Wednesday, July 22, 2026

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


A Noteworthy Statement by Mr. Nikos Sakalakis

Nikolaos Mannis | June 14, 2017

 

 

The esteemed struggler Mr. Nikos Sakalakis, a mathematician from Volos and author of religious and anti-Ecumenist articles, published the following interesting article on Mr. Tsologianis’s blog, “Walling Off”:

 

“Time and the Calendar, as Preludes of Eternity”

(St. Justin Popovich – “Man and the God-Man”)

 

Undoubtedly, the division that Ecumenism imposed upon the Orthodox realm through the change of the calendar in the Church of Greece in 1924 was followed by successive spiritual collapses—that is, a dulling of the Orthodox self-awareness of the Church of Greece, and overestimations of Orthodox maturity by the Christians who sought to preserve the historical and spiritual identity of the calendar, as well as the Orthodox tradition (the Old Calendar).

Both sides bear historical and spiritual responsibility. The official Church because it obeyed—and embraced—the spirit of Ecumenism; while the faction of the Orthodox (G.O.C.) because it did not form a defense marked by Orthodox coherence and canonicity, as befits the critical phases of the Church, during which religious, political, and moral pressures direct and drive the faithful (in heated circumstances) toward mistaken choices.

The official Church of Greece, over time, gradually lost much of its Orthodox self-awareness and signed, in Crete, the synodal ratification of Ecumenism (apostasy)—in contrast to the Orthodox (Old Calendar) faithful, who opposed Ecumenism and later organized themselves “dogmatically” around calendar precision, which, however, is not itself a dogma.

The absolutization of this “dogma” functioned in a divisive manner—“from the right.” Let us repeat that the rallying cry of 1924, “Orthodoxy to arms,” for a continual struggle and vigilance against the invasion of Ecumenism, was not stabilized on an Orthodox canonical foundation. This is why ecclesiological problems multiplied—problems ignited by the ecumenistic spark in the divisive powder keg that the spirit of apostasy accumulates at every stage of ecclesiastical life.

Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, in a letter of his, writes the following: “Let us not consider it a trivial matter that we follow the papal calendar. It [the liturgical calendar] is a tradition, and as a tradition we are obliged to keep it, for we are subject to (synodal) anathema.” Indeed, the calendar innovation is uncanonical and anti-traditional; however, it does not constitute a dogmatic deviation. The dogmatic foundation of the Orthodox who follow the new calendar has not been shattered.

With the establishment of the new festal calendar (1924), the Church was struck at one of its vital unifying pillars, but not at its dogmatic strength, as in the “council” of Crete.

The division of the Orthodox benefits Ecumenism and constitutes one of its crutches. Love for Orthodoxy, however, forms the true unifying cement, which is capable of creating unitive strength among the Orthodox.

On both sides of the calendar, there are spiritual reserves for a unifying effort against the heresy of Ecumenism. One unifying element is the Christian understanding of time.

It is true that time is approached on multiple levels. Scientifically and philosophically, time is a natural resource that is neither altered, nor destroyed, nor replaced, nor granted, nor sold.

The position—the perception—that we must make creative use of it is universal among humanity.

Within the Church, the liturgical organization of time provides the answers and solutions to age-old questions concerning the relationship of man with temporal reality and with God. This is also the deeper meaning of the calendar: our disengagement from coarse, earthly certainties, our liberation from various worldly intellectual “anchors,” and our union with Christ within the bounds of the Church.

As Christians, we invest in time by giving time… to time, for our spiritual fulfillment— perfection (Eph. 5:16).

Saint Justin Popovich emphasizes: “When sin and death are removed from time, then time becomes a wondrous prelude to divine eternity, an excellent introduction to the God-manhood” (John 6:47).

In the life of the Church, spiritually significant events are presented in relation to the temporality of past, present, and future. The dogmatic meanings are found at the core of the spiritual events themselves, and not in the calendar that projects them.

The insistence on the “dogmatic” character of the calendar is akin to the insistence of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that God’s name is Jehovah!

