HOCNA ON THE DOGMA = OF REDEMPTION

THE=20 MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION

Vladimir = Moss

=A9 = Vladimir=20 Moss =

CONTENTS

Introduction=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..= 3

1. =20 The=20 =93Juridical = Theory=94=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85=85.10

2. =20 The=20 Meaning of = =93Justification=94=85=85..=85=85=85..28

3. =20 The=20 Sacrifice for = Sin=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85.40

4. =20 The=20 Prayer in the = Garden=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=8560

5. =20 Gethsemane=20 or Golgotha?=85=85=85=85.=85=85=85=8579

6. =20 The=20 Theory of =93Moral = Monism=94=85=85=85=85..=8591

7. =20 Original=20 Sin=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85=85=85=85..104

Conclusion:=20 Love and = Justice=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85..122

Appendix=20 1: Life of Archbishop Theophanes of=20 Poltava=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85140<= /o:p>

Appendix=20 2: Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava on=20 Redemption=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85...=85...222

INTRODUCTION

He=20 wiped out our debt, by paying for us a most admirable and precious = ransom. We=20 are all made free through the blood of the Son, which pleads for us to = the=20 Father.

St. John of Damascus, First = Word on the=20 Divine Images, 21.

     Two works by = Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), The Dogma of Redemption and = the=20 Catechism, have been a subject of controversy in the Orthodox = Church for=20 nearly a century. The controversy consists in the fact that in these = works=20 Metropolitan Anthony attacks the Orthodox Christian teaching on = redemption as=20 expounded by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (+1867), labeling it = =93scholastic=94.=20 The purpose of this little book is to defend Metropolitan Philaret=92s = teaching as=20 being indeed the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church by an = examination=20 and refutation of Metropolitan Anthony=92s thesis, especially as it is = reiterated=20 in a document recently written by the Bishops of the =93Holy Orthodox = Church in=20 North America=94 (HOCNA), and entitled =93Resolution of the Sacred Synod = of the True=20 Orthodox Church of Greece concerning The Dogma of Redemption by=20 Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky=94.[1]

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 Catechism, which expressed the same theology as The Dogma of=20 Redemption in a more concise form, was at first accepted by the = Synod of the=20 Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) in 1926 as a substitute = for=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow=92s Catechism in schools. The = Synod did not=20 call Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism heretical, simply saying = that=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s was =93shorter and more convenient for = assimilation=94. And=20 Metropolitan Anthony himself did not ask for Metropolitan Philaret=92s=20 Catechism to be removed from use in favour of his own, writing = only=20 (in a = report to the=20 Synod dated April 9/22, 1926): =93In my foreword to An Attempt at an = Orthodox=20 Christian Catechism I wrote: =91In publishing my work as material, I = in no way=20 wished that it should completely overshadow the Catechism = of=20 [Metropolitan] Philaret in schools, but I have nothing against the idea = that=20 this or that teacher of the Law of God should sometimes, in his = interpretation=20 of the dogmas and commandments, use my thoughts and references to Holy = Scripture=20 and Holy Tradition, thereby filling in the gaps in the textbook = catechism with=20 regard to various religious questions, of which very many have arisen in = the=20 time since the death of the author=92=94.[2]

     All this = sounds=20 innocent and cautious enough. And yet the fact is, as Metropolitan = Anthony made=20 clear on many occasions, the real motive for the writing of his = Catechism=20 and Dogma of Redemption was that he considered Metropolitan=20 Philaret=92s Catechism =93scholastic=94 and heretical, being = identical with the=20 Roman Catholic teaching on redemption of Anselm and Aquinas. Thus in his = letters=20 to the Russian Athonite monk and theologian, Hieromonk Theophan (later=20 Hieroschemamonk Theodosius of Karoulia), a firm opponent of Metropolitan = Anthony=92s thesis, he expressed fundamental disagreement =93with the = juridical=20 theory of Anselm and Aquinas, which was completely accepted by P[eter] = Moghila=20 and Metropolitan Philaret=94[3]=20 And again he wrote: =93We must not quickly return to Peter Moghila, = Philaret and=20 Macarius: they will remain subjects for historians=94[4]=20 And again: =93Apparently you together with your namesake [Archbishop = Theophan of=20 Poltava, the main opponent of Metropolitan Anthony=92s teaching in the = ROCOR=20 Synod] have fallen into spiritual deception=94.[5]=20 So it is clear that, for Metropolitan Anthony, as for his opponents, = this was a=20 fundamental matter of doctrine. Either Metropolitan Philaret=92s = Catechism=20 was heretical and Metropolitan Anthony=92s was Orthodox, or = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s was heretical and Metropolitan Philaret=92s was Orthodox. = And whoever=20 was wrong was =93in spiritual deception=94.

     But the = consequences=20 of =93victory=94 for either side would have been unthinkable; it would = have meant=20 condemning as a heretic either the greatest Russian hierarch of the=20 19^th century or, in many people=92s opinion, the greatest = Russian=20 hierarch of the 20^th century, and would quite simply have = torn the=20 Russian Church Abroad apart at a time when it was fighting for its life = against=20 communism, sergianism and sophianism.

     So it is not = surprising that both sides exhibited signs of trying to =93cool=94 the = conflict. On=20 the one hand, Metropolitan Anthony=92s Catechism did not replace = that of=20 Metropolitan Philaret, and the Synod under Metropolitan Anastasy refused = to=20 review the question again. And on the other, Metropolitan Anthony=92s = chief=20 opponent, Archbishop Theophan departed to live a hermit=92s life in=20 France=85

     But the = conflict has=20 resurfaced in the 1990s, both in Russia and in = America.

     Now the = HOCNA=20 hierarchs refrain from directly calling any of the major players in this = controversy a heretic. At the same time, however, they extend the label=20 =93scholastic=94 to all those who espouse what they call =93the = juridical theory=94 of=20 redemption, including even such renowned hierarchs as Bishop Ignaty=20 Brianchaninov and Bishop Theophan the Recluse. Thus for the sake of = defending=20 the complete correctness of Metropolitan Anthony=92s Dogma of = Redemption,=20 they are prepared to condemn the three most famous and revered hierarchs = of the=20 Russian Church in the 19^th century as heretics! Where will it = stop?=20 How many more =93juridical theorists=94 will be found in the annals of = Orthodox=20 Church history and among the ranks of the Orthodox saints? As will be = shown=20 here, a consistent witch-hunt in search of =93scholastic=94 heretics = will go much=20 further than the HOCNA hierarchs may realise, to include most of the = greatest=20 Fathers of the Orthodox Church!

     So what is = the=20 alternative? Continue to bury the question again as it was buried in the = course=20 of several decades by the ROCOR? Or thrash it out once and for all? In = our=20 opinion, it is no longer possible to bury this conflict, for it has = extended=20 beyond the boundaries of the ROCOR and is debated in Russia and in other = countries. Moreover, it is not in the nature of the Orthodox Church, = which is=20 =93the pillar and ground of the truth=94 (I Timothy 3.15), to = leave=20 fundamental questions of dogma unresolved when conflict has arisen over = them.=20 One may hope that the issue will simply =93fade away=94; but time and = again, after a=20 brief quiescence it re-emerges with renewed vigour. On the other hand, = while the=20 issue of truth cannot be deferred forever, it is reasonable to hope that = at the=20 end of the process those who are in the wrong will not be labelled = heretics and=20 condemned as such. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Augustine of Hippo and = others=20 were found to be wrong on certain important issues; but the Church has = accepted=20 them, without accepting their errors (as St. Photius the Great said of = St.=20 Augustine). We may hope that the same will be concluded concerning the = errors=20 contained in Metropolitan Anthony=92s Dogma of Redemption.=20

     For, on the = one hand,=20 he did not publicly insist on their acceptance.[6]=20 And on the other, as one of his fairest critics, Fr. Seraphim Rose, = writes, =93it=20 is a question not of heresy (in his most sympathetic critics and we = won=92t be=20 examining others), but rather of imperfection, of theology not thought = through=20 and consistent. He is not known as a careful theologian, rather as a = great=20 pastor whose theology was one of fits and starts. The question of = =91heresy=92 arises when his critics try to make him strictly = accountable for every=20 expression and when they place him above all the Holy Fathers of the = Church, for=20 in several points the teaching of Metropolitan Anthony clearly = contradicts the=20 Fathers. His theology is at times closer to expressionism. Almost = all but=20 a few of his absolute devotees admit that Dogma of Redemption = especially=20 is very loose=94.[7]

     One of=20 the earliest critics of Metropolitan Anthony was New Hieromartyr = Archbishop=20 Victor of Vyatka. He noted already in 1912 that the =93new theology=94 = of=20 Metropolitan Anthony and his pupil, Metropolitan (and future = =93Patriarch=94)=20 Sergius (Stragorodsky) =93would shake the Church=94. And he saw in = Metropolitan=20 Sergius=92 disastrous =93Declaration=94 of 1927 a direct result of his = teaching on=20 salvation =96 which teaching was openly praised by Metropolitan Anthony = in The=20 Dogma of Redemption.[8]=20 Hieromartyr Victor was not the only critic of Metropolitan Anthony=92s = theory in=20 the Catacomb Church. According to the witness of Hieromartyr Paul = Borotinsky,=20 the Petrograd Hieromartyrs Bishop Demetrius of Gdov and Fr. Theodore = Andreyev=20 were also critical of it.[9]

     Nor was = criticism of=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s work confined to the Russian Church. Thus = immediately=20 after the publication of The Dogma of Redemption in 1926, = Protopriest=20 Milosh Parenta wrote in the Serbian Church=92s official organ: =93The = tragedy of=20 Metropolitan Anthony is amazing! A pillar of the faith in soul, a great = Orthodox=20 in his heart, a strict fulfiller and preserver of Church discipline to = the=20 smallest details. But when he approaches a scientific-theological = examination=20 and explanation of the dogmas, then he either insufficiently comprehends = them,=20 or he cannot avoid the temptation of, and enthusiasm for, modernism. The = explanation of the dogma of redemption offered by the author in this = work openly=20 destroys the teaching on this truth faithfully preserved by the Orthodox = Church,=20 and with it the Christian Religion itself, because the truth of the = redemption=20 together with the truth of Christ=92s incarnation is its base and = essence.=20 However, it is necessary to recognize that it is very difficult to = analyse this=20 work of the author, because in it there are often no definite and clear=20 concepts, although there are many extended speeches which hide the = concepts or=20 say nothing, and because in part there are no logical connections in it, = nor any=20 strictly scientific exposition, nor systematic unity=94.[10] =

     However, in = spite of=20 these obstacles, an attempt will be made to undertake such an analysis = in this=20 work; for, whatever the dangers of criticising such a revered figure, = the danger=20 of allowing his mistaken opinions to spread and be exalted to the status = of=20 Orthodox dogma are still greater=85=20

1.=20 THE =93JURIDICAL THEORY=94

In=20 essence the wrath of God is one of the manifestations of the love of = God, but of=20 the love of God in its relation to the moral evil in the heart of = rational=20 creatures in general, and in the heart of man in=20 particular.

Archbishop=20 Theophan of Poltava, On=20 Redemption.=20

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 ambitious claims to originality in his teaching on redemption put us on = our=20 guard right from the beginning of his work. Thus he writes: =93No one = has as yet=20 given a direct and at least somewhat clear answer to the question, why = Christ=92s=20 incarnation, sufferings and resurrection are saving for us, unless we = take into=20 consideration the small leading article published in the = Ecclesiastical=20 Herald of 1890 and the little article in the Theological Herald = of=20 1894 composed by the author of the present work. But let not the reader = not=20 think that we force our solution to this inquiry upon him as something=20 irrefutable. Supposing it were entirely incorrect, we nevertheless = maintain that=20 it is still the only direct and positive answer to the above-mentioned = dogmatic=20 query yet formulated.=94[11] =

     The=20 question arises: why should it be given to Metropolitan Anthony, nearly = 1900=20 years after the Death and Resurrection of Christ, to expound for the = first=20 time =93the only direct and positive answer=94 to the question of = the meaning of=20 redemption? Why were the Holy Fathers silent (if they were indeed = silent)?=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s answer to this is that =93the contemporaries of = the Fathers=20 so clearly understood the Saviour=92s redeeming grace that it was = unnecessary to=20 elucidate upon it. In the same way, in our days there is no need to = explain to=20 rural Christians what humility, compunction, and repentance are, yet the = intellectual class is in great need of an explanation of these virtues = since=20 they have alienated themselves from them. Thus, educated Christians who = from=20 medieval times have been caught in the mire of juridical religious = concepts,=20 have lost that direct consciousness or spiritual awareness of their = unity with=20 Christ Who suffers with us in our struggle for salvation, a unity which = the=20 early Christians kept so fervently in their hearts that it never = occurred to the=20 interpreters of the sacred dogmas and the commentators on the words of = the New=20 Testament to explain what everyone perceived so clearly=94.[12] =

     This is = unconvincing.=20 The problem of semi-believing intellectuals did not appear for the first = time=20 towards the end of the second millennium of Christian history. Nor did = the Holy=20 Fathers fail to explain the significance of Christ=92s death and = resurrection.=20 Such explanations involved the development and exploration of those = images and=20 metaphors to be found in the New Testament, of which the juridical = metaphor is=20 undoubtedly the chief. This metaphor was evidently not to Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 liking, for =93the juridical theory=94 forms the chief target of his = attack; but=20 there is no evidence that the Apostles had some more =93positive=94 = explanation=20 which they were hiding from the general Christian public and which was = revealed=20 to the Church some 1900 years later. After all, the Church has no = esoteric=20 teaching like that of the Gnostics. The whole truth was revealed to, and = handed=20 down by, the Apostles, and the task of subsequent generations is to = explicate=20 and explore that heritage, not speculate about hidden=20 teachings.

     What, then, = is the=20 so-called =93juridical theory=94? If we reply: =93An understanding of = the redemption=20 of mankind expressed in legal or juridical terms or metaphors=94, this = hardly=20 implies heresy, for many passages of Holy Scripture, as is well-known to = both=20 sides in this debate, use juridical terms when speaking about our = redemption. If=20 we add to this definition the words: =93combined with terms of a = passionately=20 negative or pagan connotation, such as =91wrath=92, =91curse=92, = =91sacrifice=92,=20 =91propitiation=92,=94 then we are no nearer to the definition of a = heresy, for these=20 phrases, too, are to be found in abundance in Holy Scripture. Since the = critics=20 of the juridical theory often describe it as =93scholastic=94, we might = expect that=20 the Catholic scholastic theory of redemption as found in the works of = Anselm and=20 Aquinas, is meant. Certainly this is part of the meaning. And yet the=20 metropolitan offers no serious analysis of this theory, and no = quotations from=20 Catholic sources.

     The real = targets of=20 Metropolitan Anthony and his supporters are the works of certain = Orthodox=20 writers who supposedly embrace the scholastic theory, especially=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. Metropolitan Anthony adds the names of = Peter=20 Moghila, metropolitan of Kiev in the seventeenth century, and Macarius = Bulgakov,=20 author of a standard textbook of Orthodox dogmatics in the nineteenth = century.=20 The HOCNA bishops, as we have seen, add Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov and = Bishop=20 Theophan the Recluse to the list (Metropolitan Anthony, however, is very = careful=20 to exclude Bishop Theophan[13]),=20 while labelling as =93scholastic=94 all Metropolitan Anthony=92s = twentieth-century=20 critics, especially Fr. Seraphim Rose.

     The strange = thing,=20 however, is that Metropolitan Anthony does not quote at all from=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, with the exception of a short excerpt = from his=20 Catechism on original sin and another, even smaller one from a = sermon of=20 his on Great Friday. And the HOCNA bishops do not correct this glaring=20 deficiency. Instead we are provided with a summary =96 more precisely, a = caricature - of the scholastic theory in the following words: =93The = Supreme=20 Being, God, was offended by Adam=92s disobedience and man=92s disbelief = in the=20 Divine injunction regarding the tree of knowledge. This was an extreme = offense,=20 and was punished by the curse not merely laid upon the transgressors, = but also=20 upon their entire posterity. Nevertheless, Adam=92s sufferings and the = agonizing=20 death which befell Adam=92s descendants were not sufficient to expunge = that=20 dreadful affront. The shedding of a servant=92s blood could not effect = this; only=20 the Blood of a Being equal in rank with the outraged Divinity, that is, = the Son=20 of God, Who of His own good will took the penalty upon Himself in = man=92s stead.=20 By this means the Son of God obtained mankind=92s forgiveness from the = wrathful=20 Creator Who received satisfaction in the shedding of the Blood and the = death of=20 His Son. Thus, the Lord has manifested both His mercy and His equity! = With good=20 reason do the skeptics affirm that if such an interpretation corresponds = to=20 Revelation, the conclusion would be the contrary: the Lord would have = manifested=20 here both mercilessness and injustice=94.[14] =

     Since = neither=20 Metropolitan Anthony nor the HOCNA bishops provide us with the = opportunity of=20 comparing this summary with the actual writings of the so-called = Orthodox=20 scholastics, we shall attempt to supply this deficiency for them. Here = is a=20 passage from Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism on redemption: = =93204. Q. In=20 what sense is Jesus Christ said to have been crucified for us? A. In the = sense=20 that by His death on the Cross He delivered us from sin, the curse and = death.=20 205. Q. What do the Holy Scriptures say about it? A. The Holy Scriptures = say the=20 following about it. About deliverance from sin: =91In whom we have = redemption=20 through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of = His grace=92=20 (Ephesians=20 1.7). About deliverance from the curse: =91Christ has redeemed us from = the curse=20 of the law, being made a curse for us=92 (Galatians=20 3.13). About deliverance from death: =91Forasmuch then as the children = are=20 partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself took part of the same; = that=20 through death He might destroy the power of death, that is, the devil; = and=20 deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject = to=20 bondage=92 (Hebrews=20 2.14-15) 206. Q. How does the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross deliver = us from=20 sin, the curse and death? A. The death of Jesus Christ on the Cross = delivers us=20 from sin, the curse and death. And so that we may more easily understand = this=20 mystery, the word of God enlightens us about it, as far as we can = accommodate=20 it, through the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam naturally (by = nature)=20 is the head of the whole of humanity, which is one with him through = natural=20 descent from him. Jesus Christ, in Whom Divinity is united with = Humanity, by=20 grace became the new, all-powerful Head of the people whom He unites = with=20 Himself by means of faith. Therefore just as through Adam we fell under = the=20 power of sin, the curse and death, so we are delivered from sin, the = curse and=20 death through Jesus Christ. His voluntary sufferings and death on the = Cross for=20 us, being of infinite value and worth, as being the death of Him Who is = without=20 sin and the God-Man, is complete satisfaction of the justice of God, Who = condemned us for sin to death, and immeasurable merit, which has = acquired for=20 Him the right, without offending justice, to give us sinners forgiveness = of sins=20 and grace for the victory over sin and death=85=94[15] =

     It will be = noted that=20 Metropolitan Philaret, as is usual with him, stays very close to the = words of=20 Holy Scripture, so that it is very difficult to find fault with his = exposition=20 without finding fault at the same time with the scriptural words that he = quotes.=20 It will also be noted that his explanation has none of the emotionality = of the=20 scholastic theory as expounded by Metropolitan Anthony, none of its=20 bloodthirstiness. True, there are the =93juridical=94 words =93curse=94, = =93satisfaction=94,=20 =93merit=94; but these are used in a calm, measured way which hardly = invites the=20 mockery assailed at the scholastic theory.

     Let us now = turn to one=20 of the most famous of the Holy Fathers, whom no Orthodox theologian = would dare=20 to accuse of scholasticism, since he was one of the earliest and = greatest=20 opponents of scholasticism, St. Gregory Palamas. It is striking how many = =93scholastic=94 words, such as =93wrath=94, =93sacrifice=94, = =93victim=94, =93reconciliation=94,=20 and =93ransom=94 he uses: =93Man was led into his captivity when he = experienced God=92s=20 wrath, this wrath being the good God=92s just abandonment of man. God = had to be=20 reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set = free from=20 the servitude.

     =93A = sacrifice was=20 needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since = we had=20 been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice = which=20 both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest=85. God = overturned the=20 devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to = God the=20 Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim =96 how great is His gift! = =96 and=20 reconciled God to the human race=85

     =93Since He = gave His=20 Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who = were=20 liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. = He=20 forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and = delivered us=20 from the devil=92s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as = if he=20 opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the = Master=92s=20 Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then = instead of=20 being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the = Cross of=20 Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the = kingdom of=20 the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made = vessels of=20 mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized = his=20 goods.=94[16]

     = Finally, let us now = turn to=20 Bishop Theophan the Recluse: "We have fallen through the sin of = our first=20 parents and we have been plunged into inescapable=20 destruction. Our=20 salvation can only come by deliverance from this destruction. Our = destruction=20 comes from two different evils: from the wrath of God in the face of our = disobedience and from the loss of His grace and from submission to the = law, on=20 the one hand; and on the other, from the alteration of our nature by = sin, from=20 the loss of true life, and from submission to death. That is why there = were=20 required for our salvation: first, that God should take pity on us, = deliver us=20 from the curse of the law and restore to us His grace; and then that He = make us=20 live again, we who were dead through sin, and give us a new=20 life.

     "Both the = one and the=20 other are necessary: both that we should be delivered from the curse, = and that=20 our nature should be renewed. If God does not show Himself full of pity = for us,=20 we cannot receive any pardon from Him, and if we receive no pardon, we = are not=20 worthy of His grace; and if we are not worthy of His grace, we cannot = receive=20 the new life. And even if we had received pardon and remission in some = fashion,=20 we would remain in our corrupted state, unrenewed, and we would derive = no profit=20 from it; for without renewal of our nature, we would remain in a = permanent state=20 of sin and we would constantly commit sins, sins which would bring down = upon us=20 again our condemnation and disgrace - and so everything would be = maintained in=20 the same state of corruption.

     "Both the = one and the=20 other have been accomplished by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. By = His Death=20 on the Cross He offered a propitiatory sacrifice for the human race. He = lifted=20 the curse of sin and reconciled us to God. And by His pure life, by = which in a=20 perfect manner He accomplished the will of God in all its fullness, He = has=20 revealed and given to us, in His Person, an unfailing source of = righteousness=20 and sanctification for the whole human race."[17]

     And let us = now compare=20 this exposition with the words of the HOCNA bishops: =93The proponents = of the=20 heretical, Scholastic theories of atonement insist that God=92s honor or = majesty=20 or justice had to be =91satisfied=92 or =91appeased=92 before God=92s = love and compassion=20 could be shown to mankind. God could not forgive mankind until His wrath = had=20 been propitiated. These beliefs attribute a division, opposition, and=20 contradiction within the simplicity of the Divinity. Furthermore, they, = like the=20 pagan Greek philosophers, subject the superessential and almighty God to = a=20 necessity of His nature=94 (p. 3).

     So there = would appear=20 to be three reasons for the rejection of the juridical theory by the = HOCNA=20 bishops: (1) a vaguely expressed emotional distaste for the emotional=20 connotations of certain words such as =93satisfied=94 and = =93appeased=94, (2) the=20 supposed division it creates in the simplicity of the Divinity, and (3) = its=20 attribution to God of a certain pagan concept of=20 necessity.

     (1), though = an=20 emotional rather than a strictly intellectual accusation, actually = represents,=20 in our opinion, the real motivation for the opposition to the so-called=20 juridical theory, and will consequently be discussed at some length = below. (2)=20 presumably refers (although it is not clearly stated in this passage) to = the=20 supposed contradiction between love and =93wrath=94 as attributes of = God, and will=20 also be discussed at length. (3) is simply a misunderstanding, in our = view, and=20 will therefore be briefly discussed now before going on to the more = serious=20 accusations.

     Bishop = Theophan does=20 use the word =93necessary=94, but it is obvious that no pagan = Greek kind=20 of necessity is implied. The thought is simply that in order to be saved = we had=20 to be both cleansed from sin and renewed in nature. And it = had to=20 be in that order. Indeed it makes no sense to think that human nature = can be=20 renewed and deified before it has been cleansed from sin. Thus we read:=20 =93Now = this He said=20 about the Spirit, which those who believed on Him were to receive; for = as yet=20 the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified=94 = (John=20 7.39). In other words, Jesus had to be glorified, i.e. crucified and die = on=20 Golgotha, thereby cleansing mankind from sin, before the Spirit could = descend=20 and renew our nature at Pentecost. It goes without saying that the word = =93had=94=20 here in no way implies any kind of pagan =93fate=94 or =93necessity=94. = All the acts of=20 God are free. But they are also not arbitrary. That is, they are in a = certain=20 order, according to a certain plan, a perfect order and a perfect plan = that=20 cannot be improved upon and in that sense have to be realised.=20 In = exactly the same=20 way, on the personal level, we have to confess our sins and receive = absolution=20 before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

     Turning now = to the=20 other charges against the juridical theory, it is necessary to = understand, first=20 of all, that all attempts to describe the mystery of our redemption in = human=20 terms are necessarily metaphorical. As such, they cannot be taken = to=20 their logical conclusion without absurdity. Therefore when reading them = we must=20 always bear in mind their metaphorical character, and offset the = absurdity that=20 results from concentrating too closely on one metaphor alone by = considering=20 other metaphors as well.[18] = Thus the juridical metaphor needs to be supplemented with, for example, = the=20 metaphor of the strong man (God) despoiling the goods of the brigand = (the devil)=20 (Matthew=20 12.29) or the patristic metaphor of the devil like a fish being caught = on the=20 hook of Christ=92s Divinity and the worm of His Humanity.[19] = And such a mixing of metaphors is displayed, as we have seen, by St. = Gregory=20 Palamas. Each metaphor illumines a part of the truth; one metaphor = complements=20 another, correcting its misleading emphases.

     For, as = Vladimir=20 Lossky writes: =93The immensity of this work of Christ, a work = incomprehensible to=20 the angels, as St. Paul tells us, cannot be enclosed in a single = explanation nor=20 in a single metaphor. The very idea of redemption assumes a plainly = legal=20 aspect: it is the atonement of the slave, the debt paid for those who = remained=20 in prison because they could not discharge it. Legal also is the theme = of the=20 mediator who reunited man to God through the cross. But these two = Pauline=20 images, stressed again by the Fathers, must not be allowed to harden, = for this=20 would be to build an indefensible relationship of rights between God and = humanity. Rather must we relocate them among the almost infinite number = of other=20 images, each like a facet of an event ineffable in itself=94[20].<= /P>

     At the heart = of the=20 controversy surrounding the juridical model of redemption, and closely = related=20 to the point just made about its metaphorical nature, lies the question = of the=20 emotional connotations of the language used in it =96 and of the = emotional=20 reaction to those connotations on the part of some of its critics. = Metropolitan=20 Anthony chooses to see in the language of the juridical model =96 even = in the very=20 sober form in which is presented by Metropolitan Philaret =96 the = expression of=20 fallen human emotions =93unworthy=94 of God and the great mystery of = God=92s salvation=20 of mankind. Words such as =93curse=94, =93vengeance=94, =93wrath=94, = =93ransom=94 all have the=20 wrong connotations for him, even disgust him; he would like to replace = them by=20 more =93positive=94 words such as =93love=94 and =93compassion=94. What = he apparently fails=20 to realize is that all words used to explain the mystery, = including=20 =93love=94 and =93compassion=94, are more or less tainted by their = association with=20 fallen human emotions and have to be purified in our understanding when = applied=20 to God.

     But such = purification=20 cannot be accomplished through abstraction simply, by replacing the = vivid words=20 of Scripture with the dry categories of secular philosophy. The Word of = God is=20 above all philosophy. And to attempt to =93improve on=94 the words and = concepts=20 given to us by the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture can only lead to a = sinful=20 distortion of the mystery itself. If the Holy Scriptures, adapting to = our=20 infirmity, use this language, then all the more should we not expect = that we can=20 find any better words to explain the mystery than those provided by the = Holy=20 Spirit Himself.

     The best we = can do,=20 therefore, is to accept with gratitude the metaphors and explanations = given to=20 us in the Holy Scriptures, understanding, on the one hand, that there is = no=20 better explanation of the mystery in question in human language (for if = there=20 were, God would have provided it), and on the other hand that this = explanation=20 needs to be purified in our minds of all elements suggestive of fallen = human=20 passion.

     Instead of = rejecting=20 or belittling the terms given us in Holy Scripture, we must accept them = with=20 reverence, probe as deeply as possible into their meaning, while purging = them of=20 all fallen connotations. Thus when considering the curse that God placed = on=20 mankind at the fall, we must exclude from our minds all images of = bloodthirsty=20 men cursing their enemies out of frenzied hatred and a desire for = vengeance. At=20 the same time, the concept of the curse must not become so abstract that = the=20 sense of awe and fear and horror that it elicits is lost. The = curse was=20 not imposed on mankind by God out of hatred of mankind, but out of a = pure and=20 dispassionate love of justice =96 and this justice, far from being a = =93cold=94,=20 =93abstract=94 idea is a living and powerful energy of God Himself. = Similarly, God=20 did not demand the Sacrifice of the Son out of a lust for blood, out of = the=20 fallen passion of vengefulness, but in order to restore justice and = peace=20 between Himself and His creatures, than which there can be nothing more=20 desirable and necessary.

     God neither = loves nor=20 hates as human beings do; both the love and the wrath of God are not to = be=20 understood in a human way. For, as St. John of Damascus says: =93God, = being good,=20 is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any = passion=94.[21]=20 And,=20 as St. Gregory the Theologian says, by virtue of our limitations and=20 imperfection as human beings we introduce =93something human even into = such lofty=20 moral definitions of the Divine essence as righteousness and love=94.[22] =

     Archbishop = Theophan of=20 Poltava assembled a number of patristic quotations, of which the = following are a=20 selection, in order to demonstrate this vitally important=20 point:

(i)           = ;     =20 St.=20 Gregory of Nyssa: =93That it is impious to consider that the nature of = God is=20 subject to any passion of pleasure or mercy or wrath will be denied by = none of=20 those who are even a little attentive to the knowledge of the truth of=20 existence. But although it is said that God rejoices in His servants and = is=20 stirred up with wrath against the fallen people, and then that He = =91will show=20 mercy on whom He will show mercy=92 (Exodus=20 33.19), nevertheless I think that in the case of each of these = utterances the=20 commonly accepted interpretation loudly teaches us that by means of our=20 properties the Providence of God adapts itself to our infirmity, so that = those=20 inclined to sin may through fear of punishment restrain themselves form = evil,=20 and that those formerly carried away by sin may not despair of returning = through=20 repentance when they contemplate His mercy=94.[23] =

(ii)           = ;  =20 St.=20 Gregory of Nyssa: =93Theological science cannot avoid using this = language, even=20 about Divine things. We must always have this fact in mind both when we = read the=20 Holy Scriptures and when studying the works of the Holy = Fathers.=20 And=20 so as to avoid possible misunderstandings and mistakes in the one or the = other=20 sphere, it is necessary for us in such cases to transpose the words and = names=20 relating to God which are taken from the existence here below to mean = that which=20 is higher, loftier=94.[24]

(iii)           = ;=20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93The same expressions are used about God and about = man; but the=20 former should be understood in one way, and the latter in another. We = should not=20 accept in the same sense that which is spoken about us and about God, = even if=20 the manner of speaking is the same; but we must ascribe to God a certain = special=20 privilege which is proper to God; otherwise much stupidity will be the=20 result=94.[25] =

(iv)           = ;=20 St.=20 John of Damascus: =93Many of the things relating to God =85 cannot be = put into=20 fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express = ourselves=20 according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of = God we use=20 the terms sleep and wrath, =85 and suchlike expressions=85 = It is not=20 within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to = think of=20 Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether = by word=20 or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament = and of=20 the New.=94[26]
(v)           = ;   =20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93When you hear the words =91wrath=92 and =91anger=92 = in relation to=20 God, do not understand anything human by them: this is a word of = condescension.=20 The Divinity is foreign to everything of the sort; but it is said like = this in=20 order to bring the matter closer to the understanding of people of the = cruder=20 sort. In the same way we, when we speak with barbarians, use their = language; or=20 when we speak with an infant, we lisp like him, even if we ourselves are = wise=20 men, in condescension to his youth. And what is it to be wondered at if = we act=20 in this way both in words and in deeds, biting our hands and giving the=20 appearance of wrath, in order to correct the child? In exactly the same = way God=20 used similar expressions in order to act of people of the cruder sort. = When He=20 spoke He cared not for His dignity, but about the profit of those who = listened=20 to Him. In another place He indicated that wrath was not proper to God = when He=20 said: =91Is it I Whom they provoke? Is it not themselves?=92 = (Jeremiah=20 7.19) Would you really want Him, when speaking with the Jews, to say = that He was=20 not angry with them and did not hate them, since hatred is a passion? Or = that He=20 does not look on the works of men, since sight is a property of bodies? = Or that=20 He does not hear, since hearing belongs to the flesh? But from this they = would=20 have extracted another dishonourable doctrine, as if everything takes = place=20 without the Providence of God. In avoiding such expressions about God, = many=20 would then have been completely ignorant of the fact that God exists; = and if=20 they had been ignorant of that, then everything would have perished. But = when=20 the teaching about God was introduced in such a way, the correction of = it=20 followed swiftly. He who is convinced that God exists, although he has = an=20 unfitting conception of God and puts something sensual into it, = nevertheless=20 with time he becomes convinced that there is nothing of the sort in God. = But he=20 who is convinced that God does not have providential oversight, that He = does not=20 care about that which exists, that He does not exist, what benefit will = he gain=20 from passionless expressions?=94[27]=20

(vi)           = ;=20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93When it is said of God that He is angry, he is angry = not in=20 order to avenge Himself, but in order to correct us=94.[28] =

(vii)         =20 St.=20 Gregory the Theologian: =93He punishes, and we have made out of this: He = is angry,=20 because with us punishment follows anger=94.[29] =

(viii)      =20 St.=20 John of Damascus: =93By wrath and anger are understood His hatred and = disgust in=20 relation to sin, since we also hate that which does not accord with our = thought=20 and are angry with it=94.[30] =

     Thus,=20 as Archbishop Theophan writes, =93if one understands the properties of = the wrath=20 of God in the sense in which the just-mentioned Fathers and Teachers of = the=20 Church understand it, then it is evident that it involves nothing = contrary to=20 the Christian understanding of God as the God of love. But in essence = the wrath=20 of God, with such an understanding, is one of the manifestations of = the love=20 of God, but of the love of God in its relation to the moral evil in = the=20 heart of rational creatures in general, and in the heart of man in=20 particular.=94[31] =

     So=20 God=92s love and wrath are two sides of the same coin; the one cannot = exist=20 without the other. For as the love of God is limitless, so is His wrath = against=20 injustice, that is, against that which denies love and seeks to destroy = the=20 beloved.

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 concludes: =93The objection to the Church=92s teaching that the death of = Christ the=20 Saviour on the Cross is a Sacrifice on the grounds that it supposedly=20 presupposes an understanding of God that is unworthy of His true = greatness=20 insofar as it speaks of God as being angry for an insult to His dignity, = is=20 based on an incorrect understanding of the so-called moral attributes of = God,=20 and in particular the Righteousness of God. The true reason for the = Sacrifice on=20 Golgotha for the sins of the human race is the love of God for the human = race.=94[32] =

2.=20 THE MEANING OF =93JUSTIFICATION=94

All these things were done with = justice,=20 without which God does not act.

St. Gregory Palamas, Homily=20 16.

     Metropolitan = Anthony=20 makes a particular point of rejecting the traditional, juridical = understanding=20 of the word =93justification=94 (=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=ED=E8=E5 in Russian, = dikaiosunh in Greek), which, he = claims,=20 =93does not have such a specific meaning. Rather, it means = righteousness, that is,=20 blamelessness, dispassion and virtue. This is the translation of the = Greek=20 dikaiosunh which has the same = meaning as=20 agiwsunh, areth, etc.=94[33] =

     More = recently, in his=20 famous article, =93The River of Fire=94, the Greek Old Calendarist and = associate of=20 the HOCNA bishops Alexander Kalomiros also attempts to give a different = meaning=20 to the word =93justification=94. He writes that the Greek word = dikaiosunh, is a translation of = the Hebrew=20 tsedaka, which means "the Divine energy that accomplishes the = salvation=20 of man". "This term," he writes, "is parallel and almost synonymous with = the=20 words hesed (pity, compassion, love) and emeth = (faithfulness,=20 truth). This is a quite different conception of=20 justice..."

     But is it? = Even if we=20 accept the conjectural Hebrew word rather than the word chosen by the = Holy=20 Spirit in the Greek Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament = Scriptures=20 which is blessed for use in the services of the Orthodox Church, there = is surely=20 no contradiction here with the usual meaning of the word "justice". "The = Divine=20 energy that accomplishes the salvation of man" pursues this end through = the=20 restoration of a state of sinlessness and justice in man's relationship = to God.=20 Sin upset the balance in this relationship, creating injustice. Justice = is=20 restored through the destruction of sin: on the part of God, by His = perfect=20 Sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of all men, and on the part of = man by=20 tears of repentance and good works carried out for the love of God and=20 neighbour.

     As we have = seen above,=20 according to Bishop Theophan the Recluse, there are two aspects to our=20 redemption: freedom from sin, or justification, and renewal of life, or=20 holiness. By reducing justification to holiness, Metropolitan Anthony = appears to=20 reduce the first aspect of our redemption to the second. =

     But this = means,=20 according to Archbishop Seraphim of Lubny, a member of the ROCOR Synod = in the=20 1920s and 30s, =93that Metr. Anthony has an incorrect understanding of = salvation.=20 The latter he reduces to personal holiness alone. While justification, = which is=20 the same as our deliverance from the punitive sentence laid by the = Divine=20 justice on Adam for his sin, is so excluded by Metr. Anthony from the = concept of=20 salvation that he identifies this justification of ours accomplished by = the Lord=20 on the Cross with personal holiness, for the concepts of justification = and=20 righteousness, in his opinion, are equivalent=94.

