The Great Purge of 843: A Re-Examination

Dmitry E. Afinogenov, Akademija Nauk, Moscow

[Blog Administrator’s note: The “Great Purge” refers to the expulsion of Iconoclast clergy after the second period of Iconoclasm (814-842 A.D.), fifty-six years after its condemnation at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.]

 

 

For modern scholarship that tends to regard the entire history of the Byzantine Church in the 9th century from the point of view of the “moderates-vs.-rigorists” conception, the reign of the Patriarch Methodios I (843–847) has always represented a stumbling-block. On the one hand, one can hardly call into question the association of Methodios with the party of Tarasios–Nikephoros, but on the other, the politics pursued by him was something a zealot of old could only dream of. [1] As I hope to demonstrate, it is in fact from the “moderates-vs.-rigorists” mythology itself that much of the obscurity and confusion derives, whereas the sources do provide enough material for a coherent, if not extremely detailed, reconstruction of the events and intentions. In this paper I will deal with just one, though very important, aspect of Methodios’ activity as patriarch: the expulsion of the Iconoclast clergy in 843.

It seems reasonable to start with the problem whose very existence — as will later be seen — looks puzzling, to put it mildly, i.e. the problem regarding the approximate number of prelates deposed after 843, from which the actual extent of the reprisals can be evaluated. The generally accepted opinion is that this number was considerable, judging by the lack of suitable candidates, recorded by the sources, [2] to fill all the vacancies that became available simultaneously. It was only J. Gouillard who ventured to produce a more precise figure: “Méthode se résigna donc à une épuration générale, qui frappa deux à trois mille clercs” (italics mine). [3] To that J. Darrouzès, though accepting this as a hypothesis, remarks: “… l’auteur renvoie seulement à la Vie de Méthode …, où le nombre avancé n’est pas mentionné; il ne se trouve pas non plus, que je sache, dans une autre source.” [4] The part of the vita to which Gouillard refers contains no figures indeed. But at the end of the same text the following passage is found:

“O thou who hast offered to God an even holier sacrifice than Elijah, in that thou didst not slay two hundred or four hundred priests of shame as he did, but hindered and prevented twenty thousand or more priests who were worthy of real shame from impiously officiating, as they were ashamed to confess the truthful incarnation of God the Word …” [5]

This is astonishing. The mere number quoted in this passage is so large — and for reasons not to be expounded here I believe that it must be taken very seriously — that it should have precluded much of the discussion on the categories of clergy that were affected by the purge. In fact, we are dealing with an unprecedented dismissal of maybe the majority of Byzantine ecclesiastics, from bishops down to humble parish priests! This must certainly be kept in mind before we proceed to the examination of other details.

The body of the Byzantine Iconoclast clergy in 843 consisted of two large groups: some had been ordained before 815 by the Orthodox Patriarchs Tarasios (probably very few of these were alive by that time) and Nikephoros as well as other Orthodox bishops, others after 815 by the three Iconoclast Patriarchs Theodotos Kassiteras (815–821), Antony Kassymatas (821–837) and John the Grammarian (837–843) as well as other Iconoclast bishops. The existence of some nonagenarians of pre-Tarasian ordination [6] which is so important for Grumel’s interpretation, [7] is extremely doubtful and in any case irrelevant. Although the figure “more than twenty thousand” suggests, to my mind, that both groups were affected, some of the evidence concerning the first group will be investigated later. Anyhow, the deposition of these people en masse was by no means an easy undertaking. One major obstacle was obvious — it was the precedent of Nicaenum II which accepted the entire Iconoclast clergy provided that they abjured the heresy and repented. To this it should be added that heresy did not per se constitute a sufficient canonical ground for deposition of a priest or bishop, if he returned to Orthodoxy. The other obstacle can be conceived as an unwillingness of the government of Theodora to destabilize society by such extraordinary measures. Let us now see how Methodios and his associates managed to overcome these problems.

First of all, the patriarch orchestrated a propaganda campaign to prepare the public opinion. Although later sources consider his actions perfectly legitimate and praiseworthy, [8] the situation during Methodios’ reign seems to have been different. We have no testimony in the sources of any opposition specifically to the measure in question (i.e. the mass expulsion of Iconoclast prelates) — except a short notice by Sabas, the biographer of St Joannikios, [9] which will be dealt with later — probably because it would have been a little awkward to act as an advocate for lapsed clerics. However, at least three preserved texts by the patriarch himself (Fragments 1 and 2 in the collection of Darrouzès [10] and the letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem [11]) show that Methodios had repeatedly to defend his position. [12] Darrouzès’ interpretation of Fragment 1 seems to me a bit strange: “Le patriarche répond à une objection contre le pardon accordé à certains (de membres du clergé) et au peuple en général et il prévoit que cette objection viendra de ceux qu’il a ordonnés lui-même; l’acte accompli par l’autorité légitime a reçu l’approbation de moines réputés qui n’appartiennent pas à la hierarchie: Syméon, Hilarion, Joannice.” [13] Then the scholar identifies these “opposants” with those who blamed Methodios for ordaining allegedly unworthy people. To present my point of view I have to reproduce the text with only minor abridgements:

“Therefore, if those who have partaken of the Spirit that we possess, through imposition of the hands and invocation of God, would object to what has already been said and to many other arguments, rejecting their acceptance and foreseeing that, in case this be dared, the people will partly fall back, and solemnly testifying that this could go even farther, they would deserve to be preferred as our own men to strangers, as unscathed parts to damaged members, for the grace belongs not only to us who have been led to the altar and stand by it, but already … those in the desert …, and those in the city …, hegumeni, stylites and ascetics … are of the same opinion and suggest it and communicate it in the most benevolent way, as the great Joannikios and glorious Symeon and Hilarion …” [14]

My way of understanding this passage is the following: after an exposition (not preserved) of the arguments in favour of acceptance of the heretical clerics Methodios says that if people of his own (i.e. a perfectly legitimate) ordination think otherwise, their opinion should prevail, all the more so as respected ascetics without episcopal rank also support the same view, i.e. that Iconoclast prelates should not be accepted in the clergy. The existence of opposition to Methodios’ standpoint can in this case only be construed from his need to argue for it. The same is true for Fragment 2: contrary to Darrouzès’ opinion, [15] there is no question of opposition, for the patriarch simply pretends that he acted as he did because he was pressed by the common mood (παν γένος καὶ πᾶσα ἀξία ... οὐ συνεχώρουν) and the suggestions of St Joannikios. That these suggestions were carried out by Methodios is clear from the phrase καὶ πιστεύσαντες τότε οὐ κατῃσχύνθημεν ἀρτίως. It is noteworthy that the patriarch was careful enough not to present himself to his compatriots as the initiator of the purge. He preferred to pretend that, despite his wish to reinstate the repentant priests, [16] he had to choose between former Iconoclasts who wanted to keep their ranks and the wide Orthodox circles that threatened to break the communion with the Church if the lapsed clergy were accepted.

Two points deserve special attention in this context: the actual role played by Methodios and the function performed by St Joannikios. It is very difficult to believe that such an important political action as the wholesale deposition of the Iconoclast clergy could be imposed on a person of Methodios’ standing and esteem against his will. It is even less probable that hermits and stylites like Joannikios and Symeon who had never had anything to do with politics, even with ecclesiastical politics, would initiate this action on their own. Since no source mentions an involvement of Theodora (if it existed, it would certainly have been extolled as a pious deed), a government initiative is also out of question. Considering the patriarch’s relations to the Studites, it is clear that he could have taken their advice only if it had suited his own aims. Finally, Fragment 1 implies that the deposition was demanded by Methodios’ own people — which means that behind the whole affair was no one but the patriarch himself.

