Saturday, May 9, 2026

A Pastoral View of Marriage and Marital Problems

by Archpriest Sergei Shukin 

A talk given at Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY, May 17/30, 1975.



Introduction

By way of introduction I would like to cite to you one case from the life of the Russian Orthodox Church which some of you possibly already have heard about.

This happened about a hundred years ago. There lived in Moscow a student of philology, Constantine Sederholm. He was Lutheran and even the son of a Lutheran pastor in Moscow. One day he was invited to an Orthodox wedding and was present at the ceremony in the church. As a philologist, he understood Slavonic well and he was quite surprised that in the marriage rite marriage is compared to the struggles of the martyrs, and that God's help is implored for the spouses, who are likened to "Noah in the ark" and "the three children in the fiery furnace" and so on. The explanations of the Moscow priests did not satisfy him, but someone advised him to go to the renowned Optina Hermitage and speak with the elders there. Sederholm became acquainted with the Elder Macarius, who interpreted for him the Orthodox meaning of salvation and marriage.

When he finished university and entered diplomatic service in the Near East, he visited Mt. Athos, the Holy Land and many monasteries in the Balkans. Finally, after about a year, he resigned and came back to Optina, where he converted to the Orthodox Church and shortly after took monastic vows with the name of Clement. At Optina he worked on translations of the writings of the Holy Fathers. He died in 1878 and was buried at Optina.

In relating this I would like to point out that in the Orthodox Church we have the most profound and complete teaching concerning Christian marriage compared with all other faiths.

1. Entering into Marriage

Until recently, in pre-revolutionary Russia for example, choosing a spouse was a matter for the whole family and their priest. People approached marriage judiciously, sensibly, without hurrying, and the question was discussed previously among the closest relatives. Young people took their opinion into account.

Now, in America, getting married is considered a purely personal matter, and young people rarely seek the advice of anyone, let alone the pastors of the Church. The results of this are extremely sad -- twenty-five percent of marriages are divorced in the first three years.

The greatest evil involved with these marriages is that they are premature and hasty. Most newlyweds are green youth, unprepared for family life and guided only by feelings. If they do not turn to a priest for advice of their own accord, then pastors must point out the right path to them on their own initiative.

In their sermons, in talks, during confession and during church school, pastors must explain to young people that entering marriage requires more than just physical maturity. Psychological or spiritual maturity is just as essential -- that is to say, being prepared for independent life, for taking the responsibility for one's future family and for choosing one's future companion in life sensibly. Feeling alone beforehand or romantic emotions are not enough to guarantee that a marriage will be lasting, because the most important thing in marriage is the inner unity of husband and wife. Initial feelings soon pass, and if the young couple does not have a common and lofty outlook on life and mutual understanding, they will find themselves estranged from each other. Quarrels and disagreements will arise, and then -- unfaithfulness and jealousy, leading to a divorce. And divorces cause the couple themselves, their children, and all their relatives to suffer.

In former times people did not marry with such lightning speed -- within two or three months. Between the engagement and the wedding there was still time for couples to come to know each other better and think more deeply about how compatible their opinions and tastes might be. Here the religious views of the couple are of vital importance. Ultimately it is precisely religious belief which constitutes that main foundation of human life. Therefore, the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever cannot be enduring and happy. When the Church crowns newlyweds, she prays that the couple will have "unity of thought" -- that is to say, identical views on all the principal questions: on life and death, on the obligations of wife and husband, on the birth and upbringing of children, and so on. That is why the Church insists as a prime condition that the bride and groom have the same faith, for it will be the principal foundation of their lives.

Still less desirable are marriages between people of different religions. Although the Church does marry people of other faiths to Orthodox Christians in exceptional cases, only marriages between Orthodox are normally accepted.

Priests must instill this attitude into their parishioners and especially into the youth. In marriage, Christians must serve God: firstly, by building up an Orthodox family, as the "church which is in their house" a little cell of Orthodoxy; and secondly, by bringing up their children in the spirit of Orthodoxy, as a future member of the Church. But can this be achieved in a family where the parents attend different churches and cannot give their children unified religious instructions? Experience shows that the children of mixed marriages grow up either as total unbelievers, or only formally Orthodox, or as Catholics or Protestants.

All the other religions have come to the same conclusion, considering that mixed marriages have a negative influence on the family's religious life. Even after the death of a non-Orthodox husband or wife, the Orthodox party cannot have a panikhida (memorial service) served for him or her, or in some cases even be buried in the same cemetery, as the deceased party dies in heresy certainly knowingly, if having been married to an Orthodox.

The reader will find more details about mixed marriages in my pamphlet On Marriages with the Heterodox, published by Holy Trinity Monastery in 1962 (in Russian).

Even if both parties are nominally Orthodox, however, this does not necessarily imply that they clearly understand the true significance of a Christian marriage. In America today a purely pagan attitude towards marriage is so widespread that even many Orthodox young people think of it as one of the "good things" of personal life, which husband and wife are given without any particular obligations on their part. This irresponsible approach to marriage is what gives rise to a whole host of misfortunes and catastrophes in family life.

Furthermore we know that the demands made upon the Orthodox by a really Christian marriage go further than just making use of the joys which marriage affords: much patience, self-sacrifice and abstinence are also required -- in a word, there is a kind of asceticism in marriage also, as in other aspects of life. Without this, the marriage will be utterly pagan, worldly or speaking in the language of the New Testament, of the flesh.

The word of God draws a sharp distinction between the man of the spirit and the man of the flesh. One lives for God and eternity; the other, for himself and for temporal life on earth alone. Thus St. Paul writes: "They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the things of the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: They that are (live) in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 5.6-8). All this can be applied to marriage, which was established by the Creator not for personal pleasure but to enable man and woman to preserve a pious life together. Thus marriage was established for a whole lifetime, and of it Christ said, "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The Church Fathers teach that a pious marriage is as pleasing in God's eyes as a celibate monastic life.

Thus in people's lives there can be only two paths: either celibacy, an ascetic life principally in the monastic state, or a Christian marriage, which also requires a considerable degree of asceticism. Both of these paths consist of serving God, not serving one's own passions and lusts. It is not without reason that the Holy Scriptures see a certain mystical aspect in marriage when they liken it to the union of Christ with the Church, that "bride of the Lamb" (Colossians 5.32).

This is why it is so essential that every couple entering into marriage should know and understand the great responsibility involved. Of course, one cannot understand the whole essence of Christian marriage all at once, because this is revealed gradually, in accordance with one's spiritual growth. Usually the husband and wife learn this as they grow "into the full stature of Christ" over the course of their whole lives together, if they are truly living members of the Church.

In speaking of entering marriage, it is essential to mention two abnormal phenomena that are very widespread among contemporary youth -- premarital liaisons and children born out of wedlock.

