, but arbitrariness, self-will, opposition to the will of God and to God’s designs, and consequently, a violation of conciliarity, which violation inevitably leads to the destruction of the Church. The command of Christ, given to the Apostles concerning the establishment of the Church, remains in force until the end of the age: “Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:19–20), and also: “He who hears you hears Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16).

From the above it is evident that those persons who do not acknowledge the church rules must not be participants in the organs of church administration.

As for such organizations as the “Society of Laity” in California and those similar to it in other places, by their aspirations and by the manner of their actions, they have taken the un-Orthodox path of a Protestant character, threatening to turn into a heresy dangerous for the Church. Therefore, the Council of Bishops entrusts the Diocesan Bishops to take appropriate measures to safeguard the Church from their harmful activity, which disrupts peace and unity.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is founded on the decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of November 20, 1920, No. 362, which states that in the event that a diocese, as a result of the movement of the front, change of state borders, and the like, should find itself outside of any communication with the higher church administration, and for some reason ceases its activity under the leadership of His Holiness the Patriarch, “the diocesan Bishop shall immediately enter into relations with the Bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a supreme instance of church authority for several dioceses which are in the same conditions. In the event of the impossibility of establishing relations with the Bishops of neighboring dioceses, and until the organization of a supreme instance of church authority, the diocesan bishop assumes upon himself the entire fullness of authority granted to him by the church canons, taking all measures for the ordering of local life and, if it should prove necessary, for the organization of diocesan administration, according to the circumstances that have arisen, resolving all matters entrusted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of the existing organs of diocesan administration (diocesan assembly, council, etc., or newly organized ones); and in cases of impossibility, to establish the above-mentioned institutions by himself and under his own responsibility.”

Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is organized on the exact foundation both of the sacred canons and of the decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, according to which the supreme authority in it belongs to the Council of Bishops; in the Dioceses – to the Diocesan Bishops, who administer the dioceses with the cooperation of the organs of diocesan administration.

The Council of Bishops highly esteems the labors both of our self-sacrificing clergy, who in difficult circumstances and with weak material provision carry out their pastoral work, as well as of church workers, the laity, who in good and harmonious cooperation with their Archpastors and pastors labor in the work of the well-ordering of Orthodox parishes.

The Council of Bishops invokes God’s blessing upon all its flock, through whose piety God’s work is being accomplished in the present difficult time.

We joyfully bear witness that, with few exceptions, in our church life the conciliar principle is being realized according to the Symbol of Faith and the 64th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, according to which: “In the one Church, God has made different members, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), which, explaining, Gregory the Theologian clearly shows the order found among them, saying: Brethren, let us honor the order, let us preserve this: let this one be an ear, and that one a tongue; let this one be a hand, and others something else; let this one teach, that one learn. And after a few words he further says: let him who learns be in obedience, let him who distributes distribute with joy, let him who serves serve with zeal. Let us not all be a tongue, even though this be the nearest to all, nor all apostles, nor all prophets, nor all interpreters. And after some words he says: why do you make yourself a shepherd, being a sheep? Why do you make yourself a head, being a foot? Why do you attempt to be a commander, having been placed in the rank of soldiers?”

Therefore, let each of us perform his ministry and labor in the Church in that calling in which the Lord has called him, that is, accomplishing his salvation and building up the Church of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Protocol No. 13, § III (pp. 7–10)

 

Russian source:

http://www.internetsobor.org/index.php/istoriya/rptsz/arkhiv-rptsz/o-sobornosti-v-tserkvi-opredelenie-sobora-episkopov-russkoj-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi-zagranitsej-ot-19-maya-1-iyunya-1967-g

The G.O.C. on the New Testament Holy Trinity Icon

ENCYCLICAL

To all the most pious clergy and people of our Church

 

Beloved and most dear children.

Grace and Peace from Almighty God, and from us, prayers and blessings.

The Holy Synod having convened, it decided that henceforth the sacred icon of the Holy Trinity, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are depicted, may be venerated without hesitation, according to the sacred canons and sacred traditions. He who does not venerate it and causes scandals, will be subject to the appropriate canonical penalties.

For the Holy Synod

Archbishop Auxentios

 

Greek source: H Φωνή της Ορθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], September 1979, No. 765, p. 16.

 

Concerning Sacred Depictions and Sacred Objects

By New Martyr Nicholas Varzhansky (+1918)

 

 

In Holy Scripture a great deal is said concerning sacred depictions and sacred objects. Some depictions were absolutely forbidden as being false; one could not make them, possess them or honour them. However, God did command the making of other images and objects, and it was ordained that they should be considered holy and be honoured. First let us consider the false depictions.