     =93But we = could not=20 attain personal holiness if the Lord had not communicated to us the = inner,=20 regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of baptism and=20 chrismation. And this grace is given to us exclusively by virtue of the=20 sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and is its fruit (John 16.7).=20 Consequently, our salvation is composed, first, from our justification = from=20 original sin by the blood of the Saviour on the Cross, and secondly, = from the=20 regenerating grace that is communicated to us, which destroys all = personal sins=20 and makes us possessors of holiness =96 it goes without saying, with the = most=20 active participation of our free will=94[34] =

     In support = of his=20 thesis, Metropolitan Anthony points out that =93even [in] the Russian = text of the=20 Bible, which bears the traces of Protestant influence=85 the word = =91justification=92=20 is placed only seven times in St. Paul=92s mouth whereas = =91righteousness=92 is=20 employed sixty-one times=94[35] =

     However, as = Archbishop Seraphim=20 writes, =93our Church had never recognized the quantitative principle in = the=20 understanding of Sacred Scripture. The holy Fathers of the Church from = the=20 beginning never saw such a criterion in their grace-filled = interpretation of the=20 Divine Revelation. And if we pay attention to the holy Fathers, we shall = see=20 that their understanding of =91Paul=92s righteousness=92 overthrows = Metr. Anthony=92s=20 view of this righteousness as meaning only holiness. =

     =93We shall = not cite the=20 patristic interpretation of all the 61 utterances of the Apostle Paul = that=20 include the word =91righteousness=92, which would constitute a whole = book. For=20 Orthodox believers it is important to know what they must understand by = this=20 =91righteousness=92 in the light of the patristic mind. To this end we = shall cite=20 the interpretation of Bishop Theophan the Recluse of several of the = utterances=20 of the Apostle Paul in which the word =91righteousness=92 figures, since = this=20 interpretation, being based on the teaching of the holy Fathers of the = Church,=20 is patristic.

     =93Having in = mind the=20 words of Romans 3.25: =91Whom God has set forth as a propitiation = [ilasthrion] through faith in = His blood, to=20 declare His righteousness [for the remission of past sins]=92, Bishop = Theophan the=20 Recluse gives it this interpretation: =91By faith everyone draws on = himself the=20 propitiatory blood of Christ. The blood of Christ by its power has = already=20 cleansed the sins of the whole world=92 but everyone becomes personally = cleansed=20 by it when by faith receives on himself sprinkling or bedewing by the = blood of=20 Christ. This is accomplished mystically in the water font of baptism and = afterwards in the tears font of repentance=85

     =93=92God = saw that people=20 =85 could not=85 start on the right path; which is why He decided to = pour His=20 righteousness into them, as fresh blood is admitted into a corrupted = organism =96=20 and declare it [His righteousness] in them in this way. And in order = that this=20 might be accomplished, He gave His Only-begotten Son as a propitiation = for all=20 believers =96 not only so that for His sake their sins might be = forgiven, but in=20 order that the believers might become pure and holy within through = receiving the=20 grace of the Holy Spirit by faith=92.[36]

     =93In his = explanation of=20 [Romans] 9.30: =91What shall we say? That the Gentiles who = followed not=20 after righteousness have attained to righteousness, the righteousness = which is=20 of faith=92, Bishop Theophan writes: =91By righteousness we must = understand here all=20 the spiritual good things in Christ Jesus: the remission of sins, the = reception=20 of grace, the good direction of the heart through it and all the = virtues, by all=20 of which righteousness was restored, the righteousness that was = imprinted in=20 human nature at its creation and trampled on thereafter=92.[37]

     =93Dwelling = on the words=20 of the Apostle Paul: =91The Kingdom of God is [not eating and drinking, = but]=20 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit=92 (Romans = 14.17),=20 Bishop Theophan explains the word =91righteousness=92 thus: = =91=94Righteousness=94 is not=20 justification only and the remission of sins, but inner righteousness=85 = holiness=92.[38]

     =93In his = explanation of=20 Romans 5.18: =91Therefore as by the transgression of one man = condemnation=20 came upon all men, so by the righteous act [dikaiwmatoV] of One man [the = free gift] came=20 upon all men to justification [dikaiwsin] of life=92, Bishop = Theophan=20 writes: =91as by the transgression of one man condemnation =96 that is, = condemnation=20 to death =96 came upon all me, so by the justification of One man = justification to=20 life came upon all men. Blessed Theodoret writes: =93Looking at Adam, = says the=20 Apostle, do not doubt in what I have said (that is, that God saves all = in the=20 one Lord Jesus Christ). For if it is true, as it is indeed true, that = when Adam=20 transgressed the commandment, the whole race received on itself the = sentence of=20 death, then it is clear that the righteousness of the Saviour provides = life for=20 all men.=94=92 =91The apostle,=92 explains Bishop Theophan, =91said: = =93justification of=20 life came upon=94, which leads us to understand that the saving forces = of grace=20 had already entered into humanity, had been received by it and had begun = their=20 restorative work=85 Do not doubt that this grace has already entered, = and hasten=20 only to make use of it, so as to destroy the destructive consequences of = the=20 first sin=92.[39]

     =93In his = interpretation=20 of I Corinthians 1.30, we find the following words in Bishop = Theophan:=20 =91The Lord Jesus Christ is our =93righteousness=94 because in His name = we are given=20 the remission of sins and grace that strengthens us to every good = work=92.[40]

     =93As we = see, Bishop=20 Theophan by the righteousness about which the Apostle Paul teaches in = the cited=20 places in his epistles understands our propitiation or justification = from=20 original sin based on the Saviour=92s sacrifice on the Cross, and then = from all=20 our personal sins and our attainment of holiness through the = regenerating grace=20 of the Holy Spirit.=94[41]

     Bishop = Theophan=92s=20 interpretation of three other disputed passages from St. Paul are cited = by=20 Archbishop Seraphim: =93=91Being justified freely by His grace through = the=20 deliverance that is in Christ Jesus=92 (Romans 3.24)=85 = =91Through the=20 deliverance [dia thV apolutrwsewV], that is, through = the=20 redemption. Redemption is the only means of justification! Someone is = redeemed=20 when people pay money for him and he is delivered from the bonds of = slavery.=20 Through the fall of the first parents the human race fell into slavery = to sin=20 and the devil, who had possession of man by dint of his guiltiness, = which drew=20 upon him and upon him that had power over him the curse of God. For his=20 salvation the curse had to be removed, which would give a righteous = basis for=20 clearing him of guilt, and then new strength had to be poured into him = to=20 destroy the power of sin, and through this overthrow the power of the = devil. All=20 this was accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of = God and=20 God, Who took upon Himself human nature, died in it upon the Cross, was=20 resurrected, ascended into the heavens, sat at the right hand of the = Father, and=20 sent the Holy Spirit on the holy Apostles and through them to the whole = of=20 humanity. All this taken together constitutes the economy of our = salvation, or=20 the redemption of the human race. Those who approach it with faith = receive the=20 remission of sins, and then the grace of the Spirit through the = sacraments, and=20 are not only guiltless, but also righteous=85By redemption is sometimes = signified=20 not the whole economy of salvation, but only that action by which the = Lord=20 through His death on the Cross delivered us from the condemnation that = lay upon=20 us and the curse of God that weighed upon us. As ransom for us =96 for = our unpaid=20 debts =96 He gave His own blood. It cries out more than the blood of = Abel, but it=20 calls down not punishment from on high, but complete justification for = every=20 believer.=92[42]

     =93From the = cited=20 interpretation of Bishop Theophan it is clearly evident that by the=20 justification [=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=EDi=E5] of which the = Apostle Paul=20 speaks we must not understand only the righteousness [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E5=E4=ED=EE=F1=F2=FC] acquired by us = through the=20 grace of the Holy Spirit. This justification includes in itself the = removal from=20 mankind of the guilt for original sin and its consequence, the curse of = God, by=20 means of the justice of God through the death of Christ on the=20 Cross=85=92

     =93This = interpretation=20 of the Slavonic word =91=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=92 (in the Russian = translation,=20 =91=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=EDi=E5=92) according to = Bishop Theophan=92s=20 interpretation is witnessed to by two other texts among those indicated = by Metr.=20 Anthony: =91For if the ministry of condemnation be glory, much more doth = the=20 ministration of righteousness exceed in glory=92 (II Corinthians = 3.9) [and]=20 =91For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain=92=20 (Galatians 2.21).

     =93Having in = mind the=20 first text, Bishop Theophan says: =91The Old Testament institution was = the=20 ministry of condemnation because it only reproached sin and condemned = the=20 sinner=85 it did not lead him further=85 The testament of grace, by = contrast,=20 although it is also revealed by the universal condemnation of those who = are=20 called to it, nevertheless says: =91Repent and be baptized every one of = you for=20 the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit=92 = (Acts 2.38).=20 That is, in it the remission of sins is given from the first step=85 and = new life=20 that is powerful to keep one walking without deviating in the = commandments of=20 God is communicated =96 a right spirit is renewed in the reins, a spirit = that=20 communicates to him who receives it inner probity or righteousness = [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E5=E4=ED=EE=F1=F2=FC]. That is why it is = the ministry=20 of righteousness [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0] - dikaiosunhV =85 not in name, but = in=20 essence=92.[43]

     =93As we = see, in the=20 given apostolic words, too, we must understand by justification not only = righteousness or holiness, but also the remission of sins, of course, in = the=20 sense of deliverance both from original sin, and also from all our = personal sins=20 by the grace of the Holy Spirit for the sake of the death of Christ on = the=20 Cross.

     =93The same = thought is=20 expressed in Bishop Theophan=92s interpretation of the word = =91righteousness=92=20 [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0] (in the Russian = translation=20 =91=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4a=EDi=E5=92] in the last = apostolic text.=20 Lingering on this text, Bishop Theophan says: =91If righteousness=92 - = dikaiosunh, a God-pleasing, = saving life =96=20 =91come by the law, then Christ died in vain=92. If the law provided = both=20 forgiveness of sins and inner probity and sanctification, then there = would be no=20 reason for Christ to die. He died in order to provide us with these two=20 essential good things =96 the forgiveness of sins and sanctifying grace. = Nobody=20 except He could provide us with these, and without them there would be = no=20 salvation for us=85 The Lord Saviour died for us and nailed our sins to = the Cross.=20 Then, after His ascension into heaven, He sent down the Holy Spirit from = the=20 Father. That is why believers are given in Him both the forgiveness of = sins and=20 sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Without these two things there = would be no=20 salvation for us. Consequently Christ, in providing us with them, did = not die in=20 vain=85 Consequently righteousness is not through the law.=92[44]=85

     =93Thus from all = the apostolic=20 utterances that we have examined in which the Apostle Paul speaks about=20 righteousness, it is clear that by this righteousness we must understand = not=20 only holiness, but also our justification from original sin and all our = personal=20 sins.=94[45]

     The other = passages=20 whose correct interpretation is disputed by Metropolitan Anthony are = discussed=20 in a similar way by Archbishop Seraphim, relying, as always, on the=20 interpretation of Bishop Theophan. We shall leave the interested reader = to look=20 these up on his own. Instead, we shall end this section by citing two = patristic=20 passages from two of the greatest Fathers of the Church, which = demonstrate how=20 central the language of justice and justification is to their = understanding of=20 the mystery of redemption.

     First, St. = John=20 Chrysostom: =93=92Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having = become a=20 curse for us=92 (Galatians 3.13). In reality, the people were = subject to=20 another curse, which says, =91Cursed is every man who continueth not in = all the=20 words of the law to do them=92 (Deuteronomy 27.26). To this = curse, I say,=20 people were subject, for none had continued in, or was a keep of, the = whole law;=20 but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, =91Cursed by God is = everyone who is=20 hanged on a tree=92 (Deuteronomy 21.23). And then both he who = hanged on a=20 tree, and he who transgresses the law, is cursed, and as it was = necessary for=20 him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be loosed from it, = but to=20 receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such = another, and=20 thereby loosed us from the curse. It was like an innocent man=92s = undertaking=20 to die for another condemned to death, and so rescuing him from = punishment.=20 For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other = curse, in=20 order to remove that of others. For, =91He practiced no iniquity, nor = was craft in=20 His mouth=92 (Isaiah 53.9; I Peter 2.22). And as by dying = He rescued=20 from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He = delivered them from it.=94[46] =

     And = secondly, St.=20 Gregory Palamas: =93The pre-eternal, uncircumscribed and almighty Word = and=20 omnipotent Son of God could clearly have saved man from mortality and = servitude=20 to the devil without Himself becoming man. He upholds all things by the = word of=20 His power and everything is subject to His divine authority. According = to Job,=20 He can do everything and nothing is impossible for Him. The strength of = a=20 created being cannot withstand the power of the Creator, and nothing is = more=20 powerful than the Almighty. But the incarnation of the Word of God was = the=20 method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and = most=20 appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice = on its=20 side, and God does not act without justice. As the Psalmist and = Prophet=20 says, =91God is righteous and loveth righteousness=92 (Psalm=20 11.7), =91and there is no unrighteousness in Him=92 (Psalm=20 92.15). Man was justly abandoned by God in the beginning as he had first = abandoned God. He had voluntarily approached the originator of evil, = obeyed him=20 when he treacherously advised the opposite of what God had commanded, = and was=20 justly given over to him. In this way, through the evil one=92s envy and = the good=20 Lord=92s just consent, death came into the world. Because of the = devil=92s=20 overwhelming evil, death became twofold, for he brought about not just = physical=20 but also eternal death.

     =93As we had = been justly=20 handed over to the devil=92s service and subjection to death, it was = clearly=20 necessary that the human race=92s return to freedom and life should be=20 accomplished by God in a just way. Not only had man been = surrendered to=20 the envious devil by divine righteousness, but the devil had rejected=20 righteousness and become wrongly enamoured of authority, arbitrary power = and,=20 above all, tyranny. He took up arms against justice and used his might = against=20 mankind. It pleased God that the devil be overcome first by the justice = against=20 which he continuously fought, then afterwards by power, through the = Resurrection=20 and the future Judgement. Justice before power is the best order of=20 events, and that force should come after justice is the work of a = truly=20 divine and good Lord, not of a tyrant=85.

     =93A = sacrifice was=20 needed to reconcile the Father on High with us and to sanctify us, since = we had=20 been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice = which=20 both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest=85 It was = clearly=20 necessary for Christ to descend to Hades, but all these things were = done with=20 justice, without which God does not act.=94[47]

     =93Justice = before=20 power=94, the Cross before the Resurrection. And =93all things done with = justice,=20 without which God does not act.=94 Clearly, justice is no secondary = aspect of the=20 Divine economy, but the very heart, the very essence of our=20 salvation.

3.=20 THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN

O=20 my Saviour, the living and unslain Sacrifice, when as God Thou of Thine = own will=20 hadst offered up Thyself unto the Father=85

Pentecostarion,=20 Sunday=20 of Pascha, Mattins, Canon, Canticle 6, troparion.

     = Another bone of = contention=20 between Metropolitan Anthony and his critics is the concept of = sacrifice.=20

     The Holy = Scriptures=20 say that =93the Son of Man came=85 to give His life as a ransom for = many=94=20 (Matthew 20.28), =93as a ransom for all=94 (I Timothy = 2.6), =93as a=20 merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make=20 propitiation for the sins of the people=94 (Hebrews 2.17).=20

     The Holy = Fathers use=20 such language no less frequently. Thus St. Cyprian of Carthage writes: = =93If Jesus=20 Christ our Lord and God, is Himself the Chief Priest of God the Father, = and has=20 first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded = this to be=20 done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges = the=20 office of Christ who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers = a true=20 and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father=94.[48] = Again, Blessed Theophylact writes: =93Since the Lord offered Himself up = for us in=20 sacrifice to the Father, having propitiated Him by His death as High = Priest and=20 then, after the destruction of sin and cessation of enmity, sent unto us = the=20 Spirit, He says: =91I will beseech the Father and will give you a = Comforter, that=20 is, I will propitiate the Father for you and reconcile Him with you, who = were at=20 enmity with Him because of sin, and He, having been propitiated by My = death for=20 you and been reconciled with you, will send you the Spirit.=94[49] = But the language of =93ransom=94, =93propitiation=94 and =93sacrifice=94 = is rejected by=20 Metropolitan Anthony.

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =93[Metropolitan Anthony] gives a metaphorical, purely moral = meaning to=20 the Sacrifice on Golgotha, interpreting it in the sense of his own = world-view,=20 which he calls the world-view of moral monism.[50] = But he decisively rejects the usual understanding of the Sacrifice on = Golgotha,=20 as a sacrifice in the proper meaning of the word, offered out of love = for us by=20 our Saviour to the justice of God, for the sin of the whole human race. = He=20 recognizes it to be the invention of the juridical mind of the Catholic = and=20 Protestant theologians. It goes without saying that with this = understanding of=20 the redemptive feat of the Saviour the author had to establish a point = of view=20 with regard to the Old Testament sacrifices, the teaching on which has = up to now=20 been a major foundation for the teaching on the Saviour=92s Sacrifice on = Golgotha.=20 And that is what we see in fact. The author rejects the generally = accepted view=20 of the sacrifices as the killing of an innocent being in exchange for a = sinful=20 person or people that is subject to execution. =91In the eyes of the = people of the=20 Old Testament=92, in the words of the author, =91a sacrifice meant only = a=20 contribution[51],=20 just as Christians now offer [candles, kutiya=20 and eggs] in church=85 But nowhere [in the Old Testament] will one = encounter the=20 idea that the animal being sacrificed was thought of as taking upon = itself the=20 punishment due to man.=92[52]

     =93Our = author points to=20 St. Gregory the Theologian as being one of the Fathers of the Church who = was a=20 decisive opponent of the teaching on sacrifice, in the general sense of = the=20 word. In the given case he has in mind the following, truly remarkable = (but not=20 to the advantage of the author) words of the great Theologian on the = Sacrifice=20 on Golgotha:

     =93=92We = were detained in=20 bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in = exchange for=20 wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in = bondage, I ask=20 to whom this was offered, and for what cause? If to the evil one, fie = upon the=20 outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom = which=20 consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his = tyranny, a=20 payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us = alone=20 altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by = Him that=20 we were being oppressed; and next, on what principle did the Blood of = His=20 Only-begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, = when he=20 was being offered up by his father, but changed his sacrifice, putting a = ram in=20 the place of his human victim?=92[53]=94[54]=20

     However,=20 St. Gregory, unlike Metropolitan Anthony, does not reject the juridical = model,=20 but rather embraced its essence. If the metropolitan had started quoting = the=20 saint a little earlier, then he would have read that the blood shed for = us is=20 =93the precious and famous Blood of our God and High-priest and = Sacrifice=94.=20 And if he had continued the quotation just one sentence more, he would = have read=20 that =93the Father accepts the sacrifice, but neither asked for it, nor = felt any=20 need of it, but on account of the oeconomy?=94=20

     =93Evidently,=94=20 writes Archbishop Theophan, =93the author understood that this quotation = in its=20 fullness witnesses against his assertion and therefore in the 1926 = edition of=20 The Dogma of Redemption he does not give a reference to St. = Gregory the=20 Theologian=94[55] =

     The = archbishop=20 continues: =93From the cited words of St. Gregory it is evident that he = by no=20 means rejects the teaching that the death of Christ the Saviour on = Golgotha was=20 a sacrifice; he only rejects the theory created in order to explain it = that this=20 sacrifice was to be seen as offered by Christ the Saviour as a ransom = for the=20 sinful race of men to the devil[56].=20 As is well known, such a theory did exist and was developed by Origen = and in=20 part by St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory the Theologian with complete=20 justification recognizes this theory to be without foundation, as did = St. John=20 of Damascus later (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book = III, ch.=20 27). He thought it just and well-founded to consider the sacrifice as = offered to=20 God the Father, but not in the sense that the Father =91demanded or = needed=92 it,=20 but according to the economy of salvation, that is, because, in the plan = of=20 Divine Providence, it was necessary for the salvation of the human = race.[57] = Besides, although it is said that the Father receives the Sacrifice, = while the=20 Son offers it, the thought behind it is that the Son offers it as High = Priest,=20 that is, according to His human nature, while the Father receives it = indivisibly=20 with the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Triune God, according to the = oneness=20 and indivisibility of the Divine Essence.=94[58] =

     Still=20 further proof of St. Gregory=92s real views is provided by his writing = that=20 =93Christ Himself offers Himself to God [the Father], so that He Himself = might=20 snatch us from him who possessed us, and so that the Anointed One should = be=20 received instead of the one who had fallen, because the Anointer cannot = be=20 caught=94.[59] =

     Returning=20 now to the question of the Old Testament sacrifices, Metropolitan = Anthony=20 rejects their prefigurative significance. However, as Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes, =93in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, these sacrifices = were, on=20 the one hand, concessions to Israel=92s childishness, and were designed = to draw=20 him away from pagan sacrifices; but on the other hand, in these victims = the Old=20 Testament law prefigured the future Sacrifice on Golgotha[60].=20 In particular, the Old Testament paschal Lamb had this mystically = prefigurative=20 significance[61].<= /P>

     = =93=92Everything that took=20 place in the time of the worship of God in the Old Testament,=92 says = John=20 Chrysostom, =91in the final analysis refers to the Saviour, whether it = is prophecy=20 or the priesthood, or the royal dignity, or the temple, or the altar of=20 sacrifice, or the veil of the temple, or the ark, or the place of = purification,=20 or the manna, or the rod, or anything else =96 everything relates to=20 Him.

     =93=92God = from ancient=20 times allowed the sons of Israel to carry out a sacrificial service to = Him not=20 because He took pleasure in sacrifices, but because he wanted to draw = the Jews=20 away from pagan vanities=85. Making a concession to the will of the = Jews, He, as=20 One wise and great, by this very permission to offer sacrifices prepared = an=20 image of future things, so that the victim, though in itself useless, = should=20 nevertheless be useful as such an image. Pay attention, because this is = a deep=20 thought. The sacrifices were not pleasing to God, as having been carried = out not=20 in accordance with His will, but only in accordance with His = condescension. He=20 gave to the sacrifices an image corresponding to the future oeconomy of = Christ,=20 so that if in themselves they were not worthy to be accepted, they at = least=20 became welcome by virtue of the image they expressed. By all these = sacrifices He=20 expresses the image of Christ and foreshadows future events=85=92[62]=94[63]

     After = quoting from St.=20 Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria to similar effect, = Archbishop=20 Theophan continues: =93But if the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the = Church look at=20 the Old Testament sacrifices in this way, then still more significance = must they=20 give to the redemptive death of Christ the Saviour for the human race on = Golgotha. And this is indeed what we see. They all recognize the death = of Christ=20 the Saviour on Golgotha to be a sacrifice offered by Him as propitiation = for the=20 human race, and that, moreover, in the most literal, not at all = metaphorical=20 meaning of this word. And from this point of view the death of Christ = the=20 Saviour on Golgotha is for them =20 =91the great mystery=92 of the redemption of the human race from = sin, the=20 curse and death and =91the great mystery=92 of the reconciliation of = sinful humanity=20 with God.

     =93St. = Gregory the=20 Theologian, in expounding his view on the Old Testament sacrifices as = being=20 prefigurations of the great New Testament Sacrifice, notes: =91But in = order that=20 you should understand the depth of the wisdom and the wealth of the = unsearchable=20 judgements of God, God did not leave even the [Old Testament] sacrifices = completely unsanctified, unperfected and limited only to the shedding of = blood,=20 but to the sacrifices under the law is united the great and in relation = to the=20 Primary Essence, so to speak, untempered Sacrifice =96 the purification = not of a=20 small part of the universe, and not for a short time, but of the whole = world for=20 eternity=92.

     =93By this = great=20 Sacrifice he understands the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, Who shed His = blood=20 for the salvation of the human race on Golgotha, which is why he often = calls Him=20 =91God,=20 High Priest and Victim=92. =91He gave Himself for us for redemption, for = a purifying=20 sacrifice for the universe=92.[64]

     =93=92For us = He became man=20 and took on the form of a servant, he was led to death for our = iniquities=92.[65]

     =93=92He is = God, High=20 Priest and Victim=92.[66]

     =93=92He was = Victim, but=20 also High Priest; Priest, but also God; He offered as a gift to God [His = own]=20 blood, but [by It] He cleansed the whole world; He was raised onto the = Cross,=20 but to the Cross was nailed the sin of all mankind=92.[67]

     =93He = redeems the world=20 by His own blood=92.[68]

    =93St. Athanasius of Alexandria = says about=20 the Sacrifice of the Saviour on Golgotha: =91He, being the true Son of = the Father,=20 later became man for us so as to give Himself for us as a sacrifice to = the=20 Father and redeem us through His sacrifice and offering (Ephesians=20 5.2). He was the same Who in ancient times led the people out of Egypt, = and=20 later redeemed all of us, or rather, the whole human race, from death, = and=20 raised us from hell. He is the same Who from the age was offered as a = sacrifice,=20 as a Lamb, and in the Lamb was represented prefiguratively. And finally = He=20 offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. =93For even Christ our Pascha is = sacrificed=20 for us=94 (I=20 Corinthians=20 5.7).=92[69] =

     =93=92By His = death was=20 accomplished the salvation of all, and the whole of creation was = redeemed. He is=20 the common Life of all, and He gave His body to death as a sheep for a=20 redemptive sacrifice for the salvation of all, though the Jews do not = believe=20 this.=92[70]

     =93St. = Gregory of Nyssa=20 reasons in a similar way.

     =93=91Jesus, = as Zachariah=20 says, is the Great High Priest (Zachariah=20 3.1), Who offered His Lamb, that is, His flesh, in sacrifice for the = sins of the=20 world, and for the sake of the children who partake of flesh and blood = Himself=20 partook of blood (Hebrews=20 11.14). This Jesus became High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, = not in=20 respect of what He was before, being the Word and God and in the form of = God and=20 equal to God, but in respect of that fact that He spent Himself in the = form of a=20 servant and offered an offering and sacrifice for us=92.[71]

     =93=92He is = our Pascha=20 (I=20 Corinthians=20 5.6) and High Priest (Hebrews=20 12.11). For in truth Christ the Pascha was consumed for us; but the = priest who=20 offers to God the Sacrifice is none other than the Same Christ. For in = Himself,=20 as the [Apostle] says, =93He hath given Himself for us as an offering = and=20 sacrifice to God=94 (Ephesians=20 5.2).=92[72]

      = =93=92By means of=20 priestly acts He in an ineffable manner unseen by men offers an offering = and=20 sacrifice for us, being at the same time the Priest and the Lamb that = takes away=20 the sins of the world=92.[73]

     =93We find = much material=20 on the given question in the same spirit in the works of St. John=20 Chrysostom.

     =93=92The = oeconomy that=20 was to be accomplished in the New Testament,=92 says this Holy Father in = his=20 interpretation on the Gospel of John, =91was foreshadowed beforehand in=20 prefigurative images; while Christ by His Coming accomplished it. What = then does=20 the type say? =93Take ye a lamb for an house, and kill it, and do as He = commanded=20 and ordained=92 (Exodus=20 12). But Christ did not do that; He did not command this, but Himself = became as=20 a Lamb, offering Himself to the Father as a sacrifice and offering=92.[74]

     =93=92When = John the=20 Forerunner saw Christ, he said to his disciples: =93Behold the Lamb of = God=94=20 (John=20 1.35). By this he showed them all the gift which He came to give, and = the manner=20 of purification. For =93the Lamb=94 declares both these things. And John = did not=20 say, =93Who shall take=94, or =93Who hath taken=94, but =93Who taketh = away the sins of the=20 world=94, because Christ always does this. In fact, he took them away = not only=20 then when He suffered, but from that time even to the present He takes = away=20 sins, not as if He were always being crucified (for He at one time = offered=20 sacrifice for sins), but since by that one sacrifice He is continually = purging=20 them.=92[75]

     =93=92This = blood was ever=20 typified of old in the altars and sacrifices determined by the law. It = is the=20 price of the world, by it Christ redeemed the Church, by it He adorned = the whole=20 of her.=92[76] = =91This blood in types cleansed sins. But if it had such power in the = types, if=20 death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded = the very=20 reality?=92[77]

     =93=92David = after the=20 words: =93Sacrifice and offering hast Thou not desired=94, added: =93but = a body hast=20 Thou perfected for me=94 (Psalm=20 39.9), understanding by this the body of the Master, a sacrifice for the = whole=20 universe, which cleansed our souls, absolved our sins, destroyed death, = opened=20 the heavens, showed us many great hopes and ordered all the rest=92.[78]

    =93St.=20 John Chrysostom=92s reasoning on the mystery of the Sacrifice on = Golgotha is=20 particularly remarkable in his discourse, On the Cross and the = Thief,=20 which he delivered, as is evident from the discourse itself, on Great = Friday in=20 Holy Week. =92Today our Lord Jesus Christ is on the Cross, and we = celebrate, so=20 that you should know that the Cross is a feast and a spiritual triumph. = Formerly=20 the Cross was the name of a punishment, but now it has become an = honourable=20 work; before it was a symbol of condemnation, but now it has become the = sign of=20 salvation=85 It has enlightened those sitting in darkness, it has = reconciled us,=20 who were in enmity with God=85 Thanks to the Cross we do not tremble = before the=20 tyrant, because we are near the King. That is why we celebrate in = commemorating=20 the Cross=85. In fact, one and the same was both victim and priest: the = victim was=20 the flesh, and the priest was the spirit. One and the same offers and = was=20 offered in the flesh. Listen to how Paul explained both the one and the = other.=20 =93For every high priest,=94 he says, =93chosen from among men is = appointed to act on=20 behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for = sins=85 Hence=20 it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer=94 = (Hebrews=20 5.1, 8.3). So He Himself offers Himself. And in another place he says = that=20 =93Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will = appear a second=20 time for salvation=94 (Hebrews=20 9.28)=85.=92[79]

     =94St. Cyril = of=20 Alexandria reasons as follows with regard to the words of John the = Forerunner on=20 the Saviour: =91=94Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of = the world=94=20 (John=20 1.29). It was necessary to reveal Who was the One Who came to us and why = He=20 descends from heaven to us. And so =93Behold=94, he says, =93the Lamb of = God that=20 taketh away the sins of the world=94, to Whom the Prophet Isaiah pointed = in the=20 words: =93As a sheep for the slaughter is he led and as a lamb before = the shearers=20 is he silent=94 (Isaiah=20 53.7) and Who was prefigured in the law of Moses. But then He saved only = in=20 part, without extending His mercy on all, for it was a figure and a = shadow. But=20 now He Who once was depicted by means of enigmas, the True Lamb, the = Spotless=20 Victim, is led to the slaughter for all, so as to expel the sin of the = world and=20 cast down the destroyer of the universe, so that by His death for all He = might=20 abolish death and lift the curse that was on us, so that, finally, the=20 punishment that was expressed in the words: =93Dust thou art, and unto = dust shalt=20 thou return=94 (Genesis=20 3.19) might cease and the second Adam might appear =96 not from the = earth, but=20 from the heaven (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.47) =96 and become for human nature the beginning of a great good, = the=20 destruction of the corruption wrought [by sin], the author of eternal = life, the=20 founder of the transformation [of man] according to God, the beginning = of piety=20 and righteousness, the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. One Lamb died for = all,=20 saving for God and the Father a whole host of men, One for all so that = all might=20 be subjected to God, One for all so as to acquire all, =93that those who = live=20 might live no longer for themselves but from Him Who for their sake died = and was=20 raised=94 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.15). Insofar as we were in many sins and therefore subject to death = and=20 corruption, the Father gave the son to deliver us (I=20 Timothy=20 2.6), One for all, since all are in Him and He is above all. One died = for all so=20 that all should live in Him.=92[80] = St. Cyril=92s general view of the death of Christ the Saviour on = Golgotha is such=20 that on Golgotha Emmanuel =91offered Himself as a sacrifice to the = Father not for=20 Himself, according to the irreproachable teaching, but for us who were = under the=20 yoke and guilt of sin=92.[81] = =91He offered Himself as a holy sacrifice to God and the Father, having = bought by=20 His own blood the salvation of all=92.[82] = =91For our sakes he was subjected to death, and we were redeemed from = our former=20 sins by reason of the slaughter which He suffered for us=92.[83] = =91In Him we have been justified, freed from a great accusation and = condemnation,=20 our lawlessness has been taken from us: for such was the aim of the = oeconomy=20 towards us of Him Who because of us, for our sakes and in our place was = subject=20 to death=92.[84]

     =93St. Basil = the Great=20 in his epistle to Bishop Optimus writes: =91The Lord had to taste death = for each,=20 and having become a propitiatory sacrifice for the world, justify all by = His=20 blood=92.[85] = He develops his thought on the death on the Cross of Christ the Saviour = in more=20 detail as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of the human race in his=20 interpretation of Psalm 48, at the words: =93There be some that trust in = their=20 strength, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches. A = brother=20 cannot redeem; shall a man redeem? He shall not give to God a ransom=20 [exilasma]=20 for himself, nor the price of the redemption of his own soul=94 = (Psalm=20 48.7-9): =91This sentence is directed by the prophet to two types of = persons: to=20 the earthborn and to the rich=85. You, he says, who trust in your own = strength=85.=20 And you, he says, who trust in the uncertainty of riches, listen=85. You = have need=20 of ransoms that you may be transferred to the freedom of which you were = deprived=20 when conquered by the power of the devil, who, taking you under his = control,=20 does not free you from his tyranny until, persuaded by some worthwhile = ransom,=20 he wishes to exchange you. And the ransom must not be of the same kind = as the=20 things which are held in his control, but must differ greatly, if he = would=20 willingly free the captives from slavery. Therefore a brother is not = able to=20 ransom you. For no man can persuade the devil to remove from his power = him who=20 has once been subject to him, not he, at any rate, who is incapable of = giving=20 God a propitiatory offering even for his own sins=85. But one thing was = found=20 worth as much as all men together. This was given for the price of = ransom for=20 our souls, the holy and highly honoured blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, = which He=20 poured out for all of us; therefore we were bought at a great price=20 (I=20 Corinthians=20 6.20)=85. No one is sufficient to redeem himself, unless He comes who = turns away=20 =93the captivity of the people=94 (Exodus=20 13.8), not with ransoms nor with gifts, as it is written in Isaiah = (52.3), but=20 with His own blood=85 He Who =93shall not give to God His own ransom=94, = but that of=20 the whole world. He does not need a ransom, but He Himself is the = propitiation.=20 =93For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, = innocent,=20 undefiled, set apart from sinners, and become higher than the heavens. = He does=20 not need to offer sacrifices daily (as the other priests did), first for = his own=20 sins, and then for the sins of the people=94 (Hebrews=20 7.26-27).=92[86]

     =93=92The = Scriptures do=20 not reject all sacrifices in general,=92 writes St. Basil the Great in = his=20 interpretation on the book of the Prophet Isaiah, =91but the Jewish = sacrifices.=20 For he says: =93What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices?=94 = (Isaiah=20 1.11). He does not approve of the many, but demands the one sacrifice. = Every=20 person offers himself as a sacrifice to God, presenting himself as =93a = living=20 sacrifice, pleasing to God=94, through =93rational service=94 he has = offered to God=20 the sacrifice of praise (Romans=20 12.1). But insofar as the many sacrifices under the law have been = rejected as=20 useless, the one sacrifice offered in the last times is accepted. For = the Lamb=20 of God took upon Himself the sin of the world, =93gave Himself up for = us, a=20 fragrant offering and sacrifice to God=94 (Ephesians=20 5.2)=85 There are no longer the =93continual=94 sacrifices (Exodus=20 29.42), there are no sacrifices on the day of atonement, no ashes of the = heifer=20 cleansing =93the defiled persons=94 (Hebrews=20 9.13). For there is one sacrifice of Christ and the mortification of the = saints=20 in Christ; one sprinkling =96 =93the washing of regeneration=94 = (Titus=20 3.5); one propitiation for sin =96 the Blood poured out for the = salvation of the=20 world.=92[87]

     =93Finally, = St. John of=20 Damascus says the following about the mystery of the sacrifice on = Golgotha:=20 =93Every action and performance of miracles by Christ are most great and = divine=20 and marvelous: but the most marvelous of all is His precious Cross. For = no other=20 thing has subdued death, expiated the sin of the first parent = [propatoroV=20 amartia],=20 despoiled Hades, bestowed the resurrection, granted the power to us of=20 condemning the present and even death itself, prepared the return to our = former=20 blessedness, opened the gates of Paradise, given our nature a seat at = the right=20 hand of God, and made us children and heirs of God, save the Cross of = our Lord=20 Jesus Christ=92.[88] = Therefore, according to the words of the holy father, =91we must bow = down to the=20 very Wood on which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us, since = it is=20 sanctified through contact with the body and blood=92.[89]

     =93This is = what the Holy=20 Fathers and Teachers of the Church teach about the mystery of the = sacrifice of=20 the Saviour on Golgotha for the sins of the human race. But that is not = all.=20 This teaching was even formally confirmed by a whole local council of = the Church=20 of Constantinople in 1156. This council was convened because of = different=20 understandings of the well-known words in the liturgical prayer, where = it is=20 said of Christ the Saviour: =91Thou art He that offereth and is offered, = that=20 accepteth and is distributed=92.[90] = The initial reasons for this difference, according to the account of a=20 contemporary historian, Kinnamas, was the following circumstance. A = certain=20 Deacon Basil during Divine service in the Church of St. John the = Theologian=20 declared while giving a sermon on the daily Gospel reading that =91the = one Son of=20 God Himself became a sacrifice and accepted the sacrifice together with = the=20 Father=92. Two deacons of the Great Church who were present at this = found in the=20 words of Basil an incorrect thought, as if two hypostases were thereby = admitted=20 in Jesus Christ, of which one was offered in sacrifice and the other = accepted=20 the sacrifice. Together with the others who thought like them they = spread the=20 idea that the Saviour=92s sacrifice for us was offered only to God the = Father. In=20 order to obtain a more exact explanation and definition of the Orthodox=20 teaching, the conciliar sessions took place, at the will of the Emperor = Manuel=20 Comnenus, on January 26 and May 12, 1156. The first conciliar session = took place=20 in the hall attached to the Great Church as a result of the inquiry of = the=20 just-appointed Metropolitan Constantine of Russia, who was hastening to = leave:=20 was it truly necessary to understand the words of the prayer as he = understood=20 them, that the sacrifice was offered and is offered to the whole of the = Holy=20 Trinity? The council, under the presidency of the Patriarch of = Constantinople=20 Constantine Kliarenos, confirmed the teaching expressed of old by the = Fathers=20 and Teachers of the Church, whose works were read at the council, that = both at=20 the beginning, during the Master=92s sufferings, the life-creating flesh = and blood=20 of Christ was offered, not to the Father only, but also to the whole of = the Holy=20 Trinity, and now, during the daily performed rites of the Eucharist, the = bloodless sacrifice is offered to the Trihypostatic Trinity=94, and laid = an=20 anathema on the defenders of the error, whoever they might be, if they = still=20 adhered to their heresy and did not repent. =94[91][92]

     =93From this = historical=20 note it is evident that the council of 1156 considered it indisputable = that the=20 death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is a propitiatory sacrifice for = the=20 human race. It was occupied only with the question to which this = sacrifice was=20 offered and decided it in the sense that the sacrifice was offered by = Christ the=20 Saviour to the All-Holy Trinity. Moreover, Christ the Saviour Himself = was at the=20 same time both the sacrifice and High Priest offering the sacrifice in=20 accordance with His human nature, and God receiving the sacrifice, = together with=20 the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to the resolution of the = council, the=20 eucharistic sacrifice is the same sacrifice, by its link with the = sacrifice on=20 Golgotha. Those who thought otherwise were subjected by the council to=20 anathema.=94[93]

     As St. = Gregory of=20 Nyssa writes: =93He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and = Priest as=20 well, and =91Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world=92. When = did He do=20 this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His = disciples,=20 for this much is clear to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man = unless=20 its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His = own=20 Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of = the=20 Lamb has now been completed.=94 [94]

     The HOCNA = bishops=20 write: =93In Archbishop Nikon=92s Life and Works of Metropolitan = Anthony=20 (vol. 5, pp. 171-172), Bishop Gabriel quotes Archbishop Theophan of=20 Poltava=92s objections to The Dogma of Redemption. Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =91The death of Christ the Saviour on the Cross on Golgotha, = according to=20 the teaching of the Holy Fathers, undoubtedly is a redemptive and = propitiating=20 sacrifice for the sins of the race of man.=92 Opposite this passage, in = the=20 margin, Metropolitan Anthony has written: =91I accept and do not = deny=92.=94 (p.=20 13)

     But if = Metropolitan=20 Anthony accepts and does not deny this clear statement of the = =93juridical=20 theory=94, including such a purely juridical phrase as =93propitiating = sacrifice=94,=20 why does he still consider Metropolitan Philaret a scholastic? In what = way was=20 Archbishop Theophan=92s statement Orthodox while Metropolitan = Philaret=92s in his=20 Catechism (which we have quoted above) was heretical? Nowhere to = our=20 knowledge are we given answers to these questions, neither in = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s works, nor in those of his = supporters=85

     =93Let our = lives, then,=94=20 chants the Holy Church, =93be worthy of the loving Father Who has = offered=20 sacrifice, and of the glorious Victim Who is the Saviour of our = souls=94.[95]

4.=20 THE PRAYER IN THE GARDEN

The natural and innocent passions = [include]=20 the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the = succour=20 at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other = such=20 like passions which belong by nature to every = man.