A priest rarely finds out about premarital liaisons. If he does, it is his duty to admonish the guilty parties in every way. His aim must be to persuade them either to enter into a lawful marriage or to put an end to their sinful union. When marriage is not possible, the pastor must insist that relations be broken off completely, and also that they repent, employing all possible means: involving the parents, public opinion in the parish, and penances, even to the forbidding of Communion. Usually liaisons of this kind do not last long and are soon broken off.

Sometimes such liaisons result in extra-marital pregnancy. In such cases the priest must determine the couple's intentions: is a lawful marriage possible or will the child remain illegitimate? If for some reason lawful marriage is impossible, then all the priest's attention must be focused upon the victim of the liaison -- the future mother.

In our contemporary unspiritual society the usual decisions are either abortion or, at best, to let the child be born and then have it adopted by others. However, the priest must convince the unmarried mother that both these recourses are sinful and that a truly Christian mother is obliged both to preserve her child and to bring it up herself, thereby redeeming her sin as far as possible.

In old Russia it was very hard for an unmarried mother to bring up her child by herself, and in addition, the child was deprived of certain rights, as one "born illegitimately." Furthermore he was despised by society to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, there were girls who resolved to raise an illegitimate child themselves. In my family, for example, I had an aunt, my mother's sister, who did just that, because she had firm Orthodox convictions, which she acquired in an orphanage. As a simple school mistress, she brought up her son, my cousin, by herself and she gave her maiden name as his surname. Our family greatly respected this self-denying aunt.

In contemporary America women have gained more rights, and having an illegitimate child is not as disgraceful as in former times. Previously, in such cases girls had recourse to abortions or adoption because it was difficult not only to get married, but even to find a decent job. Of course, this was not Christian, and even led to suicides. We have a beautiful example of a purely Christian attitude toward such a mother in the life of the Elder Ambrose of the Optina Hermitage. A girl who had been deceived by her fiance was expecting a child and although her parents were Orthodox, they simply threw her out of the house in accordance with the customs of those times. Taking the advice of some good people she went to Optina to see Fr. Ambrose. He advised her not to return to her parents but to go to the neighboring town and wait for her child to be born; in addition, then and there he gave her some money to live on. When her son was born, the Elder continued to help her materially and spiritually, and helped her bring up her son. They often visited the Elder until his very death, and the boy greatly loved Fr. Ambrose.

I remember another case, in our own times, when I was in a parish in England. An Orthodox Greek with a university degree had made the acquaintance of a girl, also Greek, in a refugee camp in Germany and had had an affair with her.

When he found out that she was pregnant he panicked and left for England where he found a good job. Meanwhile, the girl had given birth to a son and was appealing to him to return. He wavered for a long time but under the influence of certain believing people he returned to her in Greece two years later. As he left, he came to me for confession and told me all about it. A year later he sent me a photograph of himself with his wife and two children. He wrote that he was very happy with his wife.

Here again, a believing girl saved her child and brought her loved one back. This could hardly have happened if she had had an abortion or had her son adopted.

Therefore, a priest must try not only to save the child's life and the unmarried mother's soul, but also to help her either to find a husband or to bring up her child on her own in an Orthodox manner.

2. The Conditions for a Beneficial Orthodox Marriage

Any marriage requires a certain mutuality of interests and opinions. Admittedly, in our times there is the widespread opinion that the chief element is the feeling of love, and that it is upon this that a marriage should be built. This opinion is based upon the idea that the most important element of married life is the sexual. Experience shows otherwise: closeness of soul or a shared outlook on life do far more to bind a marriage together. Usually, sensuality gradually cools as the couple come to know each other more closely in the course of everyday life. If they then suddenly discover that they have no common outlook and that there is no mutual understanding between them, the husband lives by his interests, the wife by hers, and both begin to feel an inner dissatisfaction. This does not mean that they separate at once, but flowing from their basically sensuous values, it can lead to taking an interest in others of the opposite sex and infidelity often arises... A situation like this already threatens to destroy the family.

We have already said that this lack of understanding arises very frequently in mixed marriages, but this does not mean that it cannot happen to Orthodox couples. The devil, like a “roaring lion,” is walking about trying to destroy the marriages even of Orthodox couples.

Now, I do not mean to imply that a certain cooling of feelings always destroys a marriage. Fortunately, God did not create people only for sexual life; He also placed other aspirations within them, thanks to which even marriages which are not completely "successful" from the worldly point of view can be bound together more strongly.

First among these aspirations we must place the raising of children. Someone has correctly said that children are cement for a marriage, and indeed, children really do bring new interests and new aims into the couple's life. Then marriage loses a certain monotony and, I would say, its purely egoistic aspect. Petty arguments and quarrels come to an end, since the marriage acquires a wider meaning.

All thinkers agree that the appearance of children strengthens any marriage, and the Church considers that this is also a fulfillment of one of the main purposes of marriage. Therefore, deliberately to avoid having children is a dangerous perversion, amounting to a kind of "mutual egoism," which often leads to a feeling of emptiness and to the destruction of the marriage itself.

Of course, some marriages are naturally childless due to the infertility of one of the partners. Such marriages can be quite durable if the characters of the husband and wife are suited to each other. But it renders the marriage unfulfilled, as it were, and this often leads to divorce or coldness and indifference. Nevertheless, for the Church, the absence of children is not a ground for divorce; the marriage is considered to be blessed and indissoluble just as is any other marriage, although some contemporary secular laws regard childlessness as such ground.

In passing, it must be pointed out that the Church allows childless families to adopt orphans or children from poor families. In America this is a very widespread practice among childless couples and in those cases where the wife cannot give birth to normal children. From my personal experience in Canada I recall three instances when my spiritual children thought about adoption. As you may know, in the U.S. there are special agencies or state institutions which arrange adoptions, but in Canada a special division of the Ministry of Social Services is concerned with this. Parish priests are included among those who can recommend suitable adoptive parents. In two cases I recommended the young couples, each of whom received two children: now they are already grown. In the third case the couple was refused, as they were already middle-aged.

The second factor which binds a marriage more firmly is, strange as it may seem, simply being used to each other. Pushkin referred to this in Eugene Onegin when describing the Larin family:

Habit is given us from above

To take the place of happiness.

This has a psychological explanation in that, with the passage of time, the couple become so accustomed to their situation that even a marriage which is not altogether satisfactory will be preserved for a lifetime as they do not wish to run the risk of looking for anything better. Although there may be quarrels and misunderstandings, still a total separation does not occur.

What has been said so far concerns marriage in general. An Orthodox marriage has deeper foundations which we will find in the Holy Scriptures. Of the many passages which refer to marriage, I will touch on only a few from the Epistles.

1). Ephesians 5:22-33.

Here the Apostle depicts marriage in the image of Christ and the Church. "As Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it with the washing of water by the word" ... so must husbands love their wives. Here the Apostle is raising conjugal love to the highest level -- putting this ideal before every married couple.

