| Theology and Pastoral Care Throughout this address I have stressed that theology belongs to all the faithful. Yet, because it is the parish priest who potentially has the most influence when it comes to teaching in a local church, I will limit my remarks to his vocation. Theology and pastoral care cannot be separated. The theologian is pastor and the pastor is theologian. By virtue of his place within the Eucharistic community, the pastor is compelled to share the theology of the Church with his flock. Because the pastor lives and works within a specific community he cannot–must not–limit theology to his archives or to his desk. The pastor-theologian is to convey to the community of the faithful that theology leads one to God’s kingdom. The pastor-theologian is to be perceived as a servant who, like the Lord himself, takes on the struggles and burdens of those in his care. In his Great Catechism, St. Theodore the Studite refers to the heavy responsibility he carries due to those in his care. “For your salvation I have to deliver my frail soul, even shed my blood. According to the works of the Lord, this is the special function of the good and true shepherd. Struggles arise from this, and sadness and anxieties, preoccupation, sleeplessness and despondency.” These difficult words of the Studite remind us that the pastor is to love and serve the other as he seeks to heal and save the other. In the realm of pastoral care, theology offers comfort and hope. Theology brings the dead to life and prepares the living for death. Theology draws the wounded back to the context of the Church’s worship where, in the context of the Divine Liturgy, everyone and everything acquires its proper identity in relationship to the Triune God. In the context of the Eucharistic celebration we are “endowed” here and now “with the Kingdom which is to come” (Chrysostom Liturgy). So long as theology is experienced and taught as that which brings us into the Church–into the saving and transfiguring life in Christ–the missionary mandate will not be ignored or compromised. So long as theology is received as a gift that draws us into the ascetical arena, it will continue to build up and fortify the body of Christ. |
| J.B. Hayes: I think that it is very important that besides reviving the creative tradition of Byzantine iconography that we also revive the Patristic Theology and Byzantine understanding of the icon. The very people who led us out of the Western captivity of the icon in terms of technique and style led us into the captivity of a modern Western philosophical understanding of the icon. By giving dogmatic and “theological” content to the Byzantine-Russian style and technique of icon painting, something the Church Fathers never did, Florensky, Ouspensky and others, who were highly influenced by the philosophical climate of their time, changed the very definition of the icon. The Byzantine-Russian style became the definition of the icon. If it isn’t painted in this manner, then it is not an icon. This ignores the fact that there are miraculous icons painted in a western naturalistic manner, for example, the Jerusalem icon of the Theotokos that is not-made-by-hands. The style became something that portrays the very essence of the persons depicted, their spirituality, their deified transfigured human nature. This, of course ignores the fact that bad people, like Judas, are depicted in the same manner or the fact that the Byzantine style was also used in secular art. Icons became “windows to heaven” that lead us out of this world and are full of complex symbolism. The very question “What does the icon mean?” is a Western question. All this bears no relation to the Patristic understanding of the icon. For the Fathers the icon is the external form of the hypostasis or person depicted. St Theodore the Studite makes it clear that the icon depicts the hypostasis, not the essence, not his inner being or spiritual state. The purpose of the icon is not to lead us out of this world, but to make Christ and the Saints present with us here and now in our own time and space, the very thing that happens in the Divine Liturgy. This is the liturgical and ecclesiastic function of the icon. Just as the architecture of the Church with the Pantokrator in the dome shows us that “God is with us”, so does the Byzantine icon. The Byzantine technique has no theological or symbolic meaning. Its purpose is through line, colour and rhythm, to make the person depicted present and bring him into communion with the viewer. Byzantine iconography is realistic. The Byzantines would not ask the question “What does it mean?”, but “Who is it?” It’s Christ, and He is in our midst. |
| There is great debate today, as throughout history, as to how visible and how vocal monastics should be in the life of the Church. The monastics are apart of the Church and in most jurisdictions the superiors are considered as delegates at official Church meetings —, decisions made at these meetings of the entire body of Christ affect them as much as they affect the parishes and Church organizations. Generally, those abbots/abbesses who attend such meetings are silent unless there is a true need for them to speak. This, too, has historical roots. Saint Anthony himself left his beloved desert to go into Alexandria and speak out against the Arian heresy. St. Theodore the Studite was one of the foremost defenders of the holy icons during the iconoclastic controversy, for which he was imprisoned and tortured, but never capitulated to heresy. Even today, it is the monastics who speak out when even prominent “theologians” teach something that is contrary to the Faith. Finally, we must mention the fact that we have a strong Church in North America today thanks largely to the efforts of the nine obedient monks