Whoever denies the presence and power of the Church within the new calendar is a heretic; he has lost the meaning of Orthodoxy. The shifting of the calendar was not accompanied by a shifting of the boundaries of the faith, nor was salvation annulled, as happens in heresy. It is unjust (a sin) for those on the new calendar to be labeled as Ecumenists by Orthodox (G.O.C.) of the Old Calendar.

Let us consider how this thought takes shape in reverse, on a social level. Today we live within the urban social system, which is the oldest social system in human history, intertwined with private property, commercialism, naturalism, the deification of money, and individual self-interest. Its anti-Christian structures influence and determine, in many respects, the lives of Orthodox Christians and the life of the Church. This social system is not a servant of God for good (Rom. 13:1–6).

If we analyze the philosophical foundations of the urban system from a Christian perspective, it immediately collapses morally. All Orthodox Christians—often without realizing it deeply—experience aspects of this system that are anti-Christian.

For example, the central argument—the core position—of the bourgeois worldview is: “self-interest is the primary motive of economic life.” But Scripture emphasizes: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

How many Orthodox Christians today exhibit egotistical, individualistic tendencies as a result of being influenced by the system? Are all these people, dear G.O.C. faithful, to be judged as deniers of Christ?

Question: When a conscientious Orthodox Christian (G.O.C.), anti-ecumenist and anti-papist, who is committed to ascetic practice and practical Christianity, owns a cosmetics shop, or a butcher shop, or a clothing store (modern dresses, women’s trousers), or a pastry shop, or a dairy store—if he does not close his business on fasting days, how will he be judged? As a denier of fasting, or as a confessor of the faith on account of his steadfastness in the Old Calendar?

Today, the actual conditions of ecumenist apostasy create the prerequisites for the unity of Orthodox forces. Let a beginning be made. And the beginning is half of everything…

* * *

I respect the personal opinion of the esteemed Mr. Sakalakis, whose interesting texts I read; however, in order to show him that this policy of maintaining “equal distance” from the supposed “two extremes” is not just, I would like to ask him whether the Old Calendarists ever:

a. Imprisoned anyone because he followed the New Calendar.

b. Killed anyone because he followed the New Calendar.

c. Exiled anyone because he followed the New Calendar.

d. Shaved anyone because he followed the New Calendar.

e. Put anyone on trial because he followed the New Calendar.

f. Locked anyone’s church because he followed the New Calendar.

Thank you very much.

Nikolaos Mannis

* * *

Mr. Sakalakis responded with a new post, which personally satisfied me completely, and I thank him publicly:

A Due Response to Mr. Nikolaos Mannis

I believe, esteemed Mr. Mannis, that the truth encompasses an infinite breadth of knowledge and interrelationships, which often cannot be approached by human means and requires the help and illumination of Christ.

With a desire for cooperation among all Orthodox forces, I add to and supplement everything that you write and enumerate.

When did the Old Calendarists:

g. Torture anyone because he followed the New Calendar?

h. Force anyone to adopt the Old Calendar by violence?

i. Exclude anyone from university procedures because he followed the New Calendar?

Fr. Theodoretos [Mavros], in a noteworthy study of his, clarifies and substantiates this, citing the positions of Fr. Philotheos Zervakos: “The New Calendarists, having as their allies the authority of the State…”

At another point in his study, Fr. Theodoretos mentions the following observations of Fr. Philotheos:

“If some of the Old Calendarists, out of fanaticism, indiscreet zeal, and ignorance, deviated into extremes, misconduct, and even errors, the cause is the unlawful and uncanonical introduction of the papal calendar and the rejection of the Patristic Calendar.”

In a periodical I read: “…History exerts great power upon our soul…” That is why you included me in the policy of “equal distances” and in the “theory of the two extremes,” neither of which I embrace.

I experience our Church, the Orthodox Church, in her mystical and sacramental essence, without rejecting the usefulness—the ministry—of administrative organization, which many times, in the course of history, became a weapon of false doctrine against the faithful.

Fr. Philotheos and Fr. Theodoretos emphasized it: “The New Calendarists (the administration), having as their helpers the authority of the State (Caesar).”

