| Fr Philip read the greeting from His Eminence Metropolitan Ilarion, the Head of the DECR, after which he expressed his own thoughts regarding the work of the round table: “Such measures have already been established as a good tradition. They are truly beneficial, because sometimes, due to great distances, the clergymen and laity who work in the various countries of Latin America have practically no way of meeting. In connection with this I would like to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia for organizing this event. I would like to announce that cooperation between the Russian Church and the Ministry has established a solid legal foundation, since the Federal Assembly of Russia adopted a Federal law on making amendments to the ‘Law on Compatriots.’ In particular, it envisions government cooperation in ensuring the legal right to establish religious organizations for our compatriots abroad and their socially meaningful initiatives.” The participants of the round table shared their experiences in pastoral services in their countries, the realization of educational projects, social and exhibition work on the parish level. Some of the delegates presented slide shows and visual aids. Mr Zabolotsky of Brazil talked about the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Russian emigration in Rio Grande do Sul and the book he published to mark the event. He expressed his opinion on how best to preserve the bonds between Russian abroad and the Homeland. “It is specifically the Orthodox church that is the center of our lives abroad,” said Mr Zabolotsky. The Brazilian delegate noted sadly that South America is home to many compatriots who have not yet accepted church unity. For this reason, he thinks, it is important to create a mechanism to return Russian believers from schism. Speaking of the mission of the Russian emigrants, Mr Zabolotsky said: “Our chief goal is to preserve our children and grandchildren in the spirit of devotion to our historic roots.” Mr. S.V. Kiliakov, President of the Coordination Council of Russians of Mexico, reported on the work of Holy Trinity Monastery in that country, which is doing a great deal of work in helping compatriots: benefit luncheons are organized, legal assistance provided, the monastery’s residents travel to various regions of the country to visit other Russians. |
| Upon his return to Georgia, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed abbot of Chelishi Monastery. Chelishi Monastery had at one time been a center for theological education in Georgia, but many years had passed since then and the monastery’s student body was rapidly shrinking. Before long it would be completely deserted. But with the blessing of Bishop Leonid of Imereti (later Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia), St. Ambrosi gathered a number of gifted young people to study at the seminary and began to instruct them in chanting and the reading of the Holy Gospel. St. Ambrosi devoted much of his time and energy to finding and restoring the old manuscripts of Chelishi Monastery. Once, while passing through the monastery yard, he heard a muted sound coming from beneath the earth. He began to dig at that place and discovered an ancient copy of the Holy Gospels. It was the “Chelishi Gospel,” a famous Georgian relic from the 9th or 10th century. Soon St. Ambrosi joined the Tbilisi Synodal Council and was enthroned as abbot of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Tbilisi. But in 1908 he was accused of conspiring in the murder of the exarch Nikon and deprived of the right to serve in the Church. The prosecutors exiled him to the Holy Trinity Monastery in Ryazan, where he spent over a year under strict guard. In 1910 St. Ambrosi was acquitted and again permitted to serve in the Church. In 1917 Archimandrite Ambrosi returned to Georgia and rejoined the struggle for an autocephalous Georgian Church. Within a few months the Church’s autocephaly was proclaimed. He was consecrated Metropolitan of Chqondidi, later to be transferred to the Tskum-Abkhazeti region. In 1921 St. Ambrosi was enthroned Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. The Soviet government began to persecute the Church not long after St. Ambrosi’s enthronement. Some 1,200 churches were plundered, converted for other purposes, or destroyed. A great number of clergy were arrested, exiled, and later shot to death. |
| John of Damascus and Theodore Studite, as well as Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople, to make an answer to these charges and to develop the church’s theology of the icon extensively. Between 775 and 780 Emperor Leo IV the Khazar reigned, the son of Constantine V, who was neither an iconodule (one who venerates icons), nor an iconoclast (one who fights those who venerate icons). There was a respite between the two phases (780–813) when the Empress Irene (mother of Constantine VI Porphyrogennetos, who was aged 10 when he became emperor in 780) convened a synod in Nicea in 787 (Council of Nicea II) in order to restore the veneration of icons in the churches. This synod, the seventh and last of the ecumenical councils of the church, was presided over by Patriarch Tarasius. It confirmed that the use of icons was already an ecclesiastical tradition, and decided that church traditions ought to be preserved reverently, and without innovations; whether these longstanding traditions were written or oral. The painting of icons was declared