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies... for no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church."

Here he is indicating that the husband's love must strive to protect his wife both physically and spiritually -- i.e., the couple must "work out their salvation" together.

The last verse, 33, emphasizes that conjugal love should be in fulfillment of God's commandment of love:

"Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself"; thus it is not fleshy egoism that we should find in marriage, but an implementation of the second of God's principal commandments. Of course, this love is not achieved at once, but gradually, over the course of one's entire married life.

2). I Corinthians 7:2-5.

Here the Apostle considers it necessary for every man to have his own wife and every woman to have her own husband, but he explains this necessity on practical grounds: to avoid fornication (v. 2). We all know how people become debauched and perish from a blind and unrestrained use of sexuality. We can see how many sufferings and crimes arise from this if we acquaint ourselves with police records and criminal statistics. I will mention only the chief ones: broken homes, abortions, venereal diseases, women's and childen's diseases, nervous disorders, murders and suicides... The normal marriage, blessed by God, was instituted to oppose all these perversions and abuses.

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband" (v. 3). In this way the husband and wife maintain their love and at the same time create the right conditions for their children to be born and brought up normally.

Let us take a look at verse five: "Deprive ye not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence."

It appears that Christian spouses must also have periods of abstinence. This is an important commandment of spiritual life, which the Apostle confirms in another epistle: "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor. Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles (pagans) which know not God" (I Thess. 4:4-5). This tells us that married couples must learn to master their instincts, so that their bodies submit to their spirit. In addition to abstinence that is required for natural reasons, the Church appoints days of abstinence for fasting and prayer.

I recall an incident of my youth which made an immense impression on me. My best friend at school had a sister, very beautiful, who married and went to live in a neighboring town. About a year later she reposed quite unexpectedly and my friend went to her funeral. He returned in a state of furious indignation against her husband, who had been the cause of her death. She was expecting a child, but her husband had not refrained from having sexual intercourse with her. As a result she gave birth prematurely, caught an infection of the blood and died. Thus an eighteen year old girl perished, and her husband was her murderer.

In another case I know of, a husband, due to his incontinence, let his wife have three pregnancies almost without any interval. As a result of this she developed tuberculosis and died, leaving him three little orphans.

3). The last passage I would like to look at is from I Peter 3:1, 2, 7.

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word (i.e., Christian teaching), they also may be won without the word by the conversation of their wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear" (v. 1-2).

The Apostle is emphasizing the possibility of the wife's influencing her husband if he is not religious enough. We know that not only can a husband save his unbelieving wife, but also a wife can influence her husband if he is indifferent to religion. Thus, in some cases, a difference of opinion between spouses can be corrected by the believing one.

Verse 7: "Likewise, ye husbands dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together in the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Here the Apostle is saying that it is essential to treat one's wife sensitively and considerately, in accordance with her psychology. We know that women are more vulnerable and sensitive than men and always expect men to be kind, considerate and protective. In the family life of Christians this is strengthened by their spiritual proximity, since the husband and wife are made one in Christ, fellow participants in the life of grace -- in the common life blessed by God. The Apostle adds: "that your prayers be not hindered." This is because in their spiritual lives the couple must constitute a "church at home" -- must turn to God together and serve Him together. How great is the loss to a Christian family if the husband and wife do not pray together! Common prayer unites them and restores all breaches in their mutual relationship.

From the texts we have cited we see that the Apostles see the main purpose of Christian marriage not in personal satisfaction, nor even in childbirth, but in the spouses helping each other to lead a pious Christian life. A union of this kind, based on a common faith, also creates the conditions essential for the other aims of marriage: both for healthy childbirth and for correct upbringing up one's children.

In Russian there is a wonderful word which hardly has any equivalent in English: zhalet.* In married life there is often not enough of this quality. Russian peasants in former times used to say, "He loves his wife, but he doesn't spare her" (i.e., he overburdens her with work, frequent pregnancies and so on). Of other husbands they would say "He loves his wife and he spares her..." This meant that the husband struggles with his male egoism and treats his wife kindly and considerately. It seems to me that the Apostle Peter is speaking of precisely this attitude, "according to knowledge", on the husband's part, of this considerate, protective love, which a woman values even more than sexual intimacy.

3. Childbirth and Bringing Up Children

The Roman Catholics consider that having children is the primary function of marriage, while Orthodoxy gives first place to its spiritual purpose -- leading a pious life. St. John Chrysostom writes that "giving birth to children is a matter of nature. Far more important is the parents' task of educating their children's hearts in virtue and piety." Consequently, only a spiritually healthy marriage ensures that one's offspring will have a healthy upbringing.

How many children there should be in a family is one of the most hotly disputed questions of our times. The complexity of contemporary city life makes it difficult to have and bring up a large number of children. Consequently, a great deal of consideration is now being given to methods of limiting childbirth.

Different faiths hold different positions on this question. Catholicism advocates large families, and so forbids abortions and all contraceptives. The Protestants give parents a great deal of freedom and allow them to decide these questions for themselves -- sometimes they even allow abortions to be performed. But here the Protestant communions are basing their ideas mainly on humanitarian and social considerations.

Proceeding to the Orthodox viewpoint, I will not touch on abortions at all, as they are obviously contrary to God's commandments. When we speak of contraceptives, we must first examine the grounds for limiting childbirth. They can be of a personal, family or social nature.

Personal reasons can be purely self-centered, such as when couples do not want to have any children at all so as not to complicate their married life. Such an outlook is unacceptable for us, as it rejects the spiritual aim of marriage. In addition, such marriages are often short-lived.

Family reasons can be more well-founded as, for instance, when parents try to limit the number of their children for the good of the whole family and so they can raise the children they have in the best possible way. Sometimes this is connected with the wife's state of health -- normal deliveries are not always possible.

The parents' responsibility for their children's upbringing and health also weighs against the Catholic view. Numerous pregnancies and anxieties for a large family often reflect on the mother's health and spiritual state. Orthodox views approach the question of the number of children more carefully, asserting that a Christian family is obliged to be more concerned about the quality of children than the quantity of them.

On the other hand, experience shows that small families cannot guarantee a good upbringing. It is well known that a single child in a family will grow up spoiled and egotistical and there is little to ensure that he will be well-behaved towards his parents. Generally speaking, large families accustom children to being concerned about the family, to sensitivity and a family spirit.

How many children should be considered sufficient? Nobody can give a precise indication, as the actual conditions of a given family have to be taken into account -- the parents' health, the family's material situation, whether there is a grandmother who can help the mother, and so on. Generally speaking, from a spiritual point of view one should try to have a large family, so that it will be durable and full of love, with all its members bearing the burdens of life together. Therefore, two or three children cannot be taken as the limit.

The other side of this problem is the question of contraception.