Within the ecclesiastical circumstances of my Metropolis (the Holy Metropolis of Demetrias), I know very many worthy faithful, both clergy and laity, of the Patristic Calendar, and we always converse on a unifying basis. We have no hostility whatsoever. A process of convergence on certain matters in opposition to Ecumenism must begin.

Let us respond jointly to the portions of the truth distorted by the Ecumenists.

For example, let us demonstrate to them, Scripturally and Patristically, that the only true Church is the Orthodox Church.

Our accusers, the Ecumenists, “rejoice” in the unnatural antagonism—the stupefaction of the Orthodox.

Through the cultivation of a common, unifying ecclesiastical action—a joint text, for example—God will work His miracle!

As far as we are able, let us not increase the “spiritual and human entropy” of the Orthodox sphere.

- Nikos E. Sakalakis, Mathematician

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/06/blog-post_14.html

Those who insist that Christianity is a passive, cowardly, and “pacifist” religion should first read the life of Saint Artemius.

Stylianos Kavazis | July 22, 2026

 

 

The Holy Great-Martyr Artemius, the glorious Patrician and Duke of Egypt, is one of the most illustrious figures of our Church. A man who, from the highest offices of the Roman Empire, ascended to the highest dignity that a man can receive: the crown of a Martyr of Christ.

His memory is celebrated by our Orthodox Church on October 20 each year, and he has been appointed the patron Saint of the Hellenic Police, as well as the patron Saint of Mykonos.

He was not an ascetic of the desert, nor a man who lived far from the world. He was a general. A commander. A man of responsibility, discipline, and action. Tradition closely associates him with Patras, where he oversaw the construction of an aqueduct, while, encamped in the area of the present-day Monastery of Girokomeio, he cared for the poor, the weak, and especially the elderly. For the true ruler does not exercise dominion, but ministers.

It is no coincidence that the first organized hospitals, poorhouses, orphanages, and homes for the elderly arose from Christian love. In a world where a man’s worth was measured by power, wealth, or social position, the Church taught that every human being is an image of God and is worthy of respect, care, and love.

When Emperor Julian the Apostate attempted to revive idolatry and unleashed new persecutions against the Christians in Antioch, Saint Artemius did not remain silent. He took no account of his rank, nor of his own life. He appeared before the emperor and, with boldness, publicly reproved him for the injustices and persecutions against the faithful of Christ.

At that moment, two worlds collided.

On the one hand, there was the arrogance of imperial power, which believed that it could impose the truth by force.

On the other hand, a man who held no sword, but had within him something mightier than every legion: unshakable faith in Christ.

Julian responded as all tyrants throughout the ages respond when they are unable to defeat the truth: with torture.

The Saint’s body was crushed. His bones were broken. His flesh suffered unimaginably. Yet his soul remained standing.

The Martyr conquered.

Not because he prevailed over his adversary, but because he did not bend before fear.

Allow me, however, a personal observation.

Lately, I often hear people who either are ignorant of or have not studied the history of the Church repeating that Christianity is supposedly a passive, timid, or exclusively pacifist religion.

They could not be more mistaken.

Christ taught love, even toward one’s enemy. He never taught cowardice, submission to injustice, or denial of the truth.

The Church never glorified cowards as Saints.

It glorified people who preferred to die rather than betray Christ.

And prominent among them stands an entire host of military Saints.

Saint Artemius.

Saint Demetrius.

Saint George.

Saint Mercurius.

Saint Menas.

Saint Theodore the Commander.

Saint Theodore the Tyro.

Saint Procopius.

Men trained in arms, who demonstrated that Christian courage is identified neither with aggression nor with cowardice. They served their homeland and fulfilled their duty, but when they were asked to sacrifice their faith in order to save their lives or their careers, they chose martyrdom.

This is Christianity.

Not the worship of violence.

But neither the worship of cowardice.

It is the strength to love without hating.

To forgive without yielding to injustice.

To resist falsehood without losing your humanity. To be ready to sacrifice even your life, but never the truth.