In fact, Methodios did not conceal his views even before the restoration of images. Here is an eloquent passage from his Oration on the Holy Icons, written before 843: “And let us not separate ourselves from our fathers, lest the coming generation anathematizes and exhumes us — and indeed the ends of the earth will not be of any help to us”. [17] There is a barely concealed threat in these words. On the other hand, in his Testament the patriarch warns “the brethren, all cities and also foreigners” not to restore any of the former Iconoclasts to priesthood. But the best evidence confirming that references to “the brethren”, to Symeon and Joannikios etc., were nothing but a pretext used to explain why the venerable precedent of Nicaenum II was this time ignored, is provided by Methodios’ letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem. [18] Apparently this was the second letter. [19] To the first the addressee had replied that the clerics ordained by Tarasios and Nikephoros should be accepted back after due penitence. From the discourse that follows it is clear that Methodios had no intention to do that. [20] However, his grounds are completely different from those he employed for “internal use”. Instead of recurring to the insistence of “the brethren” he simply states that he could not do what his correspondent suggested because the people in question did not repent properly. Now, according to Eastern canonical law, it is entirely the local bishop’s responsibility to determine the sincerity of an individual’s repentance. Since Jerusalem is too far away, the patriarch has no choice but to believe his Constantinopolitan counterpart. We, however, need not do the same. The very fact that one and the same action is justified by the same person in two hardly compatible ways confirms that this person is aware of the real reason for undertaking the move but does not deem it expedient to reveal it.

One of the most important roles in the propaganda campaign orchestrated by Methodios was assigned to St Joannikios, a hermit with prophetic authority who lived on Mt Olympos. The detailed story of the support provided by Joannikios to Methodios has been preserved in the two biographies of the hermit, one written by Peter, maybe between 3 November 846 and 14 June 847, [21] and a later one by Sabas. The outward course of events looks quite similar in both vitae, but there are also serious discrepancies, so it would be helpful to determine which account is more trustworthy. The plot in both texts develops as follows:

1. After the restoration of images an internal discord erupts among the Orthodox. [22]

2. Joannikios sends a letter to Patriarch Methodios, supporting his position. [23]

3. Methodios shows the letter to the emperors [24] and comes to visit Joannikios. [25]

4. Joannikios addresses a solemn oration to a large gathering of people, including bishops and hegumeni. [26]

The difference lies in points 1 and 4. Peter says that the reason for the discord was the Studites’ hostility towards Methodios, and that in his speech Joannikios condemned and anathematized the enemies of the patriarch, unambiguously identifying them as the Studites and their allies. Sabas maintains that the strife was over the acceptance of formerly Iconoclast clergy (without making clear Methodios’ initial point of view), and that Joannikios proposed a concrete solution to the patriarch, that is the mass deposition. Sabas dissociates point 4 from the story and makes the oration simply a lengthy profession of faith.

Now, Sabas obviously used the earlier vita by Peter, and it is well known that he eliminated from his own narrative all the venomous attacks on the Studites. It is beyond doubt that he did so not for the sake of historical truth but because in the circumstances of his time they looked embarrassing and unacceptable. This operation left Sabas without the reason for the controversy in which his hero was to support St Methodios. So the hagiographer’s next move was very natural: he replaced the real substance of the dispute with the most harmless and irrelevant one for the moment when he was writing. In doing so he did not, of course, use his own imagination, but rather a piece of reliable historical information (for the problem of the Iconoclast clergy did constitute a subject of discussion in Methodios’ time), so his account is still a valuable source. However, following E. von Dobschütz, [27] I think that it makes no sense to use Sabas’ version for the reconstruction of the events, as we possess a genuine contemporary description undistorted by political correctness.

For our present purpose, however, this is a negative result — Peter provides no information on the purge. We are therefore left with Darrouzès’ Fragment 2, where Methodios says:

“We also know the most truthful appeal that the saint of the desert made to me and to those accompanying me to the place two years ago: ‘If you accept the heretics as ministers and priests, expect that through them you introduce into the Church not only Judaism, but also Paganism’.” [28]

I consciously translate “to the place”, because Darrouzès in his interpretation tries to solve a non-existent problem. His statement that “la seule visite que Méthode fit à Joannice, selon les deux Vies, se situe juste avant le décès du saint” [29] can easily be contested. Here is what Joannikios, according to Peter, says to the patriarch when the latter arrives to Mt Olympos shortly before Joannikios’ death:

“I have never dared, my lord, to communicate to you that you should come to my unworthiness — it was your own achievement, when you were called by the Holy Spirit that moves you to visit our unworthiness and to instruct us with virtuous words of exhortation. But this time, since a great need forced me, I myself, moved by God, set forth to write to my holy lord that you take the toil to come to my boorishness …” [30]

As appears unambiguously from this passage, it was after a written invitation that Methodios came to visit Joannikios this last time, whereas on previous occasion(s) he did it on his own initiative. It may thus be concluded that in 843, before proceeding to the irreversible deposition of the Iconoclasts, Methodios paid a visit to Joannikios and secured his support for the planned action. The patriarch had to make it clear from the very beginning that the deposition was permanent, in order to immediately fill the vacancies with his own men. Therefore he resorted to the prophetic authority of Joannikios, who duly predicted that former Iconoclasts would be no good as clerics even when the term of penitence was over. Hence the word πιστεύσαντες in Fragment 2. This conduct was quite natural for Methodios, who was generally very fond of prophecies. [31]

The propagandistic measures described above were skillful and efficient, but they were not enough. Valid and plausible canonical grounds had to be found as well. It is here that the distinction between various groups of clerics played an important role. As follows from the letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, there was no discussion about the prelates of post-815 ordination. It is the expulsion of the other group, those ordained by Orthodox bishops, that had to be justified. At this point we inevitably have to deal with the opinion of V. Grumel, [32] who insisted that the clerics of Tarasios’ and Nikephoros’ ordination were left in place if they promptly converted. Although Gouillard has already identified its main weak points,³³ a more thorough criticism is needed. Grumel based his hypothesis on Joannikios’ letter to Methodios as it is found in Sabas’ vita. Since the interpretation of this text is crucial, I reproduce it here with the original Greek en regard:

As for the Iconoclast bishops and priests, refuse firmly to accept them in priesthood. Because the great Patriarch Tarasios who is among the saints one time accepted their priesthood by way of economy, when they brought written oaths with an anathema that they would not return to the heresy, and after the same impiety emerged under Leo, those who ... trampled upon their own signatures and anathematized themselves ... or those who were consecrated by them, how can they be regarded as priests by the Christians ...?

Τῶν δὲ εἰκονομάχων ἐπισκόπων καὶ ἱερέων πρὸς ἱερωσύνην ὄντως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπαρναίνου. Τοῦ γὰρ μεγάλου πατριάρχου Ταρασίου, τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις, τὴν ἱερωσύνην αὐτῶν ἅπαξ οἰκονομικῶς δεξαμένου, λιβέλλους ἐπιδιδόντων ἐνόρκους σὺν ἀναθέματι μὴ ὑποστρέψαι εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν, γενομένης πάλιν ἐπὶ Λέοντος τῆς αὐτῆς δυσσεβείας, οἱ τὰ ἰδιόχειρα αὐτῶν ... πατήσαντες καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναθεματίσαντες ... ἢ οἱ ὑπὸ τούτων ἱερωθέντες πῶς ἱερουργοὶ παρὰ Χριστιανοῖς λογισθήσονται ...;

In understanding this passage Grumel follows Niketas Paphlagon who reproduces it in such a way that those who brought their solemn oaths to Tarasios can be identified with the clerics who trampled upon their own signatures under Leo V. [34] It seems however that Niketas, who was writing several decades later, simply misread his source. In fact, Sabas borrowed the expression οἱ τὰ ἰδιόχειρα αὐτῶν ... πατήσαντες καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναθεματίσαντες from the Twelve Chapters by Patriarch Nikephoros, where it is applied to all apostates of 815 (πάντες οἱ νῦν ἀποστατήσαντες), many of whom were ordained by Tarasios or Nikephoros himself. [35] So Sabas wants to say that Iconoclast clerics were accepted under Tarasios for one time only and that this did not create a precedent, all the more so as the persons in question were guilty of perjury. A little further he adds: τῆς δὲ ἱερωσύνης ... οἱ ἔσχατοι εἰκονομάχοι ἀποτερέτωσαν. Those who repented under Tarasios cannot be called ἔσχατοι εἰκονομάχοι; this term obviously designates recent heretics. Gouillard has also observed that it is the same Sabas (along with Niketas [36]), who speaks of “une déposition méthodique et aveugle d’un nombre considérable d’iconomaques”: [37] τοὺς εἰκονομάχους ἅπαντας καθαιρεῖ. [38] What is important about this fragment is the information that the Iconoclast prelates of Orthodox ordination were permanently deposed under Methodios on account of perjury! And here a phrase from an anti-Photian collection, which F. Dvornik thought pertained to the excommunication of the Studites, fits in perfectly: [39] Ἐὰν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Μεθοδίου, διὰ τὸ παραβῆναι ἐν ἰδιοχείρῳ, τινὲς καθῃρέθησαν οὐ μόνον οὗτοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ συλλειτουργήσαντες τούτου ... [40]