St. John of Damascus, Exact = Exposition of=20 the Orthodox Faith, III, 24.

     = The HOCNA bishops = write next to=20 nothing about the topics discussed in the previous sections =96 that is, = the=20 language of the =93juridical theory=94, especially the concepts of the = wrath of God,=20 justification and sacrifice for sin. They take it as read that this = language is=20 somehow illegitimate and =93scholastic=94, although, as we have shown, = it is in fact=20 perfectly patristic and scriptural and in no way incompatible with right = doctrine if properly understood. And so, rejecting the =93negative=94 = juridical=20 theory, they turn to what Metropolitan Anthony calls his =93positive=94 = theory,=20 =93moral monism=94, and in particular to his interpretation of the = prayer in the=20 Garden of Gethsemane in the context of that theory. =

     Since this = is the most=20 famous part of the metropolitan=92s=20 theory, we shall quote him at some length: =93The word of instruction is = good,=20 still better is a good example, but what shall we call a power = incomparably=20 superior to either of these? This, which we have delayed to define, is=20 compassionate love, this power is suffering for another=92s sake which = sets a=20 beginning to his regeneration. It is a mystery, yet not so far removed = from us;=20 we can see it working before our very eyes, sometimes even through us, = though we=20 do not always understand it. As a power of regeneration we find it = constantly=20 mentioned not only in stories of the lives of the Saints and the = vitae of=20 virtuous shepherds of the Church, but also in the tales of secular = literature=20 which are at times wonderfully profound and accurate. Both recognize in=20 compassionate love an active, revolutionary and often irresistible = power; yet=20 the former do not explain wherein lies its connection with Christ as our = Redeemer, and the latter do not even understand = it=85

     =93Such = strength of=20 compassionate love is the grace-filled fruit of a godly life and of = nature=20 (e.g., the love of a Christian mother). This is within the reach of the = laity=20 who live in God, but their sphere of action is limited to near = relatives, or to=20 students (of a pious teacher), or to companions in work or companions by = circumstance=85 However, when all men in question, the earnest of this = gift is=20 imparted by the mystery of Holy Orders. Our Scholastic theology has = overlooked=20 this fact, which is very clearly expressed by Saint John Chrysostom,=85 = who says,=20 =91Spiritual love is not born of anything earthly; it comes from above, = from=20 Heaven, and is imparted in the mystery of Holy Orders; but the = assimilation and=20 retention of the gift depends on the aspirations of the spirit of=20 man=92=85

     =93The = compassionate=20 love of a mother, a friend, a spiritual shepherd, or an apostle is = operative=20 only if it attracts Christ, the true Shepherd. When it acts within the = limits of=20 mere human relations, it can call forth a kindly attitude and repentive=20 [penitent] sentiments, but it cannot work radical regeneration. The = latter is so=20 hard for our corrupt nature that not unjustly did Nicodemus, talking = with=20 Christ, compare it to an adult person entering again into his mother=92s = womb and=20 being born for a second time. To this our Lord replied that what is = impossible=20 in the life of the flesh is possible in the life of grace, where the = Holy=20 Spirit, Who descends from Heaven, operates. In order to grant us this = life,=20 Christ had to be crucified and raised, as the serpent was raised by = Moses in the=20 wilderness, that all who believe in Him should not perish, but have = eternal life=20 (John 3.13-15). So what those who possess grace can do to some extent = only and=20 for some people only, our Heavenly Redeemer can do fully and for all. = Throughout=20 the course of His earthly life, filled with the most profound compassion = for=20 sinful humanity, He often exclaimed, =91O faithless and perverse = generation, how=20 long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer with you?=92 (Matthew = 17.17). He=20 was oppressed with the greatest sorrows on the night when the greatest = crime in=20 the history of mankind was committed, when the ministers of God, with = the help=20 of Christ=92s disciple, some because of envy, some because of avarice, = decided to=20 put the Son of God to death.

     =93And a = second time the=20 same oppressing sorrow possessed His pure soul on the Cross, when the = cruel=20 masses, far from being moved to pity by His terrible physical = sufferings,=20 maliciously ridiculed the Sufferer; and as to His moral suffering, they = were=20 unable even to surmise it. One must suppose that during that night in=20 Gethsemane, the thought and feeling of the God-Man embraced fallen = humanity=20 numbering many, many millions, and He wept with loving sorrow over each=20 individual separately, as only the omniscient heart of God could do. = In this=20 did our redemption consist. This is why God, the God-Man, and only = He, could=20 be our Redeemer. Not an angel, nor a man. And not at all because the=20 satisfaction of Divine wrath demanded the most costly sacrifice. Ever = since the=20 night in Gethsemane and that day on Golgotha, every believer, even he = who is=20 just beginning to believe, recognizes his inner bond with Christ and = turns to=20 Him in his prayers as to the inexhaustible source of moral regenerating = force.=20 Very few are able to explain why they so simply acquired faith in the=20 possibility of deriving new moral energy and sanctification from calling = on=20 Christ, but no believer doubts it, nor even do = heretics.

     =93Having = mourned with=20 His loving soul over our imperfection and our corrupt wills, the Lord = has added=20 to our nature the well-spring of new vital power, accessible to all who = have=20 wished or ever shall wish for it, beginning with the wise=20 thief=85

     =93=85 I = have always been=20 dissatisfied when someone to whom I have explained redeeming grace = retorts from=20 a Scholastic, theological viewpoint in this manner, =91You have spoken = only of the=20 subjective, the moral aspect of the dogma, leaving out the objective and = metaphysical (that is to say, the juridical).=92 To all this I answer, = =91No, a=20 purely objective law of our spiritual nature is revealed in the = transmission of=20 the compassionate, supremely loving energy of the Redeemer to the = spiritual=20 nature of the man who believes and calls for this help, a law which is = revealed=20 in our dogmas, but of which our dogmatic science has taken no = notice.=92=94[96]

     At this = point,=20 however, the metropolitan chooses to delay the elucidation of his = positive=20 theory=20 in order to =93refute the current understanding that our Lord=92s prayer = in=20 Gethsemane was inspired by fear of the approaching physical suffering = and death.=20 This would be entirely unworthy of the Lord, whose servants in later = days (as=20 well as in earlier times, as for instance, the Maccabees) gladly met = torture and=20 rejoiced when their flesh was torn and longed to die for Christ as it = were the=20 greatest felicity. Moreover, the Saviour knew well that His spirit was = to leave=20 His body for less than two days, and for this reason alone the death of = the body=20 could not hold any terror for Him.

     = =93I=20 am=20 perfectly=20 convinced that the bitter sufferings of Christ in Gethsemane came from=20 contemplation of the sinful life and the wicked inclinations of all the=20 generations of men, beginning with His enemies and betrayers of that = time, and=20 that when our Lord said, =91Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup = from Me,=92=20 He referred not to the approaching crucifixion and death but to the = overwhelming=20 state of profound sorrow which He felt for the human race He loved so=20 dearly=94.[97]

     Now there is = some=20 patristic evidence for this view (it is quoted by the HOCNA bishops). = But there=20 is still more evidence for the view, contested by Metropolitan Anthony, = that=20 Christ allowed His human nature to experience the fear of death that is = natural=20 to it and in no way sinful, in order to demonstrate the reality of that=20 nature.[98] = Moreover, this latter interpretation became particularly firmly = established=20 after the Sixth Ecumenical Council had finally elucidated the doctrine = of the=20 two wills of Christ, the locus=20 classicus=20 for which is precisely the prayer in the Garden.

     Thus the = great=20 champion of the two-wills doctrine, St. Maximus the Confessor, whose = teaching=20 was confirmed at the Sixth Council, writes in his Dispute with = Pyrrhus:=20 =93Since the God of all Himself became man without [undergoing any] = change, then=20 [it follows] that the same Person not only willed in a manner = appropriate to His=20 Godhead, but also willed as man in a manner appropriate to His humanity. = For the=20 things that exist came to be out of nothing, and have therefore a power = that=20 draws them to hold fast to being, and not to non-being; and the natural=20 characteristic of this power is an inclination to that which maintains = them in=20 being, and a drawing back from things destructive [to them]. Thus the=20 super-essential Word, existing essentially in a human manner, also had = in His=20 humanity this self-preserving power that clings to existence. And He [in = fact]=20 showed both [aspects of this power], willing the inclination and the = drawing=20 back through His human energy. He displayed the inclination to cling to=20 existence in His use of natural and innocent things, to such an extent = that=20 unbelievers thought He was not God; and He displayed the drawing back at = the=20 time of the Passion when He voluntarily balked at death.=94[99]

     The = important word=20 here is =93voluntarily=94. Although it was natural, and not sinful, for = Christ to=20 fear death, since He was truly man, He did not have to; He could = have=20 overcome that fear through the power of the grace that was natural to = Him as=20 being truly God, which grace also overcame the fear of death in the holy = martyrs. But He chose not to overcome the fear that is in accordance = with nature=20 (and which is to be clearly distinguished from that irrational dread = which is=20 contrary to nature[100]),=20 in order to demonstrate the reality of that = nature.

     However, in = case=20 anyone should think that there was a conflict between His human will and = His=20 Divine will, Christ immediately demonstrated the complete obedience of = His human=20 will to the Divine will by the words: =93Nevertheless, not as I will, = but as Thou=20 wilt=94, which sentence, as St. Maximus explains, =93excludes all = opposition, and=20 demonstrates the union of the [human] will of the Saviour with the = Divine will=20 of the Father, since the whole Word has united Himself essentially to = the=20 entirely of [human] nature, and has deified it in its entirety by = uniting=20 Himself essentially to it=94.[101]

     St. John of = Damascus=20 sums up the patristic consensus on this point: =93He had by nature, both = as God=20 and as man, the power of will. But His human will was obedient and = subordinate=20 to His Divine will, not being guided by its own inclination, but willing = those=20 things which the Divine will willed. For it was with the permission of = the=20 Divine will that He suffered by nature what was proper to Him. For when = He=20 prayed that He might escape the death, it was with His Divine will = naturally=20 willing and permitting it that He did so pray and agonize and fear, and = again=20 when His Divine will willed that His human will should choose the death, = the=20 passion became voluntary to Him. For it was not as God only, but also as = man,=20 that He voluntarily surrendered Himself to the death. And thus He = bestowed on us=20 also courage in the face of death. So, indeed, He said before His saving = passion, =91Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me=92 = (Matthew=20 26.39; Luke=20 22.22), manifestly as though He were to drink the cup as man and not as = God. It=20 was as man, then, that He wished the cup to pass from Him: but these are = the=20 words of natural timidity. =91Nevertheless,=92 He said, =91not My = will=92, that is to=20 say, not in so far as I am of a different essence from Thee, =91but Thy = will be=20 done=92, that is to say, My will and Thy will, in so far as I am of the = same=20 essence as Thou. Now these are the words of a brave heart. For the = Spirit of the=20 Lord, since He truly became man in His good pleasure, on first testing = its=20 natural weakness was sensible of the natural fellow-suffering involved = in its=20 separation from the body, but being strengthened by the Divine will it = again=20 grew bold in the face of death. For since He was Himself wholly God = although=20 also man, and wholly man although also God, He Himself as man subjected = in=20 Himself and by Himself His human nature to God and the Father, and = became=20 obedient to the Father, thus making Himself the most excellent type and = example=20 for us=94.[102]<= /P>

     Still more = clearly,=20 Theophylact of Bulgaria writes: =93To confirm that He was truly man, He = permitted=20 His human nature to do what is natural to it. Christ, as man, desires = life and=20 prays for the cup [that is, death[103]]=20 to pass, for man has a keen desire for life. By doing these things, the = Lord=20 confutes those heretics who say that He became man in appearance only. = If they=20 found a way to utter such nonsense even though the Lord showed here such = clear=20 signs of His human nature, what would they not have dared to invent if = He had=20 not done these things? To want the cup removed is human. By saying = without=20 hesitation, =91Nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done=92, the Lord = shows that=20 we too must have the same disposition and the same degree of equanimity, = yielding in all things to the will of God. The Lord also teaches here = that when=20 our human nature pulls us in a different direction, we ought not to = yield to=20 that temptation. =91Not My human will be done, but Thine, yet Thy will = is not=20 separate from My Divine will=92. Because the one Christ has two natures, = He also=20 had two natural wills, or volitions, one Divine and the other human. His = human=20 nature wanted to live, for that is its nature. But then, yielding to the = Divine=20 will common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit =96 namely, that all men = be saved=20 =96 His human nature accepted death. Thus His two wills willed one and = the same=20 thing: Christ=92s salvific death. The praying in Gethsemane was from His = human=20 nature which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of = life=85 His=20 human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did = suffer=20 them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in = appearance only.=20 And, in a more mystical sense, the Lord voluntarily suffered these = things in=20 order to heal human nature of its cowardice. He did this by using it all = up=20 Himself, and then making cowardice obedient to the Divine will. It could = be said=20 that the sweat which came out from the Lord=92s Body and fell from Him = indicates=20 that our cowardice flows out of us and is gone as our nature is made = strong and=20 brave in Christ. Had He not desired to heal the fear and cowardice of = mankind,=20 the Lord would not have sweated as He did, so profusely and beyond even = what the=20 most craven coward would do. =91There appeared an angel unto Him=92, = strengthening=20 Him, and this too was for our encouragement, that we might learn the = power of=20 prayer to strengthen us, and having learned this, use it as our defense = in=20 dangers and sufferings. Thus is fulfilled the prophecy of Moses, =91And = let all=20 the sons of God be strengthened in Him=92 [Deuteronomy=20 32.43]=94.[104]<= /P>

     Returning = now to=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s thesis, we may agree that the=20 positive idea here =96 that the Lord suffered so terribly in = contemplation of all=20 the sins of all generations of mankind =96 is illuminating and, if not = developed=20 in ancient patristic thought, is nevertheless not contrary to it. = However, the=20 negative idea =96 that He did not suffer in fear of death =96 is = explicitly=20 contradicted by several of the Holy Fathers, as we have seen.=20

     Moreover, = contrary to=20 the assertion of the HOCNA bishops, this negative idea is contradicted = also by=20 some modern Fathers of the Russian Church who knew and respected = Metropolitan=20 Anthony, but who in a tactful manner (as Fr. Seraphim Rose noted) = corrected his=20 mistake while preserving his genuine insight.

     Thus = Archbishop Averky=20 of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery writes: =93Who among us sinful = people can=20 dare to affirm that he really knows everything that took place in the = pure and=20 holy soul of the God-Man at that minute when the decisive hour of His = betrayal=20 to death on the Cross for the sake of mankind drew near? But attempts = were made=20 in the past, and continue to be made now, to explain the reasons for = these moral=20 torments of the Lord, which He experienced in the garden of Gethsemane = in those=20 hours before His death. The most natural suggestion is that His human = nature was=20 in sorrow and fear. =91Death entered into the human race unnaturally,=92 = says=20 Blessed Theophylact: =91therefore human nature fears it and runs from = it=92. Death=20 is the consequence of sin (Romans=20 5.12,15), and so the sinless nature of the God-Man should not have = submitted to=20 death: death for it was an unnatural phenomenon: which is why the = sinless nature=20 of Christ is indignant at death, and sorrows and pines at its sight. = These moral=20 sufferings of Christ prove the presence of the two natures in Him: the = Divine=20 and the human, which the heretical Monophysites deny, as well as the=20 Monothelites who deny the two wills.

     =93Besides,=20 these moral sufferings undoubtedly also took place because the Lord took = upon=20 Himself all the sins of the whole world and went to death for them: = that=20 which the whole world was bound to suffer for its sins was now = concentrated, so=20 to speak, on Him alone.=94[105]=20

     Again,=20 St. John Maximovich writes: =93It was necessary that the sinless Saviour = should=20 take upon Himself all human sin, so that He, Who had no sins of His own, = should=20 feel the weight of the sin of all humanity and sorrow over it in such a = way as=20 was possible only for complete holiness, which clearly feels even the = slightest=20 deviation from the commandments and Will of God. It was necessary that = He, in=20 Whom Divinity and humanity were hypostatically united, should in His = holy,=20 sinless humanity experience the full horror of the distancing of man = from his=20 Creator, of the split between sinful humanity and the source of holiness = and=20 light =96 God. The depth of the fall of mankind must have stood before = His eyes at=20 that moment; for man, who in paradise did not want to obey God and who = listened=20 to the devil=92s slander against Him, would now rise up against his = Divine=20 Saviour, slander Him, and, having declared Him unworthy to live upon the = earth,=20 would hang Him on a tree between heaven and earth, thereby subjecting = Him to the=20 curse of the God-given law (Deuteronomy=20 21.22-23). It was necessary that the sinless Righteous One, rejected by = the=20 sinful world for which and at the hands of which He was suffering should = forgive=20 mankind this evil deed and turn to the Heavenly Father with a prayer = that His=20 Divine righteousness should forgive mankind, blinded by the devil, this=20 rejection of its Creator and Saviour...

     =93However,=20 this sacrifice would not be saving if He would experience only His = personal=20 sufferings =96 He had to be tormented by the wounds of sin from which = mankind was=20 suffering. The heart of the God-Man was filled with inexpressible = sorrow. All=20 the sins of men, beginning from the transgression of Adam and ending = with those=20 which would be done at the moment of the sounding of the last trumpet = =96 all the=20 great and small sins of all men stood before His mental gaze. They were = always=20 revealed to God =96 =91all things are manifest before Him=92 =96 but now = their whole=20 weight and iniquity was experienced also by His human nature. His holy, = sinless=20 soul was filled with horror. He suffered as the sinners themselves do = not=20 suffer, whose coarse hearts do not feel how the sin of man defiles and = how it=20 separates him from the Creator=85

     =93However, = the spirit=20 is willing, but the flesh is weak. The spirit of Jesus now burns = (Romans=20 12.11), wishing only one thing =96 the fulfillment of the Will of God. = But by its=20 nature human nature abhors sufferings and death (St. John of Damascus, = An=20 Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book 3, chapters 18, 20, 23, = 24;=20 Blessed Theodoret; St. John of the Ladder, The Ladder, word 6, = =93On the=20 remembrance of death=94). = The Son of=20 God willingly accepted this weak nature. He gives Himself up to death = for the=20 salvation of the world. And He conquers, although He feels the = approaching fear=20 of death and abhorrence of suffering=85. Now these sufferings will be = especially=20 terrible, terrible not so much in themselves, as from the fact that the = soul of=20 the God-Man was shaken to the depths=85

     =93He = offered up prayers=20 and supplications to Him Who was able to save Him from death = (Hebrews=20 5.7), but He did not pray for deliverance from death. It is as if the = Lord Jesus=20 Christ spoke as follows to His Father: =91=85 Deliver Me from the = necessity of=20 experiencing the consequences of the crime of Adam. However, this = request is=20 dictated to Me by the frailty of My human nature; but let it be as is = pleasing=20 to Thee, let not the will of frail human nature be fulfilled, but Our = common,=20 pre-eternal Council. My Father! If according to Thy wise economy it is = necessary=20 that I offer this sacrifice, I do not reject It. But I ask only one = thing: may=20 Thy will be done. May Thy will be done always and in all things. As in = heaven=20 with Me, Thine Only-Begotten Son, and Thee there is one will, so may My = human=20 will here on earth not wish anything contrary to Our common will for one = moment.=20 May that which was decided by us before the creation of the world be = fulfilled,=20 may the salvation of the human race be accomplished. May the sons of men = be=20 redeemed from slavery to the devil, may they be redeemed at the high = price of=20 the sufferings and self-sacrifice of the God-Man. And may all the weight = of=20 men=92s sins, which I have accepted on Myself, and all My mental and = physical=20 sufferings, not be able to make My human will waver in its thirst that = Thy holy=20 will be done. May I do Thy will with joy. Thy will be=20 done...

     =93=92The = Lord prayed=20 about the cup of His voluntary saving passion as if it was = involuntary=92 (Sunday=20 service of the fifth tone, canon, eighth irmos), showing by this the two = wills=20 of the two natures, and beseeching God the Father that His human will = would not=20 waver in its obedience to the Divine will (Exact Exposition of the = Orthodox=20 Faith, book 3, 24). An angel appeared to Him from the heavens and=20 strengthened His human nature (Luke=20 22.43), while Jesus Who was accomplishing the exploit of His = self-sacrifice=20 prayed still more earnestly, being covered in a bloody sweat. And for = His=20 reverence =94[106]=20

     We=20 see here that while St. John accepts Metropolitan Anthony=92s thought = that Christ=20 suffered for the sins of the whole world in Gethsemane, he nevertheless, = contrary to the HOCNA bishops=92 assertion, does not agree that = He was not=20 fearful at the prospect of death, considering it in no way = =93unworthy=94 of the=20 Saviour. For, as Archbishop Theophan writes: =93The manifestation of = this=20 infirmity of the human nature of the Saviour represents nothing unworthy = of His=20 Most Holy Person, since it took place in accordance with the free = permission of=20 His Divine will and had its economical significance. The economical = significance=20 of this feat of the Saviour consists in the fact that He witnessed = thereby that=20 the Saviour took upon Himself, not illusory, but real human nature with = all its=20 sinless infirmities and conquered one of the most important of these = infirmities=20 [the fear of death] in His Person=94.[107]=20

     Perhaps the = best=20 summary of the significance of the Prayer in the Garden comes from Holy = New=20 Hieromartyr John Vostorgov (+1918), who in a sermon in 1901 said: = =93When=20 contemplating the Gethsemane struggle there are two main themes to keep = in mind.=20 First, Jesus Christ is not only perfect God, but perfect and complete = man, as=20 the Church has always clearly confessed. He is a man pure in body and = sinless in=20 spirit, =91in all things like us save sin=92. The second point is that = Jesus Christ=20 is the Redeemer of mankind Who bore our sins and the punishment for them = =96 our=20 afflictions (Isaiah=20 53.4; see whole chapter). Therefore, the soul of Jesus was not only = oppressed by=20 the knowledge of His impending, agonizing death, but by an incomparably = greater=20 burden =96 that of being the Redeemer. This weight so overwhelmed Him = that He=20 sweated blood and was brought to a state of complete exhaustion.=20

     =93As a man, = the Saviour=20 could not be completely indifferent towards death; if the thought of = death is=20 terrifying and unnatural for a sinner, how much more so for the sinless = Jesus,=20 the most perfect man. =91God did not create death=92 and man was created = =91for=20 incorruption=92 (Wisdom=20 2.23). Death appeared as a result of sin, as a punishment, and passed = upon all=20 men (cf. Romans=20 5.12-15). The early Gospel commentator, Saint John Chrysostom, as well = as Saint=20 Theophylact of Ochrid (who draws heavily on the works of Saint John) = remark:=20 =91Death did not enter into mankind by nature, therefore human nature is = afraid of=20 it and flees from it=92. A more recent commentator, the well-known = theologian=20 Bishop Michael, clarifies this idea with respect to the person of Jesus = Christ.=20 =91Death,=92 he writes, =91is the result of sin, hence the sinless = nature of the=20 God-man should not have been subject to it. For [His nature] death was = an=20 unnatural phenomenon, so it stands to reason that the pure nature of = Christ is=20 troubled by death, and is sorrowed and anguished in the face of=20 it.=92=85

     =93It would = be a grave=20 mistake to explain the sufferings of the Saviour in Gethsemane solely in = terms=20 of His anticipation of Golgotha, that is, from the perspective of Jesus = Christ=20 only as a man, and forgetting about Him as Redeemer. This view is not = only=20 unworthy of Jesus but is a misleading and inadequate explanation: He Who = experienced such fear at only the anticipation of death, yet the same = One Who=20 possessed such divine tranquility and maintained it throughout His = suffering =96=20 during the trial, in the midst of mockery, and on the cross, here even = refusing=20 to drink the gall that might numb His pain=85 But there are experiences = even more=20 trying than death; such was the cup the Saviour drank from in the garden = of=20 Gethsemane. In order to fully comprehend this we must recall the point = raised=20 earlier together with the recognition of the humanity of Jesus Christ, = namely,=20 that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer.

     =93The = Sinless One had=20 to bear all the wrath of God for sinners, all the punishments which the = sinful=20 nature of mankind merited. All of the chastisements and heavenly wrath = which the=20 world should have endured for its sins were taken on by the Redeemer of = mankind=20 alone. Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ the Prophet Isaiah = spoke=20 of this redeeming ministry: =91the chastisement of our peace was upon = Him=92=20 (Isaiah=20 53.5). The punishment which would return to us the peace with God which = we had=20 lost was borne by Him. This peace was broken by the sin of Adam, the=20 first-created man, and magnified and repeated over and over again by the = individual sins of each man born on earth. The righteousness of God = demanded=20 punishment for the sins, and the Redeemer, the Son of God, took that = punishment=20 on Himself (Archbishop Innocent of Kherson, The Final Days in the = Life of=20 Christ). Punishment for sins manifests itself in two ways: = internally, in=20 the conscience of the sinner, and externally through physical = afflictions. Inner=20 torments, such as those experienced by Christ in Gethsemane, are more = agonizing=20 and torturous. The accumulated sins of every age, of every man, placed = an=20 inexplicably great burden on the conscience of Jesus. He had to bear the = pangs=20 of conscience as if He Himself were guilty of each sin. In the words of = the=20 Apostle, =91For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that = we might=20 be made the righteousness of God in Him=92 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.21). All atheism and unbelief, all pride and wickedness, all malice = and=20 ingratitude, lies, deceptions, sensuality, and every sort of offensive=20 self-love, every vile and ignominious characteristic of sin past, = present, and=20 future, from the fall of Adam until the last moment of the earth=92s = existence =96=20 and all of this pressed on the sinless soul of the God-man. Without a = doubt, He=20 envisioned the assault on virtue, the persecution of His followers, the = rivers=20 of blood of the martyrs, the mocking of believers, the enmity against = the=20 Church; He beheld the entire abyss of wickedness, passions, and vices = which=20 until the end of time would pervert and distort the divinely given and = redeemed=20 human soul, which would =91crucify=85 the Son of God afresh, and put Him = to an open=20 shame=92 (Hebrews=20 6.6). All of this amassed evil, all the sins of mankind were poured into = the=20 bitter, dreaded cup which the Son of God was called upon to drink. This = is=20 something far beyond our comprehension. =91It was something more deadly = than=20 death=92 (Farrar). =91It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was = the=20 culmination of all the sufferings and deaths of all mankind. This inner = anguish=20 must have been as fierce as the torments of hell, for if even the most = base of=20 men are exhausted by the burden of their tortured conscience (e.g., Cain = and=20 Judas), tormently only the thought of their own sinful life, how = excruciating it=20 must have been for the most pure soul of the God-man to endure the = weight of all=20 the sins of the world, and in such a condition, to ascend the cross and = bring=20 redemption through His blood=92 (Archbishop Innocent, The Final Days = in the=20 Life of Christ).

     = =93But=20 sin is difficult not only because of the gnawing conscience: sin gave = birth to=20 the curse, to being banished from God, toward Whom, nevertheless, = mankind has=20 always strived and will strive. The Gethsemane Passion-bearer = experienced this=20 exile, this abandonment by the Father. For His sinless soul, which was=20 accustomed to continuous union with God, which tasted and knew the = sweetness,=20 beauty and completeness of this union, this separation was, of course,=20 inexpressibly difficult. It was the hell with which God threatens the = impious,=20 the hell which we simply cannot begin to imagine, the deprivation of = life with=20 God. It was this separation which produced the soul-shattering lament of = the=20 Sufferer on the cross: =91My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?=92=20 (Matthew=20 27.46). Thus, =91Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, He = being made=20 a curse for us=85=92 (Galatians=20 3.13).=94[108]<= /P>

     Hieromartyr = John, like=20 St. John of Shanghai, disagrees with Metropolitan Anthony that Christ = was not=20 fearful at the prospect of death, while agreeing with him that there was = more to=20 his suffering than that. To show that He was truly and completely man, = He=20 suffered the fear of death which is natural to fallen mankind. But to = accomplish=20 the redemption of mankind, He also suffered for the sins of all men, = suffering=20 not as man only, but as Redeemer.

     However =96 = and this is=20 the most important point =96 Hieromartyr John describes the suffering of = Christ=20 for the sins of all men completely in the terms of the juridical = theory.=20 Thus it goes without saying that Christ suffered out of = compassionate love=20 for man. But His suffering consisted also and primarily in His taking = on the=20 curse and =93all the punishments which the sinful nature of mankind = merited=94=20 in order to restore peace with God the Father.

     And, as we = shall now=20 see, the taking on and blotting out of the curse, =93the bond which = stood against=20 us with its legal demands=94, was accomplished, not through the = suffering in=20 Gethsemane, but through the Death on Golgotha, by =93nailing it to the=20 Cross=94 (Colossians=20 2.15).

5.=20 GETHSEMANE OR GOLGOTHA?

Thou=20 hast redeemed us from the curse of the law by Thy precious Blood: nailed = to the=20 Cross and pierced by the spear, Thou hast poured forth immortality upon=20 mankind.

Triodion,=20 Great=20 Friday, Mattins, Sessional hymn.

     Metropolitan = Anthony=20 calls the night in Gethsemane =93the night of redemption=94.[109]=20 According to his critics, this shifts the focus of salvation from = Golgotha to=20 Gethsemane, which is foreign to the mind of the Church as expressed in = her=20 liturgical services. Moreover, to assert, as does Metropolitan Anthony = of the=20 Lord=92s suffering in Gethsemane, that =93in=20 this did our redemption consist=94=20 would appear to some to imply that it did not consist in the = suffering=20 and death of Christ on Golgotha.=20

     In defence = of=20 Metropolitan Anthony, Bishop Gregory Grabbe writes that =93his words, = =91In this did=20 our redemption consist=92 referred not only to Gethsemene, but to = Golgotha also=94=20 because he wrote: =93And a second time also [Grabbe=92s emphasis] = the same=20 oppressing sorrow possessed His pure soul on the Cross=94.[110]=20 This is true, and is sufficient to refute the extreme suggestion that=20 Metropolitan Anthony somehow =93rejected the Cross of Christ=94 or = denied its saving=20 significance altogether. We believe, therefore, that talk about a = =93stavroclastic=94 heresy is exaggerated in this context. However, = Bishop Gregory=92s=20 words are not sufficient to deflect the charge that the = metropolitan=20 placed undue emphasis on Gethsemane and thereby distorted the = significance of=20 Golgotha. Moreover, as we shall see, the metropolitan=92s explanation of = the=20 unique significance of Golgotha =96 that is, the significance of = Golgotha that was=20 not shared by Gethsemane =96 is inadequate.

     The HOCNA = bishops=20 quote Metropolitan Anthony: =93We do not doubt for a moment that men = could not=20 have been saved unless the Lord suffered and arose from the dead, yet = the bond=20 between His suffering and our salvation is quite a different one [from = the=20 juridical teaching]=94.[111]=20 However, if this =93other=94 bond was compassionate love, which = manifested itself,=20 as the metropolitan contends, supremely in Gethsemane, and if it was in = that=20 love =93that our redemption consists=94, what need was there for Him to = die?=20

     The = metropolitan=92s=20 answer to this question is: =93Christ=92s bodily suffering and death = were primarily=20 necessary so that believers would value His spiritual suffering = as=20 incomparably greater than His bodily tortures=94.[112]=20 Again he writes: =93The Lord=92s crucifixion and death are not without = meaning for=20 our salvation, for, by bringing men to compunction, they reveal at least = some=20 portion of the redemptive sacrifice, and, by leading them to love for = Christ,=20 they prove saving for them and for all of us=94.[113]=20

     In other = words,=20 Golgotha was a repetition of Gethsemane with the addition of bodily = suffering,=20 which bodily suffering, though far less valuable than his spiritual = sufferings,=20 had a certain didactic value in heightening the awareness of the far = more=20 important spiritual suffering (although for the Catholics, it would = seem, the=20 bodily suffering distracted attention away from the spiritual = suffering).=20 But then Golgotha added nothing essential, by which we mean = dogmatically=20 or ontologically or soteriologically essential. = Indeed, if our=20 redemption consists, as the metropolitan explicitly asserts, in = =D1hrist=92s=20 compassionate suffering for the whole of sinful mankind in Gethsemane, = it was=20 not necessary for Him to die, but only to suffer.=20

     And yet it = was only=20 when He voluntarily gave up His soul in death that He declared: =93It is = finished=94, Consummatum est, that is, My redemptive work for the = salvation=20 of men is completed, consummated. As St. John of Damascus writes: = =93[The Cross]=20 is the crown of the Incarnation of the Word of God.=94[114]=20 =93Every act and miraculous energy of Christ is very great and divine = and=20 marvelous, but the most amazing of all is His precious Cross. For death = was not=20 abolished by any other means; the sin of our forefathers was not = forgiven; Hades=20 was not emptied and robbed; the resurrection was not given to us; the = power to=20 despise the present and even death itself has not been given to us; our = return=20 to the ancient blessedness was not accomplished; the gates of Paradise = have not=20 been opened; human nature was not given the place of honor at the right = hand of=20 God; we did not become children and inheritors of God, except by the = Cross of=20 our Lord Jesus Christ alone. All these have been achieved by the death = of the=20 Lord on the Cross.=94[115]<= /P>

     It is = important to=20 stress the word voluntary nature of Christ=92s death on the Cross. = Sinful men=20 cannot avoid death since it is the wages of sin. But for Christ, Who had = no sin,=20 it was by no means inevitable. He could have chosen to suffer but not to = die,=20 and to come off the Cross, presenting His body completely healed from = wounds and=20 invulnerable to death, as some of the holy martyrs emerged fully healthy = after=20 their tortures. This would have involved no lessening of the = significance of His=20 suffering in Gethsemane and Golgotha. But it would have meant that His=20 redemptive work was incomplete.

     For Christ = came to=20 save men not only from sin, but also from death, not only from the = perversion of=20 their wills, but also from the division of their nature. And in order to = do that=20 He had to take on both their sin and their death. For, in=20 accordance with the patristic dictum, that which is not assumed is not = saved. So=20 Christ allowed His human soul to be separated from His body. But since = His=20 Divinity was still united to both His soul and His body, death could not = hold=20 them, and they were reunited in the resurrection. Thus did He trample = down=20 death, as the Paschal troparion chants, =96 the death of men, which is = the wages=20 of sin and which is involuntary by His own Death, which took place in = spite=20 of His sinlessness and was voluntary.

     Another = Paschal=20 troparion declares, =93In the grave bodily, but in hades with Thy soul = as God; in=20 Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the = Spirit wast=20 Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the Inexpressible=94. It was this = continuing=20 union of God the Life with death which destroyed death. For the = unnatural union=20 of life with death, the perfect expression of holiness with the penalty = decreed=20 for sin, could not be sustained; in fact, it could not continue even for = one=20 moment. And so at the very moment of Christ=92s Death, our death was = destroyed,=20 hades was burst asunder =93and many bodies of the saints arose=94 = (Matthew=20 27.53). At that moment truly, and not a moment before, could He = say: =93It=20 is finished=94=85

     Moreover, as = St. Paul=20 points out, the sealing of the New Testament was impossible without the = death of=20 the testator: =93He is the Mediator of the New Testament, so that by = means of the=20 death which took place for redemption from the transgressions under the = first=20 Testament, they who have been called might receive the promise of the = eternal=20 inheritance. For where a testament is, it is necessary for the death of = the one=20 who made a disposition for himself to be brought forward. For a = testament is=20 confirmed over those who are dead, since it never hath strength when the = one who=20 maketh the disposition liveth. Wherefore neither hath the first been = inaugurated=20 without blood=94 (Hebrews=20 9.15-18).