The Roman Catholic Church categorically forbids all methods of contraception except the "rhythm method" (using the periods when one's wife cannot conceive). At present there are many other purely artificial contraceptives; I do not consider that an analysis or critique of these is part of my task. Today I would like to mention that Christians may use the following natural methods for preventing further childbirth:

a) Total cessation of sexual activity ("He who can receive it, let him receive it");

b) Limiting sexual relations to a minimum;

c) Using the rhythm method.

These are the "ascetical" methods of avoiding childbirth which Orthodox couples can use without burdening their consciences.

Going on to the question of artificial prevention of pregnancy, we shall say that there must be serious reasons if the aforementioned natural methods are somehow unacceptable. One can only begin to think about them when the physical or moral well-being of the family demands it. For example, when further childbirth threatens the mother's health, or when healthy children cannot be born, or if the family's material circumstances cannot ensure normal birth or upbringing for the baby. Here it is impossible to give general rules. The question must be decided by the parents' conscience, and it is extremely desirable that their spiritual father should be involved in the discussion.

As a not uncommon example, I can point to cases in which a doctor concludes that a wife cannot be sure of giving birth in the normal way, but only by operation (a Caesarean section), which threatens the wife's health and even her life. A husband who spares his wife must think over the situation very carefully.

However, in talking about using artificial methods of contraception, we must bear in mind one factor about which people do not often speak. I want to emphasize the fact that none of these methods gives a 100 percent guarantee. A recent widespread investigation conducted by American doctors established that all these methods have a failure rate of between five and twenty-five per cent. Consequently, one has to bear in mind that pregnancy is possible. Then the family is faced with the question as to whether the fetus should be preserved. Ordinary American families which are not bound by any religious restrictions have recourse to abortion in such cases, but in an Orthodox family this decision is inadmissible.

Here we are approaching an evaluation of the "family planning" which is so widespread in America. "Rationally thinking" parents believe that they are quite independent as far as having children is concerned. But in reality it happens that God adds a corrective factor of his own and sends a child even when the parents do not want one. From the religious point of view, it is the Supreme Will which is here intervening in the life of man. In former times, when parents knew nothing about contraceptives, they relied exclusively on God's will. Children were born and they accepted the last one just as they had the first, saying "God gave the child, He will also give what we need for the child". Such was the faith of our ancestors in God's Providence, and it often happened that the last child proved to be the best or most necessary for the family.

If it is now difficult to expect all parents to be so completely resigned to God's will, yet, in a case of unexpected pregnancy they should see the intervention of God's Providence, and accept this child as a gift from above. Amazingly enough, I have observed God's real goodness in such cases, for such children are truly a blessing for the family -- either richly gifted or the most considerate, real protectors in the parents' old age.

I will briefly cite two vivid examples. In the Soviet Union a mother of three children lost her husband, a priest, who was exiled for ten years. All her neighbors advised an abortion, since it was very difficult to survive with four children at that time. However, the believing matushka refused an abortion and had her baby. It is true that she had to have her daughter fostered by a single woman, but five years later the war began and the matushka found herself in Germany with her two younger daughters. This last daughter was the more faithful and affectionate towards her both in Germany and in the United States, until she buried her mother in the cemetery at Novo-Diveyevo.

The other instance was also with a refugee family. The mother insisted on letting her third child, a girl, be born when this could have been forestalled. During the war the husband ended up abroad with the older children, but the youngest daughter alone remained with her in the Soviet Union and looked after her in her old age.

4. Reasons Why Marriages Fail

The reasons for this are very numerous. I will dwell only on the most important.

A. The couple grow cool towards one another. American psychologists consider that marriages go through their most critical period in the first three years and then in the tenth year. Statistics show that fifty per cent of all divorces occur in the first three years. We can assume that this occurs with those marriages that are contracted too early or hurriedly. The fact that fifty per cent of all marriages contracted before the age of twenty end in divorce also points to this. The older people are when they marry, the lower the percentage of divorces.

Obviously, we are dealing here with the causes of which we spoke in the first part: people who get married under the influence of passion or first impressions more often than not become disillusioned with one another. This is also the case with marriages where sexual relations are supposed to be most important. A marriage cannot last long on this alone, because there should also be other common interests between the husband and wife. Women in particular cannot be satisfied by sexuality alone. Surveys have shown that in marriage a woman seeks first of all emotional love; secondly, security; thirdly, friendship; fourthly, a home and family; fifthly, a place in society and only in last place -- physical intimacy with her husband. If a man does not understand this feature of his wife's psychology, then his marriage will be short-lived.

A priest cannot do much to help in such cases. Therefore he should concentrate on trying to avert early marriages, pointing out their risks and consequences.

A priest can help more in subsequent years, when even more natural marriages are threatened with divorce. In these cases it is necessary first of all to determine the fundamental cause that is destroying the integrity of the marriage. Most frequently it is one of those listed below.

B. Difference of opinions. Here we encounter inner disagreements, about questions of religion, for example, or the methods of bringing up children -- about the purposes of marriage in general. Mixed marriages suffer most often from discord of this kind, since there is no unity over the question of the children's religious upbringing.

The situation is the same when the couple belong to the same faith but are not on the same spiritual level. Here the pastor should advise the more indifferent spouse to leave the upbringing of the children to the other -- usually the mother, insofar as women are more religious than men. The same method can be used in a mixed marriage, where the guidance of the children's religious upbringing should remain in the Orthodox mother's hands. This is motivated by the children's interests, so as to avoid a duality in their religious upbringing.

The most difficult cases of disagreement in marriage occur when the husband, say, is a total unbeliever. If there are children in such cases, then the wife must have a great deal of support from the pastor, who must defend her rights to bring up her children in her own religion. If this does not succeed, a serious conflict may arise. If there are no children, then all attention must be transferred to the wife, to help her bear her heavy cross patiently. Here she needs deep faith and great humility. According to American law, a divorce is possible here, but from the Church's point of view it is inadmissible.

C. Unmatched character. This includes purely external, day to day, domestic disagreements. Often the temperaments of the couple suffer from these deficiencies of character. This falls heavily on the mother, and also on the children. In these cases the pastor has a large field of action for reconciliation and pacification of their family life. Without taking sides, the pastor should try to influence both -- to make one more restrained and peaceable, and the other more patient and humble. He must emphasize the bad influence that quarrels have on the children and how inadmissible they are in a Christian family. If the family is not very religious he must insist that they attend church more regularly and prepare for Communion more often.

Sometimes close relatives, such as the parents of the husband or wife, are mixed up in these family discords. In such cases, the priest must influence them also, pointing out how essential peace and concord are in an Orthodox family.

D. Unfaithfulness. This is hardly ever encountered in happy, pious families, but in unsuccessful families -- those suffering from one of the types of discord mentioned above -- one can always expect unfaithfulness, which can finally destroy a marriage. Therefore, a priest must pay closer attention to such families, so as to avert this, if possible.

