| Howell, NJ: Bishop Nicholas of Manhattan leads Patronal Feast of Our Lady of Tikhvin Church Source: Eastern American Diocese www.eadiocese.org On Wednesday, July 9, the feast day of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, His Grace, Eastern American Diocesan vicar Bishop Nicholas of Manhattan, celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Our Lady of Tikhvin Church in Howell, NJ, leading the parish’s patronal feast day. His Grace was co-served by parish rector Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov, Archpriest Alexander Belya (dean of New York City), Archpriest George Kallaur (rector of “Unexpected Joy” Church in Staten Island, NY), Archpriest Liubo Milosevich (rector of Holy Trinity Church in Vineland, NJ), Archpriest Mark Burachek (rector of Our Lady of Kazan Church in Newark, NJ), Archpriest Petro Kunitsky (cleric of Holy New Martyrs & Confessors of Russia Church in Brooklyn, NY), Archpriest Boris Slootsky (cleric of neighboring St. George’s Church in Howell), Priest Seraphim Chemodakov (parish cleric), Priest Serge Ledkovsky (deputy rector of neighboring St. Vladimir Memorial Church in Jackson), and Protodeacon Michael Soloviev (cleric of Nativity of the Mother of God Church in Albany, NY). Our Lady of Tikhvin Church in Howell became the first church in the Eastern American Diocese in which the newly consecrated Bishop Nicholas celebrated the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy. Greeting His Grace, Fr. Valery wished him God’s aid in his service to the Holy Church, and that in his Archpastoral service he might never forget his glorious forebearers the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad. Many of the church’s parishioners, as well as faithful from Brooklyn and across New York City, came to mark the parish feast day of Our Lady of Tikhvin Church and to honor the wonderworking Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God. This icon, preserved in Howell, is renowned as the “Royal Icon:” in 1972, it was donated to what was then St. Alexander Nevsky Church by Lakewood resident Olga V. Astori-Astafiev, whose mother received the icon as a gift from the Holy Empress Alexandra Feodorovna in 1913. |
| Let us recall now the most perfect Christians, those who lead Christian life among us: hieromonk in schema Ambrose, father John, bishop Theophanous. They are not the narrow-minded fanatics, they are the noble graduates of seminaries and academies, but can you find any borrowings from or references to our school and scientific theology in their edifications? You will not find any, except for accidental mentioning. If you offer them piles of scientific books to help in their edifications, they will treat that with respect, but believe, will find nothing to borrow from them. A simple Christian, who wished to think over this or that phenomenon of his spiritual life, experiences the same. – It is obvious that our created according to the Western principles theology, though possessing no Western misconceptions, is so far from the real spiritual life of Orthodox Christians, so different from it, that it can neither guide it, nor even be similar to it. It would not have happened, if only the teaching about the Church would have mentioned the difference of Orthodox theology and the Western one; but it happened because the Western religions changed the whole concept of Christian life, concerning its goals and conditions. Being the Rector of the Academy, I gave the task to one smart student: to compare the Christian moral teaching of Theophanous and Martensen. Martensen is a famous Protestant preacher, who is thought to be the best moralist-theologian; with that he is mostly freed from any confessional misconceptions. Bishop Theophanous is an educated Russian theologian, the former rector of the Petersburg academy. And what happened? It turned out that Christian morals were described by these two authors in the absolutely different, even opposite way. The result of that analysis was formulated like that: Bishop Theophanous teaches, how to build life according to the demand of moral perfection, and the western bishop (sin vena verbo) borrows from Christianity those things and to the extent, to which they are compatible with the conditions of contemporary life. It means that the first one looks at Christianity as at the eternal order of true life and does not force a person to change himself and his life, till the time it will come to the norm, and the second one looks at the basis of contemporary cultural life as at the stable fact, and among the range of existing variants of this life choses those, which can be approved of from the Christian point of view. The first demands moral heroism, exploit, and the second thinks, what parts of Christianity could fit us in the contemporary life arrangement. For the first, who is the man, called to beyond-the-grave eternity, where real life will start, the historically developed mechanism of modern life seems to be a miserable ghost, and for the second the teaching about future life is the elevated, ennobling idea, which helps us perceiving real life better. |