A few months later, during his campaign against the Sassanids, Julian was mortally wounded by a spear. The historical sources do not agree as to who dealt the fatal blow. The sacred Tradition of the Church, however, preserves that the Holy Great-Martyr Mercurius, by divine permission, became an instrument of divine justice.

History has its own way of rendering justice. The persecutor departed this world with a spear in his side. The Martyr remained alive in the hearts of millions of the faithful.

Empires crumbled.

Palaces became ruins.

Thrones vanished. Yet Saint Artemius continues to be honored, invoked, and to inspire. For most emperors write history only for a time, but the Saints write eternity.

O Holy Great-Martyr Artemius, glorious commander, fearless confessor of Christ, and protector of those who suffer injustice, intercede for us and grant us the courage always to remain faithful to the truth, whatever the cost. Amen.


Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_693.html

 

 

 

“To Remain Free and Not Seek Sponsors”: Lesna Convent

The abbess of the largest Orthodox women’s monastery in France discusses the history of the monastery and the challenges connected with the “special military operation” and the hegemony of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Alexander Soldatov | May 28, 2025 | Novaya Gazeta

 

 

“Lesna Monastery is only a matter of time,” Patriarch Kirill said in December 2016, answering questions from representatives of the Russian emigration during his visit to France. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church most likely had in mind the “inevitability” of the largest Orthodox women’s monastery in France being absorbed by the Moscow Patriarchate. In the same way, during the first two decades of the present century, most of the monasteries and parishes of the formerly independent Russian Church Abroad and of the Russian Archdiocese of Paris, which belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, had already been absorbed.

But the monastery in the village of Provemont in Normandy, where approximately twenty nuns and an equal number of female and male lay workers now reside, is still holding out, preserving its independence and the “continuity of the tradition” that dates back to the nineteenth century.

In 1885, it was founded in the Polish village of Lesna (Leśna Podlaska), in a region inhabited predominantly by Roman Catholics but which, before the First World War, formed part of the Russian Empire. The principal sacred object of this “experimental” monastery—oriented toward active social ministry and the preaching of Orthodoxy in a non-Orthodox environment—became the icon of the Mother of God, which had been venerated as wonderworking since the seventeenth century. Together with it, the sisters of the monastery (at the time of the first evacuation, in 1915, there were about five hundred of them!) passed through several countries during the first half of the twentieth century—Russia, Bessarabia, and Serbia—until they finally settled in France in 1950. In 1967, they were able to purchase a large estate of several dozen hectares in the village of Provemont, between Paris and Rouen, in the valley of a small river winding among the rapeseed-covered hills of Normandy. Its proximity to the capital and accessibility by transport make the journey to the monastery easier for hundreds of pilgrims from different countries. All are received hospitably, without being asked about their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, although on major feast days there may not be enough room for everyone.

The monastery is situated on the outskirts of the village. Its formal Art Nouveau gates are adorned with an eight-pointed cross and a copy of the wonderworking Lesna Icon. The nuns live in the main three-story building, on one side of which lies a picturesque clearing with neatly trimmed cypress trees, and on the other, a meadow descending toward the river. To the right of the gates, buildings have been constructed for pilgrims; to the left stands an old French church with the traditional rooster atop its spire. It was once Roman Catholic, but today only the stained-glass windows depicting French saints recall this, while the eastern part of the church is separated by a Russian-style iconostasis with beautiful icons by Pimen Sofronov—perhaps the most famous Old Believer iconographer of the twentieth century. Every day, morning and evening, unhurried services are held in the church, accompanied by the singing of the nuns’ choir, which preserves the distinctive Lesna chants.

The monastery’s present abbess, Euphrosynia (Molchanova), the seventh since the monastery’s founding, shared with a Novaya Gazeta correspondent the secret of the continuity of the Lesna tradition, the particular features of its present status, and its plans, and also spoke about how the “special military operation” has affected the life of the monastery…

 

 

A Monastery of a New Type

—Lesna is the only monastery of the Russian tradition in the West whose ministry has continued uninterrupted since before the Revolution. At the same time, the monastery managed, so to speak, to evade the embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate, to which nearly all the monasteries of the Russian diaspora gradually submitted. Why was your monastery in particular able to hold out in this way? What is the secret?

