Miracle In Moscow

(No matter how this miracle is interpreted, it manifested first in the private home of a servant of God in the MP in 1998. Considering this, it shows us the Royal Path regarding how we should view the MP. -jh)

MIRACLE IN MOSCOW

Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.

***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.

As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.

The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)

Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."

"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."

***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.

The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.

On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.

***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.

All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.

To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.

The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,

"All those have sinned against him (the Tsar-Martyr) and against Russia who, in one way or another, either moved against him; or who did not oppose this action; or who, even out of sympathy with it, thus took part (vicariously) in that event which occurred many years ago. This sin lies upon all, until that time when it is washed away by genuine and sincere repentance."

How many there are yet in Russia of those who labor tirelessly to blacken the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, sparing no efforts to prevent his universal glorification! How many there are in our midst who, on more than one occasion, have spoken sympathetically of this regicide, repeating fables about "Bloody Nicholas" and unfounded gossip concerning Rasputin, exclaiming: "What kind of saint was the Czar'?!" Even amongst today's zealous defenders of the veneration of the Tsar'-Martyr there are not a few who for years had to scrour away their former blasphemously contemptible and narrow-minded prejudices. And who among us has not sinned through treacherous silence when we listened to the slander poured out against the Royal Martyrs and did nothing to silence lying lips with the word of truth. We must not be deceived, regicide is a fearsome sin, one which, as before, continues to weigh heavily upon our people. It is only through sincere and tearful repentance that we can shake off its burden. If a penitential prayer for the forgiveness of her sins, offered up by one, single, devout woman, had as its consequence the manifestation of a myrrh-streaming ikon, then the repentance of each and every one of us is not pointless, but something laden with great significance, and something that, through the prayers of holy Czar'-Martyr Nicholas, will not remain fruitless before God.

O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!

source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery

An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html

AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER

This position paper, composed in 1984 by Metropolitan Cyprian and the Fathers of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, is perhaps the most articulate contemporary ecclesiological document issued by any Old Calendarist group in Greece. Its general tone and the trenchant use of Patristic and Church historical sources are elements which commend it to a general Orthodox audience. Its appealing and reasonable arguments have met with general approval in Greece, both among Old and New Calendarists of moderate inclinations.


AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
For Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism
by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili


The Church and Heresy.

We believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 99 “The Church in the Heavens and that on earth” are “one,” 100 “even if the latter is designated according to different localities,” 101 as, for example, the Churches of “Galatia,” 102 the Church in “Ephesus,” 103 or the “Church of Greece.” There is “one Lord” of the Orthodox Church, our Lord Jesus Christ. There is “one Faith” in the Church, the Orthodoxy of the God-inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the God-bearing Fathers. There is but one “Baptism”104 unto salvation, that of Orthodox Baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 105

The Orthodox Church as a whole is unerring and invincible: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”106 says the Lord, the Ruler of All. It is possible, however, for Christians and for local Churches to fall in faith; that is to say, it is possible for them to suffer spiritually and for one to see a certain “siege of illness within the body of the Church,” as St. John Chrysostom says. 107 It is possible for Christians to separate and for “divisions” to appear within the Church, as the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. 108 It is possible for local Churches to fall into heresy, as occurred in the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the heresies of Papism and Protestantism and finally into the panheresy of ecumenism.

Spiritual maladies within the Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming. As is well known, in the Scriptures, the Church is likened to a field replete with “wheat” and “tares,”109 in ac- cordance with Divine and ecclesiastical economy. Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsen- tenced members are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, as, for example, the President of the Synod, St. Tarasios, remarks: “[their] Ordination” “is from God.” 110 By contrast, should expositors of heresy punish the Orthodox opposed to them, these punishments are ecclesiastically invalid and groundless “from the time their preaching began” (i.e., from the moment they began preaching heresy), as St. Celestine of Rome wrote and as the Third Ecumenical Synod agreed.111


Those in Opposition and Union.