who set out on the longest, and possibly the most dangerous, mission the Church ever undertook. St. Herman, St. Juvenaly, and their other seven companions left Valaam Monastery, under obedience and certainly not seeking fame or honor, to travel the entire breadth of Russia and cross the Bering Sea to come to Alaska. When Saint Herman found himself the only surviving one of those missionaries, he did not turn back, but continued his life of work and prayer in remote, and often inaccessible, Spruce Island. We can ask, “what good was he doing there? What role did he play in the life of the Church?” He was not a priest, so he could not serve Divine Liturgy or any of the sacraments; he rarely left his little enclave on Spruce Island; he did not write instructive books (that we know of). He looked after the orphans of Spruce Island, but even that he eventually entrusted to another. He did not build a magnificent church or monastery. He did not have monastic disciples or a community of monks on Spruce Island when he died. What was he doing there for so many years? He was simply living the monastic life of work and prayer. None of us today would say that it was a wasted life. |
| Neither the warmongering atheists nor the godless rulers could tolerate the presence of such a bishop living freely in society. Bishop Seraphim was arrested six times by the Soviet Secret police, and he remained under constant NKVD surveillance. During this period Vladika wrote many prayers, including akathists to The Lord Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Thorns and the Cross; to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Saviour of sinners; and to Sweetest Jesus, During Bitter Temptations and Passions. He also wrote a canon to the Most Holy Mother of God, sung during times of despair. These prayers gave him physical strength, strength of mind, and happiness. From his Moscow prison cell, Vladika wrote, “Blessed is God, who has thus willed. I thank Him, I glorify Him, I sing to Him, I praise Him. My soul is so filled with gratefulness to Him for this inner light, quiet joy, exultation of mind, that every day I end the Liturgy with the song, ‘We praise Thee, O God’ (a prayer by St. Ambrose of Milan). Truly monasticism is a gift of inexpressible mercy and love of God for people, equal in its significance to our life. It is also the restoration of fallen mankind; as St. Theodore the Studite says, ‘Truly, monasticism is like a hammer that forges a prayerful spirit through these sufferings. The persecuted saint would pray to God from the depth of his being, and God would answer his prayers. Once while incarcerated at the infamous Lubyanka prison (NKVD headquarters) he described a dream he had. “I am not writing to you something from a book, but something that the Lord Himself granted me to experience. In a light sleep, in the Lubyanka … I entered a deep, dark underground cellar. It was dank and frightening; I was overcome by unbearable depression and despair, and a feeling of abandonment. Suddenly shone a beam of light.… I saw how it shone brighter and brighter. I saw with amazement a seat upon which Christ Himself then sat.” In 1927, while in exile in Diveevo, the Mother of God appeared to Bishop Seraphim. “I cannot describe her amazing beauty!” he exclaimed. |
| The indication that the Orthodox Church is headed by five bishops, those of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and divided into respective five patriarchates is found in the Byzantine legislation, namely, in the Novels of Emperor Justinian I. In particular, there is the following formulation: ‘… the God’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in which all the most holy patriarchs of the whole universe (and the Patriarch of Western Rome, and this imperial city, and Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem) and all the most reverend bishops installed by them preach in accord the apostolic faith and the Tradition’ (Nov. J. 109 pr.; cf. Nov. J. 131, 2). However, the state law did not contain any norms concerning a special collegial body of the five patriarchs either. It is also noteworthy that the notions entertained by the legislator with regard to the status of the patriarchs gradually changed. Already the constitutions of Justinian fixed the privileged status of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And in the Isagoge (the 9 th century 80s) the Patriarch of Constantinople is put right above the rest of the Eastern patriarchs and invested with the powers to review their decisions (Eisag. II, 1 sq) . Since the 7 th century, the teaching on the five Orthodox patriarchates is found in patristic sourses. Important evidence about it is present in the writings of St. Maxim the Confessor (d. 662), St. Theodore the Studite (d. 826), St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 828), St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 896) and others. In the polemic with various heresies the unity in faith shown by the five primatial sees was for holy fathers an image of the plenitude of Universal Orthodoxy, the unity of the Catholic Church. In the patristic writings, the teaching on the five patriarchates and their role in the Universal Church is presented most consistently and fully in the letters of St. Theodore the Studite . According to St. Theodore, the Church is the mysterious Body of Christ, and Christ Himself is her invisible head (see for instance, Ep. |