Now we have to identify the written oaths that the “last Iconoclasts” broke. There is no difficulty here since Gouillard has again shown the way by suggesting a parallel with Patriarch Nikephoros, “qui avait frappé rigoureusement les évêques promus, soit par lui, soit par Tarasios, et coupables d’avoir violé, en 815, l’engagement d’iconodoulie inscrit dans leur profession de foi épiscopale”. [41] Gouillard refers only to the Apologeticus Minor, [42] but at least two other valuable sources speak, albeit less directly, of this deposition pronounced by Nikephoros. [43] Moreover, two 9th-century sources establish not just a parallel, but a direct connection between Nikephoros’ pronouncement and Methodios’ action:

Niketas Paphlagon: “they were divinely condemned to a complete and permanent deposition by the great Nikephoros, when he was still alive, and by this same Methodios”. [44]

Patriarch Photios: “so also the wondrous Nikephoros with a prophetic eye barred the entrance into the Church to John and the fellow-leaders of his heresy who had done similar violence to the faith, asserting that, even if they should assume the mask of repentance, their conversion would be unacceptable both to God and to the Church”. [45]

This makes one think of the real reason behind the great purge. The most obvious purpose of measures of this kind is usually the need to replace unreliable people with loyal adherents. It seems, however, that this explanation is inapplicable in this case. The sources, especially the Vita Methodii, indeed indicate a “blind and methodical” expulsion which left much more vacancies than could be filled with people whom Methodios even knew personally, let alone of proven loyalty. On the other hand, there were persons subsequently closely associated with the patriarch, who nevertheless fell victims of the purge. One eloquent example is Ignatios the Deacon, Metropolitan of Nicaea up to 843. So we have to look elsewhere. The general context of Methodian ecclesiastical policies suggests to me a conclusion that may sound a little paradoxical. The overwhelming concern of Methodios’ reign was not reconciliation, nor even the restoration of Orthodoxy. [46] These aims, as the experience of Nicaenum II had shown, could be much more easily achieved by compromise and dispensation. Instead, it was the vindication of his predecessors that preoccupied the patriarch more than anything else. Methodios staged the transfer of Nikephoros’ relics as a triumphant return from exile, [47] he demanded that the Studites anathematize everything written against Nikephoros and Tarasios during the past conflicts and punish refusal with excommunication. But first and foremost he accomplished the action which the late Nikephoros had no opportunity to implement: the deposition of those who betrayed the patriarch at the moment of his fateful clash with the imperial power in 815. Thus the message delivered to the Byzantine clergy had to be powerful and convincing: no one should expect to escape punishment for deserting to secular authorities when they assault the Church (represented by the patriarchs). Moreover, it is better to think twice before accepting an ordination from such deserters, for it will not be deemed valid once the legitimate Church leadership is restored. The indiscriminate nature of the deposition was a necessary component of this message, which is why Methodios was not able to make exceptions for people like Ignatios. In fact, before going into exile Nikephoros warned his flock: “even if but very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, it is they who are the Church”. [48] Methodios just demonstrated that this was meant seriously.

There is one more problem that has to be discussed here. How did Methodios manage to persuade the government to permit the great purge? Theoretically speaking, the authorities must have had serious reservations against such measures, as was shown by Irene’s behaviour in 787. Although most of the sources are silent on this matter, there are some extremely obscure hints that may point in the right direction. A late text about the absolution of Emperor Theophilos contains a curious story. [49] A “faithful God’s servant” Arsakios on the divine illumination (ἐκ θείας ἐλλάμψεως) appears (ἐφάνη) to Ioannikios and says: “God ... commands thee through me to go to the tower of St Diomedes in Nicomedia to His chosen servant Hesaias”. Up to this point it looks like we are dealing with a deceased saint. But further on Arsakios begins to act as if he were alive. Together with Ioannikios they go to Hesaias, who predicts that when they both will come to Empress Theodora, a voice from heaven will be heard proclaiming, among other things: “Ioannikios and Arsakios, say to Patriarch Methodios: dismiss all the unholy, and in this way you will offer me with angels a sacrifice of praise ...” [50] The hermits obey and the process of restoration of images begins. The order to “dismiss all the unholy” is not mentioned any more. Indeed, it plays no role in the plot of the narrative. This should indicate that it was borrowed from an earlier source, whose meaning was not entirely clear to the compiler. By his time the question of the Iconoclast clerics had long lost all significance, but for this hypothetical earlier source it must have been an important issue.

This apparently legendary and unreliable episode displays some very suspicious coincidences. No Arsakios is known from the 9th century, apart from this text and the Life of the Empress Theodora. [51] But there was a certain confessor Arsakios, mentioned by Sozomenos, [52] in the 4th century. This Arsakios lived in a tower in Nicomedia, and his memory is celebrated the same day as that of St Diomedes (16 August)! [53]I have a feeling that there is a hopelessly distorted story behind all that, probably going back to the time when the phrase παῦσον πάντας τοὺς ἀνιέρους did have some topicality. But the most important thing is that this injunction is pronounced by Hesaias who, according to the Life of Theodora, played a crucial role in her marriage to Theophilos. [54] Basing on this obscure and distorted information, we can only cautiously suppose that Methodios may have influenced the empress through her spiritual father or a hermit closely associated with her family, with the help of certain prophecies and apparitions. Anyhow, the government had indeed nothing to worry about: the Great Purge of the Byzantine clergy was carried out by Patriarch Methodios with admirable political skill and did not provoke any significant unrest in society. The lesson was taught.

 

NOTES

1. As clearly stated, for example, by P. Karlin-Hayter, “Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios”, in Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, edd. A. A. Bryer & J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977), 141–145, esp. 141. See also her references, ibid.

2. Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1257C.

3. J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie, texte et commentaire”, TM 2 (1967), 1–316, esp. 127, note 73 (reference to Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1257A–B).

4. J. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites”, REB 45 (1987), 15–57, esp. 16, note 4.

5. Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1260D–1261A: Ὦ τῆς Ἡλίου ἱερωτέραν θυσίαν προσαγαγὼν Θεῷ, καὶ οὐ διακοσίους καὶ τετρακοσίους, ὡς αὐτός, ἀνελὼν ἱερεῖς αἰσχύνης, ἀλλὰ δισμυρίους καὶ περαιτέρω τῆς ὄντως αἰσχύνης ἀξίους ἱερεῖς κωλύσας τε καὶ καθεῖρξας δυσσεβῶς (read δυσσεβοῦς) ἱερᾶσθαι ἐπαισχυνομένους ὁμολογεῖν τὴν ἀληθῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σάρκωσιν ...

6. To fulfil the canonical requirements, they had to be at least 30 years of age before 784.

7. V. Grumel, “La politique religieuse du patriarche saint Méthode”, EO 34 (1935), 385–401, esp. 388, 391.

8. Cf. Vita Ignatii, PG 105, 500C–D; Vita Methodii, loc. cit.

9. Vita Ioannicii a. Saba, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Nov. II:1, 332–384, esp. 372B.

10. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 54.

11. In J.-B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta, II, (Rome, 1868), 355–357.

12. Those who still believe in the “oikonomia-vs.-akribeia” theory should pay more attention to the fact that Tarasios and Methodios use the same term, οἰκονομία, to justify exactly the opposite actions; see Testament (Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, fr. 7, 4, p. 56.).

13. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 17.

14. Ibid., 54: Οἱ τοίνυν ἐκ τοῦ ἀφ’ ἡμῖν Πνεύματος διὰ χειροθεσίας καὶ ἐπικλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰληφότες, εἰ συναντιλέγοιεν τοῖς ἤδη εἰρημένοις καὶ ἑτέροις πλείοσι, τὴν δοχὴν τούτων ἀποστρεφόμενοι καὶ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰ τοῦτο τολμηθείη, ὡς τὸ ὀπίσω ἀνατροπὴν ἐκ μέρους κατιδόντες καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον διήκειν φρικτῶς διαμαρτυρόμενοι, ἄξιοί γε ἄρα εἶεν προτιμηθῆναι ὡς οἰκεῖοι τῶν ξένων, ὡς μέλη ἀλλόβλητα τῶν λελωβημένων ἄρθρων, ἐπεὶ οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀχθείσιν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ συμπαραστᾶσιν ἡ χάρις ἐπεχωρίσθη, ἀλλ’ ἤδη ... τοῖς ἐν ἐρήμῳ τε ... καὶ τοῖς ἐν πόλει ..., ἡγουμένοις τε καὶ στυλίταις καὶ ἀσκηταῖς ... τὸ αὐτὸ δοκεῖ καὶ αὐτὸ παρακαλοῦσι καὶ δηλοῦσιν εὐνοϊκώτατα, ὡς ὁ μέγας Ἰωαννίκιος καὶ ὁ κλεινὸς Συμεὼν καὶ Ἱλαρίων ...