Orthodox Christians have an evangelical and canonical right to wall themselves off: that is to say, to break ecclesiastical communion with and comme- moration of a Bishop who preaches “heresy” “publicly” “and bareheaded in the Church,”112 or who is blameworthy, in that he errs unrepentantly “in point of piety and righteousness,” as the Thirty-First Apostolic Canon states 113—namely, when the Bishop acts “contrary to duty and justice,” as Zonaras the canon lawyer explains. 114 If a Bishop or clergyman is “evil” “with regard to the Faith, leave and abandon him, not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven,” says St. John Chrysostom.115

Those Orthodox who have canonically separated themselves in this way, in keeping with the holy canons, are not subject to “canonical punishment,” but are even worthy of ecclesiastical “honor” “befitting those of right belief.” They are honored as worthy Orthodox since “they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” 116 That is, “they have caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism [of her pseudo-Bishops],” Zonaras again observes.117 He who preaches heresy or he who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church. The aim of opposition and separation is the combatting of heresy, the defense of the Orthodox Faith, and the preservation of the unity of the Orthodox Church, indeed of Orthodoxy itself.


The Division in the Church over Ecumenism.

Today, the Church of Greece is, unfortunately, divided and ailing. In the year
1924, dark powers divided her through the thirteen-day inno- vation in the festal calendar. This innovation resembles the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy. The iconoclastic heresy raged in its desire to abolish the sacred Icons. However, it was related not “only to the veneration of Icons, but, more broadly, was a religious and ecclesiastical reformation.” 118 It was, truly, a “transmutation of all things into ungodliness,” as St. Theodore the Studite characterized it. 119 Yet the current innovation in the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is, however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy. It embodies the “overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”120 as St. Theodore writes again regarding the Moechian** controversy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, abolished the law of God.

With regard to the innovation in the festal calendar, Orthodox are divided into two parts: into those who are ailing in Faith and those who are healthy, into innovators and opposers—into followers of innovation, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, and those opposed, who have separated themselves from heresy, in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter are strugglers for oneness among the “divided,” as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 121 calls those who so separated for the Orthodox unity of the Church. The followers of the festal calendar innovation have not yet been specifically judged in a Pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for by the Orthodox Church. As St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain writes, the violator of established precepts is considered sen- tenced, insofar as he is judged by “the second entity (which is the council or synod).”122 Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Synods, both Œcumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this respect, those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have actually broken communion “before [a] conciliar or synodal verdict,” as is allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.123 That is to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, their Mysteries are valid, the punishments perchance imposed by them against those in opposition are invalid and groundless, and their repentance and restoration to Orthodoxy are easy, should they wish this blessed return.


Repentance and Return.

Every innovationist member of the divided Greek Church is capable of changing over to opposition against the Ecumenist innovation. This can be accomplished through repentance, as has always taken place in Orthodoxy. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, we read that certain Bishops proclaimed: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness.” “And having stood up, the revered Bishop Juvenal, along with the others, went over to the other side,” that is, to the side of the Orthodox. “And the Easterners, along with their pious Bishops, cried out, ‘Welcome, Orthodox, God has rightly brought you.’” 124 Hence, they were received through their repentance and by their having approached the Orthodox. We see a similar manner of return in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. St. Tarasios, President of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, tells us that the “majority” of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod “had been Consecrated” by heretics—indeed, by “the leaders of the monothelitic heresy.”125 However, by their having approached [the Synod] they were enrolled in Orthodoxy.


A return to Orthodoxy can also take place through a formal renunciation of heresy. St. Meletios of Antioch was Consecrated by heretics—the so-called “new heretics,” since they had not yet come to trial. 126 Since, however, he supported Orthodoxy in his address at his enthronement, he was considered the leader of the Orthodox of Antioch and later became the President of the Second Œcumenical Synod. Thus he was received into Orthodoxy by confession and by preaching the Orthodox Faith. The same also occurred later. The Seventh Œcumenical Synod invoked a pertinent passage “from the life of our Holy Father Sabbas.” In this passage, it is related that the monastic leaders St. Sabbas and St. Theodore, along with the monastics under them, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem—who had previously been in agreement with the arch-heretic Severos—, after the Archbishop verbally renounced the latter’s heresy.127 And at the same Synod, the chief representative of the heresy of iconoclasm, Gregory of Neocaesareae, was received as a member of the synod through an examination of his corrected opinions and previous libel and by his renunciation of this great heresy.128


Therefore, the Orthodox Tradition of the Holy Œcumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial. The working-out of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, to the pious judgment of the Orthodox Bishop whose acts are in keeping with the Divine, or to a spiritual child appointed by him. The Faithful are obliged to receive these God-pleasing acts of economy by the Shepherds of God as a process for the perfecting of sinners, in accord with the Will of Christ our Savior, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of thetruth.”129 And we also have the divine commandment, which tells us: “Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”130 “Every one of you,” writes St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, “follow” the Orthodox Bishop and the Presbyters. For “whatever he should approve,” this “is pleasing to God also.” 131


Towards a Unifying Synod.