We have already noted that absence of children, disagreement between husband and wife or cooling of feelings between them create the danger that they will be tempted to seek other attachments.

We must also make a distinction between incidental unfaithfulness and a serious feeling for another person, one that has acquired a lasting nature. If it is a chance case, the pastor must try to incline the deceived party towards forgiveness and reconciliation, and to restore mutual trust. If the infidelity comes to light at confession, then the matter can be limited to repentance and a penance, and telling the other party about it. If one party knows or suspects unfaithfulness, then it is best if the priest acts as an intermediary to reconcile them. Also, if the unfaithfulness was caused by some abnormality in the couple's relationship, it is essential to discuss it with them so as to remove the cause of infidelity for the future.

Often infidelity results from a long absence on the part of the husband, or from his being overburdened with work and so unable to pay sufficient attention to his wife and children. Here ways must be found to stop the wife from feeling neglected, albeit with a certain reduction in the husband's earnings. Similarly, the wife must not be so engrossed in her cares as a mother and housekeeper that she forgets about her husband.

The matter becomes more complicated when the wife gives birth to another man's child. Here the pastor must make every effort to ensure that things do not end in abortion. It is essential not only to preserve the child's life, but also to persuade the husband to accept him into the family. The moral basis for this is as follows: the child is not to blame that he came into the world through adultery, so it is better to accept him into the family than to leave him without a father or mother and thus ruin his life. If the baby is refused, the mother will grieve and suffer torments of conscience. But if the child remains in the family, then the mother will not only be calm, but she will also feel gratitude and respect towards her husband.

In pre-revolutionary Russia such cases were frequent when husbands were away for four or five years on military service. Usually, especially among the peasantry, husbands would accept such a child so as not to destroy the family. This was regarded as a good Christian act. I know of such instances from my own experience, and in large families this fact passed quite unnoticed by the other children. Nevertheless, the pastor must exhort the husband to take a perfectly normal attitude towards a child of this sort and never to reveal his birth.

It is harder to reconcile a childless couple when a child is born in this way. In my experience I have not had an instance of this sort, but I have heard that some husbands have accepted such a child in order not to distress the wife who, of course, had offered repentance for her infidelity.

In all cases cited above, the pastor's main aim has been to preserve the family and prevent divorce. It must be remembered that it is always the deceived party and, of course, the children who suffer from a divorce. Sometimes the party guilty of infidelity suffers too. Therefore, preserving even a marriage which is not entirely successful must be considered a great success on the part of the priest, who is preserving the children from the loss of a family, and the parents -- from the severe consequences of loneliness.

To this end the pastor must make use of all the methods of pastoral exhortation and also of prayer for couples that are at enmity. In the event of a reconciliation a moleben (service) of thanksgiving can be served, with the addition of prayers for the reconciliation of those at enmity, which are to be found in the Book of Needs.

5. Divorce

In this part I will be brief, as the divorce procedure is of formal nature and has an established order. Of course, even here the priest must try to dissuade both parties from divorce and reconcile them.

From the Orthodox point of view, a divorce is confirmed if a marriage blessed by the Church is destroyed. If it cannot be restored then it must be declared non-existent and the couple freed from the vows they have taken.

In accordance with the Church's canons, divorces are allowed in the following three cases: 1) If adultery has been committed; 2) If one of the spouses is absent without trace for more than three years; and 3) If the husband is incapable of conjugal cohabitation.

Divorce is within the competence of the ruling bishop. A petition for divorce is given to the bishop, who assigns an experienced priest to carry out an investigation of the matter -- to check the facts, gather testimony from witnesses, demand an explanation from the accused party, and so on. If possible, a last attempt at reconciliation is made, especially if there are children. After this the matter enters the Spiritual Court of the diocese, which can either confirm the divorce or return it for the gathering of supplementary data. Finally, the decision of the Spiritual Court is confirmed by the bishop.

It should be borne in mind that in the United States and Canada an ecclesiastical divorce is effectual only after a civil divorce has been obtained. Therefore, attempts at reconciliation must be made until the civil divorce is completed.

A divorced husband or wife, if not guilty of infidelity, can immediately enter into a new Christian marriage. But the guilty party can marry a second time only after the penance for adultery has been lifted.

 

* Zhalet means something between "to take pity on", “to take care of”, and "to spare". Here we have translated it as "to spare" for want of a better word. (Trans.)

Source: Orthodox Life, Volume 25, No. 5 (Sep.-Oct. 1975), pages 17-26, and Volume 25, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1975), pages 22-28. Minor typos corrected.

Interview with His Eminence Metropolitan Photios of Demetrias and Locum Tenens of Indonesia

Concerning the participation of the Orthodox Church of Indonesia in a Paschal event with heterodox Christians

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | May 9, 2026

 

 

Your Eminence, Christ is Risen!

During your visit to Indonesia, at the Priestly Assembly that took place, you explained to the clergy there the relevant canons which prohibit joint prayers with heterodox Christians. After your departure, we see that Orthodox clergy again participated in the event for the National Celebration of Easter, organized by the Forum of Christian Churches of Indonesia. Could you answer the following questions for us:

Was their participation in this meeting known to you?

Beloved Ioannis, Truly He is Risen!

I answer your questions:

I must be absolutely honest, and therefore the answer is yes: the meeting in question was known to me. On the very same day on which the Priestly Assembly of the Indonesian Orthodox Church [IOC] was taking place, the meeting of the Forum of Christian Churches of Indonesia [FCCI] was also taking place, without a representative of the Orthodox because of the Assembly, and it decided the manner of celebrating Indonesia’s National Easter. This was a multi-day sequence of various events, which was to include voluntary blood donation, the collection of humanitarian aid for the poor, even free ophthalmological cataract surgeries, as well as other charitable and social activities. It was also determined that the presidents of the legal entities participating in the FCCI would each individually, one by one, deliver a brief greeting with wishes for the people of Indonesia and a common blessing of the people present, while their secretaries would each give a lecture on the theme of the Resurrection. The limit of our relations with the heterodox, as had also been determined during the Assembly, is non-participation in common prayer. Consequently, I had permitted participation in the charitable activities, the individual greeting, and the lecture, but of course not participation in the common blessing; and I had given the instruction to avoid every kind of joint prayer.

How would you describe the basic pastoral goal you had in mind when you decided to accept such meetings?

The basic pastoral goal served by these meetings, especially the so-called National Feasts of Easter and Christmas, which are held on different days from the corresponding religious feasts of both the Orthodox and the Latins, is to establish in the consciousness of the Indonesian people that Christians too are an accepted and inseparable part of Indonesian society. For this reason, they were instituted by the government of the country, and either the President of the country himself or a high-ranking government official always participates, as in the present case the Minister of Religious Affairs. The Orthodox of this country have a great interest in the establishment of this mindset, which is opposed by fanatical Islamists, and for this reason they participate in the events. I did not disagree with this, but I set the “red lines” that must be observed.