—The monastery was unique from the very time of its establishment in the late nineteenth century. It was founded as an open, missionary monastery on the very frontier of the Russian Empire [now eastern Poland, Biała County in the Lublin Voivodeship.—A.S.], and Mother Ekaterina (Efimovskaya) was invited to take charge of it all. The monastery immediately engaged in active social and educational work. According to the accounts of her contemporaries, Mother Ekaterina was a very charismatic person.

According to tradition, the Elder Ambrose of Optina, to whom she went for a blessing, said to Mother Ekaterina: “Establish the new monastery in a new way.” He placed his mantle upon her and gave the sisters their first prayer rule.

Saint John of Kronstadt also strongly supported the monastery and its entirely new orientation.

In that era, schools and orphanages were being opened at many monasteries, a movement of sisters of mercy arose, and the role of women in the Church and society was being vigorously discussed. It was amid this current that Mother Ekaterina created a monastery of a new type. It was no coincidence that she wrote extensively about the revival of the order of deaconesses, that is, the ordination of women to the diaconal rank. It was envisaged that the first school for women seeking such a ministry would open precisely at Lesna.

War played a major role in the history of the monastery. The First World War broke out precisely in those regions, and Bishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky), the future First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, entrusted the community of sisters with the care of the wonderworking Lesna Icon so that it would not be left in Lesna under occupation. The icon was no longer tied to a particular place, and afterward, wherever we found ourselves, each place was called Lesna. Although Lesna is now a village in Poland, even here in Provemont, France, we are called “Lesna.” In general, the monastery began its wanderings in 1914, and later, when Bishop Anastasy became Bishop of Chișinău, he invited the sisters to join him—and thus, together with the icon, they moved from country to country.

When Bessarabia became part of Romania and the authorities of that country decided to change the calendar, the sisters resolved that they would not adopt the New Calendar but would preserve their tradition, and the entire community, together with the icon, moved to Serbia. Later, after Serbia, when the Reds came there, they moved to France. We have now been here for seventy-five years—the longest period in the monastery’s history. We are not attached to Lesna as a place; for us, Lesna is a tradition.

—I have heard talk that this place, too, may not be the monastery’s final home and that perhaps you will move to America…

—No, we were simply invited to open a metochion there, and we are trying to do so. But for the time being, no one intends to move the entire monastery. Of course, everything is in God’s hands. At one point, we thought that perhaps we might return to Russia, and we bought a house near Belgorod. But it did not work out…

One Trial After Another…

—The monastery has a distinctly Russian character, yet canonically you found yourselves within the Serbian True Orthodox Church. Was it really so difficult to find something among the Russian ecclesiastical jurisdictions, which are now innumerable, that you had to turn to the Serbian Church?

—That is precisely the problem: they are innumerable. At first, we joined the Russian True Orthodox Church [RTOC; one of the “fragments” of the Russian Church Abroad that did not support its rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church in the early 2000s.—A. S.], which we regarded as a continuation of the Catacomb Church of the Soviet period. It was a great consolation for us that something genuine had been preserved in Russia, that after all our disappointments in the Church Abroad we had found the authentic catacomb tradition. But when everything there too began to go awry, it was a very great disappointment.

The fragmentation into endless groups also affected the RTOC, and trying to make sense of it all is an ordeal in itself. Moreover, our monastery has a strong historical connection with Serbia. By that time [Lesna Monastery joined the Serbian True Orthodox Church in 2016.—A. S.], we already knew the Serbian Bishop Akakije well, whose episcopal consecration took place precisely here, at Lesna. We regard our present status as temporary, without losing hope that the situation in the Russian Church will be rectified. All the more so because, in Europe, none of these Russian jurisdictions and groups has a resident bishop, while the Serbian bishops are geographically the closest to us, which is also convenient from a purely practical standpoint.