Obviously, insofar as the Greek Church is divided today, the Holy Synod of the united Greek Church, as it was before the innovation of 1924, cannot be con- vened. As has always happened in the Orthodox Church, the convocation of this Synod will be made possible only when those who are divided are united in Orthodoxy.

During the reign of the iconoclastic innovation, for example, it was impossible for an Orthodox Synod of the entire Church to be convened. For this reason, such a Synod was convened when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, that is, in 787, as the Seventh Œcumenical Synod of union. The same Seventh Œcumenical Synod writes through its Fathers that the Synod took place “so that we might change the discord of controversy into concord, that the dividing wall of enmity might be removed and that the original rulings of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church might be validated.” 132 That is, it was convened so that the differing factions of the Church, divided up to the time of the Synod—the Iconoclasts disagreeing with the Orthodox belief and the Orthodox opposed to the iconoclastic heresy—, might be united by means of an agreement within Orthodoxy.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece” is not the Synod of the united Greek Church. This is a Synod in ecclesiastical discord and marked by innovation. Her acts and decisions with regard to the changing of the festal calendar and Papal heresy—or, more generally, the heresy of ecumenism— place her, assuredly, in the category of the more ancient, heresy- befriending or heretical councils that were convened before the Ecumenical Synods, as, for example, the iconoclastic council of 754, convened on behalf of the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy, 133 and condemned by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod.

But neither do the Holy Synods of the opposers of inno- vations in the festal calendar and ecumenism constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church of Greece. In agreement with evangelical and canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the walling-off and the struggle against heresy, by the Orthodox in opposition to these things, are aimed at saving the unity of the Church’s Faith and at the union of the divided Greek Church through a unifying Synod. As it has been said, such “have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”134 Insofar, then, as a unifying Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of the Church.


The Need for Orthodox Opposition.

What is preeminently required, therefore, is not the administrative organization of those in opposition to innovation, as though they alone constituted the whole Greek Church, but rather the fight against heresy by Orthodox, as the Saints practiced and taught such in times past. “There is a need, then, for a great and lawful struggle,” said St. Basil in a time that parallels our own.135 Indeed, there is a need for a great struggle that conforms to evangelical and canonical law, to the acts of the Saints, and to legitimate state legislation.

Every unifying Œcumenical Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood opposed to heresy. The first Œcumenical Synod came about especially as a result of the faithful struggles of St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasios the Great. The Second Œcumenical Synod was the result of the particular struggles of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The third Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special efforts of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome. The Fourth and Fifth Œcumenical Synods grew forth from the efforts of Orthodox who did not rest, but who struggled for the Orthodox Faith “unto death.”136 The Sixth Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special struggles of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The Seventh Œcume- nical Synod was the outcome of the efforts of St. John of Damascus and other Saints.

Today, also, we will attain to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy; a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints; collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in the Orthodox Faith and in the love “of the truth,” as the Apostle Paul says; 137 and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar and, more generally, ecumenism. The fight must be strong, lawful, and unto death. For, “be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” says the Lord of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.138

[Translated from the Greek by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna.]

——————

** A theological and political dispute involving Emperor Constantine VI and his divorce and remarriage to his mother’s lady-in-waiting. St. Theodore the Studite vehemently opposed the Emperor’s remarriage as adulterous and illicit by Church law. [See comments above, Chapter I.]

Source: Patrick G. Barker, A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resist- ance (Etna, California: C.T.O.S., 1994), pp. 57-66.

See Also: THE TRUE MEANING OF CANONICITY
http://rocorrefugeesreadmore.blogspot.com/2008/08/true-meaning-of-canonicity.html