False depictions and objects were absolutely forbidden by the Second Commandment of the Law given on Sinai:

"I am the Lord thy God, Which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods before My face. Thou shalt not make unto thee any idol or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow thyself down to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God" (Ex. 20:2-5; Deut. 5:6-9).

The false depictions are the idols of:

The calf (Ex. 32:4); Moloch (Lev. 18:21); Baal-phegor (Numbers 25:3); Baal (Judges 2:13; 3 [1] Kings 18:21-29); Astarte (Judges 2:13).

The idols are nothing:

"We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but One" (1 Cor. 4-6).

Idols are the works of the hands of men:

"The customs of the people are vanity; they cut down a tree in the forest, they work it with the hands of the carpenter with the help of the axe; they cover it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and the hammer, that it move not. They are as turned columns, but they do not speak; they must needs be borne because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them for they cannot cause evil, and neither is in their power to do good" (Jer. 10:3-5).

The laws of nature do not yield to the idols:

"Every man is mindless in his understanding; every smelter is shamed by his graven image, for what he hath fashioned is false, and there is no breath in them. It is a complete vanity, the work of delusion; in the time of their visitation they shall perish" (Jer. 10:14-15).

The idols cause depravity and abomination:

"The idea of making idols is the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them the dissipation of life" (Wisdom of Solomon 14:12). 

Near the idol of Astarte there was a house of ill-fame. Osias the king "brought" the Astarte "out of the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook of Kedron, and he burned it at the brook of Kedron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof out upon the cemetery of the peoples. And he brake down the houses of ill-fame, which were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove garments for Astarte, and he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah" (4 [2] Kings 23:6-8).

God commands to make true depictions:

"Make ye an ark of shittim wood, two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof" (Ex. 25:10).

"Make thou a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And make thou two cherubims of gold, make thou them of beaten work, at the two ends of the mercy seat. Arid make one cherubim at the one end and the other cherubim at the other end; standing out from the mercy seat make the the cherubims on both its ends, and the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall be one to another; towards the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And place the mercy seat above the ark on high, and in the ark place the revelation, that I shall give thee" (Ex. 25:17-21).

"Moreover make thou the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and of blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and cherubims of skillful work make thou on them" (Ex. 26:1).

"And make thou a veil of blue, and purple and scarlet stuff and of fine twined linen; cherubims of skillful workmanship must be made upon it" (Ex. 26:31).

The Ark of the Covenant was itself called Lord:

"When the ark was taken up on the way, Moses said: Arise, O Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee from before Thy face! And when the ark rested, he said: Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousand thousands of lsrael!" (Number 10:35-36).

"Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet, for it is holy” (Ps.98:5).

David spoke before the ark and he said: "Before the Lord will I play and will dance, and I will be more abased, and will make myself even more lowly in mine eyes" (2 Kings [Samuel] 6:21-22).

The ark was called God as being the highest holy thing of God:

"O God, when Thou wentest forth before Thy people, when Thou didst traverse the wilderness, the earth was shaken and the heavens dropped dew, at the presence of the God of Sinai, at the presence of the God of Israel"(Ps. 67:8-9).

God commands to make sacred objects:

"Make thou an altar of offering, from shittim wood make thou it" (Ex. 30:1).

"Upon it Aaron shall burn sweet-smelling incense every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense thereon; and when Aaron lighteth the lamps at evening, he shall burn incense thereon - a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations" (Ex. 30:7-8).

"And make thou a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work must this candlestick be." "And make thou seven lamps therefor, and set its lamps thereon that they might light over against it" (Ex. 25:31;37).

The tabernacle, the sacred depictions and objects were sanctified and most holy.

"Make thou of it a chrism for sacred anointing, an ointment, compounded by the art of one who compounds ointments; it shall be chrism for sacred anointing; and anoint thou the tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the table and all that pertains thereto, and the candlestick and all that pertains thereto, and the altar of incense, and the altar of the whole burnt offering and all that pertains thereto, and the laver and its stand; and sanctify them and it shall be a holy great thing: all who touch them shall be sanctified" (Ex. 30:25-29).

All the sacred objects and depictions were made not only by God's command, but also according to the pattern revealed by Him:

"Make thou them according to that pattern, which was shown thee on the mountain" (Ex. 25:40).