Was there some specific need?

The specific need that meetings of this kind address is the healing of wounds from bloody conflicts, chiefly between Muslims and Christians. More specifically, on the island where this meeting took place this year, Sulawesi, bloody conflicts had occurred a few years earlier between Muslims and Christians, costing the lives of approximately 1,000 people. With a simple search on the internet, one can find detailed information about this.

Do you consider that these events correspond to a broader mission of the Church of Indonesia? If so, how do you define it?

The participation of the IOC in the FCCI is obligatory, necessary, and useful, not only for the faithful who are spiritually under our Church, but even more broadly for the faithful who have chosen to be under the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow. The Metropolises of Singapore of the two Patriarchates, to which the parishes that spiritually belong to them in Indonesia are subject, do not participate in the FCCI, although the Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Moscow participates as an observer in the organization PGI, which is represented in the FCCI. Nevertheless, their old parishes function with operating permits that they had from earlier times, when they still belonged to the Indonesian Orthodox Church. Initially, from 1987, when the then Fr. Daniel began his missionary work from nothing in Indonesia, all the Orthodox parishes that were being formed operated under the legal coverage of the legal entity IOC, which was established in 1991 and was then under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Under the legal coverage of the IOC, lawful operating permits for places of worship had been issued by the authorities. After the IOC came under the ROCOR[-MP] in 2005, certain clergy with their parishes continued to be under the Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but they retained the operating permits for their places of worship which they had secured from the previous status through the IOC. And since no report was made to the authorities concerning the severance of their relations with the IOC, which also makes their return to the IOC easier whenever they wish, as the Orthodox Community of Medan did last year, they continued to operate lawfully. The new parishes founded by the IOC while it was under the ROCOR received lawful operating permits from the Indonesian authorities. When the IOC came under the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece in 2019, again a portion of the clergy and parishes remained under the ROCOR. But immediately, the Patriarchate of Moscow removed the jurisdiction over Indonesia from the ROCOR and placed it under the Russian Metropolis of Singapore. The parishes that had been licensed under the legal coverage of the IOC were not reported to the authorities as having severed their relations with the IOC, and they continue to operate with the old permits they had from before. Any new parishes or communities that were created by the Singapore Metropolises of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow do not have a lawful operating permit for a place of worship from the authorities, but operate in private chapels, usually rooms inside houses, and it is forbidden for public worship to be conducted in them. If it is discovered, following a complaint, that public worship is being conducted in them, then the authorities close those places.

Consequently, the participation of the IOC in the FCCI serves the broader mission of the lawful operation of places of worship for all Orthodox Christians active in Indonesia.

If you found that a large portion of your faithful had difficulty understanding or accepting these actions, would you reconsider your stance? By what criteria?

I believe that you are referring to the faithful outside Indonesia, because those within Indonesia fully understand the conditions of their country and the necessity of the IOC’s participation in the FCCI and in its activities. Naturally, this participation must take place with discernment, and certainly in some of the FCCI’s activities there must be no participation, such as in the Week of Prayer for the Unity of the Churches. This has already been discussed, and it remains to be implemented. Now, in the remaining meetings there must be participation, but without condemnable joint prayers and rituals.

The snapshot photographs which you recently published from the events of the National Feast of Easter on the island of Sulawesi must be investigated in accordance with the broader circumstances of what was taking place at the moment when they were taken. That is, in which of them the persons depicted were standing together simply for a common photograph, in which they were standing while waiting for something or someone, and in which there was indeed some common prayer taking place. The matter has already begun to be investigated, but certain details must be cross-checked, and a Holy Synod will certainly be called to evaluate them. In this process, your cooperation would be very valuable.

In any case, however, I already ask forgiveness for the scandal that was caused, because I understand that common photographs of Orthodox clergy together with heretics, even in the most favorable version, outside a prayerful context, create unfavorable impressions.

In closing, I state that I remain at your disposal to answer any additional question you may have.

We thank you, Your Eminence, for the time and the clarifications you have granted us. Christ is Risen!

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/05/blog-post_9.html

 

Resolution of the Moscow Conference of the Heads of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches on the Question of the Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church

July 17, 1948

 

 

We have arrived at a full and complete understanding, that at the present time the influence of the non-Orthodox is directed upon the Orthodox Church from at least two sides.

On the one hand, the head of the Roman Catholic Church (in the person of the Pope) having lost, as it were, the feeling of a saving faith in the invincibility of the Church of Christ by the gates of hell, and being concerned with maintaining earthly authority by following the line of utilizing political ties with the great ones of this world, is trying to tempt the Orthodox Church to an agreement with her. The Papacy tries to achieve this latter aim by creating various forms of unifying organizations, which tend in this direction.

On the other hand, Protestantism, in all its multiformity and division into sects and movements, has lost faith in the eternal nature and the immutability of Christian ideals, in its proud disdain of Apostolic rules and of those of the ancient Fathers, and strives to enter upon a way of resistance to Roman Papalism. Protestantism seeks an ally for this struggle in the Orthodox Church so as to acquire for itself the significance of an influential international force.

And here Orthodoxy will be faced with an even greater temptation, that of evading the search for the Kingdom of God and of entering into a political realm which is so alien to it. Such is the practical task of the ecumenical movement today.

Together with Orthodoxy proper, other Churches are subjected to the same kind of influence—the Armeno-Gregorian, the Syro- Jacobite, the Abyssinian, the Coptic and Syro-Chaldean non- Roman Churches, and also the Old Catholic Church, so closely related to Orthodoxy.

Taking into consideration that:

(a) The aims of the ecumenical movement, as expressed in the formation of the ‘World Council of Churches’, with the further aim of organizing an ‘Ecumenical Church’, in our contemporary sphere, do not correspond to the ideal of Christianity or to the aims of the Church of Christ, as understood by the Orthodox Church.

(b) The directing of their efforts into the main stream of social and political life, and to the creating of an ‘Ecumenical Church’ as an important international power, appear to be, as it were, a falling into that temptation which was rejected by Christ in the. desert, and a turning of the Church on to the path of attempting to catch human souls in the nets of Christ by un-Christian methods.

(c) The Ecumenical movement, in its present plan of work in the ‘World Council of Churches’, unfavourably for the Church of Christ and far too prematurely, has renounced its confidence in the possibility of reunion within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The predominantly Protestant membership of the Edinburgh Conference in 1937, either having failed or anticipating failure, hastened to close down any efforts towards the achievement of the reunion of the Churches through grace. For the sake of self-preservation Protestantism followed along the line of least resistance, along a path of abstract ‘unionism’, based on social-economic and even political foundations. This movement has even based its further work on the theory of the creation of a new external apparatus, “The Ecumenical Church’, as an institution within the State, which is in one way or another tied to it and which possesses secular influence.