++++++++

99 The Symbol of the Faith.
100 The Acts and Pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Synod, PM, 2, 889.
101 St. Basil the Great, PG, 32, 629.
102 Gal. 1: 2.
103 Rev. 2:1.
104 Eph. 4:5.
105 St. Mt. 28:19.
106 St. Mt. 16:18.
107 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 48, 844.
108 I Cor. 1:10–14.
109 St. Mt. 13:20–30.
110 Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 12, 1042.
111 St. Celestine of Rome, PM, 4, 1045.
112 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
113 Thirty-First Apostolic Canon.
114 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 40.
115 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 63, 231.
116 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
117 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 694.
118 B. Stephanidou, Ecclesiastical History [in Greek], Athens, 1970, p. 256.
119 St. Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1164.
120 Ibid., 1025.
121 Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 13, 408.
122 St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, The Rudder [in Greek], p. 19 [5].
123 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
124 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1034.
125 Ibid., 1047.
126 St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, PG, 42, 429.
127 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1042–1046.
128 Ibid., 1115–1119.
129 I Tim. 2:4.
130 Rom. 14:1.
131 St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, Bepes, 2, 281 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8].
132 Letter, op. cit., 408.
133 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 397.
134 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
135 St. Basil the Great, PG, 31, 1540.
136 Rev. 2:10.
137 II Thes. 2:10.
138 Rev. 2:10.

SIR Does Too Have Grace

A Testimony

The Anti-Cyprianites are not going to like this. They have it all figured out from the canons that the Cyprianites are heretics and can't possibly have grace. They are simply wrong. Something is missing in their logic. I do not know what it is, their logic seems sound to me. But something has to be wrong, because grace IS there. I'm a witness to it.

When St. Vladimir's envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth..." that was not just a poetic description of their joy and awe. And it was not because they were overwhelmed with the beauty of the icons, the chanting, the fragrant incense, the peaceful expressions on faces of the worshippers, the majesty of the service.

What struck them was that they found themselves in a "place" where the line between heaven and earth is indistinct. Through no effort of their own, and without expectation, they found themselves in a place where time and thought are suspended. A silencing of all inner strife, profound peace. Effortlessly your whole being becomes an active state of prayer and worship. There is no time or room for anything else. There is nothing like it on earth and no way to describe it with words. It is as the envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth." Because it is being both in heaven and on earth at the same time. And "earth" does not remain the same when it occupies the same time/space as heaven.

For St. Gregory of Palamas Sunday I visited St. Gregory Palamas' in Etna where my Vladyka Andronik was also visiting. I arrived a little early, and found the monks already deep inside the church with their shoes all neatly piled outside the door. I entered the Church and took "my place" on the woman's side. Immediately I noticed that timelessness that used to be so familiar in old ROCOR services. It became more intense as I stood there, and it overtook me. I do not think I've ever experienced it that strong. A deep sense of belonging and rightness of being in the "here and now."

Later at the convent I was shown the convent chapel of St. Elizabeth's. And Lo! The same timelessness was there even though there was no service going on! I thought, "Everybody is here!" meaning all the saints and angels who are present for services. The nun who showed me the chapel said that the sisters keep the full cycle - maybe that's why heaven does not bother to draw back up in between services.

-jh

Joanna's Notepad

Dr. Vladimir Moss Open Letter on Cyprianism
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/208/an-open-letter-cyprianism/

I've read this. The logic is flawless. It makes perfect sense.
And I love Dr. Vladimir Moss.
So, why don't I join the Super-Correct?

Because I know that there can be some grace where logically it should be impossible for there to be any grace at all. I know this because I've experienced it myself and can not deny it. In the OCA and in ROCOR-MP. This is why I can not join the super-correct, even though I like to listen to them.

Westminster Abbey Has No Grace

from the account of the late Archimandrite Ambrose Pogodin (†2004)

Vladyka John had the habit of visiting heterodox churches where some grace of Orthodoxy might still be present, namely in the form of holy relics of saints that were glorified before the division of the Churches. Vlayka John expressed the wish to visit Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey may once have been a very holy place. It was miraculously saved as a parish church from the general destruction under Henry VIII, and now those sacred objects that one might have expected in an ancient church are no longer there. We went simply to have a look at it as one of the tourist attractions of London. Vladyka went with us. After a certain time, the shortest possible, he left. "Here," he said, "there is no grace." Indeed, there are found the relics of many great persons of England, the great political builders of the country, writers, scholars, but no saints.

http://www.pravmir.com/six-encounters-with-st-john-of-shanghai-and-san-francisco

Archpriest Georgy (Primakov) On Grace Issue

Google translation of an article in Vernost No. 40
http://www.metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo40.htm

Ignoring SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ISSUES

Archpriest Georgy PRIMAKOV, Dean RPTSZ Canada

Since none of our blessed memory первоиерархов and hierarchy did not say that the Church has no grace, we are persuaded that this means that in the MP it is. This is a very strange approach to a very important issue. A more logical and more persuasive, it would be to specify when and where it was said or written that there is total bliss. If our hierarchs believed that grace is complete, then why do they have categorically refused to eucharistic communion with the Church of grace? Most of all - there was neither mentioned nor written that there is total bliss. Moreover, you can find a personal expression of our hierarchy, which indicate the opposite.