| Goppelt suggests that «kingdom» was a Palestinian Jewish concept more or less incomprehensible to Hellenistic readers, so John substituted a rarer term from the Jesus tradition, namely «life» (cf. Mark 9:43,45 [=the kingdom in 9:47]; 7:14; 10[cf. 10:15, 23]; Matt. 25[=the kingdom in 25:34]; Luke 10:25). 2819 He may well be correct concerning the substitution itself, but it is unlikely that John chose «life» simply to accommodate a Hellenistic audience, if, as we think likely, his audience was primarily Jewish. Indeed, Greeks and Romans could imagine a long life without perpetual youth (as in the case of the Sibyl), 2820 which differs appreciably from the Jewish emphasis on the transformed, immortal life of the resurrection. More likely, «kingdom» ( John 3:3,5 ) had political ramifications (cf. comments on 18:36–38) that would be particularly unhelpful for Christians in Roman Asia in the mid-nineties, given the demands of the state, not least of which was imperial religion. 2821 Life is related to divine knowledge in Hellenistic sources, especially in the Hermetica, 2822 but the connection is also an OT 2823 and early Jewish one. 2824 «Eternal life» occasionally appears in Hellenistic sources; for instance, Plutarch employs it to describe Gods character (της αωνου ζως). 2825 But it is rare in pagan circles in this period; 2826 the vast majority of its occurrences are in Jewish sources, beginning with Dan 12:2 , where it refers to the life inherited at the resurrection of the dead; at that time the righteous would be «raised up to eternal life.» 2827 Jewish sources often speak of «the life of the world to come " ( ) or «life of the age» («eternal life»), 2828 often abbreviating it as «life» 2829 as in John. Thus the righteous are preserved for the life of the coming world at death, 2830 or (in more Hellenistic sources) the righteous dead currently «live out the age of blessing.» 2831 Most early Christian literature also employs it as the «life of the coming age,» 2832 though «eternal life» is more frequent in the Gospel (about seventeen times) and Epistles (six times) of John than in other NT documents (less than thirty times in all non-Johannine texts, one-third of them in Pauline literature). |
| Materials used by Faberge included metals – silver, gold, copper, nickel, palladium – that were combined in varying proportions to produce different colors. Another technique used by eighteenth century French goldsmiths and again Faberge involve a simple tinting of the completed work using stones and enamel. Another technique used by Faberge included guilloche, a surface treatment that could make waves and striations in the design and could be done by machine or by hand. Faberge used natural stones often found in abundance in the area. These included jasper, bowenite, rhodonite, rock crystal, agate, aventurine quartz, lapis lazuli, and jade (nephrite mostly although he would sometimes use jadeite). Precious stones including sapphires, rubies and emeralds were used only for decoration, and when used they were en cabochon (round cut). Diamonds were typically rose-cut. Semi-precious stones including moonstones, garnets, olivines, and Mecca stones were used more often en cabochon. Fifty six Imperial eggs were made, forty-four of which have been located today and another two that are known to have been photographed. Another twelve Easter eggs were commissioned by Alexander Ferdinandovich Kelch, a Siberean gold mine owner. However, the Imperial Easter egg collection commissioned by the last of the Russian Czars is the most celebrated. Explanation of Markings Markings of the eggs included the stamp of the supervising goldsmith. Before 1903, that would be Michael Perchin ( MP note: the “P” is the Russian “P”, which looks like two vertical lines joined together at the top, like the letter pi. ) for the Faberge eggs. After 1903, it would be Henrik Wigstrom ( HW ). Also there would be Russian assay marks. These would show the purity of the precious metal. Metal purity was measured in zolotniks. About 4 zolotniks equals one karat, so 14 karat gold=56 zolotniks and 18 karat gold=72 zolotinks. Sterling silver (.925 fine) would be 91 zolotniks. There would also be a stamp of the city or region of origin. For St. Petersburg, the symbol was crossed anchors and for Moscow, St. George and the Dragon. In 1896, Czar Nicholas II ‘s reign saw a shift from localized marks to a national provenance mark, a woman wearing a kokoshnik. |