     Bishop = Theophan the=20 Recluse comments on this passage: =93Evidently the death of Jesus Christ = disturbed=20 many of the weaker ones: if He was dead, they said, how is He the = eternal=20 Intercessor for people and how can He deliver that which He promises? = St. Paul=20 in removing this doubt shows that it is precisely by dint of the fact = that He=20 died that His Testament is firm: for people do not talk about a = testament (will)=20 in the case of those who are alive (St. Chrysostom).=94[116]<= /P>

     In answer to = this the=20 defenders of Metropolitan Anthony point out that we are redeemed not = only by the=20 death of Christ, but by the whole of His life on earth. This is true, = but does=20 not annul the other truth that the death of Christ was absolutely = essential for=20 our salvation as its climax and crown. As St. Gregory the Theologian = puts it:=20 =93We needed an Incarnate God, God put to death, that we might = live=94.[117]=20

     For if = Christ had not=20 tasted death in the flesh He would not have plumbed the very depths of = sinful=20 man=92s condition, He would not have destroyed =93the last enemy=94 of = mankind, which=20 is death (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.26). For without the death of Christ there would have been no = Sacrifice for=20 sin, no descent into hades, and no resurrection from the dead. =93And if = Christ is=20 not risen, your faith is in vain; ye are still in your sins=94 = (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.17).

     As Fr. = George=20 Florovsky writes: =93Suffering is not yet the whole Cross. The Cross is = more than=20 merely suffering Good. The sacrifice of Christ is not yet exhausted by = His=20 obedience and endurance, forbearance, compassion, all-forgivingness. The = one=20 redeeming work of Christ cannot be separated into parts. Our Lord=92s = earthly life=20 is one organic whole, and His redeeming action cannot be exclusively = connected=20 with any one particular moment in that life. However, the climax of this = life=20 was its death. And the Lord plainly bore witness to the hour of death: = =93For this=20 cause came I unto this hour=94 (John=20 12.27)... Redemption was accomplished on = the=20 Cross, =91by the blood of His Cross=92 (Colossians=20 1.20; cf. Acts=20 20.28, Romans=20 5.9, Ephesians=20 1.7, Colossians=20 1.14, Hebrews=20 9.22, I=20 John=20 1.7, Revelation=20 1.5-6, 5.9). Not by the suffering of the Cross only, but precisely by = the death=20 on the Cross. And the ultimate victory is wrought, not by sufferings or=20 endurance, but by death and resurrection=85=94[118]<= /P>

     And Fr. = George adds: =93=20 Usually these two facts are not sufficiently distinguished: the = sufferings and=20 the death. This hinders one from drawing the right conclusions. In = particular=20 this can be seen in the theological reasonings of his Eminence = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=85 He opposes Gethsemane to Golgotha precisely because he with = reason=20 considers the =91spiritual sufferings=92 to be more valuable than the = =91bodily=20 sufferings=92. But death needs to be explained, and not only the = sufferings of=20 death...=94[119]<= /P>

     As Hieromonk = Augustine=20 (Lim) has pointed out, the Nicene Creed says of the Lord that He =93was = crucified,=20 suffered and was buried=94, not =93suffered, was crucified and = was buried=94.=20 This order of words shows that the critical, so to speak, suffering of = Christ=20 was the suffering after His Crucifixion, the suffering precisely = of His=20 death on Golgotha. If, on the other hand, Gethsemane had been the = place=20 of our redemption, we would have expected the reverse order: = =93suffered,=20 crucified and was buried=94.[120]<= /P>

     And if it be = objected=20 that death came rather as a relief from His sufferings, so that = the real=20 exploit consisted in His sufferings before death, we should = remind=20 ourselves what death meant for Him Who is Life: something = inconceivable=20 to the human mind. For us death, though unnatural in essence, has = nevertheless=20 become in a certain sense natural =96 in the same sense that sin has = become=20 natural or =93second nature=94 to us since the fall. But =93God did not = create death=94,=20 and if it seemed =93folly to the Greeks=94 for the Creator to become His = creature,=20 it must have seemed worse than folly to them for Life to undergo death.=20 Moreover, both life and death in our fallen, human condition were an=20 immeasurable torment for the Sinless One, infinitely more painful than = the life=20 and death of sinners; for every aspect of that life and death, together = with=20 every suffering in it, was undertaken = voluntarily.

     As Vladimir = Lossky=20 writes, interpreting the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor, "by = assimilating=20 the historic reality in which the Incarnation had to take place He = introduced=20 into His Divine Person all sin-scarred, fallen human nature. That is why = the=20 earthly life of Christ was a continual humiliation. His human will = unceasingly=20 renounced what naturally belonged to it, and accepted what was contrary = to=20 incorruptible and deified humanity: hunger, thirst, weariness, grief,=20 sufferings, and finally, death on the cross. Thus, one could say that = the Person=20 of Christ, before the end of His redemptive work, before the = Resurrection,=20 possessed in His Humanity as it were two different poles - the = incorruptibility=20 and impassibility proper to a perfect and deified nature, as well as the = corruptibility and passibility voluntarily assumed, under which = conditions His=20 kenotic Person submitted and continued to submit His sin-free = Humanity."[121]=20

     = This horrific and = continual=20 struggle, which had reached one climax in Gethsemane, reached a still = higher one=20 at Golgotha. For if it was utterly unnatural and a continual torment for = Sinless=20 Life to live the life of sinners (in St. Paul's striking and paradoxical = words,=20 "God hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin" (II = Corinthians=20 5.21), experiencing all the horror of sin in His sinless soul, in which, = in the=20 words of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, =93every sin burned with the = unbearable fire of hell=94,[122]=20 it was still more unnatural and tormenting for Him to die the = death of=20 sinners. This death meant the voluntary rending apart of His own most = perfect=20 creation, His human nature, separating the soul and the body which, = unlike the=20 souls and bodies of sinners, had lived in perfect harmony together. It = meant a=20 schism in the life of God Himself, a schism so metaphysically and = ontologically=20 unthinkable that even the sun hid its rays and the rocks were burst = asunder. It=20 meant a schism, so to speak, of God from God, eliciting the cry: =93My = God, my=20 God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?=94 (Matthew 27.46). =

     As = God, of=20 course, He was not, and never could be, separated from His Father, as = was=20 triumphantly demonstrated at the Resurrection. But as Man, He = allowed=20 Himself to feel the full accursedness of men in their separation = from God=20 - an accursedness unspeakably the greater for Him Who said: "I and the = Father=20 are one" (John 10.30).[123]=20 As St. Basil the Great says, He =93redeemed us from being accursed by = becoming=20 Himself a curse and suffering the most dishonourable death in order to = lead us=20 again to the glorious life.=94[124]=20 Thus the atonement (at-one-ment) of man by God and with = God was=20 accomplished by the disjunction, if it were possible, of God from = God =96=20 not as God, but as Man. =20

     Moreover, as = the Head=20 of the Body of Israel which at this very moment fell away from God, He = felt=20 her accursedness, too. St. Augustine has developed this point in = a very=20 illuminating way in his commentary on the Psalm from which the Lord was = quoting:=20 "The full and perfect Christ=85 is Head and Body. When Christ speaks, = sometimes He=20 speaks in the Person of the Head alone, our Saviour Himself, born of the = Virgin=20 Mary, at other times in the person of His Body, which is the holy Church = spread=20 throughout the world... Now if Christ I s in very truth without sin and = without=20 transgression, we begin to doubt whether these words of the Psalm = ['There is no=20 peace for my bones because of My sins'] can be His. Yet it would be very = unfortunate and contradictory if the Psalm just quoted did not refer to = Christ,=20 when we find His passion set forth there as clearly as it is related in = the=20 Gospel. For there we find: 'They parted My garments amongst them, and = upon My=20 vesture they cast lots.' Why did our Lord Himself as He hung on the = cross recite=20 with His own lips the first verse of this very Psalm, saying: 'My God, = My God,=20 why hast Thou forsaken Me?' What did He mean us to understand, but that = this=20 Psalm refers to Him in its entirety, since He Himself uttered the = opening words?=20 Where, again, it goes on to speak of 'the words of My sins', the voice = is=20 undoubtedly that of Christ. How 'sins', I ask, unless sins of His Body = which is=20 the Church? For here the Body is speaking as well as the Head. How do = they speak=20 as one Person? Because 'they shall be', He says, 'two in one flesh'... = So we=20 must listen as to one Person speaking, but the Head as Head and the Body = as=20 Body. We are not separating two Persons but drawing a distinction in = dignity:=20 the Head saves, the Body is saved. The Head must show mercy, the Body = bewail its=20 misery. The office of the Head is the purgation of sins, that of the = Body the=20 confession of them; yet there is but one voice, and no written = instructions to=20 inform us when the Body speaks and when the Head. We can tell the = difference=20 when we listen; but He speaks as one individual... You may never exclude = the=20 Head when you hear the Body speaking, nor the Body when you hear the = Head; for=20 now they are not two but one flesh."[125]<= /P>

     Let us = return to the=20 point that Christ=92s sufferings in Gethsemane were caused by His = (perfectly=20 natural and innocent) fear of death. This is evident also from His use = of the=20 word =93cup=94, which, as we have seen, means =93death=94. Now the cup = of death is also=20 the cup of the Eucharist; that is, the cup of Golgotha is the cup of the = Mystical Supper; for both cups contain blood, the blood of the Sacrifice = already=20 accomplished in death.[126]=20

     This shows, = on the one=20 hand, that the redeeming Sacrifice had already been mystically = accomplished even=20 before the prayer in the Garden, in the Upper Room. For as St. = Gregory of=20 Nyssa writes, =93By offering His Body as food, He clearly showed that = the=20 Sacrificial Offering of the Lamb had already been accomplished. For the=20 Sacrificial Body would not have been suitable for food if it were still=20 animated=94.[127]=20 But on the other hand it shows that our redemption consists precisely in = Christ=92s Death, and that if there had been no Death there would = have been=20 no Sacrifice and no redemption. So to concentrate on the sufferings in=20 Gethsemane while ignoring the mystery that was accomplished both before = and=20 after them, in the Upper Room and on Golgotha, is to ignore the very = Dogma of=20 Redemption=85

6.=20 THE THEORY OF =93MORAL MONISM=94

For=20 us the monarchy is formed by equality of nature, harmony of will, and = identity=20 of activity, and the concurrence with the One of the Beings which derive = from=20 the One, a unity impossible among created = beings.

St.=20 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon=20 29,=20 2.

     Let us = recall the=20 metropolitan=92s words: =93a=20 purely objective law of our spiritual nature is revealed in the = transmission of=20 the compassionate, supremely loving energy of the Redeemer to the = spiritual=20 nature of the man who believes and calls for this help, a law which is = revealed=20 in our dogmas, but of which our dogmatic science has taken no notice.=94 = The=20 problem is: if dogmatic science has taken no notice of this law, which = was=20 supposedly revealed explicitly for the first time by Metropolitan = Anthony, it is=20 hardly surprising that the metropolitan can find few, if any, patristic=20 statements to support it. It is not that the Fathers deny the great = power and=20 significance of Christ=92s compassionate love for the salvation of = mankind. On the=20 contrary: the greatness of that love, and its overwhelming significance = for our=20 salvation is not disputed by anyone. But the motivation for the saving = work of=20 Christ, love, must not be confused with the work itself, the restoration = of=20 justice in the relations between God and man, the justification of = mankind, nor=20 with the fruit of that justification in the individual believer, which = consists=20 in his renewal and deification by ascetic endeavour and the communion of = the=20 Holy Spirit.

     How, = according to=20 Metropolitan Anthony, is the =93compassionate, supremely loving energy = of the=20 Redeemer=94 transmitted to the believer? His answer turns on the = distinction,=20 familiar from Trinitarian theology, between the concepts of "nature" and = "person". Just as in the Holy Trinity there is one Divine nature but = three=20 Divine Persons, so in our created race there is one human nature but = many human=20 persons. Or rather: originally, before the entrance of sin, there was a = single=20 human nature, but since the fall sin has divided this nature into many = pieces,=20 as it were, each piece being the jealously guarded possession of a = single=20 egotistical individual. However, the original unity of human nature = still exists=20 in each person, and it is this original unity which Christ restored on = the Cross=20 (or rather, in Metropolitan Anthony=92s thought: in Gethsemane).=20

     =93By = nature,=94 he=20 writes, =93especially the human nature, we are accustomed to mean only = the=20 abstraction and the summing up of properties present in every man = separately and=20 therefore composing one general abstract idea, and nothing else. But = Divine=20 revelation and the dogmas of our Church teach differently concerning the = nature=85=20 the nature is not an abstraction of the common attributes of different = objects=20 of persons made by our minds, but a certain real, essence, real will and = force,=20 acting in separate persons=85.=94[128]<= /P>

     There is a = certain=20 confusion of concepts here; for, as Archbishop Theophan of Poltava = writes, =93in=20 patristic literature power and will are only properties of human nature, = they do=20 not constitute the nature itself (St. John of Damascus, Exact = Exposition of=20 the Orthodox Faith, book II, chapters 22 and 23)=94.[129]<= /P>

     However, let = us=20 continue with Metropolitan Anthony=92s exposition: =93In spite of all = our human=20 separateness,=85 we cannot fail to notice within ourselves the = manifestations of=20 the collective universal human will; a will which is not of me, but in = me, which=20 I can only partially renounce, with much labor and struggle. This will = is given=20 to me from without, and yet at the same time it is mine. This is = pre-eminently=20 the common human nature. First, we must place here our = conscience, which=20 was given to us, and which almost no man can completely resist; also our = direct=20 involvement and compassion with our neighbor, parental affections and = much else.=20 Among these attributes are also evil desires, likewise seemingly imposed = on us=20 from without: self-love, revengefulness, lust and so on. These are the=20 manifestations of our fallen nature, against which we can and must = struggle. And=20 so the nature of all men is the same: it is the impersonal but powerful = will=20 which every human person is obliged to take into account, whichever way = the=20 personal free will may be turned: toward good or toward evil. It is to = this also=20 that we must ascribe the law of existence whereby only through the union = of a=20 father and mother can a man be born into the world=85 If you cannot = imagine that=20 you hold your soul in common with others, then read in the book of Acts, = =91One=20 was the heart and the soul of the multitude of them that believed=92 = (4.32). And=20 another record taken from life is given by Saint Basil the Great. = Describing the=20 unanimity and victory over self-love of the monks of his day, Saint = Basil=20 continues, =91These men restore the primal goodness in eclipsing the sin = of our=20 forefather Adam; for there would be no divisions, no strife, no war = among men,=20 if sin had not made cleavages in the nature=85 they gather the (one) human = nature,=20 which had been torn and cloven into thousands of pieces, once = more to=20 itself and to God. And this is the chief in the Saviour=92s incarnate = oeconomy:=20 to gather human nature to itself and to Himself and, having abolished = this=20 evil cleavage, to restore the original unity=94.[130]<= /P>

     At=20 this point the question arises: can such diverse phenomena as = conscience, the=20 fallen passions, the natural (innocent) passions, and the grace-created = unity of=20 the early Christians and of the true monastic communities be united = under a=20 single heading or concept of human nature? And this leads to the further = question: would such an understanding of human nature be patristic? = However,=20 before attempting to answer these questions, let us follow the = metropolitan=92s=20 argument to the end:

      =93The = Lord also=20 teaches of a new Being, in whom He will be, and in whom He is already = united to=20 the faithful, like a tree which remains the same plant in all of its = branches=20 (John 15.1-9). And so the unity of the human nature, undone by the sin = of Adam=20 and his descendants, is to be gradually restored through Christ and His=20 redeeming love with such power, that in the future life this oneness = will be=20 expressed more strongly than it can now be by the multitude of human = persons,=20 and Christ, united with us all into one Being, shall be called the New = Man, or=20 the One Church, being (in particular) its Head.

     =93It=20 appears to me that we have, according to our power, cleared the way to a = more=20 perfect understanding of the mystery of redemption, of its essential, = its=20 objective side. The salvation which Christ brought to humanity consists = not only=20 of the conscious assimilation of Christ=92s principle truths and of His = love, but=20 also of the fact that by means of His compassionate love Christ = demolishes the=20 partition which sin sets up between men, restores the original oneness = of=20 nature, so that the man who has subjected himself to this action of = Christ finds=20 new dispositions, new feelings and longings, not only in his thoughts, = but also=20 in his very character, these being created not by himself, but coming = from=20 Christ who has united Himself to him. It then remains for the free will = either=20 to call all these to life or wickedly to reject them. The influence of = the=20 compassionate love a mother, a friend, a spiritual shepherd, consists = (though to=20 a much lesser degree) in this same penetration into the very nature=20 (fusiV),=20 the very soul of a man=85. The direct entrance of Christ=92s nature, of = His good=20 volitions into our nature is called grace, which is invisibly poured = into us in=20 the various inner states and outer incidents of our life, and especially = in the=20 Holy Mysteries=85 The subjective feeling of compassionate love becomes = an=20 objective power which restores the oneness of human nature that had been = destroyed by sin, and which is transmitted from one human soul to = others=94.[131]=20

     The=20 confusion of concepts here is startling. Thus the metropolitan writes: = =93The=20 salvation which Christ brought to humanity consists not only of the = conscious=20 assimilation of Christ=92s principle truths and of His love, but also of = the fact=20 that by means of His compassionate love Christ demolishes the partition = which=20 sin sets up between men=94 But what is the difference between =93the = conscious=20 assimilation of Christ=92s love=94, on the one hand, and =93His = compassionate love=94=20 whereby He destroys the partition set up by sin? What is the distinction = between=20 the two loves?

     Again, we = have already=20 noted the very wide range of phenomena that the metropolitan includes = under the=20 heading of human nature: conscience, fallen and natural passions, the = unity of=20 the Church=85 Here he broadens the concept still further, but in an = altogether=20 inadmissible direction, defining it as grace: =93The direct = entrance of=20 Christ=92s nature, of His good volitions into our nature is called = grace=94 But=20 grace is not human at all: according to the teaching of the = Orthodox=20 Church, it is the uncreated energies of God, the =93actions=94, = so to speak,=20 of the Divine nature.

     It is indeed = grace =96=20 that is, the Divine energies of Christ =96 that unites and = reunites men.=20 But not only is grace not human nature =96 neither Christ=92s nor = anyone=20 else=92s. It also does not =93reunite human nature=94 in the sense that = the=20 metropolitan would have it, for the simple reason that human nature, as = opposed=20 to human persons and wills, has never been divided. As persons we have = been=20 divided by sin, but we remain one in our common human=20 nature.

     It is = important to be=20 precise about that in which men are divided by sin and are reunited by = grace.=20 They cannot be divided, according to St. Maximus the Confessor, by=20 nature. They are divided in their moral capabilities =96 = goodness and=20 wisdom - which are not nature itself, but movements or = modalities=20 of nature: =93Evil is perceived not in the nature of = creatures, but in=20 their sinful and irrational movement=94.[132]=20 Again, St. Maximus writes: =93[The devil] separated our will from God = and us from=20 each other. Diverting [man] from the straight path, [he] divided the = image of=20 his nature, splitting it up into a multitude of opinions and ideas=94.[133]=20 Thus it is our wills, meaning our free choices, that are divided; = it is=20 not the nature of man that is divided, but the =93image=94 of his = nature, his=20 =93opinions and ideas=94.

     This point = is well=20 made by St. Maximus the Confessor in his Dispute with Pyrrhus:-=20

     = =93Pyrrhus.=20 Virtues, then, are natural things? Maximus. Yes, natural = things.=20 Pyrrhus. If they are natural things, why [then] do they not exist = in all=20 men equally, since all men have an identical nature? Maximus. But = they=20 do exist equally in all men because of the identical nature. = Pyrrhus.=20 Then why is there such a great inequality [of virtues] in us? = Maximus.=20 Because we do not all practise what is natural to us to an equal = degree;=20 indeed, if we did practise to an equal degree [those virtues] natural to = us, as=20 we were created to do, then one could be able to perceive one virtue in = us all=20 just as there is one nature [in us all], and that one virtue would not = admit of=20 a =91more=92 or a =91less=92.=94[134]<= /P>

      Only = in one=20 sense can we talk about human nature =96 as opposed to human persons or = wills =96=20 being in a real sense divided. And that is in the sense of death. = Death=20 is the division of human nature =96 first the division of the spirit, = God=92s grace,=20 from the soul and the body, and then the division of the soul from the = body. If=20 human nature is understood as being unitary (and not as a composite of = two=20 natures, spiritual and material), then the division of the soul from the = body at=20 death does indeed constitute a division of human nature. (But our death = was=20 destroyed, as we have seen, not by the sufferings of Christ in = Gethsemane, but=20 by His Death on the Cross=85)

     =

     How, then, = are we to=20 understand the quotations cited by Metropolitan Anthony, which appear to = assert=20 that our human nature was divided =96 really, and not metaphorically. It = will be=20 sufficient to reconsider the quotation from St. Basil in order to see = that a=20 division of persons and not of nature was in = question here.=20 The monks who practise the coenobitic life do not literally = reunite their=20 cloven human natures: rather, they reestablish unanimity, unity of will, = through=20 the subjection of all their individual free wills to the will of the = abbot.=20

     =93Of this = we will=20 become convinced,=94 writes Archbishop Theophan, =93if we reproduce the = passage in=20 question in a fuller form. =91That communion of life we call the most = perfect,=92=20 says St. Basil here, =91means the ascetics living according to the = coenobitic rule=20 that excludes private property and drives out contrariness of = dispositions, by=20 which all disturbances, quarrels and arguments are destroyed at the = root, having=20 everything in common, both souls and dispositions and bodily powers, and = what is=20 necessary for the nourishment of the body and for its service, in which = there is=20 a common God, a common purchase of piety, a common salvation, common = ascetic=20 exploits, common labours, common crowns, in which many constitute one = and each=20 person is not one but one among many. What is equal to this life? What = is more=20 perfect than this closeness and this unity? What is more pleasant than = this=20 merging of manners and souls? People who have come from various tribes = and=20 countries have brought themselves into such complete identity that in = many=20 bodies we see one soul, and many bodies are the instruments of one = will.=20 It was God=92s will that we should be like that at the beginning; it was = with this=20 aim that He created us. These men restore the primal goodness in = eclipsing the=20 sin of our forefather Adam; for there would be no divisions, no strife, = no war=20 among men, if sin had not made cleavages in the nature=85 As far as they are able, they = once again=20 gather the human nature, which had been torn and cloven into thousands = of=20 pieces, into unity both with themselves and with God. For this is the main thing in = the=20 Saviour=92s economy in the flesh =96 to bring human nature into unity = with itself=20 and with the Saviour and, having destroyed the evil cutting up [into = parts],=20 restore the original unity; just as the best doctor by healing medicines = binds=20 up the body that was torn into many parts=92.

     =93To every = unprejudiced=20 reader it is clear that in this passage the subject is the moral, or, = more=20 exactly, the grace-filled moral unity of the members of the ascetic = coenobium=20 with themselves and with God through the medium of one will, which in = the=20 present case is the will of the superior, who incarnates in himself the = will of=20 God. =91Every good order and agreement among many,=92 says St. Basil in = his sermon=20 On the Judgement of God, =91is successfully maintained as long as = all are=20 obedient to one leader. And all discord and disharmony and = multiplicity=20 of authorities is the consequence of lack of authority=92. Apart from = anything=20 else, we are forbidden from understanding the restoration of the = original unity=20 of human nature in the metaphysical sense in which Metropolitan Anthony = thinks=20 of it, by the fact that we are here talking about the restoration of the = original unity of human nature not only with itself but also with God. = But not=20 only not St. Basil the Great, but also not one of the Fathers of the = Church ever=20 permitted and could not permit any thought of an original unity of human = nature=20 with the nature of God, in the sense of a metaphysical, essential unity. = Such a=20 unity is possible only in the pantheistic world-view.=94[135]<= /P>

     In any case, = writes=20 Archbishop Theophan, =93Only in relation to the absolute Divine [nature] = is the=20 concept of nature used by the Fathers of the Church in an absolute = sense,=20 insofar as the Divine nature is absolutely one both in concept and in = reality.=20 But in relation to the units of created nature, and in particular to = people, the=20 concept of one nature is understood in the sense of complete unity only=20 abstractly, insofar as every concept of genus or species is one, but in=20 application to reality it indicates only the oneness of the nature of = all the=20 units of the given genus.=94[136]<= /P>

    And he quotes St. = John of=20 Damascus: =93One must know that it is one thing to perceive in deed, and = another=20 in mind and thought. In all created beings the difference between = persons is=20 seen in deed. For in (very) deed we see that Peter is different from = Paul. But=20 communality and connection and oneness are seen in mind and thought. For = in mind=20 we notice that Peter and Paul are of one and the same nature and have = one common=20 nature. For each of them is a living, rational, mortal being; and each = is flesh=20 enlivened by a soul which is both rational and endowed with = discrimination. And=20 so this common nature can be perceived in the mind, for the hypostases = are not=20 in each other, but each is a separate individual, that is, taken = separately by=20 itself, there is very much distinguishing it from the others. For they = are=20 distinct and different in time, in mind and in strength, in external = appearance=20 (that is, in form), and in condition, temperament, dignity, manner of = life and=20 every distinguishing characteristic. Most of all they differ in that = they do not=20 exist in each other, but separately. Hence it comes that we can speak of = two,=20 three or many men. And this may be perceived throughout the whole of=20 creation.

     =93But in = the case of=20 the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far above = everything,=20 it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are perceived = in=20 deed, because of the co-eternity [of the Persons] and the identity of = their=20 essence and activity and will, and because of the agreement of their = cognitive=20 faculty, and identity of power and strength and grace. I did not say:=20 similarity, but: identity, and also of the unity of the origin of their=20 movement. For one is the essence, and one the grace, and one the = strength, and=20 one the desire and one the activity and one the power =96 one and the = same, not=20 three similar to each other, but one and the same movement of the three = Persons.=20 For each of them is no less one with Itself as with each other, because = the=20 Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects except the=20 unbegottenness [of the Father], the begottenness [of the Son] and the = procession=20 [of the Holy Spirit]. But it is by thought that the difference is = perceived. For=20 we know one God; but in thought we recognize the difference =96 only in = the=20 attributes of fatherhood and sonship and procession, both in relation to = cause,=20 and to effect, and to the fulfillment, that is, form of existence, of = the=20 Hypostasis. For in relation to the indescribable Divinity we cannot = speak of=20 separation in space, as we can about ourselves, because the Hypostases = are in=20 each other, not so as to be confused, but so as to be closely united, = according=20 to the word of the Lord Who said: =91I am in the Father, and the Father = in Me=92=20 (John=20 14.11). Nor can we speak of a difference of will or reason or activity = or=20 strength or anything else, which may produce a real and complete = separation in=20 us=94.[137]<= /P>

     Our = conclusion, then,=20 is that human nature is one, even in the fall, although only relatively, = not in=20 the absolute sense appropriate only to the Divine nature possessed by = the Three=20 Persons of the Holy Trinity.[138]=20 Sin is not a part of nature, but is a movement of the will of the = individual=20 person in a direction contrary to nature. Therefore it is our wills = that=20 have to be reunited by redirecting them in a direction in accordance = with our=20 nature, which redirection will bring them into unity with each other and = with=20 the will of God. This redirection is accomplished by our wills working = in=20 synergy with the grace of God, which is communicated to us in the = sacraments of=20 the Church, especially the Body and Blood of Christ. =

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 theory is acceptable only if we interpret his term =93nature=94 to mean = the deified=20 Body and Blood of Christ communicated to us in the Eucharist, and only = if we=20 interpret =93the restoration of the unity of human nature=94 to mean the = re-establishment of the unity of the wills of men both with each = other=20 and with the will of God. In the Eucharist the compassionate love of = Christ is=20 indeed transmitted to us through His deified human nature; and if our = wills=20 respond to this sacred gift (which is by no means =93irresistible=94, = and never=20 violates the free will of any of its recipients), then we will = experience the=20 truth of the words: =93If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature=94=20 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.17). But once again: this gift is the fruit, not of Gethsemane, but of = Golgotha, not (or rather: not primarily) of the purely spiritual = sufferings of=20 Christ in the Garden, but of the Sacrifice of His soul and body = on the=20 altar of the Cross=85

7.=20 ORIGINAL SIN

What=20 mystery is this concerning us? How have we been delivered to corruption? = How=20 have we been yoked to death? All this, so it is written, is by the = command of=20 God.

Triodion,=20 Saturday of Souls, Vespers, =93Lord, I have cried=85=94, = Glory=85

     An integral = part of=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s critique of the so-called =93juridical = theory=94 is his=20 onslaught on the doctrine of original sin. The HOCNA bishops summarise = his=20 critique as follows:

     =931) The = Scholastic=20 dogma of our inherited guilt of =91Original Sin=92 is false. We are = not=20 morally responsible for Adam=92s sin, we do not bear any guilt for = his sin,=20 (nor, in reverse, is he responsible for all our own subsequent=20 sins).

     =932) From = Adam we do=20 inherit mortality and a proclivity towards sinning. By his sin, Adam = was=20 exiled from Paradise to this corruptible world. We are his children born = in=20 exile.

     =933) God is = not unjust=20 in allowing us to receive this fallen nature as descendants of Adam, = because He=20 foreknew that each of us would sin, and that even if we ourselves had = been in=20 Adam=92s stead in Paradise, we nevertheless would have transgressed in = like manner=20 as he. Thus, our fallen nature is neither a burden unfairly placed upon = us by=20 God, nor is it an excuse for our personal sins. Man is free and morally=20 responsible.

    =93Many of = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s critics, including Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, seem to = have=20 utterly failed to comprehend the great gulf that separates the patristic = Orthodox doctrine concerning the Ancestral Sin of Adam from the = heretical=20 Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.=94 (p. 18).

    Unfortunately, it = is not=20 Archbishop Theophan, but the HOCNA bishops who have =93utterly failed to = comprehend=94 the essence of this matter, as we shall now try to=20 demonstrate.

     Much of the = argument=20 has revolved around the correct translation and interpretation of the = words: =93By=20 one man sin entered into the world, and so death entered all men by sin, = because =96 or, according to another translation: for in = him - all=20 have sinned=92 (Romans=20 5.12).

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =93His=20 Eminence Metropolitan Anthony in his = Catechism=20 gives a = new=20 interpretation of the cited words of the Apostle Paul, and, in = accordance with=20 this interpretation, put forwards a new teaching on original sin, which=20 essentially almost completely overthrows the Orthodox teaching on = original=20 sin.=94[139]=20

     In the = opinion of=20 Metropolitan Anthony, these words from the Apostle Paul are translated=20 incorrectly in the Slavonic translation: =93Let us consider the original = Greek=20 text: the words =91in that=92 translate the Greek =91ej=92=20 w=92,=20 which means: =91because=92, =91since=92 (Latin tamen, quod)=85 = Therefore, the=20 correct translation of these words of the Apostle Paul is: =91and so = death passed=20 upon all men, because all have sinned=92 (and not just Adam alone)=94.[140]=20

     Now we may = agree with=20 Metropolitan Anthony that the strictly correct translation of = Romans=20 5.12 is: =93death passed upon all men, because all have sinned=94 = rather=20 than: =93death passed upon all men, for in him [i.e. in Adam] all = have=20 sinned=94. Nevertheless, the fact that not only all the Orthodox Latin=20 translations and Latin fathers read =93in him=94, but also the famous = Greek=20 translators of the Bible into Slavonic, Saints Cyril and Methodius, = should make=20 us pause before accusing these very distinguished Fathers of error. = Indeed,=20 Bishop Theophan the Recluse, for reasons which will become clear later,=20 considered that the translation =93in him=94, though freer and less = literally=20 accurate, in fact conveyed the underlying meaning more=20 accurately.

     If we follow = the=20 correct translation, according to Metropolitan Anthony, =93Adam was not = so much=20 the cause of our sinfulness as he was the first to sin, and even if we = were not=20 his sons, we still would sin just the same. Thus one should think that = we are=20 all sinners, even though our will be well directed, not because we are=20 descendants of Adam, but because the All-knowing God gives us life in = the human=20 condition (and not as angels, for example), and He foresaw that the will = of each=20 of us would be like that of Adam and Eve. This will is not evil by = nature, but=20 disobedient and prideful, and consequently it needs a school to correct = it, and=20 this is what our earthly life in the body is, for it constantly humbles = our=20 stubbornness. In this matter this school attains success in almost all = its=20 pupils who are permitted to complete their whole course, that is, live a = long=20 life; but some of God=92s chosen ones attain this wisdom at an early = age, namely=20 those whom Providence leads to the Heavenly Teacher or to His = =91co-workers=92=94.[141]=20

     As he put it = in=20 another place: =93God knew that each of us would sin in the same way as = Adam, and=20 for that reason we are his descendants=85 Knowing beforehand that every = man would=20 display Adam=92s self-will, the Lord allows us to inherit Adam=92s weak, = ill, mortal=20 nature endowed with sinful tendencies, in the struggle with which, and = still=20 more in submitting to which, we become conscious of our nothingness and = humble=20 ourselves.=94[142]=20

     Metropolitan=20 Anthony objects to the Russian Church=92s traditional teaching on = original sin as=20 expounded in, for example, the Catechism of Metropolitan Philaret = of=20 Moscow, which he regards as Latin and scholastic in origin: =93=91As = from a polluted=20 spring,=92 we read in our textbook, =91there flows corrupted water,=92 = etc. But, if=20 you will, a spring and water are one thing, whereas living, morally = responsible=20 human beings are something else. It is not by our own will that we are=20 descendants of Adam, so why should we bear the guilt for his = disobedience?=20 Indeed, we must struggle greatly in order to appropriate Christ=92s = redemption:=20 can it be that the condemnation of each man because of Adam befell men = despite=20 each one=92s own guilt? After all, the Apostle says here =91that the = gift was poured=20 out more richly than the condemnation=92 (cf. Romans=20 5.15), but with the juridical interpretation the result is rather the=20 opposite=94.[143]=20

     Here=20 again we may agree with Metropolitan Anthony that Adam, and Adam alone, = was=20 personally responsible for his transgression. However, while we = do not=20 inherit personal responsibility for Adam=92s sin, we do inherit = the=20 person of Adam himself! For, as St. Basil the Great writes, what = we=20 inherit from Adam =93is not the personal sin of Adam, but the original = human being=20 himself=94, who =93exists in us by necessity=94.[144]<= /P>

     Again, St. = Cyril of=20 Alexandria says: =93What has Adam=92s guilt to do with us? Why are we = held=20 responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? = Did not=20 God say: =91The parents will not die for the children, nor the children = for the=20 parents, but the soul which has sinned, it shall die=92 (Deuteronomy=20 24.16). How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which = has=20 sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam=92s = disobedience in=20 the following manner=85 After he fell into sin and surrendered to = corruption,=20 impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the = evil law=20 of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin = because of=20 the disobedience of one man, that is, Adam, and thus many became = sinners. This=20 was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then = exist,=20 but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law = of sin.=20 Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam = because=20 of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was = later set=20 free by Christ, Who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit = sin.=94[145]=20

     Again, St. = John=20 Chrysostom writes: =93=92Through the wrong-doing of one man many became = sinners=92.=20 There is nothing improbable about the proposition that when Adam sinned = and=20 became mortal, those who were descended from him should become mortal = also. But=20 how should it follow that from his disobedience anyone else should = become a=20 sinner? For unless a man becomes a sinner on his own responsibility, = he will=20 not be found to merit punishment. Then what does =91sinner=92 mean = here? I think=20 it means liable to punishment, that is, condemned to death=94.[146]=20

     However, = while this=20 appears to dispel one paradox and apparent injustice =96 that we should = be guilty=20 for a sin we did not commit =96 it by no means dispels other, no less = difficult=20 ones. For is it not unjust that we should inherit a nature inclined to = sin and=20 doomed to death before we have done anything worthy of death? = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s explanation is that God, foreseeing that we would sin like = Adam, gave=20 us a corrupt and mortal nature in anticipation of that. But this implies = that=20 whereas in the case of Adam death is clearly the wages of sin and the = just=20 punishment for the crime he committed, in our case the punishment=20 precedes the crime, and therefore cannot be perceived as the = wages of=20 sin. Is this not just as unjust? Nor is it convincing to argue, as does = the=20 metropolitan, that we are encumbered with a sinful and mortal nature, = not as a=20 punishment for sin, but in order to humble us, that is, in order to = prevent=20 worse sin in the future. For first: if we needed to be humbled, we = clearly were=20 already in sin =96 the sin of pride. And secondly: how can sin be = reduced by=20 endowing us with a nature inclined to sin?! Why not provide us with a = sinless=20 nature to begin with?