Our church does not have a prayer with churches that have moved to a new style, but I do not remember that our hierarchs ever called them bezblagodatnymi. Let's think: we may be blessed memory hierarchy первоиерархи and lodged us an example of great humility believing that they were not worthy to decide about grace in the Church? In the same spirit expressed Metropolitan Cyprian, starostilnoy the Greek Church, when asked his opinion about the grace of novostilnoy the Greek Church. He said: who am I to decide this case, it will be decided in the future for true ecumenical council of the Orthodox churches, but just in case, we avoid any prayerful communion with them ». I invite all those who are trying to convince us about the grace in the Church, take the example of humility and our первоиерархов to ask yourself: Do I deserve to decide what it is and I have convincing evidence, that I may so hard to convince my colleagues in this?

Our hierarchs sebo perhaps ask the question: can I get Grace placemen Soviet atheist, non-believers in God's grace, even if they were correct hirotoniyu?

Unfortunately we kept in the dark about the negotiations regarding prayer with Moskovko Patriarchy. We duhovanstvo our church does not have the slightest notion that was resolved during the negotiations. We know however, that the Commission RPTSZ accepted the position of MP, that the activity of Metropolitan Sergius were deed ministry. " This is very unfortunate. because even a dozen years ago by members of the UIS Commission, this activity was considered to be betrayal of the Church of Christ! This type of negotiation, where the truth is murder in order to appease opponents who played more as a political rather than religious.

If the slavish service to the Soviet government and submissive compliance with the decrees of the secret service to be considered a heroic deed, then his refusal to serve Новомучеников and Исповедников our Russian Church Abroad now considers a mistake? Then, for their fame? And when the Church announced the Metropolitan Sergius saints, the Church and we will remember him along with the New Russian?

In May 2005, Patriarch Alexei II has congratulated the President of Vietnam Socialist Republic with 30-year anniversary of victory over the American army, trying to protect South Vietnam from komunistov seeking to enslave him, and he wanted God's help the Vietnamese Government. It looks as if this greeting one another Communist leader?

And in September, the patriarch of a Muslim leader Alex awarded the Order of St. Azebaydzhana. Sergius Radonezhskago first degree.

Congratulations red and rewarding Muslim leader - is not preventing us from the Lord? Which reminds us how:

«Dear children, be careful, you do not have a notion of who you want to have it!»

One of the members of our clergy, who now was in favor of prayerful communion with the Church, in 1994 wrote:

«Why talk to the MP is currently dangerous? This can cause a deep division among our clergy and flock, (That is currently happening). Prot. Lev Lebedev considers that the damage in the episcopate MP too deep and there is no sincerity in it. Priest Timothy Alferov, even being in the MP, warned us that the dialogue with the Church hierarchy is not possible. I. Lapkin warns that the final death for the Russian Church will be when the Church will go to all the requirements of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, otrekutsya from the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, kanoniziruyut the new, come from the World Council of Churches, of ecumenism. And all this without internal transformation, all this good will be done as a political move, and then RPTSZ no reason not to come to the negotiating table. And then a majority vote to suppress the truth. "It is not clear whether he was right I. Lapkin? Not happen there today that he foresaw a dozen years ago?

The aforementioned cleric RPTSZ now become a supporter of Union in 1998 in a letter the newspaper «Rus Orthodox», under the title «Be on the side of persecuted and suffering» wrote:

«His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the last recognized by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of people, gave the Bolsheviks anathema. In addition, he zaklyal all who join in communion with them: «I charge all of you loyal chad Orthodox Church of Christ, not to join with those monsters of the human race in which a communication». If His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon zaklyal all come into contact with the godless power, and the Metropolitan Sergius, in its Declaration made it so does not extend it a paternoster for MP to this day? There was and whether anfematstvovanie Patriarch Tikhon real meaning and effect? And his paternoster? What these anafematstvovanie and paternoster were removed? This is a serious spiritual issues, and ignore them Russian Orthodox Christian can not ».