| Stephan’s successors continued to support these monasteries. 299 In 1651 Zographou received the Dobrovat monastery from Vasile Lupu with 14,000 hectares of land, and the Capriana monastery from Constantin Cantemir in 1698 with lands extending over 50,000 hectares. In 1769 Grigoriou received the Vizantea monastery with all its possessions. Ten years after he was appointed abbot of this monastery (1842–52), the Greek Visarion left 20,000,000 lei in his will (the equivalent of about 2,200 kg of gold) to the Grigoriou monastery, the Holy Community of Athos, the Athens hospital, and other Greek cultural and charitable settlements. 300 In the sixteenth century five Athonite monasteries were revived by Romanian lords: Zographou, Grigoriou, and Konstamonitou by the Moldavian rulers, and the Lavra and Koutloumousiou by the rulers of Muntenia. Apart from two monasteries under Georgian patronage, Iviron and Philotheou, the others were in total decay: Pantokrator, Hilandar, Vatopedi, Xeropotamou, St Paul’s, Dionysiou, Simonopetra, Stavronikita, Xenophontos, Docheiariou. All of them were waiting for their great sixteenth-century benefactors, Radu the Great and Neagoe Basarab from Muntenia, and Petru Rares and Alexander Lapusneanu from Moldavia. Alexander Lapusneanu (1552–68) rebuilt and painted the church at Docheiariou (1566–8) and also at Karakalou, which had been begun by Petru Rares, from 1535 to 1563. The sultan’s letter of permission made it clear that ‘the buildings of the [Docheiariou] monastery were founded by the voyevods of Moldova-Wallachia, and the renovations made to the monasteries’ ruins at various times were also the Romanian voyevods’ work.’ 301 Alexander Lapusneanu’s charitable works were numerous: he repainted Xeropotamou, he bought a warehouse for Vatopedi for 65,000 aspers (Turkish currency, about 1,060 gold pieces) and granted it 300 gold coins per year in aid; he built the infirmary at Dionysiou and the southern wing of the monastery and he extended the refectory. His wife, Lady Ruxandra, bought back the subsidiary monasteries belonging to Zographou from Macedonia in return for 52,000 aspers, and after her husband’s death and in his memory donated 165,000 aspers (that is 2,700 gold pieces) to Docheiariou. |
| St Panteleimon monastery was rebuilt from its foundations by Scarlat Calimachi, the voyevod of Moldavia, from 1812 to 1819. One can still read the inscription: ‘This beautiful church of the Holy, Venerated, Great Martyr and Healer Panteleimon was built from its foundations, just like this Holy Venerable Monastery, which is called Russian, by the very reverend Voyevod of Moldavia Scarlat Calimachi […].’ I will stop here, thus doing injustice to Peter Rares, Radu the Great, Matthew Basarab, 305 Serban Cantacuzino, 306 Constantin Brancoveanu, 307 and all the others. The Dedicated Monasteries From the second half of the sixteenth century the most important component of this support was the dedicated monasteries. A dedicated monastery was no longer under the jurisdiction of the local hierarch, and was exclusively administered by the monastery to which it was dedicated. They were often exempt from taxes owed to the state. The incomes were used primarily for the maintenance of that monastery and secondly for the support of the monastery to which it was dedicated. This kind of support has not yet been thoroughly evaluated. Most of the archives of the Athonite monasteries, which are said to include about 40,000 documents relating to Romanian – Athonite relations, remain closed to research. The most recent list of the Romanian monasteries, sketes, and churches dedicated to the Holy Mountain has 109 entries. 308 Most of them were dedicated as follows: to Vatopedi 23, to Esphigmenou 15, Iviron 13, Protaton 9, Zographou 7, Simonopetra 6, St Paul’s 4. Only two monasteries, Philotheou and Pantokrator, are not listed. During Cuza’s reign the dedicated monasteries and their properties owned between 700,000 and 1,000,000 hectares of land. 309 Two of the greatest and richest royal monasteries, the Three Holy Hierarchs in Iasi and Cotroceni in Bucharest, were entirely dedicated to the Holy Mountain. The income went to the Protaton, and was further shared between the twenty monasteries. As an illustration I will give details of the wealth of the two monasteries. The monastery of Cotroceni, which was built by Serban Cantacuzino, and in 1682 was the richest monastery dedicated to the Holy Mountain, had four subsidiary monasteries and numerous estates. In 1780 its annual income was 15 bags of gold coins. In 1828 its income had reached 300,000 lei and in 1860 it exceeded 1,000,000 lei. 310 What was that money worth? The value of the national currency against gold was 100 lei for 11g of gold. Therefore, the income of Cotroceni in 1828 was the equivalent of 33kg of gold, and in 1860 it was tantamount to 110kg. |