15. Ibid., 17.

16. Cf. the Testament, fr. 7,1.

17. Methodios, Λόγος περὶ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων, Čtenija v obščestve ljubitelei dukhovnago prosveščenija, 1893, Nov.–Dec., Sec. III, 1–23. I disagree with Grumel who believed it to have been pronounced in 843 as a solemn profession of faith (Les Régestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople [Chalcedon, 1936], No. 417), on the following grounds: it is obviously directed to clerics, not to the people (cf. p. 18–19); it singles out the synod of 754 as the chief aim of polemics; it looks much more like an apologetic work, not as a profession of faith. It should be noted that the full text was inaccessible to Grumel.

18. See above, note 11.

19. The first is recorded by Grumel, Régestes, as No. 419.

20. As rightly noted by Grumel, “La politique”, 392. However, Grumel infers without any evidence that the prelates in question were those who initially refused to embrace Orthodoxy but later changed their mind.

21. Vita Ioannicii a. Petro, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Nov. II:1, 384–435. Peter does not mention the death of Patriarch Methodios, allegedly predicted by Joannikios. See C. Mango, “The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios and the Bulgarians”, Okeanos. Essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students = Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7 (1983), 393–404, esp. 394, note 5.

22. Peter: 431B–C; Sabas: 372B.

23. Peter: 431C; Sabas: 372B–374.

24. Peter: 432A; Sabas: 376A.

25. Peter: ibid.

26. Peter: 432B–D; Sabas: 376A–378A.

27. E. von Dobschütz, “Methodius und die Studiten”, BZ 18 (1909), 41–105, esp. 99–100. Cf. Mango, “The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios”, 404.

28. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 54: Ἔγνωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐμὲ καὶ τοὺς συμπαρόντας μοι κατὰ χώραν λαληθὲν παρὰ τοῦ ἐρημικοῦ ἁγίου πρὸ χρόνων δυοῖν ἀληθέστατον προσφώνημα, ὡς εἰ δέξη τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς λειτουργοὺς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς, οὐ μόνον ἰουδαϊσμόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑλληνισμὸν δι’ αὐτῶν προσάξαι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐκδέχου.

29. Ibid., 17.

30. Vita Ioannicii, a. Petro, 432A: Ἐγὼ μὲν, δέσποτα, οὐδέποτε τετόλμηκά σοι δηλοποιῆσαι πρὸς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐλθεῖν ἀναξιότητα σὸν δὲ ἦν τὸ κατόρθωμα, ἡνίκα ἐκλήρου παρὰ τοῦ κινοῦντός τε παναγίου Πνεύματος τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀναξιότητα ἐπισκέπτεσθαι [note the present infinit.] καὶ λόγοις προτροπῆς τοῖς εἰς ἀρετὴν νουθετεῖν ἡμᾶς. Νῦν δέ, μεγάλης ἀνάγκης βιασάσης με, θεόθεν κινηθεὶς αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ὥρμηθην ἐπιστεῖλαι τῷ ἁγίῳ μου δεσπότῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐμὴν κοπωθῆναι ἀγροικότητα ...

31. See, for instance, J. Gouillard, “La vie d’Euthyme de Sardes”, TM 10 (1987), 1–101, esp. 39–41, ch. 13. Methodios, Vita Theophanis, ed. V. V. Latyšev, Zapiski Rossijskoj Akad. Nauk po istor.-filol. otdel., sér. 8, XIII:4 (1918), 26, 16–20.

32. Grumel, “La politique”, 392–393; cf. Régestes, No. 422, No. 435.

33. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

34. Vita Ignatii, PG 105, 500C–D.

35. Nicephori Capitula duodecim adversus Iconomachos, in A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vol. 10 (Rome, 1844), 154. Supplemented from V. Grumel, “Les ‘Douze chapitres contre les iconomaques’ de Saint Nicéphore de Constantinople”, REB 17 (1959), 130.

36. Vita Ignatii, loc. cit., Μεθόδιος ... καθαιρεῖ δὲ πάντας καὶ καταστᾷ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ὅσοι τῷ μύσει τῆς αἱρέσεως ὑπήχθησαν.

37. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

38. Vita Ioannicii, a. Saba, 376A. I prefer the reading καθαιρεῖ to van den Gheyn’s καθαίρει.

39. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948), 14, note 4.

40. J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XVI, col. 444.

41. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

42. PG 100, 840C ff.

43. Ignatios the Deacon, Vita Nicephori, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), 191, 29. Nikephoros about Iconoclast bishops: τῶν μηδὲν ἱερωσύνης ἐκφερομένων λείψανον. According to Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio (in Leonis Grammatici Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker [Bonn, 1842]), 357, 14, Nikephoros calls the newly Iconoclast clerics ἐπιόρκους <καὶ> σταυροπάτας.

44. Vita Ignatii, 500D: τούτων μὲν οὖν τελείαν καθαίρεσιν καὶ διηνεκῆ Νικηφόρος τε ἔτι τῷ βίῳ περιὼν ὁ μέγας, καὶ αὐτὸς οὗτος θεοβουλεύτως ὁ ἱερὸς καταψηφισάμενος Μεθόδιος ...

45. Photii Homiliae, ed. B. Laourdas (Thessalonike, 1959), Hom. 15, p. 141, 2–6: οὕτω καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Νικηφόρος τὴν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν εἴσοδον Ἰωάννῃ τε καὶ τοῖς συνεξάρχοις αὐτοῦ τῆς αἱρέσεως τὰ αὐτὰ κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐμπαροινήσασι προφητικῶς προαπετείχισε ὄμματι, εἰ καὶ μετανοίας προσωπείον ὑπεισελθοῖεν, ἀπρόσδεκτον αὐτῶν καὶ Θεῷ καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τὴν μεταβολὴν ἰσχυρισάμενος. Translation after C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, English Transl., Introd. and Comm. (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 246–247.

46. Note that Peter in his Life of Joannikios cares very little about Iconoclasm; cf. von Dobschütz, “Methodius und die Studiten”, 100.

47. See Narratio de translatione Nicephori, in Th. Joannou, Μνημεῖα ἁγιολογικά (Venice, 1884), 124–127, esp. 126: Σήμερον βασιλεῖς ... καὶ τεθνεῶτί σοι τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν διδόασιν, οἱ ... ταύτην οὖν ἐμοὶ παριστῶσι μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ὁποίαν ταῖς σαῖς ὑποστηρίξεσι κατηρτισμένην ἀπέλιπες.

48. PG 100, 844D: εἰ δὲ καὶ πάνυ ὀλίγοι ἐν τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ καὶ εὐσεβείᾳ διαμένωσιν, οὗτοί εἰσιν Ἐκκλησία ...

49. W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Russica (St Petersburg, 1891), 25–26.

50. Ibid., 26, 7–12: Ἰωαννίκιε καὶ Ἀρσάκιε, εἴπατε Μεθοδίῳ τῷ πατριάρχῃ παῦσον πάντας τοὺς ἀνιέρους καὶ οὕτως σὺν ἀγγέλοις προσενέγκῃς μοι θυσίαν αἰνέσεως ...

51. A. Markopoulos (ed.), “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας”, Σύμμεικτα 5 (1983), 249–285, esp. 266, 28.

52. Sozomen, Kirchengeschichte, hrsg. von J. Bidez & G. Ch. Hansen (Berlin, 1960), 159–161.

53. See AASS, Aug., 16.

54. “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας”, 259–260.

 

Source: The Great Purge of 843: a Re-Examination (Великая чистка 843 г.: пересмотр проблемы) // ΛΕΙΜΩΝ. Studies presented to Lennart RydОn on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. J.O.Rosenquist. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 6, Uppsala, 1996, p. 79-91.