| By that time, Mount Athos had become not only the refuge of monks fleeing Persian and Arabic invasions, but had appeared as the continuation of the great deserts of Egypt, Palestine and Syria. The monastic lifestyle of the kelliots of Saint Sabas Monastery, having been inspired by the organisation of monasticism of Nitria, had been transposed to Athos since the arrival of the first monks on that paradisiacal peninsula . Thus, it was through the Holy Mountain that the first Russian monasticism was linked to the great monastic tradition of Egypt, Palestine, Cappadocia and Syria. Indeed, the first monks of the Kievan Caves not only took the names of the ancient Fathers of these deserts but also followed their lifestyle, which they considered as their model. Reminiscent of the spiritual anecdotes of Apophtegmata Patrum, of the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius or the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus, the Paterikon of the Kiev Caves appears as an edifying book, transmitting a spiritual message and teaching, rather than a historical or biographical work. The Paterikon insists on demonology and miracles, and here one can notice that the Vita Antonii of Athanasius of Alexandria was perhaps one of the major sources of inspiration of the Paterikon. Written around 1215 by Bishop Symeon of Vladimir and his friend, the monk Polycarp, at the peak of the spiritual flourishing of the Kiev Lavra, the Paterikon put into a written form an oral tradition which was latter amplified in the XIVth century with some mystical flavour . It recalls the story of the foundation of the monastery, which was organised following the lavratic system where a cenobite monastery, the centre of formation for novices, is surrounded by hermits cells. Indeed, desiring to live a more secluded life, Saint Anthony left his initial cave where several novices had come, leaving them under the spiritual care of Saint Barlaam, and settled in another empty cave. When Barlaam was appointed hegumenos of another monastery, Saint Theodosius became his successor at the head of the monastery of the caves. It was under his direction that the monastery developed. For his cenobium, he used the Studite Typikon of Patriarch Alexis, the liturgical and monastic rule observed in most Byzantine coenobite monasteries of that time. This Typikon regulated the liturgical services as well as the private prayer of the monks, their meals, and their duties . Theodosius is thus considered as the founder of coenobite life in Russia. By his own example, Theodosius emphasised not only the spiritual aspects of ascetic life, but also the necessity for physical work and charity to the poor. |
| Such decisions, even more so, cannot be taken at a so-called ‘Council of the Pentarchy’ that the metropolitan of Peristeri Gregory talks about. We are obliged to remind readers that the theory of the ‘Pentarchy’ arose in the Orthodox East between the sixth and eighth centuries, but was never universally recognized throughout Christendom. Firstly, it was not recognized by the Church of Rome. Secondly, this theory left out of account the other autocephalous Churches which existed at the time, such as the Church of Georgia and the Church of Cyprus. At the end of the sixteenth century, when the four Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem accorded the Primate of the autocephalous Russian Church the dignity of Patriarch, he then occupied fifth place in the diptychs of the Local Orthodox Churches. In its time the idea of the ‘Pentarchy’ was used by some theologians as a symbol and image of the equality of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches as a counterweight to the ambitions of the iconoclastic patriarchs of Constantinople and the absolutism of papal authority in the Roman Church. It is sad to see today how His Eminence the metropolitan of Peristeri uses the concept of “the accord with one mind of the five patriarchs” (Saint Theodore the Studite, Letter 478) to nullify the equality of the Local Orthodox Churches in favour of the latest papal ambitions of the Church of Constantinople. The Russian Orthodox Church has always treated venerably the Eastern Patriarchates, for centuries she has shown them support and today she tirelessly struggles for these Patriarchates to be preserved on their historical territory in conditions of ever-growing persecution of Christians in the Middle East. As regards the Patriarchal exarchate in Africa, then the sole reason and circumstances for its creation have been laid out in the statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 28th January 2022. In particular, it was emphasized that the creation of this exarchate “is not an expression of claims to the canonical territory of the ancient Church of Alexandria, but pursues the sole aim of providing canonical protection to those Orthodox clerics in Africa who do not wish to participate in the lawless legitimization of the schism in Ukraine.” |
| During the Norman rule, which now offered external economic and political stability, Italo-Greek monasticism gradually changed to emphasize coenobitism, with large endowed monasteries governed by set monastic rules, such as those of St. Sabbas and St. Theodore the Studite. Eremitic life still existed, but was now more of an exception. Monasteries became much larger, with many churches, buildings, libraries and scriptoria. In addition to spiritual literature, secular literature and the classics were studied. The previous informal federations of monasteries were replaced by a more rigid and institutional framework. Reasons for this change include the strong Latin influence on the Italo-Greek monasteries, the decline of the standard of monastic life in these monasteries during the eleventh century, and the desire of the Normans to replace the spiritual bond that had joined the Italo-Greek monasteries to Constantinople with a more juridical bond under their own authority — and gradually under the authority of the Latin popes. In addition, the Normans were also attempting to fit Italo-Greek monasticism into their concept of feudal society. On the other