True depictions were not only found in the tabernacle, but also in the Temple of Solomon:

"He made two cherubims of olive wood, each ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherubim, and five cubits the other wing of the cherubim; from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. And the other cherubim was ten cubits; both the cherubims were of one measure and of one form. The height of one cherubim was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherubim. And he set the cherubims in the centre of the inner part of the temple. The wings of the cherubims were stretched forth, and the wing of one touched one wall and the wing of the other cherubim touched the other wall; and the other wings came together wing upon wing in the midst of the temple. And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. And on all the walls of the temple around he made various depictions of cherubims, and of palm trees, and of open flowers, within and without" (3 [1] Kings 6:23 -29).

The Lord sanctified this Temple and approved Solomon on its account:

"The Lord appeared unto Solomon the second time, as He had appeared to him at Gabaoth. And the Lord said unto him: I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou has made before Me (I have done all according to thy prayer). I have hallowed this temple, which thou hast built, that My name might continue there unto the age; and Mine eyes and My heart shall be there in all days… But if ye shall at all turn from following Me, ye or your sons, and will not keep My commandments and My statutes that I have given you, but go and begin to serve other gods and worship them, then will I cut off Israel from the face of the land, which I have given it, and the temple which I have sanctified for My name will I turn away from My face, and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And at this temple, which is high, everyone that passeth by shall be astonished and shall hiss, and they shall say: Why hath the Lord acted thus with this land and with this temple? And they shall say: Because they forsook the Lord their God, Who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and did take unto themselves other gods and worshipped them and served them; therefore hath the Lord brought all this calamity upon them" (3 [1] Kings 9:2-3, 6-9).

There were sacred depictions in the true temple seen in vision by the Prophet Ezekiel:

"Show them the form of the temple and the fashion thereof… and all the images thereof" (Ezek. 43:11).

Idols were always distinguished from true depictions. The Lord sanctified the temple with its true depictions, but when Solomon introduced false depictions the Lord condemned him:

"And Solomon began to serve Astarte, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milchom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did what was displeasing in the eyes of the Lord, and followed not the Lord wholly, as had David his father. Then did Solomon build an idol-temple to Chalmos, the abomination of the Moabites, on the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and to Moloch the abomination of the Ammonites. And likewise did he for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and offered sacrifices unto their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of lsrael, Which had appeared unto him twice, and commanded him that he not follow after other gods, but he did not fulfil that which the Lord (God) had commanded him. And the Lord said unto Solomon: Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it unto thy servant" (3 [1] Kings 11:5-11).

The Hebrews used to worship and bow down before sacred objects:

"I shall worship toward Thy holy temple" (Ps. 5:8).

"I will worship towards Thy holy temple" (Ps. 137:2).

At the tabernacle, Moses and Aaron "fell upon their faces" (Number 20:16).

Jesus of Navi [Joshua] "fell to the earth upon his face before the ark" (Josh. 7:6).

They lit lamps before these sacred objects, following the teaching of the Lord Himself Who said unto Moses: 

"Thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold … and thou shalt make seven lamps therefore, and place its lamps thereon, that they might give light over against it. And the tongs thereof and the snuffers thereof shall be of pure gold … and look that thou make them after the pattern which was showed thee on the mount" (Ex. 25:31, 37-40; see Ex. 27:20, 21; 30:8; Lev. 24:2; 2 Chronicles 4:40).

They burned incense as the Lord commanded Moses:

"Thou shalt make … censers … and thou shalt make an altar to offer incense thereon… and Aaron shall burn thereon fragrant incense" (Ex. 25:29, 30:1,7).

Candles and offerings in the temple of the Lord were not denied even in the New Testament, for the Saviour says (Matt. 5:21-24): if thou bring thy gift to the altar and the rest; and see also Hebrews 13:10; the Saviour's tribute money for the temple (Matt. 17:24-27); the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44).

Miracles were worked through sacred object:

The Ark was taken by the Philistines into the temple of Dagon and for this reason Dagon was overthrown, and the Philistines were punished with grievous tormenting haemorrhoids (1 Kings [Samuel] 5:1-6).

"And He (the Lord) smote the inhabitants of Bethsamis, because they had looked upon the ark of the Lord, and He smote of the people fifty thousand and seventy men. And the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter" (1 Kings [Samuel] 6:19).

"Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God (to steady it) and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. But the Lord was angered against Uzzah, and God smote him for his boldness, and he died there by the ark of God" (2 Kings [Samuel] 6:6-7).