 

Heirs of the Orthodox Faith

Reader Abraham Abraham (+1997)

 

 

My dear fellow parishioners:

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You may wonder why I am offering the sermon today, as it may seem unusual to you for a Chanter to give sermons in our Church. However, this is not at all unusual. In our Orthodox Church, and especially in the Greek tradition, the lower clergy and even lay theologians and preachers are often blessed by the Bishop or Priest to give sermons. But for quite some time I have debated with myself as to whether I should do so or not. For what I have to say many of you already know. Yet in the end, somehow I felt I had to step up.

Having been blessed to do so, then, if you will allow me, I would like to make a few comments about our Christian obligation to God, the Church, and our beloved Orthodox Faith. Now what do I know about Orthodoxy? Technically and historically, not too much. But I do know this: it is my Faith. It is the Mother of Christianity, and God blessed me to be born and raised in this great and true Faith.

God has also favored all of you and blessed you, giving you birth into Orthodoxy and placing a great responsibility upon your shoulders as Syrians and Lebanese who are descendants and heirs of the Orthodox Faith.

I am here before you, today, to beg and beseech of you: Let us uphold the dignity of our Church, the dignity of our Faith, and the dignity of our race. We claim to be the foundation of Christianity. Let us preserve this privilege in faith and dignity, becoming a shining light unto others, beholding and accepting the true methodology of Orthodox worship and spiritual life.

This cannot be, unless we define ourselves. It was not of our choosing that we were born into Orthodoxy. But it has happened. It is a fact. God, Who guides our lives and knows our destiny, saw to it that the torch was passed on to us to carry on. Does it not thus occur to you that we are the chosen children of God? His chosen people? That we are called to set an example of the true Faith, which has been broken up, desecrated, and preached in various denominations by those who wish to change and remodel it, so to speak, into something that will serve man’s goals, rather than God’s Law?

As Moses, ordered by God, led the Israelites (for they were God's chosen children), so Jesus Christ has asked you, the heirs of the Faith that He established on earth through His Apostles and Saints, to be His chosen children and to light the Way, that others might see. Because we are living in this modem age, in this sophisticated race, we think that we can live without God; or that we can give Him our spare time, as we see fit, thinking that this will satisfy Him. This may be the modem age, or the space age, if you please; we may claim to be educated and possess great knowledge. But just remember that our modem times were foreseen by the Prophets.

God, the Great Mind, gives us our knowledge. We not only need Him for all of the things that we think are the products of our works, but He can also take away what He gives. Therefore, let us not fail in our obligations. Let us not turn a deaf ear. For we cannot fool God. Holy Scripture tells us that His Ways are a mystery. We go along living each day, each Sunday, the Lord’s Day, as we see fit, conveniently fulfilling our desires and ignoring our obligations to Him, refusing to let our minds and hearts dwell on our guilt, as though He does not know our betrayal in forgetting Him as the Source of all that we know and have.

We fail to dwell on the thought that we are offending the Lord by disregarding our obligations to Him. We seem to get by, after missing a few Sundays of Church, and eventually, like callow youth, forget our adult duties. But we must remember that the Ways of the Lord are a mystery. He Who controls our everyday life can smooth our paths and impede our endeavors. He can both lighten our load, according to our faith in Him, or cause us to answer for our sins and disobedience in various ways. Now, how can you expect your neighbor to respect you, if you do not respect your neighbor? How can he honor you, if you do not honor him? How much greater, then, is our obligation to the Supreme Being Who rules our lives, Who in His own mysterious way is always near in spirit? He is near us. We feel Him, as the Supreme Source of our breath. How can we not respect, honor, and obey Him above all things?

These things I say to you because we must realize at all times that God is with us, has jurisdiction over our lives, and awaits our respect and the fulfillment of our obligations to Him. No one can truly say there is no God, in order to escape his obligations. Nor can he believe halfway; either we believe or we do not. There is no halfway with the King of Heaven and earth. Therefore, if we choose to doubt, or take our Faith or religion for granted, we lose all. It is better we stay away entirely. For God is no joke. But if we truly believe, as any sensitive person does, we must accept our obligations along with that belief, and fully so.

If we believe, yea, truly believe, in His Holy Existence, then let us accept God as He truly is. Let us do Him homage as our Lord and Master. Let us accept the love that He has for us in proving our allegiance to Him. Let us accept His Son, Whom He sacrificed for us to prove His love, by faithfully obeying and abiding by the beautiful teachings He gave us while He, God Incarnate, was one of us here on this earth. Let us fully realize that the laws of God and the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ, were given to us to obey for the sake of our protection, to beautify our lives, and to bring us to salvation from our ancestral sin.

Have you read the Bible? I am sure you have. Can you recall one sentence or one word from the teachings of Christ that is not beneficial, but that is harmful to mankind? No, not one word. Let us take, for instance, His words and commandments about the laws of God. Do you think they were given to attain glory for Himself? If you read carefully, you will find that they exist for our own good. In the first of the Ten Commandments, God says: “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other God beside Me.” Here He tells us that He is the rightful God for us: The God of love, the God of justice, the God to Whom we must do homage and must worship, protecting us against the false god of hate and fanaticism.

The true and living God, Who put the breath of life in our bodies and gave us a soul, which He loves so much that He will never forsake it or allow it to deteriorate, as material things do, wishes us to worship a true Deity: the very God Who will accept us into His bosom after our allotted time here on earth is up. The God Who provides for our salvation, as long as we have honored Him and lived up to His law.

As the true God, He has asked us, as another example, to honor our father and mother, the mother who gave birth to you and the father who will father and protect you. You are of their flesh and blood. Would you cut off your arm or any other part of your body and toss it away or ignore it? No. Nor should you ignore your father and mother. For through them you are here in body. God also instructed us as follows: “Thou shalt not lie.” He knew it was better for us not to lie or bear false witness. How many times have we told what we thought was an innocent lie, but then see it bounce back in our faces and cause us a never-ending amount of trouble? We could analyze each Commandment. Each time we would find that each and every one was given us for our protection, for our own happiness, as well as for our salvation.

For remember, there is no other way into the Kingdom of Heaven but by abiding by the laws of God. If we do so, He will not forsake our souls and allow them to float around in the darkness and deep void after we depart from this life. Rather, He will be near, to guide and accept our souls in His Holy Light. What a beautiful and comforting feeling it is to know that God will be near and that we need not live in fear of the unknown and of the darkness. All of this is ours, when we fulfill our obligations to God and the Church.

Let us therefore, as Holy Scripture tells us, wash our faces, take off the old man, and put on the new. It is never too late to turn to God, to Jesus Christ, and to show our devotion by repenting of our past mistakes and accepting Him as our True God, as our Counsellor in time of trouble, cares, and grief. Lay these at His Door. For He said, “Knock and it shall be opened unto you... “Ask and it will be given.” Let Him help us to carry the burden of life, and in times of joy let us not forget to sing praises of Him for His blessings. For the Lord's blessings are all around us. The trials and tribulations are a test of our faith, and the blessings and good things are our reward.

During the Holy Liturgy, the Chanters sing a beautiful verse on behalf of all the Christians present. This occurs after our Communion with the Holy Mysteries, the Body and Blood of our Lord: “We have seen the True Light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit. We have found the True Faith, worshipping the Undivided Trinity, Who hath saved us.” Now can we truly say this? Think about it, whether you are here in the Church or away from here. My dear brothers and sisters, my dear friends: We have inherited this wonderful Faith and this magnificent way of worship from Christ Himself, through His Holy Apostles. So let us be in our Orthodoxy that shining example for others to see and to follow. For truly we are also apostles of the Faith—each and every one of us, truly the chosen children of God. For He has shown us this True Light and Heavenly Spirit by making us the heirs of His True Faith, the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

The late Reader Abraham Abraham [Ibrahim Ibrahim] (1910-1997), an accomplished Chanter, gave a number of instructive sermons at the St. John the Baptist Syrian Orthodox Church, founded in 1931 in Cedar Rapids, LA. The parish is now under the jurisdiction of our Holy Synod and is served by his son and grandson. Protopresbyter Father Raphael Abraham and Father John Abraham, as well as another grandson, Reader Jameel Abraham, and his great-grandson, Reader Hunna Abraham. This sermon was delivered and recorded in the 1970s. (Transcribed by Nun Seraphima.)