     But God = did=20 provide us with a sinless nature to begin with, and it is we, not God, = who have=20 caused its corruption. Metropolitan Anthony, however, is forced by the = logic of=20 his argument, which denies that our sinfulness was caused by Adam=92s = original=20 sin, to attribute to God Himself the corruption of our nature. As he = writes:=20 =93Let us now ask: Who was responsible for fashioning human nature so = that a good=20 desire and repentance are, nevertheless, powerless to renew a man in = actuality=20 and so that he falls helplessly under the burden of his passions if he = does not=20 have grace assisting him? God the Creator, of course.=94[147]=20 This is perilously close to the assertion that God is the author of evil = =96 or,=20 at any rate, of the evil of human nature since Adam, which is clearly = contrary=20 to the Orthodox teaching that God created everything good in the = beginning, and=20 that there is nothing that He has created that is not good. Even those = things,=20 such as the differentiation of the sexes, which, in the opinion of a = small=20 minority of the Holy Fathers, were created in prevision of the fall, are = nevertheless good in themselves. God did not create death: death is the=20 consequence of the sin of man, which in turn is the consequence of the = envy of=20 the devil. So the idea that God created sinful natures, natures subject = to=20 death, is contrary to Orthodox teaching. The only possible reason why = human=20 beings should come into the world already tainted by corruption is that = their=20 corrupt nature is the product of sin. And if not of their own personal = sin, then=20 the sin of an ancestor. That is, the forefather=92s or the ancestral or = the=20 original sin=85

     Thus St. = Cyril of=20 Alexandria writes: =93[All men] have been condemned to death by the = transgression=20 of Adam. For the whole of human nature has suffered this in him, who was = the=20 beginning of the human race.=94[148]=20 Again, St. Symeon the Theologian writes: =93When our Master descended = from on high=20 He by His own death destroyed the death that awaited us. The = condemnation=20 that was the consequence of our forefather=92s transgression he = completely=20 annihilated.=94[149]=20 Again, St. Gregory Palamas confirms that the ancestral sin was Adam=92s = and nobody=20 else=92s: =93Before Christ we all shared the same ancestral curse and = condemnation=20 poured out on all of us from our single Forefather, as if it had sprung = from the=20 root of the human race and was the common lot of our nature. Each = person=92s=20 individual action attracted either reproof or praise from God, but no = one could=20 do anything about the shared curse and condemnation, or the evil = inheritance=20 that had been passed down to him and through him would pass to his=20 descendants.=94[150]

     Some = clarification can=20 be introduced here by distinguishing two senses of the English word = =93sin=94: sin=20 as the act of a human person, and sin as the state = or=20 condition or law of human nature. This distinction = is in=20 fact made by St. Paul in the passage in question, as Archbishop Theophan = points=20 out: =93The holy apostle clearly distinguishes in his teaching on = original sin=20 between two points: paraptwma or transgression, = and=20 amartia or sin. By the first = he=20 understood the personal transgression by our forefathers of the will of = God that=20 they should not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, = by the=20 second =96 the law of sinful disorder that entered human nature as the = consequence=20 of this transgression. [=93I delight in the law of God in my inmost = self, but I=20 see in my members another law at work with the law of my mind and making = me=20 captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members=94 = (Romans=20 7.22-23).] When he is talking about the inheritance of the original sin, = he has=20 in mind not paraptwma or transgression, = for which only=20 they are responsible, but amartia, that is, the law of = sinful=20 disorder which afflicted human nature as a consequence of the fall into = sin of=20 our forefathers. And hmarton - sinned in 5.12 = must therefore=20 be understood not in the active voice, in the sense: they committed sin, = but in=20 the middle-passive voice, in the sense: amartwloi in 5.19, that is, = became sinners=20 or turned out to be sinners, since human nature fell in Adam.=94[151]=20

     Thus the original sin = of Adam, in=20 the sense of his personal transgression, = the=20 original sin which=20 no other person shares, has engendered in consequence sinful, corrupt, = diseased,=20 mortal human nature, the law of sin, which we all share because we have = all=20 inherited it, but for which we cannot be held personally responsible. = And if=20 this seems to introduce of two original sins, this is in fact not far = from the=20 thinking of the Holy Fathers. Thus St. Maximus the Confessor: =93There = then arose=20 sin, the first and worthy of reproach, that is, the falling away of the = will=20 from good to evil. Through the first there arose the second =96 the = change in=20 nature from incorruption to corruption, which cannot elicit reproach. = For two=20 sins arise in [our] forefather as a consequence of the transgression of = the=20 Divine commandment: one worthy of reproach, and the second having as its = cause=20 the first and unable to elicit reproach=94.[152]=20

     We have=20 inherited the =93second=94 original sin, the law of sin, in the most basic way: through = the sexual=20 propagation of the species. For = =93in=20 sins,=94 says David, - that is, in a nature corrupted by original sin, - = =93did my=20 mother conceive me=94 (Psalm 50.5).[153]=20 It follows that even newborn babies, even unborn embryos, are sinners in = this=20 sense. For =93even from the womb, sinners are estranged=94 (Psalm = 57.3). And=20 as Job says:=20 =93Who = shall be pure=20 from uncleanness? Not even one, even if his life should be but one day = upon the=20 earth=94 (Job 14.4). Again, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: =93Evil = was mixed=20 with our nature from the beginning=85 through those who by their = disobedience=20 introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the = species each=20 animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to = passions=20 from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes = its=20 rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keep us company till = life=92s=20 term=94.[154]=20 Again, St. Gennadius Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople,=20 writes: = =93Everyone in=20 the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their = nature=20 from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while = others=20 have died only because of Adam=92s condemnation =96 for example, = children=94.[155]=20

     Christ was = born from a=20 virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit=20 precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. = Gregory=20 Palamas writes: =93If the conception of God had been from seed, He would = not have=20 been a new man, nor the Author of new life which will never grow old. If = He were=20 from the old stock and had inherited its sin, He would not have been = able to=20 bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to make = His=20 Flesh an inexhaustible Source of sanctification, able to wash away even = the=20 defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, and sufficient to = sanctify all who came after them.=94[156]<= /P>

     The fact = that original=20 sin in this sense taints even children is the reason for the practice of = infant=20 baptism. And this practice in turn confirms the traditional doctrine of = original=20 sin. Thus the Council of Carthage in 252 under St. Cyprian decreed = =93not to=20 forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in = nothing apart=20 from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the = contagion=20 of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, = the more=20 easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his = own but=20 the sins of another that are remitted=94.

     Still more = relevant=20 here is Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419, which was confirmed = by the=20 Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils: =93He who denies the need for = young=20 children and those just born from their mother=92s womb to be baptized, = or who=20 says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they = inherit=20 nothing from the forefathers=92 sin that would necessitate the bath of=20 regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for = the=20 remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false = sense],=20 let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: =91By one man sin came = into the=20 world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned=92=20 (Romans=20 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been = understood by=20 the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. = For in=20 accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not = yet=20 able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, = that=20 through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have = acquired=20 from the old birth=92 (cf. Canons 114, 115 and 116).=94 =

     =93It=20 follows,=94 writes Archbishop Theophan, =93that it is Metropolitan = Philaret who has=20 correctly expounded the teaching of the Orthodox Church on original sin, = and not=20 Metropolitan Anthony. The attempt of the latter to give a new = interpretation to=20 the text of Romans=20 5.12 violates the ban laid in its time by the Council of Carthage, a ban = on=20 similar attempts with the laying of an anathema on the violators of the = ban. But=20 since the canons of the Council of Carthage were confirmed by the = [Sixth]=20 Ecumenical Council in Trullo, then for the violation of the indicated = decree=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s Catechism falls under the anathema not = only of the=20 local Council of Carthage, but also of the [Sixth] Ecumenical Council in = Trullo=94.[157]=20

     Thus = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s teaching on original sin, which links our sinful and corrupt = state,=20 not with Adam=92s past sin, but with our own future ones, encounters = several=20 powerful objections. First, it is contrary both to natural justice and = to the=20 doctrine of the goodness of the original creation that the punishment = should=20 precede the crime and that we should receive corruption and death = before=20 we have sinned. Secondly, although, in the case of children who die = young, the=20 punishment precedes a non-existent crime in that they have = not=20 sinned personally, Church tradition still commands the baptism of = children=20 precisely =93for the remission of sins=94. But thirdly, and most = importantly, the=20 Apostle Paul specifically excludes the idea that our death is the wages = of our=20 personal sins, as opposed to the original sin of Adam. =

     Thus he=20 writes: = =93Until the=20 law sin was in the world, but sin is not reckoned where there is no law. = But=20 death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in = the=20 likeness of Adam=92s transgression=85 Apart = from the law=20 sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the = commandment=20 came, sin revived and I died=94 (Romans 5.13,14, = 7.8-9). For =93sin is = lawlessness=94 (I=20 John 3.4), transgression of the law, so there can be no sin where = there is=20 no law. In other words, death reigned from Adam to Moses in spite of the = fact=20 that the men of that time did not sin as Adam did, and that = personal sin=20 was not imputed to them.

     Let us turn = to the=20 Fathers for further understanding of this passage. St. Cyril of = Jerusalem=20 writes: =93Paul=92s meaning is that, although Moses was a righteous and = admirable=20 man, the death sentence promulgated upon Adam reached him as well, and = also=20 those who came after, even though neither he nor they copied the sin of = Adam in=20 disobediently eating of the tree=94.[158]=20 Again, the unknown fourth-century Roman Father commonly referred to as=20 Ambrosiaster writes: =93How is it then that sin was not imputed, when = there was no=20 law? Was it all right to sin, if the law was absent? There had always = been a=20 natural law, and it was not unknown, but at that time it was thought to = be the=20 only law, and it did not make men guilty before God. For it was not then = known=20 that God would judge the human race, and for that reason sin was not = imputed,=20 almost as if it did not exist in God=92s sight and that God did not care = about it.=20 But when the law was given through Moses, it became clear that God did = care=20 about human affairs and that in the future wrongdoers would not escape = without=20 punishment, as they had done up to them.=94[159]=20 Again, Blessed Augustine writes: =93He says not that there was no sin = but only=20 that it was not counted. Once the law was given, sin was not taken away, = but it=20 began to be counted=94.[160]<= /P>

     Thus before = Moses the=20 personal sins of men were not imputed to them, and they were not counted = as=20 having committed them. And yet they died. But death is =93the = wages of sin=94=20 (Romans 6.23). So of what sin was their death the wages? There can only = be one=20 answer: Adam=92s.

     St. Paul = goes on to=20 give a still more powerful reason for this interpretation: the exact=20 correspondence between Adam and Christ, between Adam who made all his=20 descendants by carnal birth sinners and Christ Who makes all His = descendants by=20 spiritual birth righteous: =93As through one man=92s transgression = [judgement=20 came] on all men to condemnation, so through one man=92s act of = righteousness=20 [acquittal came] to all men for justification of life. For as by one = man=92s=20 disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man=92s obedience many = will be made=20 righteous. Law came in to increase the transgression; but where sin = increased,=20 grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace = also might=20 reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our = Lord=94=20 (Romans 5.18-21).

     St. John = Chrysostom=20 writes: =93Adam is a type of Christ in that just as those who descended = from him=20 inherited death, even though they had not eaten of the fruit of the = tree. So=20 also those who are descended from Christ inherit His righteousness, even = though=20 they did not produce it themselves=85 What Paul is saying here seems to = be=20 something like this. If sin, and the sin of a single man moreover, had = such a=20 big effect, how it is that grace, and that the grace of God =96 not of = the Father=20 only but also of the Son =96 would not have an even greater effect? That = one man=20 should be punished on account of another does not seem reasonable, but = that one=20 man should be saved on account of another is both more suitable and more = reasonable. So if it is true that the former happened, much more should = the=20 latter have happened as well.=94[161]=20 Again, St. Ephraim the Syrian writes: =93Just as Adam sowed sinful = impurity into=20 pure bodies and the yeast of evil was laid into the whole of our mass = [nature],=20 so our Lord sowed righteousness into the body of sin and His yeast was = mixed=20 into the whole of our mass [nature]=94.[162]=20 Again, St. Ambrose of Milan writes: =93In Adam I fell, in Adam I was = cast out of=20 paradise, in Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except He find me = in Adam?=20 For just as in Adam I am guilty of sin and owe a debt to death, so in = Christ I=20 am justified.=94[163]=20 Again, St. Gregory Palamas writes: =93Just as through one man, Adam, = liability to=20 death passed down by heredity to those born afterwards, so the grace of = eternal=20 and heavenly life passed down from the one divine and human Word to all = those=20 born again of Him=94.[164]<= /P>

     Thus just as = Adam=20 sinned, and so brought sin and death on all his descendants, even though = they=20 had not committed the original sin, so Christ brought remission = of sins=20 and eternal life to all His descendants (the children of the Church), = even=20 though they have not rejected sin as He has. If the original curse and=20 punishment was =93unjust=94, the freedom from the curse and redemption = is also=20 =93unjust=94. But the one =93injustice=94 wipes out the other = =93injustice=94 and creates=20 the Righteousness of God. It is therefore vain to seek, as does = Metropolitan=20 Anthony, a rational justification of our inheritance of original sin. It = is=20 unjust =96 from a human point of view. And the fact that we later = sin of our=20 own free will does not make the original inheritance just. However, this = =93injustice=94 is wiped out by the equal injustice of Christ=92s = blotting out all=20 our sins =96 both original sin, and our personal sins =96 by his = unjust death on=20 the Cross. As Archbishop Seraphim of Lubny writes: =93If we bear in mind = that by=20 the sufferings of One all are saved, we shall see no injustice in the = fact that=20 by the fault of one others are punished.=94[165]<= /P>

     It is not = only the=20 parallel between the old Adam and the new Adam that serves to overthrow=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s concept of original sin: the parallel between = the old Eve=20 and the new Eve, the Virgin Mary, does so no less effectively. Let us = consider=20 the metropolitan=92s words: =93Knowing beforehand that every man would = display=20 Adam=92s self-will, the Lord allows us to inherit Adam=92s weak, ill, = mortal nature=20 endowed with sinful tendencies=85=94 However, there is one human being = of whom we=20 know that she would not have displayed Adam=92s self will, and = who is=20 glorified above all human beings precisely because she rejected = Eve=92s=20 temptation, putting right her sin: the Mother of God. And yet the = Mother of=20 God was born in original sin. This is the teaching of the Orthodox = Church,=20 which rejects the Catholic doctrine that the Virgin was conceived = immaculately=20 in order to preserve her from original sin.

     St. John = Maximovich=20 writes: =93The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from = original sin, as=20 likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God=92s grace from = personal sins,=20 makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve = Mary from=20 sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other = men=20 before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise = that God=20 saves men apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before = their birth=20 to salvation.

     =93This = teaching, which=20 seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality = completely=20 denies all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of = Her=20 mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was = preserved by God=92s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace = was=20 preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit = consist? If=20 She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did = not sin,=20 then for what did God glorify Her? If She, without any effort, and = without=20 having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She = crowned more=20 than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary=85=94[166]<= /P>

     Logically,=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s theory leads to the Catholic doctrine of the = immaculate=20 conception of the Virgin. For since God knew that she would not sin as = did Adam=20 or Eve, there was no reason to give her a sinful nature. The fact that = she=20 did inherit a sinful nature shows that it was not her own sin = which=20 caused her sinful nature (by anticipation, as it were), but the original = sin of=20 Adam=85

CONCLUSION:=20 LOVE AND JUSTICE

In the = midst of=20 two thieves, Thy Cross was found to be a balance of=20 justice.

Triodion,=20 Ninth=20 Hour, Glory=85, Troparion.

     =93As if = anticipating=20 his own critics,=94 write the HOCNA bishops, =93[Metropolitan Anthony] = wrote these=20 prophetic words in his introduction to his essay, The Moral Aspect of = the=20 Dogma of the Church: =91When an author offers his readers a (more or = less) new=20 explanation of Christian dogmas; then, if he believes in an Orthodox = manner, he=20 reckons least of all to introduce any kind of new truth into the = consciousness=20 of the Church. On the contrary, he is convinced that the fullness of the = truth=20 is a permanent attribute of the Church=92s own consciousness; and if, = for example,=20 before the fourth century, the concepts of nature and persons had not = been=20 elucidated, or if before the Seventh Ecumenical Council no dogma of the=20 honouring of icons was defined, this does not in any way mean that the = early=20 Church did not know the correct teaching about the Trinity or vacillated = between=20 the venerating of icons and iconoclasm. In these cases it was not the = content of=20 the faith which received a supplement in Christian consciousness, but = rather the=20 enrichment of human thought consisted in that certain human concepts or = everyday=20 occurrences were explained from the point of view of true Christianity. = Even=20 before the fourth century, the Church knew from the Gospel and Tradition = that=20 the Father and the Son are one, that we are saved by faith in the Holy = Trinity.=20 But how to relate these truths to the human, philosophical concepts of = person=20 and nature, - in other words, what place these concepts receive in = God=92s being =96=20 this was taught to people by the Fathers of the First Council and those = who=20 followed them.

     =93=92In = exactly the same=20 way, if any contemporary person=85 starts discussing the truths of the = faith (in=20 new terminology), but without any contradiction of Church Tradition, = remaining=20 in agreement with Orthodox theology, then he does not reveal new = mysteries of=20 the faith. He only elucidates, from the point of view of eternal truth, = new=20 questions of contemporary human thought.=94 (p. = 97).

     All this is = true, and=20 thankfully more modest than the metropolitan=92s claims in The Dogma = of=20 Redemption. Even here, however, he claims that his work is a new = elucidation=20 of old truths on a par with the achievements of the Fathers of the First = or=20 Seventh Ecumenical Councils. But what new terminology or insights has he = given=20 us?

     What is new = in =93moral=20 monism=94 is its monism =96 that is, its reduction of the whole work of = redemption=20 to one principle only, love, instead of two, love and justice. But this = novelty=20 is false: the restoration of justice between God and man, that is, the = blotting=20 out of sin, is not a =93secondary=94, =93incidental=94 aspect of = redemption, but=20 redemption itself =96 at least that part of it which was = accomplished by=20 Christ on the Cross and which the Scriptures call = =93justification=94. For=20 Christ shed His blood, as He said, precisely =93for the remission of = sins=94, that=20 is, for the restoration of justice between God and man, for the = justification of=20 mankind. Also new in the theory is its moralism =96 that is, its = reduction of the=20 whole mystery of our redemption to what Metropolitan Anthony calls = =93the law of=20 psychological interaction=94[167],=20 the submission of the will of the believer to Christ=92s compassionate = love as =93an=20 active, revolutionary and often irresistible power=94.[168]=20 But this novelty, too, is false: it confuses the work of redemption in = itself=20 with the assimilation of redemption by the individual believer, with his = response to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It confuses the = justification=20 wrought by Christ on the Cross, which is an objective fact = independent of=20 the believer=92s response to it, with the holiness wrought by the = Holy=20 Spirit in the soul of the believer who does in fact respond to = it.

     The concepts = of=20 holiness and justification, love and justice are logically distinct, and = to=20 speak of the perfection of Christ=92s love does not in itself explain = how justice=20 is perfected. It is the so-called =93juridical theory=94, rooted in the = Holy=20 Scriptures and developed by the Holy Fathers, but denied by Metropolitan = Anthony, that tells us how justice and justification are = achieved, and=20 in what that justice consists =96 without in any way diminishing = the=20 significance of the Divine love.=20 Metropolitan Anthony, however, seeks in every way to play down the = significance=20 of redemption viewed as the restoration of justice between God = and man.=20 He writes: =93The act of redemption =96 the exploit of compassionate = love which=20 pours Christ=92s holy will into the souls of believers =96 could not, as = an act of=20 love, violate the other laws of life, that is, justice. And yet it has = not=20 infrequently been considered from this secondary, non-essential, and = incidental=20 viewpoint, a viewpoint which the sons of Roman legal culture, as well as = the=20 Jews, considered extremely important. Such a view of the secondary = aspect of the=20 event in no way obscures its real meaning as an act of compassionate = love=94.[169]=20 It is this attitude towards Divine justice as =93secondary, = non-essential and=20 incidental=94 which constitutes, in our view, the fundamental error of=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s work and the root cause of all its other=20 errors.

     In = conclusion, then,=20 let us attempt to present the relationship between love and justice in=20 redemption in a more balanced manner.

     Christ=92s = redemptive=20 work can be described as perfect love in pursuit of perfect = justice. The=20 beginning of all things and of all God=92s works is without question = love.=20 God created the world out of love, and redeemed it out of love. As the = Apostle=20 of love writes in his Gospel: =93God so loved the world that He gave His = only Son,=20 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal = life=94=20 (John=20 3.16). But with the appearance of sin, which is injustice, God, Who is = called=20 justice as well as love[170],=20 directed all things to the abolition of injustice and the justification = of man.=20 That is why the same apostle of love (who is at the same time the son of = thunder) combines the concepts of the love of God and the expiation of = His=20 justice in one sentence with no sense of incongruity as follows: =93In = this is=20 love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be = the=20 expiation [or propitiation or atonement] (ilasmon)=20 of our sins=94 (I=20 John=20 4.10).

     The attitude = of the=20 Divine love to sin and injustice is called in the Holy Scriptures the = wrath=20 of God. This term does not denote a sinful passion of anger (for God = is=20 completely pure and passionless) but the utterly inexorable = determination of God=20 to destroy that which is evil and unjust, that is, which is opposed to = love. As=20 Archbishop Theophan puts it: "The wrath of God is one of the = manifestations of=20 the love of God, but of the love of God in its relationship to the moral = evil in=20 the heart of rational creatures in general, and of man in=20 particular."

     However, = since man was=20 mired in sin, not only his personal sins but also =93the law of sin=94, = or original=20 sin, that had penetrated his very nature, he was unable to justify = himself. That=20 is why even the best men of the Old Testament were barred entry into = heaven and=20 went to hades after their death (Genesis=20 37.35). For =93[sinful] flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of = heaven=94=20 (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.50).

     So how was = justice to=20 be restored and man justified? Through the perfect Sacrifice for sin = offered by=20 Christ on the Cross. However, in order to understand what is meant by = this we=20 need to look a little more closely at the nature of justice=20 itself.

     One of the = earliest=20 and clearest examples of moral justice is the lex=20 talionis:=20 "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Justice here consists in = balance,=20 equality, compensation - evil committed in one direction is = compensated=20 for by an equal evil committed in the other direction. But since the = second evil=20 is committed with the intention of restoring justice, it is no longer = evil, but=20 good.

     Now it will = be=20 objected that this law has been superseded in the New Testament by a new = law=20 forbidding us to seek compensation for wrong done to us: "Ye have heard = that it=20 hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say = unto you,=20 that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right = cheek, turn=20 to him the other also. And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away = thy=20 coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go = a mile,=20 go with him twain..." (Matthew 5.38-41).

     However, = whatever the=20 old law may lack in comparison with the new, it cannot be called = unjust:=20 on the contrary, it is the very paradigm of justice. Moreover, it was=20 promulgated by God Himself, and therefore was right for the people of = God at=20 that particular stage in their development as a nation. Nor has it = proved=20 possible to dispense with the old law in the conduct of government since = Christ.=20 Where would a government or society be if there were no laws of a = compensatory=20 character? Even if the saints managed to conduct their personal lives by = at all=20 time returning good for evil, they never advocated abandoning the = principle of=20 retributory punishment for crime in public life, although they did try = to temper=20 justice with other considerations, such as the rehabilitation of the = offender.=20 Thus in the Life of one of the greatest of Christian hierarchs, = St.=20 Dunstan of Canterbury (+988), we read: "Once three false coiners were = caught and=20 sentenced to have their hands cut off. On that day, which was the feast = of=20 Pentecost, the Saint was going to celebrate the Divine Liturgy; but he = waited,=20 asking whether the sentence had been carried out. The reply came that = the=20 sentence had been deferred to another day out of respect for the feast. = 'I shall=20 on no account go to the altar today,' he said, 'until they have suffered = the=20 appointed penalty; for I am concerned in this matter.' For the criminals = were in=20 his power. As he spoke, tears gushed down his cheeks, showing his love = for the=20 condemned men. But when they had been punished he washed his face and = went up to=20 the altar, saying: 'Now I am confident that the Almighty will accept the = Sacrifice from my hands.'"

     Thus justice = has an=20 absolute value in and of itself; and if the New Testament has brought = other=20 values to the fore, these have in no way superseded justice. Moreover, = if the=20 new law is superior to the old, this is not because the old law is = unjust, but=20 because the new fuses justice with love and therefore increases the sum = total of=20 good. In any case, according to the new law, too, evil must be balanced = by an=20 equal and opposite good. The difference is that according to the new law = the=20 counter-balancing good need not be offered by the offender, but can be = offered=20 by his victim in his place. Thus if the victim suffers the offence but=20 forgives the offender, the debt of justice is paid; the act of = love,=20 which is forgiveness, blots out the original sin =96 so long as the = offender=20 accepts the gift with gratitude and repentance. Nor is this unjust, if = the=20 creditor agrees to pay the debt. For it is not important who pays the = debt, so=20 long as the debt is paid =96 and the debtor shows his gratitude through=20 repentance.

     We see, = then, that=20 when evil has been done there are two ways in which justice may be = satisfied and=20 evil blotted out: by the suffering of the offender, and by the suffering = of the=20 victim or redeemer in the offender's place. Only in God's law, as = opposed to the=20 laws of human government, the suffering of the offender is ineffective = if it is=20 not mixed with the particular joy-bringing sorrow of compunction; = while=20 the suffering of the victim is ineffective if it is not mixed with the=20 sorrowless joy of forgiveness. Indeed, according to God's law, a = victim=20 who does not forgive his offender is himself offending and adding to the = total=20 of injustice in the world. Why? First, because "we have all sinned and = fallen=20 short of the glory of God" (Romans 3.23), so that all the = suffering we=20 receive is, if we would only recognize it, the just repayment of our = sins. And=20 secondly, because all sin is, in the first place, sin against God, not = man; for=20 as David says: "Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil = before Thee,=20 that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art = judged"=20 (Psalm 50.4). Therefore if we are to be justified before the Just = Judge,=20 we must at all times recognize that we are offenders, not victims, = remembering=20 that "if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged" (I=20 Corinthians 11.31).

     Returning = now to=20 Christ's redemptive suffering, we find the new law put into practice to = a=20 heightened and supremely paradoxical degree. For, on the one hand, since = Christ=20 alone of all men was without sin, He alone had no need to suffer, He = alone=20 suffered unjustly. But on the other hand, for the very same reason He = alone=20 could suffer for all men, He alone could be the perfect Victim, = by Him=20 alone could justice be perfectly satisfied. All other sacrifices for sin = are=20 tainted since they are offered from a sinful nature. Only a sinless = human=20 nature could offer a true sacrifice for sin. Moreover, Christ suffered = all the=20 reality of sin as far as His sinless nature would allow, even to the = suffering=20 of death, the tearing apart of His most beautiful creation. And this = meant, as=20 we have seen, that His suffering was immeasurably greater than ours in=20 proportion as sin is immeasurably distant from the holiness of God. Thus = did He=20 accept to suffer the whole wrath of God against sin in place of sinful = mankind,=20 becoming =93the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world=94 = (John=20 1.29). For =93surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; = yet we=20 esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded = for our=20 transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; upon Him was the = chastisement=20 that made us whole, and by His stripes we are healed=94 (Isaiah=20 53.4-5).

     So the Cross = is=20 perfect justice, =93the balance-beam of justice=94 - but justice of a = supremely=20 paradoxical kind. In St. Maximus=92 words, it is =93the judgement of = judgement=94[171].=20 Sin, that is, injustice, is completely blotted out - but by the unjust = death and=20 Sacrifice of the Only Sinless and Just One. Christ came "in the likeness = of=20 sinful flesh" (Romans=20 8.3) and died the death of a sinner, uttering the words expressive of = sinners=92=20 horror at their abandonment by God. The innocent Head died that the = guilty Body=20 should live. He, the Just One, Who committed no sin, took upon Himself = the sins=20 of the whole world. When we could not pay the price, He paid it for us; = when we=20 were dead in sin, He died to give us life. "For Christ hath once = suffered for=20 sins, the just for the unjust" (I=20 Peter=20 3.18). And the self-sacrificial love of this sacrifice was so great in = the eyes=20 of Divine justice that it blotted out the sins of the whole world - of = all men,=20 that is, who respond to this free gift with gratitude and repentance.=20

.

     The Church = has=20 expressed this paradox with great eloquence: "Come, all ye peoples, and = let us=20 venerate the blessed Wood, through which the eternal justice has been = brought to=20 pass. For he who by a tree deceived our forefather Adam, is by the Cross = himself=20 deceived; and he who by tyranny gained possession of the creature = endowed by God=20 with royal dignity, is overthrown in headlong fall. By the Blood of God = the=20 poison of the serpent is washed away; and the curse of a just = condemnation is=20 loosed by the unjust punishment inflicted on the Just. For it was = fitting that=20 wood should be healed by wood, and that through the Passion of One Who = knew not=20 passion should be remitted all the sufferings of him who was condemned = because=20 of wood. But glory to Thee, O Christ our King, for Thy dread = dispensation=20 towards us, whereby Thou hast saved us all, for Thou art good and lovest = mankind."[172]<= /P>

     So there is = no=20 conflict between justice and love. To say that God should be loving but = not just=20 is like saying that the sun should give light but not heat: it is simply = not in=20 His nature. It is not in His nature, and it is not in the nature of any = created=20 being. For the simple reason that justice is the order of created = beings,=20 it is the state of being as it was originally created. For, as St. = Dionysius the=20 Areopagite writes: =93God is named Justice because He satisfies the = needs of all=20 things, dispensing due proportion, beauty and order, and defines the = bounds of=20 all orders and places each thing under its appropriate laws and orders = according=20 to that rule which is most truly just, and because he is the Cause of = the=20 independent activity of each. For the Divine Justice orders and assigns = limits=20 to all things and keeps all things distinct from and unmixed with one = another=20 and give to all beings that which belongs to each according to the = dignity of=20 each. And, to speak truly, all who censure the Divine Justice = unknowingly=20 confess themselves to be manifestly unjust. For they say that = immortality should=20 be in mortal creatures and perfection in the imperfect and = self-motivation in=20 the alter-motivated and sameness in the changeable and perfect power in = the=20 weak, and that the temporal should be eternal, things which naturally = move=20 immutable, temporal pleasures eternal, and to sum up, they assign the = properties=20 of one thing to another. They should know, however, that the Divine = justice is=20 essentially true Justice in that it gives to all things that which = befits the=20 particular dignity of each and preserves the nature of each in its own = proper=20 order and power.=94[173]<= /P>

     When people = say that=20 God is loving but not just, or, that His justice demonstrates a lack of = love,=20 they do not know what they are saying. For His love is aimed precisely = towards=20 the restoration of justice, the restoration of =93the nature of each in = its own=20 proper order and power=94, in which alone lies its blessedness. And if = the=20 restoration of justice involves suffering, this is not the fault of God, = but of=20 His creatures, who freely go against their nature as God created it and = thereby=20 create injustice.

     God is = justified in=20 His words and prevails when He is judged by those evil men who accuse = Him of=20 injustice. As He says through the Prophet Ezekiel: =93Yet saith the = house of=20 Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not My = ways=20 equal? Are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of = Israel,=20 every one according to his ways=94 (Ezekiel=20 18.29-30.). Again, the Prophet Malachi says: =93Ye have wearied the Lord = with your=20 words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied Him? When ye say, Every one = that=20 doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delighteth in them; = or,=20 Where is the God of judgement?=94 (Malachi=20 2.17). But God is not unequal in His ways, and He is always the God of=20 judgement.

     For, as St. = John of=20 Damascus writes, =93a judge justly punishes one who is guilty of = wrongdoing; and=20 if he does not punish him he is himself a wrongdoer. In punishing him = the judge=20 is not the cause either of the wrongdoing or of the vengeance taken = against the=20 wrongdoer, the cause being the wrongdoer=92s freely chosen actions. Thus = too God,=20 Who saw what was going to happen as if it had already happened, judged = it as if=20 it had taken place; and if it was evil, that was the cause of its being=20 punished. It was God Who created man, so of course He created him in = goodness;=20 but man did evil of his own free choice, and is himself the cause of the = vengeance that overtakes him.=94[174]<= /P>

     Nor is = justice a kind=20 of cold, abstract principle imposed upon Him from without, as it were. = As=20 Vladimir Lossky writes: =93We should not depict God either as a = constitutional=20 monarch subject to a justice that goes beyond Him, or as a tyrant whose = whim=20 would create a law without order or objectivity. Justice is not an = abstract=20 reality superior to God but an expression of His nature. Just as He = freely=20 creates yet manifests Himself in the order and beauty of creation, so He = manifests Himself in His justice: Christ Who is Himself justice, affirms = in His=20 fullness God=92s justice=85 God=92s justice is that man should no = longer be=20 separated from God. It is the restoration of humanity in Christ, the = true=20 Adam.=94[175]<= /P>

     Love and = justice may=20 be seen as the positive and negative poles respectively of God=92s = Providence in=20 relation to the created universe. Love is the natural, that is, just=20 relationship between God and man. Sin has destroyed love and created = injustice.=20 Divine Providence therefore acts to destroy injustice and restore love. = We would=20 not need to speak of justice if sin had not destroyed it. But with the = entrance=20 of sin, justice is the first necessity =96 love demands it. =

     However, = since love=20 never demands of others what it cannot give itself, the justice of God = is=20 transmuted into mercy. Mercy is that form of justice in which the = punishment of sin is removed from the shoulders of the offender and = placed on=20 the shoulders of another, who thereby becomes a propitiatory = sacrifice.=20 Thus the Cross is both love and justice, both mercy and sacrifice. It is = the=20 perfect manifestation of love, and the perfect satisfaction of justice. = It is=20 =93the mercy of peace=94, in the words of the Divine Liturgy, the mercy = that=20 restores peace between God and man.

     = This intertwining of = the themes=20 of love and justice in the Cross of Christ is developed with = incomparable grace=20 by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow: = =93Draw=20 closer and examine the threatening face of God=92s justice, and you will = exactly=20 discern in it the meek gaze of God=92s love. Man by his sin has fenced = off from=20 himself the everlasting source of God=92s love: and this love is armed = with=20 righteousness and judgement =96 for what? =96 to destroy this stronghold = of=20 division. But since the insignificant essence of the sinner would be = irreparably=20 crushed under the blows of purifying Justice, the inaccessible Lover of = souls=20 sends His consubstantial Love, that is, His Only-begotten Son, so that = He Who=20 =91upholds all things by the word of His power=92 (Hebrews 1.3), = might also=20 bear the heaviness of our sins, and the heaviness of the justice = advancing=20 towards us, in the flesh of ours that He took upon Himself: and, having = Alone=20 extinguished the arrows of wrath, sharpened against the whole of = humanity, might=20 reveal in his wounds on the Cross the unblocked springs of mercy and = love which=20 was to the whole land that had once been cursed - blessings, life and = beatitude.=20 Thus did God love the world.

     =93But if = the Heavenly=20 Father out of love for the world gives up His Only-begotten Son; then = equally=20 the Son out of love for man gives Himself up; and as love crucifies, so = is love=20 crucified.[176]=20 For although =91the Son can do nothing of Himself=92, neither can he do = anything in=20 spite of Himself. He =91does not seek His own will=92 (John=20 5.19 and 31), but for that reason is the eternal heir and possessor of = the will=20 of His Father. =91He abides in His love=92, but in it He Himself = receives into His=20 love all that is loved by the Father, as he says: =91As the Father hath = loved Me,=20 so have I loved you=92 (John=20 15.9). And in this way the love of the Heavenly Father is extended to = the world=20 through the Son: the love of the Only-begotten Son of God at the same = time=20 ascends to the Heavenly Father and descends to the world. Here let him = who has=20 eyes see the most profound foundation and primordial inner constitution = of the=20 Cross, out of the love of the Son of God for His All-holy Father and = love for=20 sinful humanity, the two loves intersecting with, and holding on to, = each other,=20 apparently dividing up what was one, but in fact uniting the divided = into one.=20 Love for God is zealous for God =96 love for man is merciful to man. = Love for God=20 demands that the law of God=92s righteousness should be observed =96 = love for man=20 does not abandon the transgressor of the law to perish in his = unrighteousness.=20 Love for God strives to strike the enemy of God =96 love for man makes = the=20 Divinity man, so as by means of love for God mankind might be deified, = and while=20 love for God =91lifts the Son of man from the earth=92 (John=20 12.32 and 34), love for man opens the embraces of the Son of God for the = earthborn, these opposing strivings of love intersect, dissolve into = each other,=20 balance each other and make of themselves that wonderful heart of the = Cross, on=20 which forgiving =91mercy=92 and judging =91truth meet together=92, = God=92s =91righteousness=92=20 and man=92s =91peace kiss each other=92, through which heavenly =91truth = is sprung up=20 out of the earth, and righteousness=92 no longer with a threatening eye = =91hath=20 looked down from heaven. Yea, for the Lord will give goodness, and our = land=20 shall yield her fruit=92 (Psalm=20 84.11-13).=94[177]<= /P>

     Only at the = Last, Most=20 Terrible Judgement will love and justice not be united in mercy for all. = And yet=20 the Last Judgement is a mystery proclaimed by the Word of God and = grounded in=20 the deepest reality of things. It both proceeds from the nature of God = Himself,=20 from His love and His justice, and is an innate demand of our human = nature=20 created in the image of God. It is the essential foundation for the = practice of=20 virtue and the abhorrence of vice, and the ultimate goal to which the = whole of=20 created nature strives, willingly or unwillingly, as to its natural = fulfillment.=20 Without the Last Judgement all particular judgements would have a = partial and=20 unsatisfactory character, and the reproaches of Job against God, and of = all=20 unbelievers against faith, would be justified. And if the Last Judgement = is=20 different from all preceding ones in that in it love seems to be = separated from=20 justice, love being bestowed exclusively on the righteous and justice on = the=20 sinners, this is because mankind will have divided itself into two, one = part=20 having responded to love with love, to justice with justice, while the = other,=20 having rejected both the love and the justice of God, will merit to = experience=20 His justice alone=85

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 error consisted in the fact that he balked at the justice of God, and = sought, in=20 a rationalist and pietistic manner, to disengage it, as it were, from = His love,=20 assigning to love the primary role in the work of redemption while = dismissing=20 justice as a =93secondary, incidental aspect=94 of it. =

     First, he = balked at=20 the justice of original sin. He considered it unjust that mankind should = suffer=20 as a result of the sin of Adam. So he proposed a =93rational=94 = solution: that men=20 suffer from their inherited sinful nature, not because of Adam=92s sin, = but=20 because of their own sins =96 or, more precisely, because they would = have sinned=20 in the same way as Adam if put in the same situation. But this = contradicts the=20 clear witness of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, the tradition of = the=20 Church in baptizing children =93for the remission of sins=94, the fact = that all men=20 before the law died although no sin was imputed to them, and the fact = that the=20 Mother of God, though she reversed the sin of Eve by successfully = resisting personal sin in all its forms, was nevertheless born in = original sin.=20 Moreover, it destroys the perfect symmetry between the old Adam and the = new=20 Adam: if we do not inherit original sin from the old Adam through carnal = birth,=20 then neither do we acquire redemption from the new Adam through = spiritual birth.=20

     Secondly, he = balked at=20 the justice of the Cross. He considered it unjust that by the death of = Christ on=20 the Cross, as by a propitiatory sacrifice, the sins of all men should be = blotted=20 out. So he proposed a =93rational=94 solution: that the sins of all men = are blotted=20 out, not by any propitiatory sacrifice, not by the death of Christ on = Golgotha,=20 but by the overflowing of the =93revolutionary, almost irresistible=94 = force of His=20 co-suffering love in the Garden of Gethsemane into the hearts of = believers. But=20 this contradicts the clear witness of Holy Scripture and the Holy = Fathers, the=20 tradition of the Church in communicating believers in the Body and Blood = of=20 Christ as in a Sacrificial offering for sin which is =93for the = remission of=20 sins=94, and the fact that the sufferings of Christ alone, without His = death,=20 could not save us, in that death could be destroyed only by the Death of = Christ=20 and the New Testament could be signed only in the Blood, presupposing = the Death,=20 of the Testator. Moreover, it confuses the work of Christ and the Holy = Spirit in=20 our redemption: the work of Christ in justifying us is logically = and=20 chronologically prior to the work of the Holy Spirit in = sanctifying=20 us.