The Saviour did not condemn the true depictions in the Temple of Jerusalem, but on the contrary He said:

"My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer" (Mark 11:17; Matt. 21:13; Luke 19:46; John 2:16).

The apostles prayed and worshipped in this Temple:

"That thou mayest understand," said the Apostle Paul, "that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship" (Acts 24:11).

The Lord appeared to the Apostle Paul in the Temple showing that prayers offered in churches with sacred depictions are acceptable to God:

The Apostle Paul says: "When I was come again unto Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance and saw Him (Christ)" (Acts 22:14-18).

The Lord promised to reveal Himself to those who would keep His Commandments:

"He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My father; and I will love him, and will manifest Myself unto him" (John 14:21). This implies that the prayer of the Apostle Paul in the Temple before the icons was acceptable in that the Lord once appeared to the Apostle Paul during such prayer.

The Lord founded the New Testament Church and in the true Church there are sacred objects such as the holy icons:

Prior to the Second Coming, the Antichrist will come, the "man of sin will be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is holy, so that he shall sit in the temple of God, as God, shewing himself to be God" (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

This means that before the coming of Christ, the Christians will have churches of God, and in them will be holy things "called God". 

These holy things "called God" as the Apostle says are the holy icons. [1] We depict:

●        God the Father, as the Prophet Daniel saw Him, as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9). [2]

●        The Son of God - the Incarnate Word, as the Holy Apostles beheld Him (John 1:14).

●        The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, as He descended on the Saviour "in bodily form" (Luke 3:22).

We also have depictions of the Mother of the Lord, the Holy Angels, the Holy Apostles and of all who pleased God. For us, the icons are primarily for the remembrance of God, of the sacred events, of the instructive lives of the Lord and of the saints. Also, icons set forth the teachings of God and invoke religious feelings in us. Through icons we glorify God as we do through sacred singing and music. Christians have always had icons, and there never was a time when the Christians had absolutely no icons. This is shown not only by Scripture but also by the whole history of the Church. The Roman Catacombs, in which the Christians used to pray at the beginning of the Faith of Christ on earth, are abundant in icons.

Wherefore we must ask the sectarians: How can they be they Christians if they have no divine holy things? How is it that they have no holy icons?

A Selection of Refutations of the Dissenters

The Dissenters say: Exodus 20:4-5; images are forbidden, which means that icons are forbidden.

The Orthodox reply: It is idols of false gods that are forbidden. Through true depictions we remember and glorify the true God. These depictions are not forbidden: Ex. 25:8-10, 17-21; 26:1,31 etc.

The Dissenters say: Esaias [Isaiah] 17:7-8.

The Orthodox reply: This concerns the idols of Astarte and Baal and their altars, not true depictions.

The Dissenters say: Esaias 31:7.

The Orthodox reply: This concerns idols.

The Dissenters say: Esaias 42:8; 48:11.

The Orthodox reply: Here is says that the True God will not give His glory to a false god (an idol).

The Dissenters say: Esaias 44:8-28.

The Orthodox reply: Here it speaks about the making of idols, about their being unnecessary and vain, but it says nothing here about true representations. Moreover, here the Lord promises the building of the Temple of Jerusalem (Esaias 44:28.) showing that material sacred objects are permitted.

The Dissenters say: Jeremias 2:26-28.

The Orthodox say: We do not forget God, but rather strive to remember Him by His depictions.

The Dissenters say: “Thus saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they approach it, neither shall that be done any more” (Jer. 3:16).

The Orthodox reply: We do not mourn the loss of the ark because now we have Christ God. It is clear though that the commandments forbidding idols were not violated by sacred depictions or by the ark, the cherubims and the rest.

The Dissenters say: Deut. 4:15-17. All representations are therefore categorically forbidden.

The Orthodox reply: Here it speaks of the likenesses and idols of other gods. Moreover the True God is a jealous God and will not have mercy when man begins to serve other gods. However the Orthodox do not make false idols, only true depictions of the one true God. Similarly we depict the good servants of the one God, the holy Angels and the saints. A depiction of God is not a substitute for God, but recalls Him and instructs concerning the true God, just as a portrait of the king does not replace, but rather brings to mind, the earthly king.

The Dissenters say: Jer. 10:3-15.

The Orthodox reply: Here it concerns idols, and not true depictions, which are permitted (see Ex. 25:8-10, 17-21).

The Dissenters say: See the Book of Jeremias.

The Orthodox reply: This concerns idols and not true representations, which are permitted.