such a foundational tradition which is in conformity with the gospel. Icon and gospel were indeed complementary to each other. The synod of 787 also made clear the critically important distinction between the veneration of icons (proskynesis) and adoration (latreia). The first (veneration) is given by Christians to holy persons and things (including images of Christ, his Mother, and his saints); the latter (adoration) is due, in spirit and truth, to God alone. The distinction introduced an important semantic sophistication into the church’s understanding of prayer, reverence, and the sacramentality of icons. It was based on the teaching of St. Basil the Great, echoed by St. John of Damascus, which stated that whoever venerates an image in fact venerates only the person there depicted, since the reverence shown to the icon passes immediately as honor given to its archetype. The second phase of the iconoclastic crisis started with Emperor Leo V the Armenian (813–20) and lasted until the death of Emperor Theophilus in 842. |
| The Venerable Spiritual Father Herman of the holy Monastery of Valaamo was one of the first Russian Orthodox missionaries who arrived in Alaska in 1794. He remained for forty years on Spruce Island, near the Island of Kodiak, in the spiritual work of apostolic service among the natives whom he illumined by the light of the truth of the Gospel. The Venerable Spiritual Father Herman was born in 1760 in the town of Serpoukhov in the County of Moscow. As a sixteen year old youth, he left for the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Hermitage near Petersburg where he became a monk, and where he was considered worthy to receive miraculous healing from a critical ailment while praying before the icon of the Mother of God. After having spent approximately six years at the Saint Sergius Hermitage, he departed for the Valaamo Monastery where he received as his Spiritual Father and guide the charismatic lgumen Nazaryi, who had been called to Valaamo from Sarov. Having such a guide, the future Spiritual Father Herman, while still at Valaamo, took upon himself physical and spiritual tasks, and later received the blessing to continue his spiritual feats in a hermitage which has since been called the Herman Hermitage. The Blessed Father Herman labored in Alaska longer than all his devoted co-workers in the field of enlightening the pagans. His personal piety, which found its expression in continual prayer, severe fasting and the use of a rigid wooden bench as his bed, caused astonishment. But, still more important, Our Lord God gave him the great gift of compassionate love for those whom he led to Christ. The Spiritual Father Herman gave forty years of his life to the service of people. He baptized them, taught them, prayed for them and interceded before the authorities for those who had been unjustly treated. His heart was filled with tenderness towards children. He founded an orphanage, a school for them; he was constantly concerned about them and gave them bread. The children themselves were attracted towards their Holy " Apa " (Grandfather). |
| At the present, alongside the claims of Constantinople which the Episcopal Council indicated, new ones have been added. In particular, these are: 1. The Patriarch of Constantinople insists that he has the right to review appeals submitted in any other local church and has the exclusive right to resolve such appeals; 2. The Patriarch of Constantinople considers that he has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of any local Orthodox Church if the situation so requires; 3. The Patriarch of Constantinople states that he is empowered to revoke canonical sanctions imposed within the other local churches and to “restore to priestly rank” those who have lost their episcopal dignity by entering into schism; 4. Moreover, those persons who have never had even the appearance of canonical episcopal consecration (for example, those who have been ordained by a defrocked bishop and a former deacon passing himself off as a bishop), are “restored” to their rank by a decision taken by the Patriarch of Constantinople; 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople believes that he has the right to receive into his canonical jurisdiction clerics of any dioceses of any local churches without letters of dismissal; 6. The Patriarch of Constantinople has abrogated for himself the exclusive right to initiate the convocation of pan-Orthodox councils and other important pan-Orthodox events; 7. Finally, in violation of the agreements reached during preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church that provide for the granting of autocephalous to a particular local church only with consent of all the commonly recognized local churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople has stated that he has the automatic right to proclaim the autocephaly of new local churches without the consent of the primates and councils of the other local Orthodox Churches. At the same time, the notion of autocephaly is interpreted in such a way as to mean in effect the subjugation of an autocephalous church to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. |