| As if this were not enough, they even condemn as unhealthy and harmful any enthusiasm with the ideal of Church or religious life in general, which would somehow hinder the necessary progress of societal life. Not very long ago when the series Vekhi appeared, the most progressive camp of «public-spirited persons» raised a desperate cry: «Reaction! Reaction!» Having set love aside as useless in public life, something reserved only for the personal needs of man, they turned their attention exclusively to law, with which they think to cure all human ailments. Moreover, virtue in general is substituted with order and external propriety and decency. Gold is expensive and so for its substitution they have invented a gilding just as they have thought up propriety and external decency as a substitute for the missing virtue. They conduct themselves in exactly this same way with the ideal of the Church, which demands the complete unity of souls and hearts. They substitute the Church with a Christianity having an indefinite value, as we have already said. Their conscience is not troubled by such an act; for all that, it is still «Christianity,» a decent sort of a name. Without the Church, it is possible to place whatever pleases oneself under this name. In this way you will not completely break with Christ and yet you will not especially inconvenience yourself. In a word, the wolves are fed, but the sheep are not eaten! The great misfortune of our time lies in the fact that no one wishes to admit frankly their own spiritual poverty and that their hearts have been hardened to such a degree that Christ " s ideal of the Church has become burdensome and even unintelligible. No, having copper instead of gold, they now wish to declare gold valueless. Now they assault the Church with bitterness and deny the very concept of the Church, hypocritically taking refuge in loud and stereotypically beautiful, tedious phrases about «personal freedom» and «individual interpretation» of Christianity and about a religion of freedom and spirit. |
| St Nicholas was a participant at this council, and is particularly remembered for his zeal against Arius. Having openly combatted him with words, Bishop Nicholas, in a fit of fervour (some accounts indicate he was displeased with Arius' monopolisation of the meeting with his 'constant arguing'), went so far as to strike Arius on the face. Shocked by this behaviour, especially given that the canons forbid clergy from striking any one at all, yet uncertain of how to react to such actions by a hierarch they knew and respected, the fathers of the council determined to deprive Nicholas of his episcopal emblems (traditionally his omophorion and the Gospel book), and placed him under guard. However, a short time later, several of the assembled fathers reported having a common vision: the Lord and His Mother returning to Nicholas his episcopal items, instructing that he was not to be punished, for he had acted 'not out of passion, but extreme love and This was taken as a sign that the extreme behaviour of Nicholas was nonetheless pleasing to God, who was thus restored to the fulness of his episcopal office. Nicholas the Wonderworker St Nicholas' title 'wonderworker' comes from the multitude of reports of miracles that issued forth at his intercession, both during his life and after. The renown of his miraculous acts was widespread in his own lifetime. As he had secretly delivered gold, many years before, to the father of three destitute daughters, so he secretly delivered gold to an Italian merchent (by some accounts, this gold was left miraculously by an apparition of the saint appearing to the merchant in Italy), convincing him to sail to Myra with a shipment of grain. And so by his prayers and deeds, his city of Myra was rescued from a terrible famine. One miracle, particularly widely known, was Bishop Nicholas' conversion of the local governor, who had been bribed into unjustly condeming three men to death. The saint approached the executioner, who had already raised his sword to issue the death-blow, and swiftly removed it from his hands. He then approached the governor and denounced his unjust action. This latter, convicted by St Nicholas' words, repented and asked the saint's forgiveness. This episode is remembered as connected directly to another: for three officers of the imperial military were present to see St Nicholas stay this execution, who were later slanderously accused before the emperor, who condemned them to death. St Nicholas appeared to Emperor Constantine in a dream and urged him to reverse this sentence, which the emperor did. |