     In many = ways,=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s error is a typically modern one. Modern man is = all in=20 favour of love; but he wishes to disengage it from truth, = on the=20 one hand, and justice, on the other. He misinterprets Blessed = Augustine=92s=20 saying: =93Love and do what you will=94; he thinks that =93love covers a = multitude of=20 sins=94, that is, that it can co-exist with all manner of falsehood = (which is=20 ecumenism) and all manner of sin (which is secularism, hedonism, = modernism of=20 all kinds), and that in the last analysis falsehood and sin simply do = not=20 matter: as the pop song puts it, all you need is love.=20

     But it is = not true=20 that all we need is love. We also need truth and justice. These three = principles=20 are one in God, but at the same time they are three. God is love, but He = is also=20 truth and justice, and His love is incompatible with all untruth and = injustice.=20 For,=20 as St. John of the Ladder writes: =93God is called love, and also=20 justice.=94[178]<= /P>

     Christ, Who = is love=20 incarnate, came into the world =93to witness to the truth=94 = (John 18.37) and=20 =93to destroy the works of the devil=94 (I John 3.8). He came = into the world,=20 therefore, to reestablish truth and justice. He is perfect love in = pursuit of=20 perfect truth and perfect justice.

     = And if=20 His truth defies all rationalist reason, and His justice all human = standards of=20 equity, this only goes to show that His thoughts are not our thoughts = and His=20 ways not our ways, and that we must work out our salvation in fear and=20 trembling; =93for our God is a consuming fire=94 (Hebrews=20 12.29)=85

Pascha,=20 2004.

APPENDIX=20 1: LIFE OF ARCHBISHOP THEOPHANES OF = POLTAVA

Early=20 Years

     The future = Archbishop=20 Theophanes was born in the village of Podmoshie, Novgorod province on = December=20 31, 1874 (1873, according to another source). His father was the village = priest,=20 Fr. Demetrius Bystrov, and his mother was called Maria. He was baptized = with the=20 name Basil, since the feast day of St. Basil the Great (January 1) was = the=20 nearest to his birthday.

     When he was = seven=20 years old, Basil had an extraordinary prophetic dream. He saw himself as = if he=20 were standing in hierarchical vestments and wearing a golden mitre in = the high=20 place during the Divine Liturgy. And his father went up to him and = censed him.=20 It should be pointed out that the child had never yet witnessed a = hierarchical=20 service. In the morning Basil told his mother the dream. His father, who = was=20 sitting in the next room, heard him and said:

     =93Look a = new Joseph has=20 appeared!=94

But the = prophecy in the=20 dream was fulfilled exactly. Many years later, when Archbishop = Theophanes was=20 going to be consecrated to the episcopate, the Holy Synod his father to = take=20 part in the service. And during the service he censed his son in the = sanctuary=20 in front of the holy altar=85

     As a child, = his=20 parents told him, Basil did not know any prayers by heart, but he would = fall on=20 his knees in front of the icons and burble out, = weeping:

     =93Lord, You = are so=20 great and I am so small!=94

     He was quiet = and=20 concentrated, and did not take part in childish games. But at the same = time he=20 was radiant and joyful. He tasted of the fruits of prayer, and kept a = strict=20 watch on his inner life. He loved the severe landscape of the north of = Russia,=20 which spoke to him of God the Creator. And he breathed in the pious, = humble=20 spirit of the peasants around him.

     Basil went = to the=20 parish school, where his extraordinary intellectual talents were first = revealed.=20 He was able to read a page once and repeat it almost word for word, and = jumped=20 class three times. Then he went to theological seminary, which he = finished three=20 years before those who had begun with him.

     Having = finished his=20 secondary studies at the theological seminary, the young Basil had to = pass an=20 examination to enter the Theological Academy in St.=20 Petersburg.

     =93I was = then scarcely=20 seventeen. I was much younger than all the other candidates, and I = looked like a=20 schoolboy=85 I was not afraid of the entry examination because I had a = good=20 knowledge of the seminary programme. And then there came the time of the = written=20 examination in philosophy marked by the famous Professor Korinfsky. I = was afraid=20 of this exam because it was outside the seminary programme and because = it was=20 the only written exam, all the others were oral. I prayed fervently to = St.=20 Justin the Philosopher and the holy teachers of the Church Saints Basil = the=20 Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom to enlighten my mind = and give=20 me their thought.

     =

     =93The day = of the exam=20 arrived; it was due to take place at four o=92clock. We sat down, = Professor=20 Korinfsky entered, greeted us and then wrote on the board the proposed=20 subject:

     =93=92The = importance of=20 personal experience in elaborating one=92s = world-view.=92

     =93What joy = and=20 gratitude to the Lord I felt on reading this compositional subject! It = was clear=20 and familiar to me. Thanks to the prayers of the saints, the Lord sent = me rapid,=20 light thought and I finished my work astonishingly quickly, in half an = hour. I=20 had written only one page=85 I got up and asked permission to give in my = work. The=20 professor was clearly very surprised! He looked at his watch and said, = not=20 without hesitation:

     =93=92Oh = well, give it to=20 me.=92

     =93He had = seen that I=20 was the youngest and probably thought that I had not understood the = subject. I=20 noted his hesitation and handed him my paper. He asked me to wait for a = moment=20 and began to read. During the reading, he raised his eyes towards me = from time=20 to time, then said:

     =93=92Thank = you, thank=20 you=85 You can go.=92

     =93My = fervent prayer to=20 the philosopher saints had been heard,=92 continued the archbishop. = =91It was they,=20 not I, who had written by my hand=85 Thanks be to Thee, O Lord! For Thou = are the=20 Giver of all good things! In this way the exam which was supposed to be = the most=20 difficult became for me the easiest of all. I had the distinct = impression that=20 Professor Korfinsky was satisfied with my work. Finally, I got the top = pass into=20 the St. Petersburg Academy. But as the Apostle writes: =91Not I, but the = grace of=20 God which is with me=92 (I Corinthians = 15.10).=94

     Many years = later, when=20 Basil was now Bishop Theophanes and the Rector of the Academy, he had to = pacify=20 the warring factions among the professors during the revolutionary years = 1905-06. After one of these debates, without himself taking part, = Professor=20 Korinfsky came up to the Rector, who had just calmed the tempest, and = said,=20 smiling sweetly:

     =93Yes=85 I = well remember=20 your essay!=94

At the Theological=20 Academy

     Archbishop = Theophanes=20 had fond memories of several of the professors of the Academy when he = was there,=20 including V.V. Bolotov, A.P. Lopukhin and N.N. Glubokovsky. Professor = Lopukhin=20 even bequeathed him his very large theological library (which he later = gave to=20 the Academy). With their help and support, he passed all four years of = his study=20 as the first student.

     Having = finished his=20 theological education at the age of 21, he was given a professorial = scholarship=20 to continue to study at the Academy.

     In 1896, = Basil=20 Dmitrievich was appointed lecturer at the St. Petersburg Academy in the = faculty=20 of Biblical history. In 1898 he received the monastic tonsure with the = name=20 Theophanes in honour of St. Theophanes the Confessor, Bishop of = Sigriane, and in=20 respectful memory of Bishop Theophanes the Recluse. In the same year he = was=20 ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood.

    In 1901, he was raised to the = rank of=20 archimandrite with the duties of inspector of the Academy in the = Academy=92s house=20 church by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg.=20

     The = Academy=92s=20 ustav said that the inspector had to have a master=92s degree and = so was=20 obliged to write a composition to obtain the degree. But Archimandrite=20 Theophanes did not hand in a composition, although he had written it. = The reason=20 was that he as a monk had given vows of poverty and humility, and could = not seek=20 or desire academic glory. It contradicted the monastic vows. And so the = work lay=20 in his desk for several years until another professor in his absence = took it and=20 gave it to the Academic Council. The subject of the composition was: = =93The=20 Tetragram, or the Old Testament Name of God (Jehovah or Yahweh)=94. This = work=20 became his master=92s dissertation at the faculty of the Biblical = history of the=20 Old Testament. It was published in 1905 and was very highly esteemed by = critics=20 both inside and outside Russia. It was called =93the famous = Tetragram=94! However,=20 when the book appeared in the shops, Archbishop Theophanes himself went = round=20 all the bookshops in a cab, and bought and burned all the copies of the = work! In=20 this way he fought against the love of glory in = himself.

     In this = case, as in=20 others, he sought the advice of the elders, especially Hieroschemamonks = Alexis=20 of Valaam, and Barnabas and Isidore of Gethsemane skete. =

     Fr. = Theophanes would=20 often take the steamer to Valaam. Once he left the monastery church and = went=20 into the woods to practise the Jesus prayer. He soon noticed a large = silent mass=20 of people with Fr. Alexis, upon whom the abbot had given the obedience = to teach=20 the people outside the church. On seeing him, Fr. Theophanes went in a = different=20 direction, thinking that he would not meet the crowd again. But it = turned out=20 that the elder led the pilgrims in the same direction. Then he decided = to let=20 the procession pass him while he went off in the opposite direction. He = stopped=20 in a thicket from where he could observe the pilgrims. In front strode = the elder=20 a large distance from the people, while behind him came the pilgrims, = most of=20 them women. The hieroschemamonk had his head bowed to the ground, and = was=20 praying. Suddenly the thought occurred to Fr. Theophanes: =93Ach, in = vain does=20 Hieroschemamonk Alexis surround himself with these women =96 and all of = them are=20 young. There could be reprimands=85=94

     =93But I = hadn=92t manage=20 to think this before the elder raised his head and, turning in my = direction,=20 loudly said, almost shouting:

     =93=92They = followed=20 Christ, too!=92=94

     These words = were so=20 unexpected and short that none of the people could understand their = meaning and=20 to whom they referred. Although the whole crowd heard these words and = looked in=20 the direction of Fr. Theophanes, they could not see him because of the = thicket.=20 But the elder again lowered his head and immersed himself in=20 prayer=85

     =93Truly, = Elder Alexis=20 was a great saint and wonderful clairvoyant,=94 witnessed Vladyka = Theophanes. =93He=20 was as beautiful as an angel of God. It was sometimes difficult to look = at him,=20 he was as it were in flames, especially when standing at the altar in = prayer. At=20 the time he was completely transfigured, his face became different in an = indescribable way, extremely concentrated and severe. He was truly all = in=20 fire.=94

     But if the = elder felt=20 that those present in the altar were involuntarily observing him and his = prayer,=20 he tried to hide his condition by a kind of foolery. He usually went up = to the=20 wall and, pretending that he was an absent-minded worshipper, in his = shadow on=20 the wall he corrected and combed the hair on his = head.

     Once Fr. = Theophanes=20 set off for Valaam, troubled by the following thought: the ascetic rules = of the=20 Holy Fathers said that a monk should pay as little attention to his = external=20 appearance as possible. But the Church had blessed him to be an academic = monk=20 and live and be saved in the world. But, living in the world, it was = impossible=20 to forget his flesh and not care for his appearance=85 =

     He went to = Fr. Alexis=92=20 cell convinced that he would get the solution to his problem. And his = faith was=20 rewarded. The elder, as always, received Fr. Theophanes very joyfully. = He sat=20 him down and asked him to wait for a moment. Then he took a mirror, put = it on=20 the table at which Fr. Theophanes was sitting, and began carefully to = comb his=20 hair. After this he cleared everything from the table and, turning to = Fr.=20 Theophanes, said:

     =93Well, now = we can=20 talk.=94

And so, = without any=20 words, the elder had resolved Fr. Theophanes=92s = problem=85

     Another holy = man to=20 whom Fr. Theophanes was close was the great wonderworking priest Fr. = John of=20 Kronstadt.

     Once Fr. = Theophanes=20 was preparing to celebrate the Divine Liturgy the next day in one of the = capital=92s churches whose altar feastday it was. But suddenly he was = given urgent=20 work that could not be postponed: he had to prepare a written report for = the=20 metropolitan. =93From the evening and the whole night I wrote the urgent = report,=20 and so I was not able to rest. When I had finished my work it was = already=20 morning, I had to go to the church. And there, together with the other = clergy,=20 Fr. John was serving with me. The Liturgy was coming to an end and the = servers=20 were communing in the altar. At a suitable moment, when the communion = hymn was=20 being sung, Fr. John came up to me and congratulated me on receiving the = Holy=20 Mysteries. And then he looked at me with particular attention and, = shaking his=20 head, said:

     =93=92Oh, = how difficult it=20 is to write the whole night and then, having had no rest at all, to go = straight=20 to the church and celebrate the Divine Liturgy=85 May the Lord help and = strengthen=20 you!=92

You can = imagine how=20 joyful it was for me to hear such words from such a person. I suddenly = felt that=20 all my tiredness had suddenly disappeared at his words=85 Yes, great was = the=20 righteous one Fr. John of Kronstadt!=94

     After = pausing for a=20 little, Vladyka continued: =93But how many people there were, blind and = deaf ones,=20 who did not accept Fr. John and treated him very crudely. And there were = such=20 people even among the priests. Thus for example Fr. John once came to = the altar=20 feast in one of the churches of St. Petersburg. But the superior of the = church,=20 on seeing him, began to shout at him:

     =93=92Who = invited you=20 here? Why did you appear? I didn=92t invite you. Oh, you=92re such a = =91saint=92. We=20 know saints of your kind!=92

Fr. John was = embarrassed=20 and said:

     =93=91Calm = down,=20 batyushka, I=92m leaving now=85=92

But he shouted = at=20 him:

     =93=91Oh = what a=20 =91wonderworker=92 you are. Get out of here! I didn=92t invite=20 you=85.=92

Fr. John = meekly and=20 humbly asked forgiveness and left the church=85

     Another time = there was=20 a service in the St. Andrew cathedral in Kronstadt, where Fr. John was = superior.=20 One of the servers began to get disturbed:

     =93Why do = you give away=20 money to everyone, but to me, who serve you, you have never given = anything? What=20 does this mean?=94

     Batyushka = was silent,=20 and apparently prayed in himself. But the other continued to be = disturbed and=20 reviled him, not sparing himself in his language.

     A reader who = happened=20 to be there stood up for batyushka:

     =93What are = you doing?=20 Are you in your right mind? Is this possible? It is shameful and = terrible to=20 think of what you are saying to batyushka.=94

     And then he = listed the=20 merits of Fr. John, mentioning, among other things, that he was a=20 superior.

     =93You know, = that=92s=20 right, after all, I=92m a superior. Is it possible to speak with a = superior in=20 such a way? No, no, no=85 It=92s wrong, it=92s = wrong=85=94

     Vladyka = Theophanes=20 noted: =93What humility Fr. John had! Neither the gift of clairvoyance, = nor the=20 gift of healings, nor of wonderworking =96 none of this did he attribute = to=20 himself. But only that it was wrong to speak to a superior in such a=20 way!=94

     Fr. John had = great=20 influence with the royal family, and the tsar visited him secretly. = Rasputin=20 feared this influence. As Archbishop Theophanes witnessed to the = Extraordinary=20 Commission: =93Rasputin indicated with unusual skill that he had = reservations=20 [about Fr. John]=85 Rasputin=85 said of Fr. John of Kronstadt=85 that he = was a saint=20 but, like a child, lacked experience and judgement=85 As a result Fr. = John=92s=20 influence at court began to wane=85=94

     Fr. John = reposed on=20 December 20, 1908. Fr. Theophanes served at his funeral.

Admirer of = Rasputin

     In 1905, = after the=20 publication of his master=92s thesis, Fr. Theophanes was raised to the = rank of=20 extraordinary professor and confirmed in his post as inspector of the=20 Academy.

     Perhaps the = greatest=20 mistake of Archbishop Theophanes=92s life was his initial trust of the = great=20 pseudo-elder Rasputin (which means =93debauched=94 in Russian). = According to his own=20 witness before the Extraordinary Commission established by the = Provisional=20 Government in 1917, he first met Rasputin, significantly, in the house = of Bishop=20 Sergius (Stragorodsky), the future traitor of the Russian Church and = first=20 Soviet =93patriarch=94 of Moscow. =93Once he [Bishop Sergius] invited us = to his=20 lodgings for tea, and introduced for the first time to me and several = monks and=20 seminarians a recently arrived man of God, Brother Grigory as we called = him=20 then. He amazed us all with his psychological perspicacity. His face was = pale=20 and his eyes unusually piercing =96 the look of someone who observed the = fasts.=20 And he made a strong impression.=94

     Archbishop = Theophanes=20 was especially impressed by Rasputin=92s apparent prophetic gift. =93At = that time=20 Admiral Rozhdestvensky=92s squadron had already set sail [to fight the = Japanese in=20 the Russo-Japanese War]. We therefore asked Rasputin, =91Will its = engagement with=20 the Japanese be successful?=92 Rasputin answered, =91I feel in my heart = that it will=20 be sunk.=92 And his prediction subsequently came to pass in the battle = of Tsushima=20 Strait.=94

     Again, = =93Rasputin=20 correctly told the students of the seminary whom he was seeing for the = first=20 time that one would be a writer and that another was ill, and then = explained to=20 a third that he was a simple soul whose simplicity was being taken = advantage of=20 by his friends=85 In conversation Rasputin revealed not book learning = but a subtle=20 grasp of spiritual experience obtained through personal knowledge. And a = perspicacity that verged on second sight.=94

     Fr. = Theophanes invited=20 Rasputin to move in with him, to stay in his apartment. It was through = Fr.=20 Theophanes that Rasputin gained entry into the house of Grand Duke Peter = Nikolaevich, the Tsar=92s cousin, and his wife, the Montenegrin Grand = Duchess=20 Militsa Nikolevna, whose confessor Fr. Theophanes had become. (According = to=20 another source the Grand Duchess first met in the podvorye of the = Mikhailov monastery in Kiev.) =93Visiting the home of Militsa = Nikolaevna, I let=20 slip that a man of God named Grigory Rasputin had appeared among us. = Militsa=20 Nikolaevna became very interested in my communication, and Rasputin = received an=20 invitation to present himself to her.=94 After that, Rasputin was = invited to the=20 Grand Duchess=92 house on his own=85

     It was = through the=20 Grand Duchess that Fr. Theophanes was introduced to the Tsar: =93I was = invited to=20 the home of the former emperor for the first time by Grand Duchess = Militsa=20 Nikolaevna.=94 In his diary for November 13/26, the Tsar noted: =93I = received=20 Theophanes, inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological=20 Academy.=94

     Soon after, = Fr.=20 Theophanes was offered the extremely responsible post of spiritual = father of the=20 Royal Family. So he became, as it were, the =93conscience of the Tsar=94 = at a=20 critical moment in the nation=92s history.

     Fr. = Theophanes gave=20 the Tsarina and her children books of the Holy Fathers to read. In a = note to her=20 daughter, the Tsarina reminded them =93to read the book that batyushka = brought you=20 before communion=94.

     In view of = Fr.=20 Theophanes=92s closeness both to the Royal Family and to Rasputin, it is = often=20 asserted that it was he who introduced them to each other, and that his = later=20 self-imposed exile in France was in order to expiate this sin.=20

     This is = untrue.=20 According to the words of Archbishop Theophanes before the Extraordinary = Commission: =93How Rasputin came to know the family of the former = emperor, I have=20 absolutely no idea. And I definitely state that I took no part in that. = My guess=20 is that Rasputin penetrated the royal family by indirect means=85 = Rasputin himself=20 never talked about it, despite the fact that he was a rather garrulous = person=85 I=20 noticed that Rasputin had a strong desire to get into the house of the = former=20 emperor, and that he did so against the will of Grand Duchess Militsa=20 Nikolaevna. Rasputin himself acknowledged to me that he was hiding his=20 acquaintance with the royal family from Militsa=20 Nikolaevna.=94

     The first = meeting=20 between the Royal Family and Rasputin, as recorded in the Tsar=92s = diary, took=20 place on November 1, 1905. Archbishop Theophanes testified: =93I = personally heard=20 from Rasputin that he produced an impression on the former empress at = their=20 first meeting. The sovereign, however, fell under his influence only = after=20 Rasputin had given him something to ponder.=94 According to the Monk = Iliodor,=20 Rasputin told him: =93I talked to them for a long time, persuading them = to spit on=20 all their fears, and rule.=94

     On hearing = that=20 Rasputin had impressed the empress, Grand Duchess Militsa Nikolaevna = said to=20 him, as Archbishop Theophanes testified: =93=92You, Grigory, are an = underhand=20 person.=92 Militsa Nikolaevna told me personally of her dissatisfaction = with=20 Rasputin=92s have penetrated the royal family on his own, and mentioned = her=20 warning that if he did, it would be the end of him. My explanation of = her=20 warning,=94 said Archbishop Theophanes, =93=85 was that there were many = temptations at=20 court and much envy and intrigue, and that Rasputin, as a simple, = undemanding=20 wandering pilgrim, would perish spiritually under such=20 circumstances.=94

     It was at = about this=20 time that Rasputin left Fr. Theophanes=92s lodgings and moved in with = the woman=20 who was to become one of his most fanatical admirer, Olga Lokhtina. = Archbishop=20 Theophanes writes: =93He only stayed with me a little while, since I = would be off=20 at the Academy for days on end. And it got boring for him=85 and he = moved=20 somewhere else, and then took up residence in Petrograd at the home of = the=20 government official Vladimir Lokhtin,=94 who was in charge of the paved = roads in=20 Tsarskoe Selo, and so close to the royal family=85

     Rasputin = returned to=20 his family in Pokrovskoe, Siberia, in autumn, 1907, only to find that = Bishop=20 Anthony of Tobolsk and the Tobolsk Consistory had opened an = investigation to see=20 whether he was spreading the doctrines of the khlysty =96 = perhaps, as was=20 suspected, at the instigation of Grand Duchess Militsa Nikolaevna. Olga = Lokhtina=20 hurried back to St. Petersburg and managed to get the investigation = suspended.=20 Soon afterwards, testifies Fr. Theophanes, =93the good relations between = the royal=20 family and Militsa, Anastasia Nikolaevna [the sister of Militsa], and = Peter and=20 Nikolai Nikolaevich [the husbands of the sisters] became strained. = Rasputin=20 himself mentioned it in passing. From a few sentences of his I concluded = that he=20 had very likely instilled in the former emperor the idea that they had = too much=20 influence on state affairs and were encroaching on the emperor=92s=20 independence.=94

     The place = that the=20 Montenegrin Grand Duchesses had played in the royal family was now taken = by the=20 young Anya Vyrubova, who was a fanatical admirer of Rasputin. Another of = Rasputin=92s admirers was the royal children=92s nurse, Maria = Vishnyakova. And so=20 Rasputin came closer and closer to the centre of power=85 His influence = on the=20 political decisions of the Tsar has been much exaggerated. But he = undoubtedly=20 had a great influence on the Tsarina through his ability, probably = through some=20 kind of hypnosis, to relieve the Tsarevich=92s haemophilia, a tragedy = that caused=20 much suffering to the Tsar and Tsarina, and which they carefully hid = from the=20 general public=85

Critic of=20 Rasputin

     On February = 1, 1909=20 Archimandrite Theophanes was appointed Rector of the St. Petersburg = Theological=20 Academy. And on Sunday, February 22, the second Sunday of the Great = Fast, which=20 is dedicated to the memory of St. Gregory Palamas, he was consecrated = Bishop of=20 Yamburg, a vicariate of the St. Petersburg diocese, in the Holy Trinity=20 cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The consecration was performed = by=20 Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg together with other = members=20 of the Holy Synod and other hierarchs who came to the service =96 13 in=20 all.

     In answer to = the=20 accusation that he had gained his see through the influence of Rasputin, = Bishop=20 Theophanes testified: =93My candidacy for the bishopric was put forward = by the=20 church hierarchs led by Bishop Hermogenes [of Saratov, the future = hieromartyr].=20 I would never have permitted myself to take advantage of Rasputin=92s = influence=85 I=20 was known personally to the royal family and had four times or so heard=20 confession from the empress and once from the sovereign=85 and I was = already the=20 Rector of the Petersburg Theological Academy.=94

     It was a = difficult=20 time, with liberal ideas gaining ground even among the professors of the = Academy. Bishop Theophanes more than once came into conflict with these = liberal=20 professors, and they complained about him to Metropolitan Anthony. After = one=20 such complaint, the metropolitan summoned the bishop to himself and=20 said:

     =93The = professors are=20 complaining that you are restricting their freedom of scientific=20 research.=94

     Instead of a = reply,=20 Vladyka Theophanes showed the metropolitan a paragraph from the = ustav of=20 the Theological Academies which said: =93The Rector of the Academy is = responsible=20 for the direction and spirit of the Academy=94. Then he explained how = certain=20 professors during their lectures to students were permitting themselves = to=20 express freethinking ideas contrary to Orthodoxy. And the metropolitan = had to=20 agree that the Rector had the right to oppose = this.

     As Rector of = the=20 Academy, Vladyka Theophanes enlivened the religio-moral atmosphere in it = and=20 created a whole direction among the students, a kind of school of=20 =93Theophanites=94, as they were called. He tried to instill in the = students a=20 respect for the lofty authority of the Holy Fathers of the Church in = everything=20 that pertained to the Church faith and piety. When replying to a = question of a=20 theological or moral character he tried to avoid speaking =93from = himself=94, but=20 immediately went to the bookcase and found a precise answer to the = question from=20 the Holy Fathers, which allowed his visitor to depart profoundly = satisfied. He=20 himself was a walking encyclopaedia of theological knowledge. And yet = this was=20 by no means merely book knowledge: because of his ascetic life, he knew = the=20 truth of the teachings of the Fathers from his own experience. He would = go to=20 all the services, and often spend whole nights in prayer standing in his = cell in=20 front of the analoy and the icons. He would even take service books with = him on=20 his travels, and read all the daily services.

     His very = look inspired=20 respect, and soon cases of amazing spiritual perspicacity revealed = themselves.=20 Never familiar, always correct and restrained in manner, but at the same = time=20 warm and attentive, he was a fierce enemy of all modernism and = falsehood. If the=20 conversation took a vulgar turn, he would immediately turn away, however = distinguished his interlocutor. This caused him to have many enemies, = but people=20 also involuntarily respected him. Once the famous writer V.V. Rozanov = spoke at=20 length to him against monasticism. Vladya Theophanes did not reply with = a single=20 word. But his silence was effective, for at the end the writer simply=20 said:

     =93But = perhaps you are=20 right!=94

     Bishop = Theophanes=20 began to have doubts about Rasputin. These = doubts=20 related to rumours that Rasputin was not the pure man of God he seemed = to be.=20 =93Rumours began reaching us,=94 testified Vladyka, =93that Rasputin was = unrestrained=20 in his treatment of the female sex, that he stroked them with his hand = during=20 conversation. All this gave rise to a certain temptation to sin, the = more so=20 since in conversation Rasputin would allude to his acquaintance with me = and, as=20 it were, hide behind my name.=94

     At first = Vladyka and=20 his monastic confidants sought excuses for him in the fact that =93we = were monks,=20 whereas he was a married man, and that was the reason why his behaviour = has been=20 distinguished by a great lack of restraint and seemed peculiar to us=85 = However,=20 the rumours about Rasputin started to increase, and it was beginning to = be said=20 that he went to the bathhouses with women=85 It is very distressing=85 = to suspect [a=20 man] of a bad thing=85=94

     Rasputin now = came to=20 meet Vladyka and =93himself mentioned that he had gone to bathhouses = with women.=20 We immediately declared to him that, from the point of view of the holy = fathers,=20 that was unacceptable, and he promised us to avoid doing it. We decided = not to=20 condemn him for debauchery, for we knew that he was a simple peasant, = and we had=20 read that in the Olonets and Novgorod provinces men bathed in the = bathhouses=20 together with women, which testified not to immorality but to their = patriarchal=20 way of life=85 and to its particular purity, for=85 nothing was allowed. = Moreover,=20 it was clear from the Lives of the ancient Byzantine holy fools = Saints=20 Simeon and John [of Edessa] that both had gone to bathhouses with women = on=20 purpose, and had been abused and reviled for it, although they were = nonetheless=20 great saints.=94

     The example = of Saints=20 Simeon and John was to prove very useful for Rasputin, who now, =93as = his own=20 justification, announced that he too wanted to test himself =96 to see = if he had=20 extinguished passion in himself.=94 But Theophanes warned him against = this, =93for=20 it is only the great saints who are able to do it, and he, by acting in = this=20 way, was engaging in self-deception and was on a dangerous=20 path.=94

     To the = rumours about=20 bathhouses were now added rumours that Rasputin had been a khlyst = sectarian in Siberia, and had taken his co-religionists to bathhouses = there.=20 Apparently the Tsar heard these rumours, for he told the Tsarina not to = receive=20 Rasputin for a time. For the khlysts, a sect that indulged in = orgies in=20 order to stimulate repentance thereafter, were very influential among = the=20 intelligentsia, especially the literary intelligentsia, of the=20 time.

     It was at = that point=20 that the former spiritual father of Rasputin in Siberia, Fr. Makary, was = summoned to Tsarskoe Selo, perhaps on the initiative of the Tsarina. On = June 23,=20 1909 the Tsar recorded that Fr. Makary, Rasputin and Bishop Theophanes = came to=20 tea. There it was decided that Bishop Theophanes, who was beginning to = have=20 doubts about Rasputin, and Fr. Makary, who had a good opinion of him, = should go=20 to Rasputin=92s house in Pokrovskoe and = investigate.

     Bishop = Theophanes was=20 unwell and did not want to go. But =93I took myself in hand and in the = second half=20 of June 1909 set off with Rasputin and the monk of the Verkhoturye = Monastery=20 Makary, whom Rasputin called and acknowledged to be his =91elder=92=94. = The trip, far=20 from placating Vladyka=92s suspicions, only confirmed them, so that he = concluded=20 that Rasputin did not =93occupy the highest level of spiritual life=94. = On the way=20 back from Siberia, as he himself testified, he =93stopped at the Sarov = monastery=20 and asked God=92s help in correctly answering the question of who and = what=20 Rasputin was. I returned to Petersburg convinced that Rasputin=85 was on = a false=20 path.=94

     While in = Sarov,=20 Vladyka had asked to stay alone in the cell in which St. Seraphim had = reposed.=20 He was there for a long time praying, and when he did not come out, the = brother=20 sfinally decided to enter. They found Vladyka in a deep swoon.=20

     He did not = explain=20 what had happened to him there. But he did relate his meeting with = Blessed Pasha=20 of Sarov the next year, in 1911. The eldress and fool-for-Christ jumped = onto a=20 bench and snatched the portraits of the Tsar and Tsarina that were = hanging on=20 the wall, cast them to the ground and trampled on them. Then she ordered = her=20 cell-attendant to put them into the attic.

     This was = clearly a=20 prophecy of the revolution of 1917. And when Vladyka told it to the = Tsar, he=20 stood with head bowed and without saying a word. Evidently he had heard = similar=20 prophecies=85

     Blessed = Pasha then=20 gave Vladyka a prophecy for himself personally. She hurled a ball of = some kind=20 of white matter onto his knees, which, on unwinding, he found to be the = shroud=20 of a dead man. =93That means death!=94 he thought. But then she ran up = and seized=20 the shroud from his hands, muttering:

     =93The = Mother of God=20 will deliver=85 Our All-Holy Lady will save!=94

     This was a = prophecy of=20 Vladyka=92s near-mortal illness in Serbia several years later, when he = was saved=20 from death by the Mother of God=85

     On returning = from=20 Siberia and Sarov, Vladyka conferred with Archimandrite Benjamin and = together=20 with him summoned Rasputin. =93When after that Rasputin came to see us, = we, to his=20 surprise, denounced him for his arrogant pride, for holding himself in = higher=20 regard than was seemly, and for being in a state of spiritual deception. = He was=20 completely taken aback and started crying, and instead of trying to = justify=20 himself admitted that he had made mistakes. And he agreed to our demand = that he=20 withdraw from the world and place himself under my=20 guidance.=94

     Rasputin = then promised=20 =93to tell no one about our meeting with him.=94 =93Rejoicing in our = success, we=20 conducted a prayer service=85 But, as it turned out, he then went to = Tsarkoe Selo=20 and recounted everything there in a light that was favourable to him but = not to=20 us.=94

Enemy of=20 Rasputin

     In 1910, for = the sake=20 of his health, Vladyka was transferred to the see of Tauris and = Simferopol in=20 the Crimea. Far from separating him from the royal family, this enabled = him to=20 see more of them during their summer vacation in Livadia. He was able to = use the=20 tsar=92s automobile, so as to go on drives into the mountains, enjoy the = wonderful=20 scenery and breathe in the pure air.

     He often = recalled how=20 he celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the palace. And how the Tsarina and = her=20 daughters chanted on the kliros. This chanting was always prayerful and=20 concentrated.

     Vladyka used = to say:=20 =93During this service they chanted and read with such exalted, holy = veneration!=20 In all this there was a genuine, lofty, purely monastic spirit. And with = what=20 trembling, with what radiant tears they approached the Holy=20 Chalice!=94

     =93The = sovereign would=20 always begin every day with prayer in church. Exactly at eight o=92clock = he would=20 enter the palace church. By that time the serving priest had already = finished=20 the proskomedia and read the hours. With the entry of the Tsar the = priest=20 intoned: =91Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of = the Holy=20 Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.=92 And exactly at = nine=20 o=92clock the Liturgy ended. Nor were there any abbreviations or = omissions. And=20 the priest did not give the impression of being in a hurry. The secret = lay in=20 the fact that there were no pauses at all. This enabled the Liturgy to = be=20 completed within one hour. For the priest this was an obligatory = condition. The=20 sovereign always prayed very ardently. Each petition in the litany, each = prayer=20 found a lively response in his soul.

     =93After the = Divine=20 service the working day of the sovereign began.=94

     However, the = issue of=20 Rasputin was destined to bring an end to this idyllic phase in the = relations=20 between Vladyka Theophanes and the Royal Family.

     =93After a = while,=94=20 testifies Vladyka, =93rumours reached me that Rasputin had resumed his = former way=20 of life and was undertaking something against us=85 I decided to resort = to a final=20 measure =96 to denounce him openly and to communicate everything to the = former=20 emperor. It was not, however, the emperor who received me but his wife = in the=20 presence of the maid of honour Vyrubova.

     =93I spoke = for about an=20 hour and demonstrated that Rasputin was in a state of spiritual = deception=85 The=20 former empress grew agitated and objected, citing theological works=85 I = destroyed=20 all her arguments, but she=85 reiterated them: =91It is all falsehood = and slander=92=85=20 I concluded the conversation by saying that I could no longer have = anything to=20 do with Rasputin=85 I think Rasputin, as a cunning person, explained to = the royal=20 family that my speaking against him was because I envied his closeness = to the=20 Family=85 that I wanted to push him out of the = way.

     =93After my = conversation=20 with the empress, Rasputin came to see me as if nothing had happened, = having=20 apparently decided that the empress=92s displeasure had intimidated = me=85 However, I=20 told him in no uncertain terms, =91Go away, you are a fraud.=92 Rasputin = fell on his=20 knees before me and asked my forgiveness=85 But again I told him, =91Go = away, you=20 have violated a promise given before God.=92 Rasputin left, and I did = not see him=20 again.=94

     At this = point Vladyka=20 received a =93Confession=94 from a former devotee of Rasputin=92s. On = reading this, he=20 understood that Rasputin was =93a wolf in sheep=92s clothing=94 and =93a = sectarian of=20 the Khlyst type=94 who =93taught his followers not to reveal his = secrets even=20 to their confessors. For if there is allegedly no sin in what these = sectarians=20 do, then their confessors need not be made aware of it.=94 =

     =93Availing = myself of=20 that written confession, I wrote the former emperor a second letter=85 = in which I=20 declared that Rasputin not only was in a state of spiritual deception = but was=20 also a criminal in the religious and moral sense=85 In the moral sense = because, as=20 it followed from the =91confession=92, Father Grigory had seduced his=20 victims.=94

     There was no = reply to=20 this letter. =93I sensed that they did not want to hear me out and = understand=85 It=20 all depressed me so much that I became quite ill =96 it turned out I had = a palsy=20 of the facial nerve.=94

     In fact, = Vladyka=92s=20 letter had reached the Tsar, and the scandal surrounding the rape of the = children=92s nurse, Vishnyakova, whose confessor was Vladyka, could no = longer be=20 concealed. Vishnyakova herself testified to the Extraordinary Commission = that=20 she had been raped by Rasputin during a visit to Verkhoturye Monastery = in=20 Tobolsk province, a journey undertaken at the empress=92s suggestion. = =93Upon our=20 return to Petrograd, I reported everything to the empress, and I also = told=20 Bishop Theophanes in a private meeting with him. The empress did not = give any=20 heed to my words and said that everything Rasputin does is holy. From = that time=20 forth I did not see Rasputin, and in 1913 I was dismissed from my duties = as=20 nurse. I was also reprimanded for frequenting the Right Reverend=20 Theophanes.=94

     Another = person in on=20 the secret was the maid of honour Sophia Tyutcheva. As she witnessed to = the=20 Commission, she was summoned to the Tsar.

     =93You have = guessed why=20 I summoned you. What is going on in the = nursery?=94

     She told = him.=20

     =93So you = too do not=20 believe in Rasputin=92s holiness?=94

     She replied = that she=20 did not.

     =93But what = will you say=20 if I tell you that I have lived all these years only thanks to his=20 prayers?=94

     Then he = =93began saying=20 that he did not believe any of the stories, that the impure always = sticks to the=20 pure, and that he did not understand what had suddenly happened to = Theophanes,=20 who had always been so fond of Rasputin. During this time he pointed to = a letter=20 from Theophanes on his desk.=94

     =93=92You, = your majesty,=20 are too pure of heart and do not see what filth surrounds you.=92 I said = that it=20 filled me with fear that such a person could be near the grand=20 duchesses.

     =93=92Am I = then the enemy=20 of my own children?=92 the sovereign objected.

     =93He asked = me never to=20 mention Rasputin=92s name in conversation. In order for that to take = place, I=20 asked the sovereign to arrange things so that Rasputin would never = appear in the=20 children=92s wing.=94

     But her wish = was not=20 granted, and both Vishnyakova and Tyutcheva would not long remain in the = tsar=92s=20 service=85

     It was at = about this=20 time that the newspapers began to write against Rasputin. And a member = of the=20 circle of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Fyodorovna, Michael Alexandrovich=20 Novoselov, the future bishop and hieromartyr of the Catacomb Church, = published a=20 series of articles condemning Rasputin. "Why do the bishops,=94 he = wrote, =93who are=20 well acquainted with the activities of this blatant deceiver and = corrupter, keep=20 silent?=85 Where is their grace, if through laziness or lack of courage = they does=20 not keep watch over the purity of the faith of the Church of God and = allow the=20 lascivious khlyst to do the works of darkness under the mask of = light?"=20

     The brochure = was=20 forbidden and confiscated while it was still at the printer's, and the = newspaper=20 The = Voice of=20 Moscow was heavily = fined for=20 publishing excerpts from it.