—You yourself were born in America, in Brooklyn. Why did you choose Lesna Monastery while still young? There are also women’s monasteries of the Russian tradition in America.

—When I began seriously considering monasticism, there was Novo-Diveevo Monastery near New York. But circumstances there were such that the monastery had become merely a pious branch of a home for the elderly. There was also the monastery in Boston, but it did not belong to our Russian tradition; there was something in California as well, but I did not know them at all. My spiritual father was Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) [the third First Hierarch of ROCOR, who died in 1985.—A. S.]; in those years, he spent every summer at Lesna. He greatly valued and loved this monastery and always spoke of it as an exemplary women’s monastery, and this played a part in my decision.

At that time, I often visited and even lived at the Monastery of Saint Mary Magdalene in the Holy Land [in Gethsemane, not far from the Old City of Jerusalem.—A. S.], but the situation there was very precarious then. The monasteries were not communal; that is, one had to think about how to support oneself in those lands. And the way of life there is such that one must constantly feel oneself to be a pilgrim.

In my view, it is a particular calling—to pray in the holy places and commemorate there those who ought to be commemorated—but at that time I did not encounter there the kind of concentrated monastic life I was seeking.

At that time, I was deeply interested in Byzantium and Greek chants, and I spent several months in Greece, traveling from monastery to monastery. But there too I found neither a place nor a person who could convince me that Greece was the right choice. After that, I came here, and it was a very difficult moment in the monastery’s history: Abbess Magdalena (Grabbe) had broken her hip and was in the hospital; the spiritual father, Father Arseny, had left for Australia after a quarrel with Metropolitan Philaret; the dean and the deputy abbess did not get along with one another; and there was complete chaos here. And nevertheless, the monastery continued to live its own life: the divine services continued, the sisters prayed… And I realized that, if I had come here at such a difficult time and the spiritual life was continuing as it should, then there was something here. Afterward, I went to the hospital to visit Mother Magdalena, and then I made my decision: that was it—I was staying.

—Did you choose the monastic path from your youth, or were there some hesitations?

—I knew from childhood that I wanted to serve the Church in some way. I belonged to the Russian Scout movement, and when I was in my sixteenth year, our beloved leader died—the first death of someone close to me that I had experienced. In his memory, a group of us young people and scouts decided to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. At that time, the Church Abroad organized special youth pilgrimages: we traveled for six weeks through Italy and Greece. It was then, in the Holy Land, that I first saw monasteries with young fully professed nuns and rassophore nuns, and for the first time this became a possible choice for me. Two years later, I returned to live for a time in the Holy Land, and it was then that I made my decision.

—Did you manage to receive any secular education?

—Yes, I am an art historian by training, but I did not complete the course of study.

Missionary Work

—On what basis are sisters now admitted to the monastery? They come from different countries and different cultures… Do you select them in some way? Is there some kind of screening process?

—No. As Mother Magdalena used to say: “The Lord sends each person.” Now, when there is no genuine, sound parish life, it is very beneficial for everyone to spend at least some time in a monastery, where Church life is concentrated. One simply cannot find this anywhere anymore. And many women come for precisely this reason—almost all of them leave, but if everything is properly ordered, even a brief experience of life in a monastery remains with them for the rest of their lives. Sometimes they come in other ways as well: they write to us, make inquiries, and enter our monastery…

Nowadays, it is very difficult for modern people to embrace monasticism. Perhaps it has always been this way: there is a certain core of genuinely dedicated monastics, and around them are all sorts of people—some remain, while others leave.

—Is it true that there is a plan to establish a Russian cemetery on the monastery’s grounds?

—We have long hoped to obtain permission. This is a typically French peculiarity: when you ask about it, they immediately reply: “In France, there is no concept of a private cemetery.” But then they add: “Of course, you may request permission to bury your sisters and members of the community on your own land.”

This means that people will have to be registered as members of our community, and permission for each burial will have to be requested separately. One cannot simply open a cemetery. A great deal depends on the position of the French authorities and on who exactly is in charge in the prefecture. So far, we have already received the consent of the village and of the local rural community.