| The meeting resulted in the adoption of a Communiqué, which, in particular, notes the cordial, fraternal atmosphere that prevailed at the meeting, which made it possible to thoroughly consider the issues that arose and to make great strides towards deepening mutual understanding between the Churches. The meeting had enough time to agree on several important points. Thus, in the final Communiqué, the parties stated the following: We find that a more appropriate formulation of our Churches " position on the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus than that articulated in the agreement signed at Chambesy is to support a clear definition of the 13th rule of the Second Council of Constantinople, based on the understanding that his other writings are considered fundamental to the theology of the Orthodox Church. The Consultation agrees that St Cyril of Alexandria " s formula " μα φσις το Θεο Λγου σεσαρκωμνη " , translated in the Second Agreed Statement as " one nature of the incarnate Logos " , would more correctly be translated into English as follows: " one incarnate nature of the Logos " . A valuable highlight of our session was the detailed explanation by the Coptic side of their understanding of the fullness of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ, including their properties such as will and energy, with a detailed reiteration of the agreed statements already formulated. Holy Theological writings relevant to our topic, such as those of Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Cyril of Alexandria, were discussed in detail. In addition, the ideas and writings of Dioscorus of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus were discussed. " The parties agreed to continue discussing Christological issues in the near future, recognising that there are other issues that will be discussed later according to the list approved at the Liévelde meeting. In order to continue the fruitful scientific and theological dialogue, participants of the meeting considered it useful to meet at least once a year and to seek opportunities to discuss various aspects of the dialogue in other formats, including theological conferences. |
| St. Gregory said that the Holy Fathers and the prophets had a greater knowledge of God, because they had actually seen or heard God Himself. He taught that modern ideas about human thought and reason had no place in the Church. When asked how it is possible to have knowledge of the unknowable God, he showed the difference between knowing God in His essence or person and knowing God in his energies or being. It became clear that one could not find God in the logic of this world. He taught the Orthodox knowledge that it remains impossible to know God in His essence or person. However, with sufficient prayer and fasting and turning oneself over to God, through purification of one " s soul, anyone can come to know Him in His energies and being. The Barlaam heresies spanned many years and two phases. Due to acts of political power struggles in Constantinople, Gregory was imprisoned to prevent him from speaking the Truth. As the political struggle increased, his accusers multiplied because he would not yield to their heresies, and he opposed the new emperor due to the emperor " s acceptance of the heresies. When St. Gregory criticized Barlaam " s rationalism, Barlaam replied with a vicious attack on the hesychastic life of the Athonite monks. Gregory " s rebuttal was the Triads in defense of the Holy Hesychasts (c. 1338), a brilliant work whose teaching was affirmed by his fellow Hagiorites, who met together in a council during 1340-1341, issuing a statement known as the Hagioritic Tome, which supported Gregory " s theology. A synod held in Constantinople in 1341 also supported St. Gregory " s views, condemning Barlaam. Later, in 1344, the opponents of hesychasm secured a condemnation for heresy and excommunication for Gregory, but the saint " s theology was reaffirmed at two further synods held in Constantinople in 1347 and 1351. Collectively, these three synods in Constantinople are held by many Orthodox Christians and several prominent theologians to constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Between the latter two synods, Gregory composed the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, a concise exposition of his theology. |
| But Church consciousness, in the thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon, as well as in the Local Council held in Moscow in 1917, says one irrevocable thing: ‘The bishops of any nation, including the Russian nation, must know who is the first among them, and acknowledge him as their head.’ And I would like to address all those who for some reason still consider it necessary to protest against the Patriarchate. Fathers and brothers! Do not disrupt the joy of our oneness of mind! Why do you take this thankless task upon yourselves? Why do you make hopeless speeches? You are fighting againstthe Church’s consciousness. Have some fear, lest haply you begin to fight against God (cf. Acts 5:39)! We have already sinned— sinned in that we didn’t restore the Patriarchate two months ago, when we all came to Moscow and met with each other for the first time in the great Dormition Cathedral. Was it not it painful to the point of tears to see the empty Patriarchal seat?... And when we venerated the holy relics of the wonderworkers of Moscow and chief hierarchs of Russia, did we not hear their reproach, that for two hundred years their chief hierarchical throne has remained desolate?” Immediately after the Bolsheviks came to power, they began to persecute the Church, and by March of 1919 Archimandrite Hilarion had already been arrested. His first imprisonment lasted three months. On May 11/24, 1920, Archimandrite Hilarion was elected, and on the next day, consecrated as Bishop of Verey, a vicariate of the Moscow diocese. His contemporaries painted a colorful picture of him: young, full of cheerfulness, well-educated, an excellent preacher, orator, singer, and a brilliant polemicist—always natural, sincere, and open. He was physically very strong, tall, and broad-shouldered, with thick reddish hair and a clear, bright face. He was the people’s favorite.… Bishop Hilarion enjoyed great authority among the clergy and his fellow bishops, who called him “Hilarion the Great” for his mind and steadfastness in the Faith. |