     In November, = 1910,=20 Bishop Theophanes went to the Crimea to recover from this illness. But = he did=20 not give up, and inundated his friend Bishop Hermogenes with letters. It = was his=20 aim to enlist this courageous fighter against freethinking in his fight = against=20 Rasputin. But this was difficult because it had been none other than = Vladyka=20 Theophanes who had at some time introduced Rasputin to Bishop = Hermogenes,=20 speaking of him, as Bishop Hermogen himself said, =93in the most = laudatory terms.=94=20 Indeed, for a time Bishop Hermogenes and Rasputin had become allies in = the=20 struggle against freethinking and modernism.

     = Unfortunately, a far=20 less reliable person then joined himself to Rasputin=92s circle =96 = Sergius=20 Trophanov, in monasticism Iliodor, one of Bishop Theophanes=92s students = at the=20 academy, who later became a Baptist, married and had seven children. Fr. = Iliodor=20 built a large church in Tsaritsyn on the Volga, and began to draw = thousands to=20 it with his fiery sermons against the Jews and the intellectuals and the = capitalists. He invited Rasputin to join him in Tsaritsyn and become the = elder=20 of a convent there. Rasputin agreed.

     However, = Iliodor=92s=20 inflammatory sermons were not pleasing to the authorities, and in = January, 1911=20 he was transferred to a monastery in Tula diocese. But he refused to go, = locked=20 himself in his church in Tsaritsyn and declared a hunger-strike. Bishop=20 Hermogenes supported him, but the tsar did not, and ordered him to be = removed=20 from Tsaritsyn. However, at this point Rasputin, who had taken a great = liking to=20 Iliodor, intervened, and as Anya Vyubova testified, =93Iliodor remained = in=20 Tsaritsyn thanks to Rasputin=92s personal entreaties=94. From now on, = Olga Lokhtina=20 would bow down to Rasputin as =93Lord of hosts=94 and to Iliodor as=20 =93Christ=94=85

     When = Rasputin=92s bad=20 actions began to come to light, Hermogen vacillated for a long time. = However,=20 having made up his mind that Vladyka Theophanes was right, and having = Iliodor on=20 his side now too, he decided to bring the matter up before the Holy = Synod, of=20 which he was a member, at its next session. Before that, however, he = determined=20 to denounce Rasputin to his face. This took place on December 16, 1911.=20 According to Iliodor=92s account, Hermogenes, clothed in hierarchical = vestments=20 and holding a cross in his hand, =93took hold of the head of the = =91elder=92 with his=20 left hand, and with his right started beating him on the head with the = cross and=20 shouting in a terrifying voice, =91Devil! I forbid you in God=92s name = to touch the=20 female sex. Brigand! I forbid you to enter the royal household and to = have=20 anything to do with the tsarina! As a mother brings forth the child in = the=20 cradle, so the holy Church through its prayers, blessings, and heroic = feats has=20 nursed that great and sacred thing of the people, the autocratic rule of = the=20 tsars. And now you, scum, are destroying it, you are smashing our holy = vessels,=20 the bearers of autocratic power=85 Fear God, fear His life-giving=20 cross!=94

     Then they = forced=20 Rasputin to swear that he would leave the palace. According to one = version of=20 events, Rasputin swore, but immediately told the empress what had = happened.=20 According to another, he refused, after which Vladyka Hermogenes cursed = him. In=20 any case, on the same day, December 16, five years later, he was=20 killed=85

     Then Bishop = Hermogenes=20 went to the Holy Synod. First he gave a speech against the = khlysty. Then=20 he charged Rasputin with khlyst tendencies. Unfortunately, only a = minority of the bishops supported the courageous bishop. The majority = followed=20 the over-procurator in expressing dissatisfaction with his interference = =93in=20 things that were not of his concern=94.

     Vladyka = Hermogenes was=20 then ordered to return to his diocese. As the director of the chancery = of the=20 over-procurator witnessed, =93he did not obey the order and, as I heard, = asked by=20 telegram for an audience with the tsar, indicating that he had an = important=20 matter to discuss, but was turned down.=94

     The telegram = read as=20 follows: =93Tsar Father! I have devoted my whole life to the service of = the Church=20 and the Throne. I have served zealously, sparing no effort. The sun of = my life=20 has long passed midday and my hair has turned white. And now in my = declining=20 years, like a criminal, I am being driven out of the capital in disgrace = by you,=20 the Sovereign. I am ready to go wherever it may please you, but before I = do,=20 grant me an audience, and I will reveal a secret to = you.=94

     But the Tsar = rejected=20 his plea. On receiving this rejection, Bishop Hermogenes began to weep. = And then=20 he suddenly said:

     =93They will = kill the=20 tsar, they will kill the tsar, they will surely kill = him.=94

Bishop of=20 Astrakhan

     The = opponents of=20 Rasputin now felt the fury of the Tsar. Bishop Hermogenes and Iliodor = were=20 exiled to remote monasteries. And Vladyka Theophanes was transferred to = the see=20 of Astrakhan.

     Before = departing from=20 the Crimea, Vladyka called on Rasputin=92s friend, the deputy = over-procurator=20 Damansky. He told him: =93Rasputin is a vessel of the devil, and the = time will=20 come when the Lord will chastise him and those who protect=20 him.=94

     Later, in = October,=20 1913, Rasputin tried to take his revenge on Vladyka by bribing the widow = of a=20 Yalta priest who knew Vladyka, Olga Apollonovna Popova, to say that = Vladyka had=20 said that he had had relations with the empress. The righteous widow = rejected=20 his money and even spat in his face.

     Vladyka=92s = health,=20 which was in general not good because of his very ascetic way of life = since his=20 youth, was made worse by the climate in Astrakhan. He contracted malaria = and a=20 lung disease. Grand Duchess Elizabeth pleaded with her sister not to = forbid him=20 to receive treatment in the Crimea, but the request was turned down. = Later,=20 however, the grand duchess did manage to get Vladyka transferred to the = see of=20 Poltava.

     In spite of = the=20 Tsarina=92s hostility to Bishop Theophanes with regard to Rasputin, = Vladyka always=20 had the highest opinion of the Tsarina and always defended her against = those who=20 would slander her.

     Although = suffering=20 from ill health and deeply grieving over his break with the royal family = and=20 Rasputin=92s continuing hold over them, Vladyka Theophanes quickly won = the respect=20 and love of his flock in Astrakhan.

     Once, on the = namesday=20 of the Tsar, Vladyka went out with his clergy to serve a prayer service = for the=20 health of his Majesty in the middle of the cathedral. But in front of = him,=20 nearer the altar, stood what seemed to be, judging from his clothes, a = Muslim.=20 It turned out later that this was the Persian consul dressed in = extravagant=20 finery, with orders and a sabre, and a turban on his head. Vladyka, = pale, weak=20 and ill, asked the consul through a deacon to step to one side or stand = with the=20 other official persons, with the generals behind the bishop=92s throne. = The consul=20 remained in his place and made no reply to Vladyka=92s request. After = waiting for=20 several minutes, Vladyka sent the superior of the church to request the = consul=20 not to stand between the altar and Vladyka and clergy, but to stand to = one side.=20 The consul did not move. Vladyka waited, without beginning the official = prayer=20 service. And yet the whole leadership of the province and the city, = together=20 with the military in parade uniform, were gathered in the church. On the = square=20 in front of the church were soldiers drawn up for parade.

     Again they = went up to=20 the consul and asked him to go to one side and not to stand between the = clergy=20 and the altar, the more so as he was dressed in such demonstrative = attire.=20 Instead of replying, the consul pointed at the clock, and then angrily = said:=20

     =93Convey to = your=20 Hierarch that the prayer service should have been started long ago as = indicated=20 in the official timetable, a prayer service for the prosperity of his = Majesty=20 the Emperor. For this delay, he - your Hierarch - will answer for his=20 stubbornness. He has delayed the prayer service for a whole=20 half-hour!=94

     When Bishop = Theophanes=20 was informed of the consul=92s reply, he asked them to convey to him the = message:=20

     =93It is not = I, but you,=20 who are delaying the prayer service. And until you go to one side, the = prayer=20 service will not begin.=94

     When he = heard that,=20 the consul demonstratively left the church casting furious looks and = mumbling=20 threats. Immediately Vladyka began the service and the choir intoned the = Te=20 Deum.

     As was to be = expected,=20 the consul made a protest to the Tsar, accusing the =93audacious = hierarch who had=20 stopped the Te Deum for the health of the Tsar from proceeding = normally=94,=20 and who, being a =93hierarch in disgrace=94, had attempted to make a = political act=20 out of the incident. But then the opposite of what was expected = happened. The=20 Tsar and Tsarina approved of Bishop Theophanes=92s = act=85

     Before that = good news=20 arrived, however, Vladyka had been comforted in another way, during = Vespers in=20 the church: =93I had so much pain because of the Persian consul and I = felt so ill=85=20 One evening, when I was serving in the cathedral, I saw St. Theodore the = General=20 in a coat of mail=85 Lord, what joy! How that comforted me! All my = sadness and=20 tiredness vanished in an instant. I understood that the Lord approved of = my=20 firmness and that He was sending me his martyr to support me=85=20 =93

     Another = comfort came=20 in a letter to him from the paralysed Schema-Nun Eugenia, who had the = gift of=20 clairvoyance: =93I=92m having a dream. Some black, threatening clouds = have covered=20 the sky. Suddenly the holy Bishop Joasaph of Belgorod appeared. He read = a long=20 manuscript, then tore it up, and at that moment the sun reappeared = behind the=20 clouds. Soon it was shining clearly and tenderly=85 Glory to Thee, O=20 Lord!=94

     On March = 8/21, 1913=20 Vladyka was transferred from Astrakhan to Poltava. As he was leaving = Astrakhan,=20 writes someone who knew him well, =93there took place an unusually vivid = incident,=20 which in itself witnessed to the loftiness and spirituality of his soul, = and his=20 truly pastoral relationship to his flock. Before, the people in = Astrakhan had=20 protested decisively against his transfer to Poltava. But he = nevertheless had to=20 go, a huge crowd assembled at the station, and several hundred people = lay on the=20 rails in front of the train to stop it from going. This continued for = several=20 hours until they finally managed to free the railway line. I personally = think=20 that this is the most vivid event in the story of his life. The people, = the=20 flock felt, understood the loftiness of his soul, the soul of their = archpastor,=20 and witnessed this love of theirs and understanding, perhaps in too = primitive a=20 way, but truly with all their soul, mind and heart. Nobody ever heard of = a=20 similar incident with anybody else!=94

Archbishop of=20 Poltava

     Church life = was at a=20 low level when Vladyka came to his new diocese, and hardly anyone = attended the=20 services. And so =93I prayed to the Guardian Angels of my flock to make = to be born=20 in them a zeal for God, to excite in their souls a thirst for prayer and = penitence. That is so important. With penitence, there is no true = prayer. Only=20 he who feels himself to be infinitely guilty before God truly=20 prays.=94

     And his = prayers were=20 answered. The church began to fill up. And the people began to pray with = fervour; the zeal of the archbishop communicated itself to all the=20 clergy.

     Vladyka also = paid=20 attention to the chanting in church. He looked for someone who knew = church chant=20 since childhood to direct the choir. And he founded a =93chanting = school=94 for the=20 chanters. The pupils were entirely looked after by the diocese and lived = near=20 the episcopal palace. They had to know the words of the chants by heart = and=20 understand their meaning perfectly. The child voices of Poltava were = soon=20 recognized to be among the best in Russia.

     Vladyka also = attended=20 rehearsals and chose the chants. He saw it that the choir became = well-known not=20 only through the technical perfection of its chanting, but also through = its=20 truly liturgical spirit. The people understood this immediately, and the = church=20 services were from then on very well attended.

     Instead of = the pagan=20 celebrations of the New Year, Vladyka instituted a solemn Te Deum = at=20 midnight, during which the choir sang marvelously and the cathedral was = full to=20 bursting=85

     So popular = did Vladyka=20 become that when he arrived at the cathedral on feast days he found his = path=20 covered with flowers=85

     In 1913 the = Russian=20 Church celebrated the 300^th anniversary of the founding of = the=20 Romanov dynasty. Patriarch Gregory of Antioch came to the celebrations, = and=20 during the solemn service in his honour in the Pochaev Lavra the = litanies were=20 pronounced in Greek by Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volhynia, = the host,=20 in Latin by Archbishop Theophanes and in other languages by the other = priests.=20

     In Poltava a = whole=20 series of incidents took place which testified to the loftiness of = Vladyka=20 Theophanes, who had visions and revelations from God.

     In Poltava = there lived=20 an exceptionally pious married couple, who were exceptionally devoted to = Vladyka=20 Theophanes. When the husband died, the widow, being in indescribable = sorrow,=20 asked Vladyka whether he could tell her what was the fate of her dead = spouse in=20 the other life. Vladyka replied that perhaps after a period of time he = would be=20 in a condition to give a reply to her question. Vladyka prayed that this = should=20 be revealed to him, and after a certain time he consoled the widow, = saying that=20 God had had mercy on her husband.

     Prince = Zhevakhov, who=20 later became Bishop Ioasaph, asked Vladyka about the fate beyond the = grave of=20 the Bishop of Belgorod who had been found hanged in the lavatory of the=20 archiepiscopal podvorye. Has his soul perished? Vladyka = Theophanes=20 replied that the bishop had not perished, since he had not laid hands on = himself, but this had been done by the demons. It turned out that this = house was=20 being reconstructed, and there had been a house church in it before. But = the=20 atheist-minded builders had blasphemously built a lavatory in the place = where=20 there had been the altar. When holy places are defiled or where a murder = or=20 suicide is committed, the grace of God leaves, and demons settle there. = It is=20 difficult to say whether this bishop was guilty of this blasphemy, but = he became=20 the victim of the demons.

     Once a = married couple=20 came to the archbishop complaining about the behaviour of their beloved = son,=20 who, though pious in his childhood, no longer went to church, but = returned home=20 late at night in a drunken state. Weeping, they asked him to pray for = their son.=20

     The son came = home late=20 again one night and began to curse and swear. The next morning he could = not get=20 out of bed. He did not eat or speak, was feverish and gradually wasted = away. His=20 parents were beginning to lose all hope of a cure when they turned to = the=20 archbishop again.

     The sick boy = was=20 already unconscious, and was groaning and crying. Then he came to = himself and=20 said that a monk had come to him in his delirium and had=20 said:

     =93If you = don=92t correct=20 yourself, and turn from the path of sin, you will die and perish without = fail!=94

     The sick boy = wept and=20 swore that he would correct himself. Gradually he began to eat again, and the illness left = him. As soon=20 as he could walk, he went to the cathedral to pray and shed tears of = penitence.=20 After the service he approached the server to kiss the cross and was = amazed to=20 recognize in the archbishop the monk who had appeared to him in his = illness!=20 From then on, the young man visited the archbishop frequently, thanked = him for=20 praying for him, asked him to forgive him and reiterated his promise to = reform=20 his life.

     Another rich = couple=20 came to the archbishop, complaining about their son, too. Under the = influence of=20 bad companions, he was living a debauched life and paid no heed to their = pleas.=20 They sought help from the archbishop, but at the same time continued to = indulge=20 their son, giving him money. The archbishop advised them to stop giving = him=20 money, to be severe with him. But they replied that in their opinion = this was=20 not Christian.

     =93No,=94 = they said, =93we=20 want to raise him with love in a Christian spirit. When he gets bigger = he will=20 understand and will appreciate our kindness.=94

     The = archbishop could=20 only keep silent. The boy got bigger and became more and more = disobedient. Not=20 content with asking for money, he demanded it and even robbed his = parents of it.=20 They turned to the archbishop asking him what to do. He gave them the = same=20 advice. They again rejected it. Finally the boy left his parents=92 = house and gave=20 himself up completely to debauchery. The parents cursed him and when = they came=20 back weeping to the archbishop, they recognized their error. But it was = already=20 too late.

     =93Certain = parents,=94=20 concluded the archbishop while telling this story, =93before beginning = to educate=20 their children should educate themselves, or rather re-educate = themselves in the=20 spirit of Christianity. Then what happened in this family would not = happen with=20 them.=94

     A private=20 correspondent writes: =93This is a story related by the wife of = Professor L.V.I of=20 Poltava theological seminary on what happened in their=20 family.

     =93In 1915 = her son, an=20 officer, whose bride was in Poltava, returned on leave from the front. = This=20 officer=92s leave ended in Paschal week. The young people wanted to be = crowned=20 before the departure of the bridegroom. L.V. knew Vladyka Theophanes = well and he=20 loved the whole of their family. And L.V. came to Vladyka and asked for = his=20 blessing on the marriage on one of the days of Paschal week. Vladyka, = who was=20 always attentive and read to help anyone who asked, this time fell into = sad=20 thought and said that he wanted first to look at the canons, and then he = would=20 give his answer.

     =93A few = days later the=20 mother of the bridegroom again came to Vladyka. Vladyka said firmly: = =91I cannot=20 bless the marriage of your children on these Paschal days, since the = Church does=20 not allow it and for the young people there will be great unhappiness if = they do=20 not obey the Church.=92

     =93The = mother was=20 terribly upset and threatened the Archbishop with many unpleasantnesses. = She=20 thought that Vladyka, as a strict ascetic, did not understand life and = for that=20 reason was not allowing the marriage in completely exceptional=20 circumstances.

     =93In spite = of the=20 Archbishop=92s ban, they found a priest who agreed to carry out their = marriage.=20 After the marriage, the officer departed, having left his young wife in = Poltava.=20 But from this moment all trace of him was lost. In spite of all the = inquiries of=20 the mother and young wife, nobody could tell them where he was or what = had=20 happened to him.

     =93In = relating this,=20 L.V. wept bitterly. She used to say that the wife was in a terrible = condition.=20 There was one man whom she wanted to marry. L.V. herself wanted this, = for she=20 was convinced that her son was no longer among the living, but at the = same time=20 there were no facts, and the wife, not knowing for certain about the = death of=20 her husband, could not marry for a second time. This lack of knowledge = tormented=20 both the mother and the young woman. L.V. wept and said: =91How great = Vladyka=20 Archbishop Theophanes was! And we valued him so little, we did not = understand=20 and did not obey=85=92

     =93The = inhabitants of=20 Poltava always remembered how the prayers of Vladyka Theophanes healed = the sick,=20 and how by his prayers he turned many from sin.=94

     There was a = well-off=20 family with two maid servants. One of them died, and it was discovered = after her=20 death that a large sum of money had disappeared. Suspicion fell upon the = surviving maid servant. She wept and implored the Mother of God to show = where=20 the money was hidden. The Mother of God answered her prayer: one day, = the dead=20 woman appeared to Archbishop Theophanes and showed him the place where = the money=20 was buried=85

     A similar = incident had=20 taken place a few years before, when Vladyka was Bishop of Simferopol. A = young=20 man whom Vladyka had known died, and then appeared to him and asked him = for his=20 holy prayers to help him pass through the =93toll-houses=94. Vladyka = prayed, and the=20 young man appeared to him again, thanking him for his prayers and asking = him to=20 celebrate a thanksgiving service.

     =93But you = are dead! It=20 is a pannikhida that we must celebrate for you, and not a Te=20 Deum!=94

     =93They told = it me over=20 there, they=92ve allowed it for me=85 The point is that over there we = are all alive,=20 there are no dead amongst us!=94

     Then he = explained how=20 he had died and passed into the next life, but the person who passed on = this=20 story did not understand Archbishop Theophanes=92s = words.

     Once the=20 administration of the diocese received a letter from one of the parishes = complaining that their priest had given himself to black magic and = sorcery. He=20 was naturally red-haired, but one night he had become brown, then violet = and now=20 he was green! The priest was summoned. Weeping, he=20 explained:

     =93My wife = reproached me=20 for always being red-haired. =91You should at least dye your beard!=92 = And I dyed it=20 black. And then during the night the dye disappeared, and it became = violet, and=20 now it is becoming green=85 Forgive me, for Christ=92s sake! There=92s = no sorcery=20 here, just cowardice!=94

     =93Your = fault,=94 replied=20 the archbishop, =93consists in having led these little ones into error. = They=20 didn=92t understand what was happening and basically they have not acted = wrongly.=20 One cannot accuse them of anything. It=92s you who should ask their = forgiveness=20 and be more prudent in the future. I am not going to impose a penance on = you:=20 you are a priest and can impose it on yourself.=94

     And he = added, after=20 telling this story:

     =93We had to = send=20 someone to the parish to explain matters to the parishioners and = reassure=20 them.=94

     On another = occasion,=20 as Archbishop Averky tells the story, =93one of the priests of the = Poltava diocese=20 related that when Vladyka was touring his diocese the priests who had = modernist=20 tendencies were afraid to appear before him. If Vladyka saw that an = priest=92s=20 beard and hair were obviously trimmed short or that there was some other = irregularity he would say very gently and = tactfully:

     =93=92And = you, Batyushka,=20 would you be so kind as to go and spend a month in such-and-such a=20 monastery?=92=94

     Vladyka=92s = typical day=20 in Poltava was distributed as follows. He would rise from sleep in the = second=20 half of the night and carry out his prayer rule. In the morning, when = the bell=20 sounded, he would go into the house church, where the hieromonk on duty = was=20 performing the morning service and the Divine Liturgy. After the Liturgy = Vladyka=20 would drink some coffee and withdraw to his study, where he occupied = himself=20 with diocesan affairs, and then went over to the reading of his beloved = Holy=20 Fathers. He wrote much. In the afternoon would come lunch. Weather = permitting,=20 he would go into the garden for a time and walk around praying the Jesus = prayer.=20 Then he would again withdraw to his study. When the bell sounded for = Vespers, he=20 would go to the church. After Compline he would receive visitors. After = supper=20 there would be free time for conversation with his clergy and work in = his=20 study.

     His study = was=20 furnished in the simplest way possible. In the corner stood an iron bed = with=20 planks instead of a mattress, on which Vladyka took a little sleep. = There were=20 many icons, Vladyka prayed in front of them for a long time with a = candle in his=20 hand in spite of the lighted lampadas. His food was the simplest, and he = ate=20 very little. When he was very tired from meeting people, he would = withdraw for a=20 few days to the Lubny Holy Transfiguration = monastery.

The=20 Revolution

     The = abdication of the=20 Tsar, whom Archbishop Theophanes greatly loved and admired, was a = terrible shock=20 for him as for all the true believers. Soon the Provisional Government = set up an=20 Extraordinary Commission to investigate the truth about the relationship = between=20 the Tsarina and Rasputin. Vladyka was summoned and testified that he had = never=20 had any doubt about the complete purity of these relations. As former = confessor=20 of the Tsarina, he declared officially that on her side the relationship = was=20 motivated only by her care for the Tsarevich, and the undoubted success = that=20 Rasputin had in saving the Tsarevich=92s life while the doctors had = shown=20 themselves to be completely helpless. As for the other rumours, these = were lies=20 and slanders=85 With regard to Rasputin himself, Vladyka considered that = he was=20 not a hypocrite, but was a simple man who had suffered a terrible = spiritual=20 catastrophe and had fallen, a fall that had been willed by those around = him and=20 which they had treated as just a joke=85

     As = Archbishop of=20 Poltava, Vladyka was sent as a delegate to the Local Council of the = Russian=20 Orthodox Church in Moscow in 1917-18. The novice who served him at the = time=20 said:

     =93The = archbishop and I=20 left Poltava and arrived in Moscow. Nobody greeted us and we did not = know what=20 to do. We went to a monastery, but felt that we were not welcome. They = had=20 nothing to eat. They gave only a bowl of soup with some thin cabbage = which his=20 Eminence Theophanes was not able to swallow because of the weakness of = his=20 stomach. We had to leave. A student gave his room for some days=85 I = wrote an=20 urgent letter to Poltava requesting that someone bring some food, for = there they=20 had everything. An archimandrite arrived with food. Finally, he obtained = for us=20 some lodgings in the Kremlin, in which some other hierarchs were already = living.=20 They were starving: the archbishop had to nourish them. I did not attend = the=20 Council sessions, I didn=92t hear the speeches, I could only observe = things from=20 the outside=85 I remember some attacks against Metropolitan Macarius [of = Moscow],=20 a holy man. He left the assembly room, but with a = smile=85=94

     During the = Council,=20 some modernist clergy, future renovationist heretics, came up to Vladyka = and=20 said:

     =93We = respect you and=20 venerate you, Vladyko. We know your principled firmness, your = faithfulness to=20 the Church, your wisdom. But you yourself see how fast the waves of time = are=20 rolling; they are changing everything, and changing us also=85 There was = a=20 monarchy, there was an autocratic Tsar, and now there is nothing of all = that. We=20 must, whether we like it or not, make concessions to the changes. As the = great=20 teacher of the Church, St. John Chrysostom said so well, we must = sometimes, so=20 as to guide the vessel of the Church up to the harbour, give in to the = waves and=20 currents so as to await the favourable moment and bring the ship into = the haven=85=20 That=92s how it is now, the Church must yield a = little=85=94

     =93Yes,=94 = replied the=20 Archbishop, =93but yield what?=94

     =93You must = be with the=20 majority! Otherwise with whom will you remain? You must yield, the = wisdom of the=20 Church demands it. Otherwise you will consign yourself to complete=20 solitude.=94

     =93=92The = majority can=20 frighten me,=92 said St. Basil the Great, =91but it can never convince = me=85 =91 To=20 continue the thought of the holy bishop, let us say that it is not = solitude that=20 is frightening, but the renunciation of the truth. And that means that = it is=20 necessary to remaining without weakening in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is = on Him=20 that the whole of the Church stands as on her foundation. =91For other = foundation=20 can no man lay than that which has been laid, Jesus Christ=92 (I=20 Corinthians 3.11). = And that is=20 why we must not be, as the Apostle says, like =91children, tossed to and = fro, and=20 carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and = cunning=20 craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive=92 (Ephesians = 4.14). We=20 must firmly hold on to what we have received from the Fathers of the = Church. As=20 is so well said in the kontakion of the Feast of the Holy Fathers of the = First=20 Ecumenical Council: =91The preaching of the Apostles and the doctrines = of the=20 Fathers confirmed the one Faith of the Church. And wearing the garment = of truth=20 woven from the theology on high=85=92 This =91garment=92 is the clothing = of the Church,=20 the teaching received from the Fathers of the ancient Church, which they = themselves received from the preaching of the Apostles. And the holy = Apostles=20 received it from the very Source of Truth, our Lord Jesus=20 Christ=85.

     =93As for = the question=20 with whom we shall remain if we do not rejoin those who are ready to = make a=20 revolution in the Church, the reply is perfectly clear: we shall remain = without=20 moving with those who for the last two thousand years have formed the = body of=20 the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on earth, although this is = the=20 Church of the Heavens. We also in a certain sense have entered this = Heavenly=20 Church, through the saints and first of all through him who baptised = Russia, St.=20 Vladimir, and through all the saints, known and unknown, beginning with = Saints=20 Anthony and Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, via Saints Sergius of Radonezh = and=20 Seraphim of Sarov, and all the saints and martyrs of our Russian land, = which is=20 protected by the Heavenly Queen, she who intercedes for=20 us.=94

     =93And with = whom will=20 you, brothers, remain, if with all your numbers you give yourselves up = to the=20 will of the waves of contemporary life? They have already swept you into = the=20 flabbiness of Kerensky=92s regime, and soon they will push you under the = yoke of=20 the cruel Lenin, into the claws of the red = beast.=94

     The church = modernists=20 silently left him=85

     Vladyka = Theophanes=20 recounted the witticism that went the rounds in the Council: = =93Archbishop Anthony=20 Khrapovitsky is the most intelligent. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow is = the=20 gentlest. And Archbishop Anastasy Gribanovsky is the wisest in a special = sense=85=94

     During the = Council,=20 Archbishop Theophanes was appointed head of a commission entrusted with=20 investigating the heresy of the name-worshippers, a heresy that had = broken out=20 among the Russian monks of Mount Athos five years earlier and which had = been=20 supported by Vladyka=92s old enemy, Rasputin. This was a natural = appointment,=20 since Vladyka=92s master=92s thesis had been on the Name of God.=20

     He prepared = a report=20 on the subject, but unfortunately the red terror cut short the = proceedings of=20 the Council. The commission (whose deputy president was the heretic Fr. = Sergius=20 Bulgakov) did not meet, and it is not now known where this report is. = All we=20 have is Vladyka=92s succinct but precise formula: =93The Divinity rests in the = Name of=20 God=94, which is an implicit rejection of the name-worshippers=92 thesis = that the=20 Name of God is God.

     On returning = to=20 Poltava, Vladyka Theophanes had to suffer much from the Ukrainian = autocephalists=20 who, on seizing power, demanded that he serve a triumphant requiem = liturgy for=20 Ivan Mazeppa in Poltava cathedral. Mazeppa was the favourite of Peter = the Great=20 who had betrayed him at the battle of Poltava in 1712 and had then been=20 anathematised by the Church. But Vladyka said:

     =93I cannot = do this. I=20 do not have the right to do what you ask me because the Church has = anathematised=20 Ivan Mazeppa for his treachery. I am not entitled to lift the anathema, = which=20 was hurled by the highest representatives of the Church at that=20 time.=94

     =93But it = was the=20 Muscovites who did it!=94

     =93No, you = are mistaken.=20 There was no patriarchate at that time. The Church was ruled by the = patriarchal=20 locum tenens, Metropolitan Stephen Yavorsky, who was from the = Western=20 Ukraine. Besides, Tsar Peter surrounded himself precisely with = Ukrainians, who=20 were more educated=85=94

     For his = principled=20 refusal, Vladyka was put in prison, and was released only when the = government of=20 Petlyura was overthrown and the White Army liberated Poltava. After = Vladyka=92s=20 exile to Serbia, the struggle against the autocephalists and = renovationists was=20 continued by his close disciple, the future hieromartyr Bishop Basil of=20 Priluki.

     =

In=20 Serbia

     Civil war = erupted=20 between the Reds and the Whites, and by the beginning of 1920 it was = clear that=20 the Reds, who had already carried unparalleled atrocities against church = property and church servers, were going to win. In the same year = Archbishop=20 Theophanes became a member of the Higher Church Administration of the = South of=20 Russia, formed in accordance with the decree of Patriarch Tikhon and the = Holy=20 Synod, ukaz =B9=20 362 of November 7/20, 1920. Almost immediately, at the suggestion of the = White=20 army commanders, who said that their departure would be merely = provisional, the=20 HCA prepared to flee southwards from the invasion of the = barbarians.

     The first = stage of the=20 journey took them to Stavropol, and then to Ekaterinodar in the Northern = Caucasus. Coming out of Ekaterinodar cathedral, the president of the = HCA,=20 Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, asked the thousands of = worshippers=20 whether they should stay in Russia or leave. The people shouted that = they should=20 leave and pray for them in the lands beyond the sea. A Te Deum = was=20 celebrated, and the immense crowd prayed and wept. The Cossacks came to = bid=20 farewell to their hierarchs.

      Then = the=20 hierarchs set off with the remnants of the White Army for the Crimea, = the last=20 refuge of Free and Orthodox Russia. They settled in the monastery of St. = George=20 in Sevastopol. Three months later, they left for=20 Constantinople.

     =

    Helen=20 Yurievna Kontzevich writes: =93[Vladyka Theophanes] departed from Russia = on a=20 steamship along with Metropolitans Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Platon and = Bishop=20 Benjamin (Fedchenko). They discussed the situation of the Church the = whole way.=20 Bishop Theophanes=92s position differed from the united opinion of the = other=20 bishops, who stood for the path of church politics, and they parted = ways.=94=20

     However, = these=20 differences did not reveal themselves to be serious at that time, and in = 1921=20 Vladyka, together with the whole Higher Church Administration, moved to=20 Yugoslavia at the invitation of Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia, and took = part in=20 November of the same year in the First Russian All-Emigration Council in = Sremsky-Karlovtsy.

     Nicholas = Zernov, a=20 participant in this Council, describes Vladyka Theophanes at this time: = =93The=20 Archbishop of Poltava Theophanes (Bystrov, 1874-1940) was a learned man = and an=20 ascetic, withdrawn from the world. His head bowed, his voice scarcely = audible,=20 he sometimes celebrated in the Athonite podvoryes. He seemed = completely=20 immersed in prayer and indifferent to the world around him, but there = came out=20 from him a power that was his own and which fixed people=92s attention = on this=20 fragile old man.=94

     The most = important=20 decision of this Council was the call for the restoration of the Romanov = dynasty=20 to the throne of Russia. In this connection, it is interesting to note = the=20 letter which=20 Archbishop Theophanes wrote to Helen Yurievna Kontzevich in 1930 on the = subject=20 of the coming Tsar: =93You ask me about the near future and about the = approaching=20 last times. I do not speak on my own, but am saying that which was = revealed to=20 me by the Elders, The coming of the Antichrist draws nigh and is very = near. The=20 time separating us from him can be counted a matter of years, and at the = most a=20 matter of some decades. But before the coming of the Antichrist Russia = must yet=20 be restored - to be sure, for a short time. And in Russia there must be = a Tsar=20 forechosen by the Lord Himself. He will be a man of burning faith, great = mind=20 and iron will. This much has been revealed about him. We shall await the = fulfilment of what has been revealed. Judging by many signs it is = drawing nigh,=20 unless because of our sins the Lord God shall revoke it, and alter what = has been=20 promised. According to the witness of the word of God, this also might = happen.=94=20

     According to = Schema-Monk Epiphany (Chernov), one of Vladyka=92s cell-attendants in = Bulgaria,=20 Vladyka said that the future tsar =93will not be a Romanov, but he will = be of the=20 Romanovs according to the maternal line." And to another visitor he = wrote: "O=20 Russia, Russia! How terribly she has sinned before the goodness of the = Lord. The=20 Lord God deigned to give Russia that which He gave to no other people on = earth.=20 And this people has turned out to be so ungrateful. It has left Him, = renounced=20 Him, and for that reason the Lord has given it over to be tormented by = demons.=20 The demons have entered into the souls of men and the people of Russia = has=20 become possessed, literally demon-possessed. And all the terrible things = that we=20 hear have been done and are being done in Russia: all the blasphemies, = the=20 militant atheism and the fighting against God =96 all this is taking = place because=20 of the demon-possession. But the possession will pass through the = ineffable=20 mercy of God, and the people will be healed. The people will turn to = repentance,=20 to faith. This will take place when nobody expects it. Orthodoxy will be = regenerated in her and will triumph. But that Orthodoxy which was before = will no=20 longer exist. The great elders said that Russia would be regenerated, = that the=20 people itself would re-establish the Orthodox Monarchy. A powerful Tsar = will be=20 placed by God Himself on the Throne. He will be a great reformer and he = will=20 have a strong Orthodox faith. He will depose the unfaithful hierarchs of = the=20 Church, and will himself be an outstanding personality, with a pure, = holy soul.=20 He will have a strong will. He will come from the dynasty of the = Romanovs=20 according to the maternal line. He will be a chosen one of God, obedient = to Him=20 in all things. He will transfigure Siberia. But this Russia will not = continue to=20 exist for long. Soon that will take place which the Apostle John speaks = of in=20 the Apocalypse.=94

     And again he = said, as=20 witnessed by Archbishop Averky: =93In Russia, the elders said, in = accordance with=20 the will of the people, the Monarchy, Autocratic power, will be = re-established.=20 The Lord has forechosen the future Tsar. He will be a man of fiery = faith, having=20 the mind of a genius and a will of iron. First of all he will introduce = order in=20 the Orthodox Church, removing all the untrue, heretical and lukewarm = hierarchs.=20 And many, very many - with few exceptions, all - will be deposed, and = new, true,=20 unshakeable hierarchs will take their place. He will be of the family of = the=20 Romanovs according to the female line [according to Schema-Monk Epiphany = he=20 said: =93He will not be of the family of the Romanovs, but will = be related=20 to them through women]. Russia will be a powerful state, but only for 'a = short=20 time'... And then the Antichrist will come into the world, with all the = horrors=20 of the end as described in the Apocalypse."

     Vladyka = Theophanes was=20 appointed abbot of the monastery of Petkovitsa in the diocese of = Shabats.=20 However, because of his poor health, the new abbot was not able to spend = much=20 time with the brethren, and, as Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco = recounts,=20 =93the older brethren began to complain, while the younger brethren were = on the=20 side of Vladyka. Fr. Ambrose [Kurganov] was especially grieved when he=20 encountered the complaining. He always honoured the holiness of the = authority of=20 the abbacy.

     =93Realizing = his=20 weakness to calm the ferment, longing for another form of life,=85 = Archbishop=20 Theophanes decided to leave Petkovitsa.

     =93Before = his departure,=20 on the feast day of the Petkovitsa church, October 1, 1923, he ordained = deacon=20 Ambrose to the priesthood during the Divine = Liturgy.

     =93It is = said that on=20 that day, St. Paraskeva was seen standing in the sanctuary near the holy = table=85=94=20

     The = archbishop was=20 taken away, sick, to another monastery on the Adriatic coast. It was = meant to be=20 a place of recuperation, but his health only = worsened.

     =93I could = scarcely=20 move, I was so weak; my sick throat deprived me of my last strength, and = every=20 day I became weaker. There were so few monks in the monastery that there = were no=20 services. There was a Serbian Orthodox monastery not far away. One day, = as the=20 bells were ringing for the beginning of Vespers, I decided to go for the = last=20 time to pray in a church: I dressed and left, to respond to the call of = the=20 bells.