—The monastery carries out missionary work: it establishes parishes in various countries…

—Our monastery has always been called missionary, but the present situation arose because, when we did not join the Moscow Patriarchate, there proved to be quite a number of people in Europe who shared our views and wished to follow this path. I would not say that all of them are ideological opponents of the Moscow Patriarchate. A fairly large proportion of the people in such parishes are those who love our monastery or simply trust it: if the monastery has chosen this path, then they will follow the monastery. Others made their choice for ideological reasons. And these people had to be provided with pastoral care somehow.

We currently have three missionary parishes in Germany and one in Spain, and we have periodically celebrated services in Italy and the Netherlands. Ukraine—including the community in Chernigov and Father Nikon of Zhmerynka—also became part of our mission. Then the French mission, headed by Father Romaric, who was ordained here, joined us. He has at least two communities, and now a third has appeared as well. Finally, there is also a community of Moldovans who have moved to France.

—What is your view of the process of inculturating Orthodoxy on French soil?

—Saint John (Maximovitch) himself [a hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, 1896–1966; in the 1950s he headed the Western European Diocese; he was glorified among the saints and is venerated by all branches of the Russian Orthodox Church.—A. S.] was engaged in this work; after all, French Orthodoxy existed in ancient times. To some extent, it needs to be recreated, but I am not an advocate of experiments with Gallican liturgies or other ancient rites. The contemporary mission of Father Romaric himself is directed mainly toward traditionalist Catholics who have become disillusioned with the Vatican. And there are many of them.

Generally speaking, the French adhere to a secular tradition and to the strict separation of Church and state. Nevertheless, a small but active proportion of believers has remained—people who are searching and who, among other things, are coming to Orthodoxy. But unlike the official Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholics do not provide us with churches in which to celebrate services, so it is difficult to find premises and resources, but the work somehow goes forward.

—Do you maintain contacts with the other Orthodox Churches in France—especially those that do not belong to official Orthodoxy?

—We try to. We have good relations with the True Orthodox Church of France and with the Russian parish in Lyon. Of course, I would like everyone to treat one another more kindly and somehow try to work toward reunification. It is unlikely that this will be the Russian Church Abroad as it was before, but nevertheless, something could still be brought together.

Wars Cannot Be Justified

—Would it be correct to say that, in 2022, the monastery adopted a peacemaking position and opened its doors wide to the victims of hostilities?

—I would not say that we adopted any clearly defined peacemaking position. I do not impose my opinion on anyone—perhaps this is connected with my American roots, with recognizing everyone’s freedom to think as he wishes. We have both parishioners and sisters who hold a wide variety of views. Of course, wars are aggression and suffering for many people, especially in our time (…).

Receiving refugees was a purely Christian decision. Hospitality and assistance to those in need have always been a principal monastic virtue. In accordance with the Gospel, we could not have acted otherwise.

Another consideration was that the French authorities knew that we had accommodations for pilgrims here, so sooner or later they would have turned to us to house the influx of new refugees. Therefore, from the very beginning, in the spring of 2022, I contacted practically everyone I knew in Ukraine and said: if you need to leave and go somewhere, then please come to us. My reasoning was that it would be better for us to receive people we knew than simply those whom the authorities might send to us.

—How many refugees have passed through the monastery over these three years?

—Altogether, about twenty-five people. Some stayed for a long time, others for a shorter period. Two of them were from Russia. Of course, receiving them is not easy, and we have had many difficult cases. There is a well-known French film, The Dialogue of the Carmelites, about a women’s monastery during the French Revolution. One of the heroines comes from a noble family and supports the king, while the brother of another nun is fighting in the ranks of the revolutionaries. He is killed, and a letter found in his pocket is brought to his sister, the nun. And in the film, the abbess addresses the sisters: “You see, we have both one side and the other among us. And it is not our task to judge who is right here and who is wrong. Our task is to pray for all who are afflicted and suffering.”

—What are the monastery’s principal needs at present? What kind of assistance do you need?