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 1, pp. 43-46.

Did Fr. Seraphim Rose Know About Gleb Podmoshensky’s Crimes?

Michael W. Davis | May 2, 2026

[Blog Administrator's note: As is known, Fr. Seraphim Rose was canonized by ROCOR under Metropolitan Agafangel in 2024.]

 

ROCOR must leave no stone unturned as it investigates Fr. Seraphim Rose's cause for canonization. But at this time, there is no reason to suspect that Fr. Seraphim knew about or actively covered up for Gleb "Fr. Herman" Podmoshensky. 

Several readers have approached the UOJ regarding the allegations that Fr. Seraphim Rose was complicit in the sexual abuse committed by Gleb Podmoshensky (formerly known as Fr. Herman).

It is well worth undertaking a dispassionate analysis of the existing evidence. Before we do, however, let me make one thing clear: I am 100% in favor of the Holy Synod of ROCOR[-MP] thoroughly investigating these matters before they decide to canonize Fr. Seraphim.

(See: https://uoj.news/news/86809-exclusive-rocor-weighs-canonization-of-its-first-us-born-saint)

We must spare absolutely no expense while rooting out and exposing sexual predators and those who enable them. If ROCOR’s investigation turns up new and damning evidence, then we must live with the consequences.

Rather, my argument is that, based on the existing evidence, there is no reason to believe that Fr. Seraphim Rose knew about/covered up Gleb Podmoshensky’s crimes. 

The Case Against Fr. Seraphim

For those who don’t know, Gleb Podmoshensky was the best friend of Eugene Rose. Both men were disciples of St. John of San Francisco and ran a bookstore associated with his cathedral. In 1967, they founded the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California. When they were tonsured, Gleb took the name Herman, while Eugene took the name Seraphim. Fr. Herman was chosen to serve as abbot of the monastery.

The two monks’ relationship eventually deteriorated before Fr. Seraphim reposed in 1982, at the age of forty-eight, after a short yet painful illness. Three years later, Fr. Herman was publicly and credibly accused of sexually abusing older boys and young men. He was defrocked by the Holy Synod of ROCOR in 1988 and subsequently led the monastery into schism. 

Podmoshensky stepped down as abbot in 2000. The rest of the community immediately joined the Serbian Patriarchate, thereby re-entering the canonical Church. Podmoshensky died in 2014.

Why do people believe that Fr. Seraphim was culpable in Podmoshensky’s crimes? There are three main arguments.

1. Fr. Seraphim must have seen or heard something.

2. Fr. Seraphim was Podmoshensky’s confessor.

3. Fr. Seraphim cursed Podmoshensky on his deathbed.

We’ll consider those arguments in turn.

1. Fr. Seraphim ‘Must’ Have Known?

Many assume that it was simply impossible for Fr. Seraphim not to be aware of Podmoshensky’s misconduct. However, as my friend Ben Dixon has pointed out, Fr. Seraphim spent most of his day either in the chapel, at his writing desk, or in the print shop. He had very little “down time.” 

What’s more, it would not have been unusual for Fr. Herman, as the monastery’s abbot, to spend time alone with young men (e.g., pilgrims or novices). Fr. Seraphim would not have found this to be suspicious behavior.

As Rdr. Daniel Everis—a longtime friend of the Platina community—later recalled, “Fr. Herman, however, did most of his… sexual liaisons [sic] outside the monastery, when he was on his… missionary journeys.”

(See https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/1999/02/in-fr-seraphims-defense.html)

So, it’s likely that Fr. Seraphim was nowhere near Podmoshensky when the latter committed most of his offenses.

Some critics note that complaints were made against Podmoshensky to the ROCOR hierarchy in the late 1970s. I do not have access to these records myself. Yet even if this were true, it does not prove that Fr. Seraphim knew anything. After all, it is unlikely that the complaints were made to the monastery itself. Also, if ROCOR’s leaders had suspicions about Podmoshensky and chose not to act, it’s unlikely they secretly informed any of the Platina monks.

2. Did Fr. Herman Make a Good Confession?

The second argument against Fr. Seraphim is that, for almost two decades, he and Podmoshensky heard each other’s confessions. Therefore, Fr. Seraphim must have known that his friend was abusing boys and young men.

Yet why should we assume that Podmoshensky was confessing his crimes to Fr. Seraphim? 

Indeed, this argument would be slightly more plausible if only one or two accusations had been made against Podmoshensky. But the sheer number of victims does not suggest that he “slipped” and then repented. Rather, it suggests that Podmoshensky (like so many others) used his status as a cleric in order to systematically abuse young men and boys.

Again, it’s impossible to know another human being’s heart. But a man who gives himself over so completely to the satisfaction of his own evil desires probably isn’t too worried about making a good confession—especially if doing so would threaten his access to potential victims.

3. ‘I’m Finished With You!’

According to Fr. Seraphim’s friend Fr. Alexey Young, his final words to Podmoshensky were: “I’m finished with you! Damn you!” These he spoke while on his deathbed.

To some, the choice of words—“I’m finished with you!”—suggests that Fr. Seraphim had known about Podmoshensky’s crimes for some time. But is this necessarily the case?

Again, it is universally accepted that Fr. Seraphim and Podmoshensky’s relationship deteriorated dramatically in the late Seventies/early Eighties. Then-Fr. Herman’s behavior became increasingly erratic. He began to espouse heterodox opinions. It was said that Fr. Seraphim could hardly stand his presence.

So, it’s possible that Podmoshensky admitted his abuse to Fr. Seraphim while the latter was on his deathbed. This would explain why there’s a note of long-suffering in Fr. Seraphim’s response. 

Indeed, we have no idea what Podmoshensky said to Fr. Seraphim that day. We can’t be sure that he confessed to him at all. But even if the conversation did take place, and even if the two men were discussing Podmoshensky’s abuse, it does not necessarily suggest that Fr. Seraphim had any prior awareness of said abuse.

What Is to Be Done?

I have heard allusions to a text written by the late Fr. Alexey Young (another friend of Platina) which claims that Fr. Seraphim learned about Podmoshensky’s crimes three months before his death while hearing someone’s confession. I haven’t been able to find this source. 

If this were true, one might ask: Why didn’t Fr. Seraphim tell the police? The answer is that, unfortunately, this would have been impossible. If he had learned about Podmoshensky’s crimes under the Seal of the Confessional, he could not have repeated the information to the police—or anyone else, for that matter.

One might then ask: Why didn’t he at least leave the monastery, or do something else to limit Podmoshensky’s access to potential victims? Yet several sources close to Fr. Seraphim have claimed that he was planning to leave the monastery. 

For instance, Rdr. Daniel writes: “From what was related to me, by a priest, very close to him, had Fr. Seraphim lived a bit longer than he did, he was planning on leaving Platina and his unrepentant/unstable partner and making or going to a new monastery somewhere else.”

This is probably the most Fr. Seraphim could have done to stop Podmoshensky without breaking the Seal of the Confessional: leave his own monastery. This would have hinted strongly at a grave disturbance at the monastery—probably leading to its disestablishment—without disclosing any specific crimes.

This would have destroyed Fr. Seraphim’s life’s work. Personally, however, I have no doubt that Fr. Seraphim would have done this, had he been left with no other choice.

Conclusion: Truth Will Out

I have never heard any firsthand witness claim that Fr. Seraphim knew about Podmoshensky’s sins more than three months before his death. 

So, from what I can see, the most likely scenario is that Fr. Seraphim did not know about Podmoshensky’s crimes until he was just days away from death.

The second-most likely scenario is that he found out about Podmoshensky a couple of months before his death and was doing everything he could to prevent further abuse.

In both cases, Fr. Seraphim would have been prevented from disclosing Podmoshensky’s sins by the Seal of the Confessional.

Perhaps something will come out in the course of ROCOR’s investigation. We must also hope and trust that the bishops will leave no stone unturned while seeking the truth about this gruesome affair.

At this point, however, there is no reason to suspect that Fr. Seraphim knew about or actively covered up for Podmoshensky. 

 

Source:

https://uoj.news/man-and-church/87041-did-fr-seraphim-rose-know-about-gleb-podmoshenskys-crimes

 

A Brief-Partial Examination of the Dogma of Orthodox Unity in the Faith and in Divine Worship

Konstantinos L. Georgitsis

 

 

A Few Explanatory Words Concerning the Important Text that Follows

The voice of our Holy Triune Father, as a “voice of many waters,” beseeches us: “That they all may be one.” He simply wants us, as we confess in the Divine Liturgy, to keep “the unity of the Faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit” as the apple of our eye.