(d) In the course of the whole of the last ten years (from 1937 to 1948 inclusive) the theme of the reunion of the Churches on dogmatic and doctrinal grounds, so far as documents show, is no longer discussed, only a secondary pedagogical significance is ascribed to it for some future generation. Thus our contemporary ecumenical movement does not safeguard the task of the reunion of the Churches by the way and means of grace.

(e) The lowering of the requirements for conditions of unity to a single one, namely that of recognizing Jesus Christ as Our Lord, debases Christian doctrine to the kind of faith which, according to the Apostle, is available to devils (James ii, 19; Matthew viii, 29; Mark v, 7). Hence, making a statement about this present-day situation, our Council of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, having called in prayer for the help of the Holy Spirit, has resolved as follows:

To inform the ‘World Council of Churches’, in reply to the invitation sent to all of us to participate in the Amsterdam Assembly as its members, that all the Orthodox National Churches, which are participating in the present Conference, are obliged to refuse to take any part in the ecumenical movement in its present-day shape.

(Signed) humble ALEXEI, by the mercy of God Patriarch of Moscow and of all Russia.

humble CALLISTRAT, Catholicos Patriarch of all Georgia.

A.E.M. Patriarch of Serbia, GABRIEL.

humble JUSTINIAN, by God’s mercy Patriarch of Rumania.

humble STEPHAN, Exarch of Bulgaria.

From the Church of Antioch:

Metropolitan of Emessa, ALEXANDER;

Metropolitan of the Lebanon, ELIJAH.

From the Church of Alexandria:

Metropolitan of Emessa, ALEXANDER; Metropolitan of the Lebanon, ELIJAH.

From the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church:

humble TIMOTHY Archbishop of Byelostock and Belsk.

From the Albanian Orthodox Church:

Bishop of Korchinsk PAISSY.

The Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate in Czechoslovakia, ELEUTHERIUS, Archbishop of Prague and Czechoslovakia.

The Armenian Church joins the above in this decision on the question of the ecumenical movement.

(Signed) GEORGE VI, Catholicos of all Armenians.

 

Source: Documents on Christian Unity, Fourth Series, 1948-1957, edited by G. K. A. Bell, Oxford University Press, London, 1958, pp. 33-35.

Ethnicity and Orthodoxy

We are often astounded at the number of letters we receive from converts to the Orthodox Church who express absolute outrage at the idea that we refer to American Orthodoxy as immature and the Orthodoxy in Greece, Russia, Romania, Serbia, and so on as an example to be drawn on. Often the nastiness towards ethnic Orthodox —what one Priest recently called "ethnic bashing"— is so extreme that it goes beyond the boundaries of common civility. The consequent feelings of hatred and disdain towards "ethnic Orthodox" thwart objective thought about this issue and more often than not preclude further dialogue. This is unfortunate.

We recently saw a statement by the late Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina rather misleadingly used to suggest that Christianity is meant to change people, not society. At a basic level, since people do, indeed, constitute society, the Christian journey begins with individuals; but it triumphs in our common salvation. As Khomiakov the Russian philosopher noted, in an oft-cited aphorism, we may be lost individually, but we are saved only together. After all, this vision of God's people is as old as the covenant between God and the Jews. And just as the Jews passed on the fruits of that covenant to the New Israel, so in modern times —like it or not— the West, which lost and squandered its Orthodoxy, inherited from Byzantium and from the Eastern European Churches the treasury of Orthodoxy. Those who cannot accept this are not mature Christians. Those who do not appreciate it are poor receivers.

Talk about "those Greeks," "the Russians," etc. in deprecating terms is un-Christian. Certainly ethnic Orthodox are not all good members of the Church. And certainly many converts surpass them in piety. But the ethnics are the hosts and the converts are the guests. Those who fail to see this also fail to learn the lesson in humility contained in the Gospel accounts of Christ's statement to the Greek woman who asked that He heal her demonized daughter: that the children's bread should not be cast to dogs. Rather than expressing rage at being called a dog, the woman humbly told Christ that the dogs under the table also eat of the children's crumbs. Thereupon, "for this saying" [St. Mark 7:29], her daughter was healed. Such humility can quickly heal the strife between so-called "ethnic Orthodox" and converts, too, for it demonstrates the great error of those who demand rights and equality in a realm where privilege should always succumb to humility and submission.

Using the word "Byzantine" in an anti-Orthodox, polemical way, denigrating those who, however imperfect in their Faith, have bequeathed that Faith to a lost West, and insulting others because they may have insulted you — these things are not, again, Orthodox. Nor are they basically Christian.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VI (1989), No. 1, p. 2.

Friday, May 8, 2026

The Father of Rusyn Orthodoxy in America


 

The chief credit for the reunion with the Orthodox Church of a significant portion of the Carpatho-Rusyn and Galician emigrants in North America belongs to the “father of Rusyn America,” Protopresbyter Alexis Toth/Tovt (1854–1909), formerly a professor of canon law at the Greek-Catholic seminary in Prešov.

Alexis Toth was born on March 14, 1853, into the family of the Rusyn Greek-Catholic priest George, not far from the city of Prešov in northeastern Slovakia, which at that time was part of Austria-Hungary. His brother was also a priest, and his uncle was a bishop in Prešov. He received his theological education at the Roman Catholic seminary in the city of Esztergom and at the Uniate seminary in the city of Ungvár. He served as rector of a Uniate parish and held the post of director and professor of the seminary in Prešov. Having been widowed and being childless, he received an appointment to America, where he arrived in 1889 and began serving in the Rusyn parish in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the simple Rusyn people of Galicia and Transcarpathia, despite their formal Uniatism, continued to adhere to the “old faith,” as Orthodoxy was called there. In the parishes the Julian calendar and the Church Slavonic language in divine services were preserved, along with the ecclesiastical chants traditional for that region, the rites, and ancient iconography. The divine services helped them preserve their native spirit and resist Catholicization, Polonization, and Magyarization up to the beginning of the twentieth century.

The Austro-Hungarian state reduced the Rusyns to such poverty that, fleeing death by starvation, tens of thousands of Galicians and Carpatho-Rusyns streamed into North America, where they realized that they had been confused and deceived in their homeland. This is precisely why they returned en masse from Uniatism to the faith of their forefathers — to true Orthodoxy. In all, during the period from 1891 until the First World War, about 120 Uniate Carpatho-Rusyn parishes, numbering around 90,000 faithful, were reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church in America.

And this return to the native Orthodox Church began in 1891, when Father Alexis Toth, together with his parish, was reunited with Orthodoxy. At that time, misunderstandings began between him and the Roman Catholic bishop of the local diocese, to whom he was supposed to be subject. This bishop was a supporter of Americanization and of the unification of the rite of the Catholic Church in America, and he also had a negative attitude toward married clergy, non-Latin worship, and Uniatism as such. Father Alexis came to the conclusion that the only way out of the conflict was a return to the bosom of the Orthodox Russian Church.