| Headquarters for the cult were established in Brooklyn, New York, in 1909, in a thirteen-story building called Bethel House. Local congregations (more than 20,000 of them) meet in buildings called Kingdom Halls. They have no ordained pastors; every active Witness is called a " minister " . Those who devote themselves full-time to the service of the cult are called " pioneer publishers " . Besides being aggressive door-to-door missionaries, Jehovah’s Witnesses have defined their public image by their refusal to use blood transfusions (regarding this as a form of cannibalism), observe religious or secular holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving, birthdays), salute the flag or serve in the armed forces (they recognize Jehovah’s organization alone). They proudly bear any criticism on this account, accepting it as the persecution of Jehovah’s faithful remnant. BELIEFS Doctrinally, Jehovah’s Witnesses bear no resemblance whatever to mainstream historic Christianity. Russell acquired from the Adventists the idea that there is no hell, and no life after death until the Second Coming, when the righteous will be " re-created. " In breaking away from the Adventists, Russell only widened his divergence from the Truth, leading his followers far beyond the remotest boundaries of Christian sectarianism. Although some aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses theology is so convoluted as to require mental gymnastics, their fundamental beliefs can be summarized as follows. Holy Trinity. According to the Witnesses, " the doctrine of the Trinity originated not with God but with Satan. " 6 They regard the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325 AD), which defined the doctrine of the Trinity, as a great victory for apostate Christianity. Jesus Christ. The same Council condemned the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus Christ was created by God in time, and that He was unequal to God. Jehovah’s Witnesses is basically a revival of this heresy, although they err even more grievously than the Arians in identifying Jesus Christ, God’s first " creation, " with the Archangel Michael. Witnesses teach that when He was born on earth, He " laid aside completely His spirit existence " and became a perfect human creature. At His baptism in the River Jordan, the Lord was chosen by Jehovah-God and empowered by His Holy Spirit to be a prophet and Messiah, Jehovah’s High Priest, the Christ. When He fulfilled His mission and died, being nailed to a stake (Witnesses abhor the cross as a pagan symbol), God rewarded Him with immortality. At Christ’s resurrection, He dissolved into gases and was re-created a " glorious spirit, " to be head of Jehovah’s organization over the universe. |
| The term “interpretation” becomes very slippery here, since it is often used to draw an equality between words of Holy Tradition, the opinions (and even errors) of certain Church Fathers, and specific condemned heresies, such as Nestorianism (Council of Ephesus, 431AD) or Monophysitism (Council of Chalcedon, 451AD). Thus, teachings which have been established by Church Councils as errors and contrary to the Orthodox Faith are placed on the same level as Holy Tradition – all for the “purposes of discussion”. This is an academic trick, which sacrifices the spirit of Orthodox Christianity to the spirit of secular relativism. On a personal level (in a conversation, for instance), “interpretation” will sometimes be used to shut down those who defend Holy Tradition, with lines like, “Well, that’s just your interpretation.” As soon as one hears such a line, that should be a red flag. Dialogue – Much has been said about the misuse of this word in the last few years within the Orthodox Church. Most Orthodox Christians are well-rooted enough to understand the use of “dialogue” with heterodox activists as a wedge to open up an assault from within on Orthodox spiritual life. Conspicuously, the pro-homosexualist schools and websites which call themselves Orthodox have liberally used the term “dialogue”, raising anew the question the Apostle Paul raised centuries ago, “What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor 6:15). Those who involve themselves in such activities cite love, evangelism, and the bringing together of “churches” (sic) – a kind of false human reasoning in the heart against which the Lord warned us (Luke 5:22). Great responsibility rests with our bishops and priests to identify, call out, and shut down such blasphemies against the Church of Christ, but the responsibility is not theirs alone: all the faithful share the same responsibility to make known to other faithful the strategies being employed in such “dialogues”, and to warn, protect, and pray for those who might be spiritually affected by them. |
|
|