| For those who have weathered the religious storms, the church is clearly an important centre for the Russian community; the notice boards are heaving with adverts: pilgrimages to Kiev and calls for film extras for Anna Karenina; nannies wanted and lost dogs sought. All life is here. You can even order organically-grown dill for that authentic Russian taste. With its soaring Italianate bell tower and rose window, the church is a beautiful setting for the aesthetically rich Orthodox traditions. The iconostasis, a screen of gold-backed icons separating the priest’s sanctum from the rest of the church, glows in the light of numerous bees wax candles, exuding that pungent and distinctive smell of honey. Icons have always been a crucial part of Orthodox worship. As Richard Temple, who founded the Temple Gallery in 1959, explains: “Icons are part of the liturgy. The saints are present through their icons”. As a long-term collector, dealer and devotee, Temple believes that “icons have their own message in a material world”, a spiritual impulse you can powerfully sense in the tiny gold-on-gold gallery below his magical shop in Holland Park. “My fascination is how Christianity emerges out of Hellenistic culture,” says Temple, who has written several books about icons including one titled Icons and the mystical origins of Christianity, now sadly out of print, but available second-hand. “It’s not fashionable,” adds Temple, explaining that art historians find the spiritual dimension of icons “embarrassing”. For Temple, it is precisely the “combination of artistic mastery and spiritual insight” that is so compelling, producing images “through which the artist’s gaze on eternity is reflected back to us.” Temple has been involved in campaigns to open a dedicated icon room in the British Museum, which holds around a hundred icons of which ten are considered world class. A catalogue has been published and a Russian oligarch even offered to fund the display, but there is – as yet – little academic willingness to embrace this awkwardly mystical branch of art. Interest in icons is growing in other areas, though. Commercially, they are becoming more popular and artistically there has been a revival of older techniques. Irina Bradley of the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts in Shoreditch runs icon painting workshops. |
| Finally there was the understanding of the eucharist as community. 123 The life of the eucharist is the life of God Himself, but this is not life in the sense of an Aristotelian movement which flows out mechanically from the interior of existence. It is the life of communion with God, such as exists within the Trinity and is actualized within the members of the eucharistic community. Knowledge and communion are identical. 124 All this leads naturally to the theological developments of the fourth century. But it must be strongly underlined that without this foundation of the Church’s eucharistic experience, such as exhibited in Ignatius and Irenaeus, the trinitarian theology of the fourth century would remain a problem. We must therefore pause briefly on this point before passing to the fourth century. The identification of existence with life through the idea of immortality and incorruptibility will lead naturally into trinitarian theology. If incorruptibility is possible only in and through communion with the life of God Himself, creation or being can exist and live only insofar as the source of being – God – is Himself life and communion. The eucharistic experience implies that life is imparted and actualized only in an event of communion, 125 and thus creation and existence in general can be founded only upon this living God of communion. Thus the divine act that brings about creation implies simultaneously, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. 126 Irenaeus seems to stop here. He is concerned mainly with created being and sees existence as ultimately dependent upon the Trinity. But what about uncreated being? Could it not be said, perhaps, that in the last resort, i.e. in our reference to God as being, being precedes life and life springs from being? Is it not possible, in other words, to postulate a divine nature (σις – οσα) as the ultimate ontological truth, and to make life and communion depend upon it under the form of the Trinity? The answer to this question is given by the Greek Fathers in their historic attempt to press the identification of being and life with communion to the ultimate point of existence, God Himself. This came about in the fourth century. 3. The Trinitarian Approach |
|
|