The Truth, our Christ, the true faith, Orthodoxy, we know what it cost the enhypostatic Logos. He offered and continues to offer His All-Holy Body and Blood to the light-bearing children of His Church, of which He is the Head and not anyone else; according to the Apostle Paul, the bishop too is “in the type and place” of the Lord, when he rightly divides the word of truth.

Therefore, as members of His Body, the Church, “which He purchased with His own Blood,” He demands unity. Unfortunately, we have tarnished this unity with our “high-minded” behavior and way of life. Indeed, now, as we are facing the last times, by common confession, we observe, especially after the great tectonic earthquake of the Kolymbari Council of Crete in 2016, the powerful sifting even among the few walling off brethren. Thus the word of our Lord is fulfilled: “When I come again, shall I find the faith?”

The praiseworthy work of brother Konstantinos G. awakens us, troubles us, and, as a trumpet of revelation, sets us before our responsibilities. It deserves not only to be read, but to be studied. Let us leave aside our pettiness, our clever sayings and smartness, our own wills. Luke 17:2 should shake us deeply. Let us not make the simple things of God insoluble and difficult. We need simplicity, directness, sincerity, and a humble mind, in order to give God the possibility to cooperate with us.

To our beloved brother in Christ, Konstantinos G., we pray that the Grace of the Comforter may overshadow him, with the prayer that the Lord may open our ears, and the mind and heart of the readers, to the glory of the Holy God in Trinity and for our salvation.

A brother in Christ,

Fr. Georgios D. Angelakakis

 

A Brief-Partial Examination of the Dogma of Orthodox Unity in the Faith and in Divine Worship

 

If one attempts, in good faith and openly, an in-depth penetration into the spirit of the hierarchy of priorities in the pursuits of the Holy Fathers who “conferred together in the Holy Spirit” at the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, it is certain that the conclusion will emerge that their primary pursuit was the universal unity of the Church “in all things.” That is, the unity of faith, dogma and ethos, in an unbroken conjunction with one ecclesiastical order, as a single and compact Orthodox ecclesiastical life, which was secured as a dogma of faith in the Symbol of Faith: “I believe ... in One ... Church.”

In this unity, whose dominant characteristic feature is, alongside the dogmatic, its supra-dogmatic and, through the commandment “do not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28), unchanging character; which was prepared, delimited, built up, and safeguarded “in the Holy Spirit” by the Holy Fathers who “ordered all things well”; and which unity is expressed and made perceptible, that is, becomes apprehensible also through the senses, by means of the worship of the Holy Triune God, Divine Worship, the word of our Lord Jesus Christ is fulfilled: “that they all may be one” (John 17:21).

Divine Worship, then, together with its property as a prerequisite also of the sacred Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, may be characterized as the culmination of the practical Orthodox life of the Church. That is, of the collective life which, being composed of individual ecclesiastical acts, constitutes and achieves the completion of Divine Worship. And these ecclesiastical acts are:

A) The uniform and simultaneous Pan-Orthodox celebration of the movable and immovable Feasts of the Master,

B) The uniform and simultaneous Pan-Orthodox celebration of the Feasts of the Theotokos and of the feasts of the Great Saints of the Church, and

C) The uniform and simultaneous Pan-Orthodox observance of the periods of the Holy Fasts established each year by the Church.

Confirmation of what has been mentioned thus far concerning the unity “in all things,” which the Holy Fathers primarily pursued and achieved through the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, is provided by two letters, portions of which it is judged beneficially appropriate to set forth below, following the above.

The letter of the Holy and Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great, “which he sent from the city of Nicaea to the bishops who were absent from the Council,” obviously after the conclusion of the sessions of the First Holy Ecumenical Council, which the ecclesiastical historian Gelasios of Cyzicus preserved in his work An Account of the Acts Performed at the Holy Council in Nicaea, and the letter of Saint Athanasios the Great which he addressed to the Bishops of Africa.

Constantine the Great writes the following:

“Constantine Augustus to the Churches.

Having gained experience from the prosperity of common affairs, so that the grace of divine power is naturally such, I judged this to be the aim befitting me before all things: that among the most blessed multitudes of the catholic Church, One Faith, sincere love, and like-minded piety toward Almighty God be preserved.... In addition to these things, that too is present for consideration: that in so great a matter, and in the feast of such a religion, it is unlawful for discord to exist, that is, lawless, impious, unholy.... Let the intelligence, then, of our holiness consider how dreadful and unbecoming it is, on the same days, for some to devote themselves to fasts, while others hold banquets. And after the days of Pascha, for some to be examined in feasts and relaxations, while others are given over to the appointed fasts. For this reason, therefore, Divine Providence wills that this should obtain the fitting correction and be brought to one formulation.”

(Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 281, ed. Holy Skete of St. Anna, Holy Mountain).

And in accordance with the above, Athanasios the Great confirms this with the following:

“For it, that is, the First Ecumenical Council, was convened because of the Arian heresy and because of Pascha... But thanks be to the Lord, just as concerning the Faith, so also concerning the Holy Feast, agreement was reached. And this, that is, the agreement, was the cause of the Council on Nicaea.”

Possibly, in objection to what has been written thus far, the objection may be put forward that the texts of these two letters refer only to the feast of Pascha. However, an objection of this sort may be characterized as pharisaical, deceitfully sophistical, and revealing of a lack of genuine ecclesiastical mind and of insufficient ability for in-depth theological penetration into the spirit of the pursuits of the Holy Fathers that are beneficial for the Church.

A possible claim that the institution, by the Holy Fathers, of Orthodox Unity does not include all the Feasts of the Church, movable and immovable, could be characterized, to put it mildly, as absurd.

That is, the claim that the Holy Fathers did indeed pursue the agreement-unity of the Ecumenical Church in the simultaneous celebration of the feast of Holy Pascha, but were indifferent to her agreement-unity in the simultaneous celebration of all the feasts of the ecclesiastical festal calendar. In other words, this would ultimately mean the prevalence of an incomplete unity, and not of a complete unity, in the Orthodox Faith and in Divine Worship!!!

This claim is refuted by the third discourse of Saint John Chrysostom to Makarios Philogenes, concerning the feast of Christmas, which is highly revealing of the fact that the Holy Fathers regarded all the Feasts of the Master as equal to Holy Pascha, and which he characterizes as “the metropolis of all the feasts,” as follows:

“For from this, that is, from the feast of Christmas, Theophany, and holy Pascha, and the Ascension, and Pentecost received their beginning and their foundation. For if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, He would not have been baptized, which is Theophany; He would not have been crucified, which is Pascha; He would not have sent down the Spirit, which is Pentecost. So from here, as though from some spring from which various rivers flow, these Feasts were appointed for us.”

From all that has been mentioned up to this point, the conclusion follows naturally that the Holy Fathers, being moved by the Holy Spirit, fully understood that the unity of the Faith, joined inseparably with unity in Divine Worship, becomes a compact fundamental condition for the Church, above every dogma and at the same time a parallel dogma alongside all ecclesiastical dogmas, expressed in the Symbol of Faith through the article: “I believe ... in One ... Church.”

It is, moreover, a “commonplace” definition that dogmas are the laws and rules of the Orthodox Faith, which, by their very nature and structure, admit of no alteration.

For this reason, the Holy Fathers primarily pursued the prevalence in the Church of this compact supra-dogmatic condition, and established it as a fixed ecclesiastical order, which they adapted to the Julian calendar that had been in force from the time of the earthly appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ onward.

And this Julian calendar, because of this adaptation, served the Unity of the Faith and of Divine Worship in the Church for one thousand six hundred and more years, despite whatever disagreements and disorders arose from time to time, which were dissolved by the Councils convened after the First Ecumenical Council, those in Antioch, the Fourth, the Sixth, the Seventh, and so forth; and these, after defining the unshakable observance of the terms and canons of the Councils before them, stabilized Ecclesiastical Unity.

Therefore, no one is entitled to lay a profane hand upon the Unity of the Faith and of Divine Worship of the Church, violating her timeless Divine institutions, without running the risk of becoming schismatic or even, depending on the purpose he serves, becoming heretical.