hand, there was already a movement from within these monasteries to institute the earlier reforms of St. Theodore the Studite, which emphasized coenobitism and defense of the Faith. All of these elements worked together in varying degrees to bring about a revival of the quality of monastic life, which had suffered desolation in Sicily from the Saracens and in Southern Italy from the initial Norman invasion. This revival was, however, short-lived. By the twelfth century the Greek-speaking population of Sicily and Southern Italy had been effectively cut off from the spirituality and culture of the Byzantine East. The Latin population and culture around them grew and gradually absorbed them, causing decadence among them and their monasteries. In Sicily, now that the Saracen threat had decreased Roger II no longer needed the support of the Italo-Greeks and began to give greater support to the Latins. |
| We will never know the answer to those questions, and furthermore it’s between the two of them. We only know the result—Theophilus did not like her answer and married Theodora instead. We also know that this choice was a blessed one. Empress Theodora became a saint, who restored the veneration of icons after a long period of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire. Cassiani very soon after this incident left the world to become a nun, founding a monastery called the Icasia, named after the foundress. Describing ancient Constantinople, the writer George Kodin recalled Icassia Monastery. “Icassia Monastery was built by Icassia (another form of Cassiani), a pious nun and beautiful virgin, who was very wise, composed many canons and stichera and other writings worthy of amazement, and set them to music in the reign of the Emperor Theophilus.” Cassiani’s contemporaries raved over St. Cassiani’s works. Niceforos Callistos Xanthopoulos included her name in his list of famous poet-hymnographers alongside St. Theodore the Studite, St. Cosmas of the Holy City, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Theophanes, and others. Her works are included in the Orthodox service books, although not all are attributed to her. It was considered improper at the time for women to author canonical services, and a number of her hymns were included anonymously, or under someone else’s name. There are works that have not survived to our time, but besides the Holy Wednesday stichera there is another famous composition also included in the Lenten Triodion—the irmoi of the canon on Holy Saturday. It is known that Cassiani had composed the entire canon, but due to the prejudice against women hynmographers it was given to Mark of Hydrus and Cosmas of the Holy City to revise. However, the stunning irmoi remain a part of Cassiani’s legacy. We English speakers are not likely to appreciate fully the exquisiteness of Cassiani’s hymns, unless we learn ancient Greek, and learn it well. Cassiani wrote using the most elegant poetic devices of the time. She corresponded with other great hymnographers, such as St. Theodore the Studite. There are in fact three extant letters written by St. Theodore that most scholars agree were addressed precisely to Nun Cassiani the hymnographer. One of these especially leaves no doubt in their minds that it was to her: |
| The christological and Origenist controversies that raged in Palestine during the 6th century colored the Discourses’ initial reception. St. Theodore the Studite attested to their orthodoxy in the late 8th century, although it is possible that St. John Klimakos had already written the Ladder of Divine Ascent with them in mind. Dorotheos’ influence spread with the Studite monastic reforms, especially to Mount Athos, and his works were read in refectories throughout the Greek East, along with those of St. Ephrem and the desert Apophthegmata. St. Nil Sorskii partially translated Dorotheos into Church Slavonic in the 15th century. Since Dorotheos’ writings also indicate early traditions of the Jesus Prayer, they were incorporated into St. Paisy Velichovsky’s hesychast renewal movement. St. Theophan the Recluse accordingly appended Dorotheos’ works, which had been translated and published separately by the Optina Hermitage in the 1850s, to the 19th-century Russian translation of the Philokalia. SEE ALSO: Cappadocian Fathers; Desert Fathers and Mothers; Hesychasm; Jesus Prayer; Optina; Philokalia·; Non-Possessors (Nil Sorskii); Pontike, Evagrios (ca. 345–399); St. John Klimakos (ca. 579-ca. 659); St. Paisy Velichovsky (1722–1794); St. Theophan (Govorov) the Recluse (1815–1894); Sts. Barsanuphius and John (6th c.) REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chryssavgis, J. (trans.) (2003) Barsanuphius and John, Letters from the Desert: A Selection of Questions and Responses. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Wheeler, E. (trans.) (1977) Dorotheos of Gaza: Discourses and Sayings. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications. St. Elizaveta Feodorovna (1864–1918) KONSTANTIN GAVRILKIN Born as Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Luise Alice of Hesse, she was the older sister of Alexandra of Hesse, the future wife of Tsar Nicholas II (1872–1918). In 1884 Elizabeth became Orthodox and married Grand Duke Sergei (1857–1905), the fifth son of Emperor Alexander II (d. 1881). She assumed the name of Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna of Russia and quite soon became actively involved in various charities, especially for women and children from poor and destitute families, creating for them jobs, hospitals, schools, and affordable housing. In 1891 the couple moved to Moscow, where her husband was to serve as governor general. In 1905 the terrorist Ivan Kaliaev assassinated Grand Duke Sergei by throwing a bomb at his carriage. |
|
|