—Well, first of all, moral support and prayer. The Moscow Patriarchate does not leave us without attention, and we constantly receive hints: if only you were with them, all the material problems would quickly be resolved and sponsors would be found. But we have always considered ourselves sufficiently free and have remained free, and we have no intention of seeking sponsors toward whom we would afterward have to feel indebted and whose wishes we would have to take into account. If anyone is able to help in some way, we will commemorate those people, thank them, and the Lord will bless them.

When the monastery moved to France, someone asked Abbess Theodora: “Mother, in what do you place your hope?” And she replied: “In the Mother of God.” They answered her: “Yes, of course, that is all understood, but realistically, what will the monastery live on? How will you maintain all of this?” And Mother Theodora simply said: “That is the most real thing there is.” I have been here for more than forty years, and that is exactly how it is: our life is a continual miracle. According to every secular, worldly, financial, and administrative consideration, we should have ceased to exist long, long ago.

 

Russian source:

https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2025/05/28/ostavatsia-svobodnymi-i-ne-iskat-sponsorov

1970 Decree of the ROCOR on the Anathema against Vladimir Lenin and Soviet leaders


 

DECREE

From the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

To all Diocesan Right Reverend Hierarchs and rectors of churches directly subject to the President of the Synod of Bishops.

Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

December 19, 1969/January 1, 1970

The following resolution was adopted: The lodging of a protest against the celebration of the centenary of Lenin’s birth. The President of the Synod of Bishops had already sent an appropriate letter to the President of the United States, requesting that he lodge a resolute protest against this celebration. Russian Orthodox people cannot agree that Lenin, the greatest of criminals, should be called a great humanitarian and that the free world should commemorate the day of his birth.

Resolved: The Russian Church Abroad, expressing the cherished aspirations of her archpastors, clergy, and flock, with particular maternal solicitude always calls upon all to unite in prayer for the deliverance of our suffering people from the bloody yoke of godless communism imposed by Lenin, in consequence of which the Synod of Bishops determines:

1. On Sunday, March 16/29, 1970, the Sunday of the Veneration of the Cross, after the Divine Liturgy, a service of supplication is to be celebrated in all the churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preceded by the reading aloud of the 1918 Epistle of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon concerning the excommunication of the Bolsheviks and accompanied by an appropriate sermon—For the salvation of the Russian realm and the pacification of human passions (This order of service is appended on separate sheets).

2. After the dismissal of the service of supplication, an anathema is to be proclaimed against Lenin and all the persecutors of the Church of Christ, who were anathematized by His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of All Russia, as early as 1918, according to the following form:

To Vladimir Lenin and the other persecutors of the Church of Christ, impious apostates who raised their hands against the Anointed of God, who murder the clergy, trample upon holy things, destroy the churches of God, torture our brethren, and have defiled our Fatherland: Anathema.

The choir sings: Anathema, thrice.

3. Proclaim Memory Eternal:

In blessed repose grant eternal rest, O Lord, to Thy departed servants: the slain Most Pious Tsar-Martyr Nicholas Alexandrovich and all who were slain with him; His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon; the metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, clergy, monks and nuns, soldiers, and all Orthodox people slain and tortured to death by the godless regime; and make their memory eternal.

The choir, thrice: Memory eternal.

4. Proclaim Many Years:

To the Orthodox Episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church; to our lord, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad; to our lord (name of the Diocesan Hierarch); to our suffering Russian land; to all who contend for the Orthodox Faith and the Fatherland; and to all Russian people in the Fatherland enslaved by the godless and those dwelling in the dispersion: grant, O Lord, a prosperous and peaceful life, health and salvation, victory and triumph over enemies, and many years.

The choir, thrice: Many years.

Concerning the foregoing, a circular decree is to be sent to all the Right Reverend Hierarchs and rectors of churches directly subject to the President of the Synod of Bishops, with the text of the aforementioned service of supplication and the text of the Epistle of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon appended thereto.

President of the Synod of Bishops

Metropolitan Philaret

Secretary: Bishop Laurus

January 9/22, 1970

Decree No. 107

 

Russian source:

https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Synod%201969dek_yanv1970_Ukaz.htm

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...