This, unfortunately, took place in the year 1924 on the part of the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, within the framework of the activation of the ecumenistic encyclical of 1920, where, through the violent, unilateral, and coup-like overthrow of the Orthodox Festal Calendar, without the consent of the whole Church, by the imposition of the papal-Gregorian calendar, despite whatever lies about a corrected Julian calendar were deployed, two conditions were achieved:

A) The lawless, impious, and unholy rupture of the Unity of the Faith and of the Unity of Divine Worship of the Orthodox Church; and

B) The introduction of the Orthodox Church into the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

The Position of the Julian Calendar in the Ecclesiastical Sphere and its Contribution to the Formation of the Dogma of Orthodox Unity

In former times, and also recently, certain claims of this kind have been put forward: “The Church did not establish any calendar, much less as a dogma of faith!!! Consequently, the calendar reform, according to the view of those who make excuses, is something non-essential and does not constitute an impediment to the salvation of Christians,” and other similar untheological, pretextual claims which flow from ignorance, prejudice, subjective interpretations made without competence, inadequacy of theological ability for deeper penetration, and so forth.

For the refutation and overturning of the above claims, pretexts in sins, it is useful to mention the following:

The Julian calendar, whose unilateral and coup-like change is, with deceitful intent, disconnected by some from the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, being in force at the time of the Divine Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, was accepted by the Christian world, that is, the Church, and was used for the chronological determination of the events of the Incarnate Divine Economy of the Son and Logos of God the Father; that is, for the progressive formation of the Ecclesiastical Festal Calendar, which she adapted to it, the Julian Calendar.

And through this adaptation the Church incorporated it into her Sacred Tradition, for the Festal Calendar too constitutes a part of her Sacred Tradition, so that, through the inseparable conjunction of the Festal Calendar and the Julian calendar, the dogma of Ecclesiastical Unity in the Faith and in Divine Worship might be served in harmony.

However, despite the Church’s use of the Julian calendar, she showed, acting most wisely, indifference toward its scientific-astronomical character, changes of equinoxes, chronological corrections of days, years, and so forth, although many of the Holy Fathers possessed the science of Astronomy; and she showed a parallel indifference to the existence of other calendars, Egyptian, Macedonian, and so forth, which were in use among certain nations.

And this because the Church was not making a choice among calendars, but was hastening to regulate her Unity, within the framework of all that has already been mentioned concerning this Unity.

In this sense Saint Chrysostom says in his famous homily “To Those Who Fast at the First Pascha” that “the Church of Christ does not know exactness of times and observation of days,” according to the interpretation which Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite gives to this in his interpretation of the 7th Apostolic Canon, Pedalion, pp. 8–9, first footnote. Consequently, no one ever “dogmatized” the Julian calendar in itself, and especially not according to its scientific-astronomical character, as is distortedly and prejudicially attributed to those who confessionally opposed the overthrow, introductory into Ecumenism, of the Orthodox Festal Calendar, which is inseparably joined, as was written above, with the Julian calendar.

However, it could be asserted without sin that this calendar, in itself, constituted a dogma of faith both for those who took the lead in the anti-Orthodox innovation of dividing Ecclesiastical Unity in the Faith and in Divine Worship through the unholy and impious overthrow of the Orthodox Festal Calendar-Calendar, and also for those who down to the present day champion it in various ways and without competence, with proclamations “concerning the necessary astronomical corrections of the ecclesiastical calendar” (???) so that there should be no confusion, “shudder, O sun!”, between the ecclesiastical life of Christians and the commercial, social, and other “cosmopolitan” activities of the world possessed by earthly and materialistic mindsets, as though the salvation of Christians were thereby placed at stake!!!

They ignore that this secularization constitutes the central core of Ecumenism, in conjunction with its pan-religious structure.

It is judged beneficially appropriate to note that this deviation into declarations made without competence conflicts:

A) With the timeless indication of Saint Theodore the Studite that “the ecclesiastical canons do not permit points of the Faith which have already been clearly determined by the Church to be set forth for discussion,” that is, a discussion which often constitutes a precondition for questioning the truth, “which is ... the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); and

B) With the declaration of the whole Church, through the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the year 1848, that every innovation constitutes “a prompting of the devil,” and that “he who accepts an innovation accuses the proclaimed Orthodox Faith of being deficient...” and in this way “...has already denied the Faith of Christ, has already voluntarily subjected himself to the eternal anathema, which our Savior first pronounced, for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, as though He had not spoken perfectly in the Scriptures and Ecumenical Councils.”

In answer to the objection that “the festal-calendar reform is some non-essential event, which does not constitute an impediment to the salvation of Christians,” the following must be said.

Every faithful person, in the freedom of his conscience and his disposition, using as a “touchstone” the declaration of the Church set forth above, and the Evangelical and Holy Patristic word which will be cited subsequently, should ask himself, and not according to the dictation or manipulation of other people, whether his salvation is placed at stake because of his acceptance, adoption, and implementation in his life within the Church of this most grievous, most impious, anti-Orthodox and anti-ecclesiastical transgression, introductory into the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

Two reasons support the fact that the festal-calendar reform is not a non-essential event and does not constitute a triviality, because it is contrary to the fundamental Divine institutions for Orthodox Unity established by the Holy Fathers who “conferred together in the Holy Spirit” at the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

At this point it is worth noting parenthetically that the heresy of Iconoclasm too was characterized by some as an “ecclesiastical reform” (see Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, History of the Greek Nation).

The first reason comes from the most truthful mouth of the Lord Himself, which He addressed to the Holy Apostles, who constituted “the foundation stones” upon which His Church was built by the Holy Fathers.

The Lord says: “He who rejects you,” that is, my Apostles and, successively, my Saints, “rejects Me,” that is, rejects, despises, “and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:16).

The second reason is that by which, from the mouth of Saint Gregory Palamas, we are informed that “the smallest thing in matters concerning God is not small” (E.P.E. 1, p. 70). And it is not “small,” because “the smallest thing” “in matters concerning God” contributes to the salvation or to the perdition of the people of the Church.

So that the word may not appear excessively harsh, and especially as though it proceeds from “fanaticism,” the question is posed for fruitful reflection:

What, then, is the meaning of the word spoken by the Lord, that “many will say to Me in that day,” that is, of the universal judgment, “‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? And in Thy name cast out demons? And in Thy name done many mighty works?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who work lawlessness.’”

Could it be that some who, according to appearance and according to human, often superficial, criteria are “saints,” but who committed “non-essential” acts of lawlessness, will be driven away into eternal punishment? The Lord knows! Let us pray for the repentance, for the return in humility to the path of the unadulterated and uninnovated Faith, and for the salvation of the well-intentioned brethren among them!

Again, the sacred Evangelical word says: “For whoever shall keep the whole law,” see the Orthodox Faith, “and yet stumble in one point,” see the acceptance and adoption of the anti-festal innovation, “he has become guilty of all,” that is, guilty before the whole Orthodox Faith (Jas. 2:10).

The interpretive confirmation of the above Evangelical word comes from Saint John Chrysostom, who teaches:

“Just as in the case of royal coins, he who clips off even a small part of the stamp has made the whole coin counterfeit, that is, spurious, so also he who has overturned even the very smallest part of the sound faith corrupts the whole, advancing from the beginning toward worse things” (E.P.E. 20, p. 194).

Saint Tarasios, the president of the Seventh Holy Ecumenical Council, summarizes the words set forth above in his saying: “To sin in matters of dogma, whether small or great, is the same thing; for by both the Law of God is rejected” (Acts of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, vol. 3, p. 236, edition of the Holy Skete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain).

In conclusion to what has been written thus far, it is judged beneficial for many to set forth a word of Athanasios the Great, which confirms in summary all that has been written up to this point: “The tradition and teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. For in this the Church is founded, and he who falls away from this would neither be, nor be called, a Christian” (E.P.E. 4, pp. 164 & 166).

May this word, in conjunction with what has been set forth above, constitute an exhortation for those who have adopted and follow the evil-believing, anti-festal, and anti-ecclesiastical ecumenistic innovation to return, in repentance and humility, to the unadulterated Way of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, far from every innovation, where, unaffected by heresies and schisms, according to a commandment of the Holy Apostles, the reunion of truly Orthodox Christians on Orthodox ground will be accomplished!

Amen! May it be so!

Konstantinos L. Georgitsis, Molos, Locris.

 

Original Greek source: https://agiooros.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=14586

Reposted: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/02/blog-post_14.html