Today in our church just happens that this cleric has called unacceptable disregard for serious spiritual questions.

Our country is number 2791

A Letter 1/31/09

Joanna shares parts of a personal letter.

St. Ninnidh Inismacsaint
Holy Fathers Athanasios and Cyril, Arcgbishops of Alexandria
January 18/31

Dear ___N___,

Clearly we never should have received St. Andrew's parish into our ROCA(A) with all their doubts. It has turned out to be a major embarrassment and we embarrassed ourselves. I like how you say that we let them in with a banana peel under each foot.

The battle that Vl. Agafangel is having with defining our position regarding the MP is a battle that has been going on for decades. St. Philaret of NY was also criticized and misunderstood from both the left and the right.

The R-splits (super-correct) have always been demanding a black&white statement from us. But now there is another group with the same debating/official/statement mentality who are not super-correct. They seem to be ROCOR Refugees, but with that same "horizontal" legalistic mentality of the super-correct. They do not recognize that ROCO(A) is the sole valid continuation of ROCOR, but it seems they would like to have it PROVED to them. It is obvious they are in distress.

But they do not seem to accept any help except in the form they want - which is more and more "official statements." And that does not help them. It only encourages their legalistic thinking. I had one even tell me that he would not use prayer to help him understand, the only thing he would use is official statements. This particular one has interpreted ROCA(A)'s policy to mean that we definitely say the MP has grace, therefore he believes if he is in the MP he is in the Church.

. . .

All through ___xxx___'s letters to me you can see where he is putting words in my mouth that make extensive and grand assumptions from just a few of my words. I read some of the stuff he writes about what he thinks I said and WOW! Where did he get that? It was turning into one of those situations where the more I said, the more material I gave him to misinterpret.

The other guy who was like this with me recently (see Cyprianites blog - the "Joanna's Tangle") accused us (I assume he meant ROCA laymen) of giving "nebulous" answers.

How can we make ourselves understood to those who do not have the capacity to understand? This has been a long-time question. To try to answer that, we explain that MP is "sick." I've twice now used analogies that basically show this concept of "sick." With the first ("Joanna's Tangle") I used the analogy of my dog being stolen. With another guy I used the analogy of Hitler still being a human even though he was evil. Both of my attempts to verticalize their horizontal thinking were met with THEM starting to get angry and cutting off the conversation. These people are not super-corrects, but they have that same black&white mentality. They are not World Orthodox either. We are seeing a new brand of horizontal thinking - could it be from the new brand of ROCOR which is now ROCOR(MP)?

What should I call these folks? The number of them I've met is growing. Maybe just "legal types" will do for now.

These people find that they do not FIT either in World Orthodoxy or in the Super-Correct. But since ROCOR(MP) left the Royal Path - then WHERE ARE THEY? This clearly shows that the Royal Path is not a MIXTURE of the World Orthodoxy and the Super-Correct. When you leave this Royal Path you've entered into SOME kind of horizontal path and way of thinking. And it appears that the horizontal paths are just incapable of seeing the Royal Path. Because of this, they draw their own insulting conclusions about us, rather than try to understand.

We must not let ourselves be disturbed by what other people think. It is not that we don't define the Royal Path - it is that the horizontal thinkers either CAN NOT or WILL NOT understand.

The Church is a living organism. A body. Bodies have the capacity of being sick, imprisoned, mistaken, tortured, possessed, kidnapped, overfed, underfed, ___fill-in-the-blank___- all these things can happen without the body being instantly totally dead. And it is possible to heal. We must maintain that, despite the shrill criticism from the super-correct. For lack of a better way to express the Royal Path, we must not be afraid to say "sick" in describing the MP. Otherwise we inadvertently condone the idea of "why not join them, then?" to our weaker brothers.

Cyprianite! And proud of it! This is the Royal Path! We are in good company!

As far as the MP getting better some day - YES! We fully expect that. This is why one of the things we are praying for is the "restoration of the throne of the Orthodox Tsar" which is something Vl. Agafangel has said we need to pray for (officially) and in our daily home prayers. The future Tsar is going to purge the MP of all the false clergy - and that is going to be virtually all of them.

Because of the way horizontal thinkers abuse official statements - I'm glad we avoid making one. They extrapolate and twist what they imagine to be between the lines. We are better off suffering our present grief. Vertical thinkers will find us, as God leads them to us.

Love, Joanna