“When I saw and heard all this, then I resolved upon what had long been living in my heart, and because of which my soul had been aching… to be Orthodox… but how?… It was necessary to be very cautious. That unfortunate union — the beginning of decline and of every evil — had taken deep root among our people; 250 years had passed since this yoke was laid upon our necks!… I fervently prayed to God that He would give me help and strength to enlighten my darkened faithful… In this matter the parishioners themselves helped me. When I summoned my parishioners, explained to them my sorrowful situation, and declared that nothing remained but to leave them, some of them said: ‘No, let us go to the Russian bishop; we cannot forever bow down to strangers!’” [1]

In 1891, the first 365 Carpatho-Rusyns followed him.

In San Francisco, where since 1872 the center of the only diocese of the Orthodox Russian Church in America at that time had been located, the first meeting of Father Alexis Toth with Vladimir Sokolovsky-Avtonomov, Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska from December 12, 1887, to June 8, 1891, and a native of the Poltava region, took place in February 1891. A month later the Russian hierarch arrived in Minneapolis and, on March 25, 1891, received the rector, together with his entire parish, into the Orthodox Church. On July 14, 1892, the Holy Synod of the Russian Church officially confirmed the reception of Father Alexis and his parishioners into the Aleutian and Alaskan Diocese. Bishop Vladimir appointed him dean and also entrusted him with the parish in Chicago. Father Alexis’s parish became the first Orthodox parish in the entire area between San Francisco and New York.

In the early period, Protopresbyter Alexis and his parishioners had to face open religious and national hostility. He was accused of selling his faith and his Rusyn birthright to the “Muscovites” for money. However, for a year and a half he received no salary at all from the Synod in Russia, and in order to support himself he was forced to work in a bakery. The conversion of Father Alexis Toth’s parish to Orthodoxy served as an example for many Uniate communities in the United States and Canada.

Father Alexis knew Hungarian, Carpatho-Rusyn, Russian, German, and Latin. Father Alexis’s best-known book was Where to Seek the Truth?, which was reprinted several times in several languages, serving as an Orthodox catechism for former Uniates. For his labors in the field of establishing Orthodoxy in America, Father Alexis was awarded the mitre by the Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church, and from Emperor Nicholas II he was honored with the Orders of St. Vladimir, 4th and 3rd Class, and of St. Anna, 3rd and 2nd Class. In 1907, St. Tikhon Bellavin proposed that he become a vicar bishop of the diocese of the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in America for the Rusyns, but he declined, citing his advanced age. In 1909, shortly before his repose, Father Alexis was elevated to the rank of protopresbyter.

Father Alexis Toth reposed on May 7, New Style, April 24, Old Style, 1909. In 1916, seven years after the repose of Father Alexis Toth, his body was reinterred in a special crypt behind the altar wall of the main church of St. Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. At that time, it was found to be incorrupt. In 1994, Father Alexis’s coffin was opened once more, and again his body was found incorrupt. On May 29, 1994, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Orthodoxy in America, he was glorified among the saints by the Orthodox Church in America, his feast day being May 7, as the “Father of American Orthodoxy” and “Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy in North America.”

The canonization of Protopresbyter Alexis took place on May 29–30, 1994, at St. Tikhon’s Monastery, where his holy relics rest in a reliquary by the iconostasis inside the monastery church. A particle of the relics of righteous Alexis is located in the Orthodox Church of the Holy Great-Martyr George in Lviv. Father Alexis is venerated not only in Transcarpathia, but also in the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

This holy Enlightener of the Uniates bears witness that the return of the Rusyns to Orthodoxy, including in Galicia, before 1946 was voluntary, and that the Russian Orthodox Church was reborn in Western Rus’, where it had been native since the time of the holy Prince Vladimir, not “with the help of Stalinist-Soviet tanks,” but as the result of God’s Providence and of the conscious striving of many Galicians toward Orthodoxy. [2] At the very beginning of the twentieth century, Orthodoxy reached Galicia not only across the border with Russia, but also to a considerable extent across the ocean — through emigrants returning from America. At [Uniate Metropolitan Andrey] Sheptytsky’s demand, the Uniate priests took an oath from emigrants before their departure for work, that they would not convert to Orthodoxy in America. Despite this, the settlers returned en masse to the faith of their forefathers, and upon arriving in New York their first act was to come to an Orthodox church and demand from the Orthodox priest release from the oath previously given under compulsion. [3]

According to the recollections of Archbishop Vitaly Maximenkov of Eastern America and New Jersey (1873–1960), who arrived in New York in October 1934 from Carpathian Rus’, his “American Orthodox flock consisted 80% of Carpatho-Rusyns and Galicians.” [4] In the 1930s, in the Carpathian region, for example in Maramureș, which after the First World War was incorporated into Czechoslovakia, conversions from Uniatism to Orthodoxy took on a mass character. In Galicia, the Polish authorities placed various obstacles in the way of reunion with the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, in Lemkovyna and Galicia, from 1923 to 1929, the number of those who returned to Orthodoxy was about 30,000 people, and by 1933 this figure had increased to 60,000 people.

 

1. Memoirs of Father A. Toth. From the book by Protopresbyter Peter Kohanik, The Beginning of the History of American Rus’. [Connecticut: Petr Gardy Publishing, 1970], p. 488.

2. Frolov, Kirill Aleksandrovich. Carpatho-Russian Moscophilism — a “Blank Spot” in National History and Culture. // Institute of CIS Countries. Institute of Diaspora and Integration. Information-Analytical Bulletin. No. 6 (May 19, 2000). http://www.zatulin.ru/institute/sbornik/006/01.shtml

3. An Independent Church. http://do.znate.ru/docs/index-3124.html?page=7

4. Frolov, K. Saint Alexis Toth — Spiritual Leader of the American Carpatho-Rusyns // http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/sv/svalexiytovt.htm; Protopresbyter Gabriel Kostelnik and the Lviv Council of 1946 // The Union in the Twentieth Century. http://unia-vs.narod.ru/material/kost.htm; Sulyak, S. G. The Rusyns in History: Past and Present (II)http://odnarodyna.com.ua/content/rusiny-v-istorii-proshloe-i-nastoyashchee-ii; Mironov, Gregory. A Divided People. Rusyn American Rus’. Part 1. http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/09/12/razdelennyj_narod/ Part 2. http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/10/14/razdelennyj_narod/

 

Russian source: https://www.orthodox-canada.com/ru/russkiy-otets-pravoslaviya-v-amerike/

 

A Pastoral View of Marriage and Marital Problems

by Archpriest Sergei Shukin   A talk given at Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY, May 17/30, 1975. Introduction By way of intro...