The Dissenters say: Acts 17:24-31.

The Orthodox reply: We do not think that the Divinity is gold, silver, or stone carved by men. But we ask the question: Is God actually paper, printed with letters? No. But we use paper to refer to God by writing the name ‘God’. Is God actually an angel or a stranger? No. But God appeared in the form of three strangers (see Genesis, chapter 18) and in the form of an Angel (see Judges, chapter 6).

Yes, we depict God in those forms in which He appeared to people; and Christ in the appearance that He had when he lived on earth; the Holy Spirit, as He appeared in a bodily form, in the form of a dove (Luke 3:22); God the Father in the appearance of the "Ancient of Days" that is as an Elder, as was seen in the vision of the Prophet Daniel (7:9) and also the angels, the Mother of God and the saints.

The Dissenters say: Romans 1:21-23. The Apostle forbids sacred depictions.

The Orthodox reply: The Church has never changed the glory of the incorruptible God. The sacred depictions, they do not stand with us "in place of the Creator," as do idols with the pagans. Just as a portrait of the king does not replace the king, so sacred depictions do not replace Christ God, Whom the holy icon commemorates.

The Dissenters say: Psalms 113 and 134.

The Orthodox reply: Here Scripture speaks of idols.

The Dissenters say: John 1:18. No one has seen God at any time and it is completely impossible to represent Him.

The Orthodox reply: It is possible, because "the Only Begotten Son, Which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him" (John 1:18). "And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him" (Luke 3:22). So we represent the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, as the Lord manifested Himself.

The Dissenters say: It is not necessary to speak of Old Testament depictions because Hebrew 9:5 now applies.

The Orthodox reply: Then don't read about them in the Bible, and cross these references out! But this one cannot do, but one must rather read Chapter Nine of Hebrews intelligently, and not like sectarians. The Apostle Paul spoke of the Old Testament sacred objects which were well known to the Jews, to whom this epistle was sent, not in order to deny them, which is inadmissible, but rather to instruct the Jews that it is possible to flee idols and yet to hold to physical sacred objects such as was God's command to Israel.

The Dissenters say: Why don't all icons work miracles?

The Orthodox reply: Why did not all the clothes of the Apostles work miracles, but only the Apostle Paul's "handkerchiefs and aprons" (Acts 19:12)?

The Dissenters say: If the icons are gods, then they should cry out when we hack at them and should strike those who mock them. This does not happen, which means that icons are not gods.

The Orthodox reply: No one recognizes them as gods, but only as sacred depictions. We should not be surprised that blasphemers of the icons are not immediately punished. Likewise, the soldiers and servants of Caiaphas hit Christ, spat at and mocked Him, but were not immediately punished; these acts, however, resulted in divine punishment after death. In like manner those sectarians who blaspheme will be visited with punishment.

In conclusion we say that the verses in Scripture that refer to idols do not refer to icons. Regarding idols: we do not have them in church. 

 

1. St. Nicholas’s meaning is clearer when we consider that the Russian word for 'icon corner' is bog – the same word as that used for God in Church Slavonic. St. Nicholas is not of course saying that icons are gods. An icon can never be consubstantial with the prototype because it has a different nature. The idea that two objects can be identical and yet different is explained by St. Theodore the Studite: ‘As in the Trinity Christ differs from the Father in hypostasis, so He differs from His own image in nature’.

The icon and the prototype are however connected – there is a participation of one in the other. An icon is connected to the person painted on it because the honour given to the image is transmitted to the prototype (the person painted on it). St. John of Damascus explains: ‘Matter is endued with a divine power through prayer made to those who are depicted in image. Purple by itself is simple, and so is silk, and the cloak which is made of both. But if the king put it on, the cloak receives honour from the honour due to the wearer. So is it with matter. By itself it is of no account, but if the one presented in image be full of grace, men become partakers of his grace according to their faith.’

The Fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Council clearly state that we offer ‘relative worship’ to the icons. The original Greek word can also be translated as ‘venerate’. ‘Absolute worship’ or ‘adoration’ is offered to God alone.

2. The Father is shown as the Ancient of Days in many older icons but the 1667 Council of Moscow condemned this practice. The dispute over whether the Son or the Father should be shown as the Ancient of Days still continues however. 

Sources:

https://brookwoodblogger.blogspot.com/2018/10/concerning-sacred-depictions-and-sacred.html

https://brookwoodblogger.blogspot.com/2018/11/concerning-sacred-depictions-and-sacred.html