     =93I dragged = myself=20 painfully to the monastery, and on arriving I saw a hieromonk occupied = in=20 playing cards in the courtyard of the monastery, his stole hanging on a = tree=20 beside the church, which was locked. I went up to the monk and asked=20 him:

     = =93=92What=92s happening, is=20 Vespers already finished?=92

     =93=92We = rang the bells so=20 that the faithful should know that tomorrow is a feast=20 day.=92

     =93=92But = the Vespers=20 service?=92

     =93=92We = don=92t have=20 services! We only have the bells!=92=94

     The = archbishop bowed=20 his head, and returned to his cell, immersed in sad=20 thoughts=85

     In the = following days,=20 his last strength left him. He was suffering terribly in his throat. He = could=20 not swallow anything; in any case, he had no appetite. He felt the end=20 approaching=85

     The feast of = the=20 Protection of the Mother of God was drawing near. He addressed a last = tearful=20 prayer to the Mother of God and delivered himself into the hands of the=20 Lord:

     =93Lord = Jesus Christ,=20 Son of God, into Thy hands I commit my spirit!=94

     The brothers = were=20 panic-stricken. The archbishop was lying like a corpse, hardly = breathing=85 He=20 remained in this state for forty-eight hours.

     On the third = day, he=20 recovered consciousness and felt that an important change had taken = place in=20 him. Tears of joy came to the eyes of the sick man, tears of gratitude = to God=20 and the Holy Virgin=85

     Then he = remembered the=20 prophetic words of the fool for Christ, Pasha of = Sarov:

     =93The = Mother of God=20 will deliver you! The Holy Virgin will save = you!=94

     Just at that = moment a=20 parcel arrived from the Soviet Union from an unknown person =96 at a = time when no=20 letters were arriving from the Soviet Union! Inside was a beautiful icon = of St.=20 Seraphim of Sarov. He was convinced that he had been saved through the = Mother of=20 God and the prayers of St. Seraphim.

     Pascha = arrived, and=20 the priest of the Russian church in the town near the monastery was = going round=20 the homes of his parishioners to wish them the joy of the feast. But in = his=20 heart he was sad, because he had left his family in the Soviet Union and = had=20 received no news of them. His sadness combined with the effects of = drinking too=20 much in the houses of his parishioners, and suddenly he awoke from his = stupor to=20 realize that the money collected in church which he carried with him had = disappeared. Terrible thoughts assailed him, he was convinced that = nobody would=20 believe that he had not stolen the money, and he determined to kill = himself.=20

     Exhausted, = he fell=20 asleep. And then in a dream he saw Archbishop Theophanes, who approached = him and=20 said:

     =93Go to the = temple of=20 the Lord and you will find what you have lost.=94

     Dawn was = breaking as=20 he rushed to the church. Lighting a candle and making the sign of the = cross, he=20 began to search. There was the money, on one of the side=20 benches!

     Joyfully he = began to=20 chant the Paschal hymn: =93Christ is risen from the dead!=94 He felt = that he himself=20 had been truly resurrected from the dead!

     Then he = rushed to the=20 archbishop and thanked him fervently for saving him from perdition. But = the=20 archbishop said that he knew nothing about this, and told him to ascribe = the=20 glory to God alone, and said:

     =93Always = remember what=20 God told you: =91Go to the temple of the Lord and you will find what you = have=20 lost.=92=94

In=20 Bulgaria

     In 1925 the = Holy Synod=20 of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church invited Archbishop Theophanes to live = in Sofia,=20 in two rooms on the first floor of the Synodal House overlooking St. = Alexander=20 Nevsky Square. The reason for this was that several members of the = Bulgarian=20 Synod had been students of Vladyka at the St. Petersburg Theological = Academy,=20 including the president of the Synod, Metropolitan Clement. Also = instrumental in=20 the invitation was another former student of Vladyka=92s, Bishop = Seraphim=20 (Sobolev) of Lubny, a vicariate of the Poltava diocese, who was now in = charge of=20 the Russian parishes in Bulgaria.

     Archbishop = Averky=20 writes: =93It was touching to see the attention and profound reverence = which our=20 brothers the Bulgarians showed Archbishop Theophanes. He frequently = served in=20 the majestic Church of St. Alexander Nevsky which was erected in memory = of the=20 liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke. It stood on the enormous = square=20 adjacent to the Synodal house and could accommodate 7000 faithful. = Occasionally,=20 and especially during Great Lent, he served even in the Synod = =91paraklis=92 =96 the=20 small house church in the Synodal House. Those who participated in his=20 spiritually fulfilling and profoundly prayerful services even today = remember=20 them with compunction=85

     =93Indeed, = Vladyka=20 Theophanes made a deep impression as a man of genuinely spiritual life = on all=20 foreigners who came in contact with him. The enemy, however, takes up = arms=20 against such saintly people and makes a special effort to pour out on = them all=20 his diabolical malice with the help of malevolent and depraved = individuals who=20 are devoted to his service. Thus in Sofia, due to various unfortunate = events in=20 the local Russian Church, Vladyka Theophanes had to suffer much grief = simply=20 because he was a strict ascetic and an uncompromising Archpastor. = Consequently,=20 he withdrew more and more from the world and its raging passions and = began to=20 retire into himself, leading what was already virtually the life of a = recluse.=20 For some time, however, he continued to participate in the sessions of = the=20 Synod, periodically travelling to Yugoslavia for this=20 purpose=85

     =93Vladyka = grieved over=20 all the unnecessary events which took place in the Russian = émigré community.=20 Most detrimental were all the arguments and disputes which, as he put = it, were=20 not befitting of Orthodox Russians who, because of their sins, had lost = their=20 homeland and were sentenced to live in exile, in some cases in extremely = difficult material and moral circumstances. He altogether disapproved of = the=20 idea of proclaiming a Russian Emperor outside of Russia, or a = =91Patriarch of=20 Russia=92 or even a =91patriarchal locum tenens=92, notions which = were widely=20 circulated by certain individuals. He believed that Russia would soon be = resurrected, but only on the condition that the whole nation repented = of=20 its grave sin of apostasy before God. He considered our life in exile as = nothing=20 other than an opportunity for fervent repentance and prayer for = God=92s=20 forgiveness. This is why many of the events that occurred during our = life in=20 exile gave him pain and sorrow and forced him to avoid close contact = with=20 people. Neither would he engage in any kind of social interaction in = which he=20 did not observe the repentance which should be evident in our people, to = whom=20 God had given the penance of banishment. Vladyka Theophan never went out = of his=20 cell in the Synodal House except to go to church, nor did he receive = anyone=20 there except a few individuals who were deeply devoted to him and sought = his=20 instructions and spiritual guidance.

     =93Every = summer he moved=20 from Sofia to the coastal city of Varna, where a group of his admirers = rented=20 him a modest cottage about five kilometres from town. The cottage was = located in=20 a very isolated and relatively uninhabited spot. There Vladyka lived = alone with=20 his cell-attendant as in a skete, daily performing the whole cycle of = services=20 and readers services in place of the Liturgy. Only on certain Sundays = and on=20 major holy days did he ride to church in a carriage. Usually he went to = the=20 Russian church of Athanasius of Alexandria, an ancient Greek church that = had=20 been put at the disposal of the Russians by the Bulgarian Metropolitan = Symeon of=20 Varna and Preslav.

     =93Here = Vladyka worked=20 especially hard on his dogmatic, exegetical and ascetic spiritual = writings.=20 Himself a profound and refined expert in Patristics, he complied a new = edition=20 of the Philokalia, organized according to a system which he had = worked=20 out, which was very practical and handy to use. He also complied a = Philokalia=20 of Russian Saints, wrote a very interesting and original = interpretation of=20 Revelation, and many other things as well. In addition he = conducted=20 extensive correspondence with his spiritual children. His letters = contained=20 penetrating spiritual advice and instructions which were always = accompanied by=20 citations from the Holy Scriptures and numerous quotations from the Holy = Fathers. They were reminiscent of the correspondence of Bishop = Theophanes the=20 Recluse, and constitute a precious guide on all matters of morality and=20 spirituality=85

     =93Most = astonishing of=20 all were Vladyka=92s labours of prayer, to which he devoted himself = literally day=20 and night. It was obvious that he never gave up the prayer of =91the = mind in the=20 heart=92, following the legacy of the Holy Fathers. He was often so deep = in=20 contemplation that it seemed to him that the whole visible world around = him had=20 ceased to exist. Prayer without ceasing was indeed vital to his spirit, = which=20 dwelt on high=85

     =93When he = performed the=20 Liturgy in the church of St. Athanasius in Varna, the congregation of = the=20 church, righteous and patriarchal Greeks who lived in the environs, told = us:=20 =91When your Vladyka sits on the high place in the church, it seems as = if the=20 Blessed Athanasius himself has come to his church and is performing the = services=20 through him. One Greek woman, in whose house Vladyka spent the night, = was=20 surprised that when she came in to clean up in the morning the bed = appeared to=20 be untouched. Obviously, Vladyka had spent the whole night before the = Liturgy in=20 prayer and had not gone to bed.

     =93It is not = surprising=20 that, given Vladyka Theophanes=92 strict ascetic life, as happens with = many=20 genuine ascetics, he experienced frightening episodes of the sort that = the enemy=20 of mankind uses to try to force people who lead an ascetic life to give = up their=20 labours. These were the same sort of episodes that we know from the = Russian=20 ascetics Saints Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov. Vladyka = Theophanes=92=20 frightening episodes were reported by those who served as his = cell-attendants,=20 and even by the Right Reverend Seraphim who rode with him in a = sleeping-car on=20 the Sofia-Varna express, and who was at that time in charge of the = Russian=20 ecclesiastical communities in Bulgaria. Once, when they were riding = together in=20 the same compartment, something woke Vladyka Seraphim in the night and = he saw in=20 the middle of the compartment a big black cat [according to Archbishop=20 Theophanes, it was more like a tigress with a huge udder] with eyes of = burning=20 flames. Then the loud voice of Vladyka Theophanes resounded: =91In the = name of=20 Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, I adjure you: be gone from me, = unclean=20 one!=92 The cat snorted, spraying fiery sparks in all directions, and = disappeared.=20 Since that time, as Vladyka Seraphim stated, he tried to avoid spending = the=20 night in the same place as Vladyka Theophanes because he was so shaken = by this=20 experience.

     =93In the = cottage in=20 Varna, there were only two rooms and a kitchen. Vladyka lived in the = front room=20 which opened onto the veranda; the second room was empty, and beyond it = was the=20 kitchen where Vladyka=92s cell-attendants stayed. They took this duty = upon=20 themselves voluntarily and served all Vladyka=92s needs. One of them was = an=20 elderly merchant from Moscow, Kh., another was a middle-aged but by no = means old=20 Cossack from the Urals, S., and the third was the young student, T. At = first=20 they took turns spending the night in the kitchen, but later they began = to go=20 home late at night after doing all that Vladyka asked of them. The = reason for=20 this was certain mysterious phenomena which frightened them. In the = empty room=20 between the kitchen and Vladyka=92s cell somebody=92s footsteps would = suddenly=20 resound, clearly audible, although there was nobody there. Then it = seemed as if=20 some unseen person were throwing whole handfuls of sand or dirt in = through the=20 windows of the cottage, and there were other unexplained noises of this = kind.=20 When this happened, Vladyka=92s loud voice, which was usually soft, = could be heard=20 very loud and strong, clearly articulating, =91In the name of our Lord = Jesus=20 Christ, the Son of the Living God, I adjure you: be gone from me, = unclean one!=92=20 Then everything grew quiet and calm.

     =93According = to the=20 cell-attendant S., at midnight the sound of various falling objects = could be=20 heard, and this also ceased after Vladyka pronounced in a loud and = threatening=20 voice his adjuration, apparently against the demonic forces which = menaced him.=20 At first Vladyka used to ask his cell-attendant,

     =93=92Did = you hear what=20 happened in the night?=92

     =93=92I = did,=92 he would=20 answer.

     =93=92And = were you=20 frightened?=92

    =20 =93=92No.=92

But=20 once that cell-attendant himself experienced an attack of demons. When = he was=20 half-asleep he suddenly felt some terrible hairy monster pressing on him = and=20 choking him. He awoke and saw somebody squeezing his throat. At first he = thought=20 that it was a robber and took it into his head to grab him with his = hand, but=20 his arms went numb=85 Then he began to pray and he saw a grey cloud = which twisted=20 up in the shape of a horn and gradually disappeared. Vladyka came in and = made=20 the sign of the cross on his forehead, sprinkled the room with holy = water, and=20 such occurrences were not repeated.

     =93After = Vladyka had=20 left for Sofia, his cell-attendants came to the cottage to pack up and = move out=20 the things he had left behind. The neighbouring Bulgarian villagers = surrounded=20 them and asked in astonishment,

     =93=92What = was going on=20 last night in your Vladyka=92s cottage?=92

     = =93=92Nothing could have=20 happened,=92 they replied. =91Vladyka left the day before and nobody was = in the=20 cottage.=92

     =93=92What = do you mean?=92=20 the Bulgarians countered, bewildered. =91All night long the windows of = the cottage=20 were brightly lit, and it was evident that many people had gathered and = there=20 seemed to be a party and some kind of dancing going = on.=92

     =93Some time = later, one=20 of his cell-attendants attempted to ask Vladyka in a most cautious and = tactful=20 way what all these mysterious phenomena meant. Vladyka smiled somewhat=20 enigmatically and humbly said,

     =93=92Well, = this is what=20 happens with monks!=92

We,=20 however, understood him thus: yes! This is what happens with monks, but = not with=20 all of them, only real monks such as you!

     =93Vladyka = was=20 extraordinarily fond of his cell attendants. Sometimes when he came to = see them=20 in the kitchen he was very gentle, loving and cheerful. He could = appreciate a=20 good polite joke and laugh at it. Only once did his cell-attendants have = occasion to see Vladyka actually get angry: a certain priest once wanted = to=20 exclude an individual who had offended him from Holy Communion. Vladyka = told him=20 that he had no right to do so, and that one must forgive personal=20 offences.=94

     Once, during = the=20 Cherubic hymn of the Liturgy that was being celebrated in the small = chapel in=20 the cottage, noises and groaning were heard coming from under the roof. = One of=20 the cell-attendants asked the blessing of the archbishop to investigate, = but he=20 said it would not happen again. And it didn=92t. Instead, however, = snakes appeared=20 all round the house, which Vladyka attributed to demonic forces. As a = result,=20 they had to move into another house a bit further down the coast in = place called=20 =93Roumi=94=85

     Dr. Abbatti = was=20 working as a doctor in Bulgarian Macedonia when a malaria epidemic broke = out.=20 And his wife Anna Vassilievna came down with the illness. Now the doctor = and his=20 wife had sworn to each other that they would not conceal from each other = when=20 one of them was dying. So the doctor, who had to leave to see a patient, = turned=20 to his wife and said:

     =93Annette, = you have no=20 more than two hours to live!=94

     She was = already in the=20 throes of convulsions, and she asked her husband to send a telegram to=20 Archbishop Theophanes immediately and ask him to pray for her. He = agreed, sent=20 the telegram and left for his work. The telegram read as=20 follows:

     =93Anna = Vassilievna=20 Abatti is dying. Two hours to live. Asking for your holy prayers to save = her=20 from death. Doctor Abatti.=94

     Then he = left. The=20 region where he was working was mountainous and the communications poor. = On his=20 way back, he received a telegram. Too preoccupied and sad to read it, he = stuffed=20 it in his pocket. He was expecting to find his wife dead=85 But as he = entered his=20 house he could not believe his eyes: his wife was sitting, pale and = weak, but=20 with no traces of the illness=85 The telegram he hadn=92t read was from = the=20 archbishop and said:

     =93I am = praying. By=20 God=92s mercy, the sick one will recover.=94

He=20 noted that the time when the telegram was sent and the time when his = wife felt=20 the illness depart coincided. But when Anna Vassilievna came to thank = the=20 archbishop, he did not let her open her mouth, telling her to tell = nobody about=20 the miraculous healing and threatening her that if she did tell = something worse=20 would happen to her. And it was only after the archbishop=92s death in = 1940 that=20 she said:

     =93He was = not a simple=20 archbishop. He was a great man, a holy man of God, ignored by men=85 = Listen how,=20 thanks to his holy prayers, I am alive now, although I was in=20 agony.=94

And=20 she told the story=85

     There lived = in Varna a=20 Russian by the name of Pelichkin, a former colonel, who had converted = from=20 Orthodoxy to the Baptist faith. He knew how to conduct conversations on=20 religious matters, and was able to disturb someone who was not trained = in=20 theology. And he decided to display his talents in a debate with = Archbishop=20 Theophanes.

     When = Pelichkin arrived=20 at the house, Vladyka told his cell-attendants to stay close to the room = in=20 which the interview was to take place.

     =93The = interview will be=20 short. You will wait in the corridor and will be witnesses, is such are=20 needed.=94

     Pelichkin = was ushered=20 in. He wanted to close the door, but the archbishop opened it again, = which=20 disturbed him. Moreover, Vladyka did not offer him a seat and remained = standing=20 himself. Then the archbishop began:

     =93When = there are=20 differences of opinion, and so as to avoid interminable disputes, one = makes=20 appeal to the judgement of a third party. These arbiters decide which of = the two=20 confess the true faith. Not long ago you and I confessed the same faith, = the=20 Orthodox faith. The best judges that we could find are the three holy = ecumenical=20 bishops, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John=20 Chrysostom. Their authority is indisputable for = us.=94

     To this = Pelichkin=20 objected: =93But they are men like you and I! Why should I be obliged to = consider=20 them as indisputable authorities?=94

     The = archbishop=20 replied: =93If you consider yourself the equal of the holy bishops St. = Basil the=20 Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom, we have = nothing more=20 to say to each other. I ask you to leave the = room!=94

     Pelichkin = had nothing=20 to answer to this. Disconcerted, he left the room. Later Vladyka = explained his=20 tactics:

     =93If I had = refused to=20 speak with him, he would have told the world that =91the archbishop is=20 frightened=92. Whereas here, he had nothing to say in reply=85 In his = heart he well=20 understands that to consider oneself the equal of Saints Basil the = Great,=20 Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom is a great impudence and = spiritual=20 delusion.=94

     In 1928 = Vladyka came=20 to Varna for Holy Week and Pascha. During the Liturgy for Holy Thursday = an=20 earthquake suddenly hit the city. Tens of chandeliers suspended on = chains from=20 the ceiling began to tinkle, the walls seemed to come to life, the bells = began=20 to ring.

     The people, = too, were=20 disturbed and began to flee from the church. The superior of the church = asked=20 the archbishop to allow him to go and calm the people. =

     =93Stay here = and pray!=94=20 he replied.

And=20 he immersed himself in prayer.

     Again the = superior,=20 thinking that the archbishop had misunderstood him,=20 insisted:

     =93Allow me = to go and=20 say a word to the people!=94

     =93You must = not go and=20 say anything=85 Stay here and pray!=94

     When the=20 panic-stricken parishioners saw that everyone in the sanctuary was = staying and=20 praying, they calmed down.

     On Holy = Saturday,=20 there was another earthquake during the chanting of the cherubic hymn: = =93Let all=20 mortal flesh keep silence=85=94 This time many of the faithful, their = fears=20 reinforced by what they had read in the press, rushed out into the = street. Once=20 again the superior asked:

     =93Your = Eminence, bless=20 me and allow me go and pacify the people!=94

     =93Father = Igumen, stay=20 here and pray!=94

     This time = the priest=20 did not insist. And the people who had fled, seeing the calmness of the = clergy=20 in the sanctuary, returned to the church.

     But there = were many=20 victims in the city. People who should have been in church praying=85 = Vladyka saw=20 the earthquake as a call to repentance=85.

Dogmatic=20 Disputes

     The 1920s = were a=20 period of extraordinary turmoil in the Russian Church both inside and = outside of=20 Russia. Schisms and heresies, excited and exploited by political and=20 extra-ecclesiastical forces, threatened to tear apart the Body of = Christ. In=20 this chaos many looked to the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church = Outside=20 Russia for guidance, and in particular to its president and = vice-president,=20 Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Archbishop Theophanes of = Poltava, who had respectively been rectors of the Moscow and St. = Petersburg=20 Theological Academies. On many issues the two hierarchs agreed. But=20 unfortunately on one or two issues Archbishop Theophanes considered the=20 metropolitan to be in error; and, for all his love and respect for the = older=20 hierarch, he considered it his duty to point out these=20 errors.

     In 1926 = there was=20 published in Sremski Karlovtsy in Serbia the second edition of = Metropolitan=20 Anthony (Khrapovitsky)=92s Dogma of Redemption, an attempt to = conceptualise=20 the mystery of Christ=92s redemption of mankind by means of a sharp = contrast=20 between redemption understood as an act of supremely compassionate love = and=20 redemption understood as the satisfaction of God=92s justice, the = so-called=20 =93juridical theory=94. The juridical theory was rejected by = Metropolitan Anthony as=20 =93scholastic=94, and he sharply criticised several Fathers of the = Russian Church=20 for teaching it. In particular, he criticised the Catechism of=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, which his supporters proposed to = replace with=20 his own Catechism containing his own =93monistic=94 theory of = redemption.=20 According to Metropolitan Anthony, our salvation was not accomplished by = a=20 restoration of justice between God and man, but by an outpouring of = Christ=92s=20 compassionate love for man onto the whole of mankind. In accordance with = this=20 theory, the central point in the redemption of mankind was located by = the=20 metropolitan in the Garden of Gethsemane, rather than on the=20 Cross.

     Archbishop = Theophanes,=20 supported by his vicar in Russia, Bishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Lubny, = profoundly=20 disagreed with the metropolitan. He considered the so-called = =93juridical theory=94=20 to be Orthodox, and Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism in no = need of=20 replacing. And he considered Metropolitan Anthony=92s Catechism = to contain=20 serious dogmatical errors relating to the dogmas of redemption and = original=20 sin.

     The issue = came to a=20 head in session of the Synod held in Yugoslavia in April, 1926. On the one hand, the Synod = expressed its=20 approval of Metropolitan Anthony=92s Catechism. On the other = hand, no=20 decision was made to replace Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism = with that=20 of Metropolitan Anthony.

     However, the = dispute=20 rumbled on =93underground=94. Thus in letters to Hieroschemamonk = Theodosius of Mount=20 Athos, who took the side of Archbishop Theophanes, Metropolitan Anthony=20 expressed the suspicion that Archbishop Theophanes was in =93spiritual = delusion=94=20 and continued to show himself in fundamental disagreement =93with the = juridical=20 theory of Anselm and Aquinas, completely accepted by P[eter] Moghila and = Metropolitan Philaret=94. And again he wrote: =93We must not quickly = return to Peter=20 Moghila, Philaret and Macarius: they will remain subjects for = historians=94.=20

     For his = part,=20 Archbishop Theophanes was unhappy that Metropolitan Anthony did not = abandon his=20 heretical views on redemption, but only refrained from pressing for = their=20 official acceptance by the Synod. As he wrote on February 16/29, 1932: = =93Under=20 the influence of the objections made [against his work], Metropolitan = Anthony=20 was about to take back his Catechism, which had been introduced = by him=20 into use in the schools in place of Metropolitan Philaret=92s = Catechism.=20 But, as became clear later, he did this insincerely, and with = exceptional=20 persistence continued to spread his incorrect teaching On = Redemption and=20 many other incorrect teachings contained in his = Catechism=94.

     Another = dogmatic issue=20 on which Archbishop Theophanes and Bishop Seraphim cooperated fruitfully = was the=20 Sophianist heresy of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. Another theologian who worked = on this=20 issue was Hieromonk John Maximovich, the future holy=20 hierarch.

     This heresy = was based,=20 according to Vladyka in a letter he wrote in 1930, =93on the book of Fr. = [Paul]=20 Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. But Florensky = borrowed the=20 idea of Sophia from V.S. Soloviev. And V.S. Soloviev borrowed it from = the=20 medieval mystics.

     =93In V.S. = Soloviev=20 Sophia is the feminine principle of God, His =91other=92. Florensky = tries to prove=20 that Sophia, as the feminine principle of God, is a special substance. = He tries=20 to find this teaching in St. Athanasius the Great and in Russian = iconography.=20 Protopriest Bulgakov accepts on faith the basic conclusions of = Florensky, but=20 partly changes the form of this teaching, and partly gives it a new = foundation.=20 In Bulgakov this teaching has two variants: a) originally it is a = special=20 Hypostasis, although not of one essence with the Holy Trinity (in the = book=20 The Unwaning Light), b) later it is not a Hypostasis but=20 =91hypostasisness=92. In this latter form it is an energy of God coming = from the=20 essence of God through the Hypostases of the Divinity into the world and = finding=20 for itself its highest =91created union=92 in the Mother of God. = Consequently,=20 according to this variant, Sophia is not a special substance, but the = Mother of=20 God.

     =93According = to the=20 Church teaching, which is especially clearly revealed in St. Athanasius = the=20 Great, the Sophia-Wisdom of God is the Lord Jesus Christ. =

     =93Here, in = the most=20 general terms, is the essence of Protopriest Bulgakov=92s teaching on = Sophia! To=20 expound any philosophical teaching shortly is very difficult, and so it = is=20 difficult to expound shortly the teaching of the =91sophianists=92 on = Sophia. This=20 teaching of theirs becomes clear only in connection the whole of their=20 philosophical system. But to expound the latter shortly is also = impossible. One=20 can say only: their philosophy is the philosophy of =91panentheism=92, = that is, a=20 moderate form of =91pantheism=92. The originator of this = =91panentheism=92 in Russia is=20 V.S. Soloviev.=94

     Bulgakov was = only one=20 of a series of heretical teachers who were teaching in the 1920s and 30s = in the=20 Theological Institute of St. Sergius in Paris, such as Nicholas = Berdyaev, Lev=20 Zander and Nicholas Zernov. By no means all the Paris theologians = supported him.=20 Fr. Georges Florovsky, for example, strongly criticized him. However,=20 Metropolitan Eulogius of Paris supported them, and was in turn supported = by=20 them, which, combined with the intrigues of the communists, laid the = basis for=20 the schism of the =93Paris exarchate=94 from the Russian Church Abroad = that took=20 place in 1927. The sticking point was Eulogius=92s refusal to allow = Synodal=20 supervision of the St. Sergius Institute, and his refusal to break links = with=20 the masonically inspired and financed YMCA, proved the sticking point on = which=20 hopes of a permanent reconciliation foundered.

     Archbishop = Averky=20 writes: =93Archbishop Theophanes was the first to expose and document = the=20 anti-Christian nature of certain so-called Christian organizations, some = of=20 which were eager to extend their influence to the Russian Orthodox = Church=20 Outside of Russia, and even to subjugate it to themselves somewhat by = rendering=20 financial assistance much needed by our refugees who had no stable = sources of=20 their own to draw from in exile. Vladyka Theophanes himself = categorically=20 refused to accept the monthly allowance offered to him by these = organizations,=20 and did not approve of those who did, for he believed that this caused = them to=20 lose their spiritual freedom, and that in one way or another they would=20 consequently be forced to do the will of their sponsors. Vladyka = Theophanes=20 guarded his independence and spiritual freedom, preferring a beggarly = existence=20 to a secure situation. This discloses the most characteristic trait of = our great=20 pastor, a trait which he shared with the great Fathers of Christian = antiquity:=20 any compromise of conscience, no matter how small, was for him = altogether=20 inconceivable. In all of his actions and conduct, in his private life as = well as=20 in his service to the Church and society, he was utterly constant, never = departing in any way from what his convictions dictated. Absolute=20 incorruptibility, uncompromising honesty and straightforwardness, demand = for=20 unconditional loyalty to the true Church, to the Word of God, and to = Patristic=20 tradition =96 these were his hallmarks, ideals which guided his life and = which he=20 liked to see in other servants of the Church as = well.=94

     In August, = 1926,=20 Archbishop Theophanes wrote: =93The real causes of the division are = deeper than it=20 seems at first glance. Two of them are especially significant. = =91They=92 consider=20 the Soviet authorities as =91ordained by God=92, but we consider them = antichristian.=20 On the basis of overwhelming documentary evidence, we recognized that = the YMCA=20 is a masonic organization. They consider it a Christian organization.=94 =

     And he = predicted:=20 =93Metropolitan Eulogius will not give in. Those around him are pushing = him toward=20 schism. We could let him have his way, but we cannot entrust the fate of = Orthodoxy to him. He is ensnared in the nets of the [masonic] YMCA. The = YMCA in=20 turn is having a demoralizing effect on student groups. In the magazine = The=20 Way =B9=20 5, Professor Berdyaev stated openly that the schism in the church is = unavoidable=20 and necessary. Metropolitan Eulogius is the only hierarch who =91has = raised his=20 consciousness to the realization that it is necessary to reform = Orthodoxy=92, and=20 he is therefore =91a tool of God=92s Providence=92 in our = days!=94

     Vladyka took = a very=20 strict attitude towards the Paris exarchate. As Helen Kontzevich = relates, =93in=20 Paris, Archpriest Sergius Chetverikov asked to come and see Archbishop=20 Theophanes, to converse with him on the theme of the Jesus Prayer. But = he was=20 presented with the condition that he cease all contact with the YMCA. = The=20 Archpriest did not agree to it.=94

     Archbishop = Averky says=20 that Vladyka Theophanes foresaw both the schism of Metropolitan Eulogius = of=20 Paris and that of Metropolitan Platon in America; =93he warned and = admonished, but=20 his warnings were not heeded in time and the subsequent reproach of = those who=20 broke away not only had no positive results, but even deepened the = division, as=20 Vladyka had also foreseen. Such ecclesiastical schisms and divisions = caused=20 Vladyka to sorrow in his heart, to suffer in his soul and to grieve. = Although he=20 had at the very beginning identified the root of the problem, he did not = always=20 approve of the measures taken to stop the schisms and establish unity in = the=20 Church, and he indicated the errors sometimes made in so=20 doing.=94

     Although=20 Eulogius at times sought, and obtained, reconciliation with Metropolitan = Anthony=20 and the other hierarchs, his heretical entourage was stronger, as = Vladyka had=20 predicted. First he joined the Moscow Patriarchate under Metropolitan = Sergius.=20 But then, when Sergius demanded political loyalty to the Soviet Union, = he turned=20 to Constantinople.

     However, by = 1927-28,=20 both the Moscow and the Constantinople patriarchates had fallen away = from the=20 truth of Orthodoxy, and Vladyka Theophanes was prominent in defending = that truth=20 against their innovations.

     One of the = last=20 Hierarchical Councils that Vladyka attended condemned the notorious = declaration=20 of Metropolitan Sergius, which recognized the Soviet power as = established by God=20 and placed the Russian Church in more or less complete dependence on it. = As he=20 wrote on September 1, 1927: =93It is impossible to recognize the epistle = of=20 Metropolitan Sergius as obligatory for ourselves. The just-completed = Council of=20 Bishops rejected this epistle. It was necessary to act in this way on = the basis=20 of the teaching of the Holy Fathers on what should be recognized as a = canonical=20 power to which Christians must submit. St. Isidore of Pelusium, having = pointed=20 to the presence of the God-established order of the submission of some = to others=20 everywhere in the life of rational and irrational beings, draws the = conclusion:=20

     = =93=92Therefore we are=20 right to say that the thing in itself, I mean power, that is, authority = and=20 royal power, have been established by God. But if a lawless evildoer = seizes this=20 power, we do not affirm that he has been sent by God, but we say that = he, like=20 Pharaoh, has been permitted to spew out this cunning and thereby = inflict=20 extreme punishment on and bring to their senses those for whom cruelty = was=20 necessary, just as the King of Babylon brought the Jews to their senses. = (Works, part II, letter 6).

     =93Bolshevik = power in=20 its essence is an antichristian power and there is no way that it can = recognized=20 as God-established.=94

     In relation = to the=20 Patriarchate of Constantinople and the introduction of the new calendar = into=20 that patriarchate and other churches, Vladyka Theophanes was similarly=20 uncompromising. Thus =93only an Ecumenical Council=94, he wrote, =93can = introduce a=20 new Church calendar, as the First Ecumenical Council introduced the one = which we=20 now use. Any other unauthorized introduction cannot be recognized as = canonical.=94=20 Unlike Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who, though opposed to the = new=20 calendar innovation, argued in favour of remaining in communion with the = new=20 calendarists, and served with the new calendarist patriarch Miron on = more than=20 one occasion, Archbishop Theophanes adopted the =93zealot=94 line of the = Greek and=20 Romanian Old Calendarists. And he wrote two extended works on the = subject. In=20 one of them, written in 1926, he wrote:

     = =93Question. Have=20 the pastors of the Orthodox Church not made special judgements = concerning the=20 calendar?

     = =93Answer. They=20 have, many times =96 with regard to the introduction of the new Roman = calendar =96=20 both in private assemblies and in councils.

     =93A proof = of this is=20 the following. First of all, the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II, who = lived at=20 the same time as the Roman calendar reform, immediately, in 1582, = together with=20 his Synod condemned the new Roman system of chronology as being not in = agreement=20 with the Tradition of the Church. In the next year (1583), with the=20 participation of Patriarchs Sylvester of Alexandria and Sophronius VI of = Jerusalem, he convened a Church Council. This Council recognised the = Gregorian=20 calendar to be not in agreement with the canons of the Universal Church = and with=20 the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the method of calculating = the day=20 of Holy Pascha.

     =93Through = the labours=20 of this Council there appeared: a Conciliar tome, which denounced the = wrongness=20 and unacceptability for the Orthodox Church of the Roman calendar, and a = canonical conciliar Decree =96 the Sigillion of November 20, 1583. In = this=20 Sigillion all three of the above-mentioned Patriarchs with their Synods = called=20 on the Orthodox firmly and unbendingly, even to the shedding of their = blood, to=20 hold the Orthodox Menaion and Julian Paschalion, threatening the = transgressors=20 of this with anathema, cutting them off from the Church of Christ and = the=20 gathering of the faithful=85

     =93In the = course of the=20 following three centuries: the 17^th, 18^th and=20 19^th, a whole series of Ecumenical Patriarchs decisively = expressed=20 themselves against the Gregorian calendar and, evaluating it in the = spirit of=20 the conciliar decree of Patriarch Jeremiah II, counselled the Orthodox = to avoid=20 it=85

     = =93Question. Is=20 the introduction of the new calendar important or of little=20 importance?

     = =93Answer. Very=20 important, especially in connection with the Paschalion, and it is an = extreme=20 disorder and ecclesiastical schism, which draws people away from = communion and=20 unity with the whole Church of Christ, deprives them of the grace of the = Holy=20 Spirit, shakes the dogma of the unity of the Church, and, like Arius, = tears the=20 seamless robe of Christ, that is, everywhere divides the Orthodox, = depriving=20 them of oneness of mind; breaks the bond with Ecclesiastical Holy = Tradition and=20 makes them fall under conciliar condemnation for despising=20 Tradition=85

     = =93Question. How=20 must the Orthodox relate to the new calendarist schismatics, according = to the=20 canons?

     = =93Answer. They=20 must have no communion in prayer with them, even before their conciliar=20 condemnation=85

     = =93Question. What=20 punishment is fitting, according to the Church canons, for those who = pray with=20 the new calendarist schismatics?

     = =93Answer. The=20 same condemnation with them=85=94

In=20 France: Final Years and Repose

As early as = 1928=20 Archbishop Theophanes wrote to one of his spiritual children: =93I would = like to=20 retreat in silence from all things and from henceforth, but I do not yet = know=20 whether this is God=92s will.=94 On April 16/29, 1931 he left Bulgaria = and moved in=20 with a couple known to him from St. Petersburg, Theodore and Lydia = Porokhov, who=20 were living in Clamart, near Paris.

It is not = known for=20 certain why Vladyka left Bulgaria for reclusion in France. A desire for = deep=20 inner prayer, which is easier in reclusion, was probably one factor. = Another,=20 according to his cell-attendant, the future Schema-Monk Epiphanius = (Chernov),=20 was the deteriorating state of his relations with his vicar, Bishop = Seraphim. A=20 third, according to the same source, was a desire to check out a report = that the=20 Tsar was alive and living in France!

Certainly = Vladyka was=20 depressed about the state of the Churches, and perhaps felt that he with = his=20 uncompromising views could make no further contribution to public Church = life.=20 Thus on September 12, 1931 he wrote from Clamart: =93You complain about=20 developments in ecclesiastical affairs in your country. I do not know = the=20 details of your situation, but I think that the religious and moral = state of=20 other Orthodox countries is no better, perhaps even worse. I can at = least state=20 with assurance that this is true both of Russia under the yoke and of = Russia in=20 the Diaspora. Regarding ecclesiastical matters there, I have an enormous = amount=20 of material at my disposal: approximately 700 pages in all. I have at my = disposal materials about ecclesiastical affairs here as well which are = no less=20 important nor less voluminous. The overall conclusion that can be drawn = from=20 these materials is horrifying. Yet there is, of course, amid this = general=20 darkness a =91grace-filled remnant=92 which still perpetuates the = Orthodox faith=20 both here and there. =91Our times seem to be apocalyptic. The salt is = losing=20 its savour. Among the Church=92s highest pastors there remains a = weak, dim,=20 contradictory and incorrect understanding of the written word. This is=20 subverting spiritual life in Christian society and destroying = Christianity,=20 which consists of actions, not words. It grieves me to see to whom = Christ=92s=20 sheep have been entrusted, to see who it is that oversees their guidance = and=20 salvation. But this is tolerated by God. Let those in Judaea flee to = the=20 mountains!=92 With these words the great Russian hierarchs Metropolitan = Philaret=20 of Moscow and Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov characterized the state of=20 ecclesiastical affairs in their own times, sixty years ago. Do we not = have even=20 greater reason to repeat these threatening words at the present=20 time?=94

One = contributing=20 factor to Vladyka=92s decision almost certainly was his strained = relations with=20 Metropolitan Anthony over the Dogma of Redemption and other matters. = According=20 to Helen Kontzevich, Metropolitan Anthony wrote to Vladyka after their=20 disagreement over the dogma, and refused him permission to come to any = more=20 sessions of the Synod. Whether this is true or not, the relations = between the=20 two hierarchs were definitely strained. However, this did not leave to = Vladyka=20 formally breaking relations with the Church Abroad, for the newspapers = reported=20 that he concelebrated with Archbishop Seraphim (Lukianov) of Paris, and = gave=20 sermons.

Vladyka=92s = letters=20 became increasingly apocalyptic in tone. Already in 1931 he predicted a = new war=20 in Europe. And =93Czechoslovakia will be the first to succumb to this = threat!=94, he=20 added=85

On April 31, = 1936 he=20 wrote: =93Have you noticed what is happening in the world today? The = leaders of=20 the world=92s governments are all doing the same thing: they all speak = about world=20 peace. The leaders of France and of states friendly to her are = also very=20 insistent in speaking about ways to guarantee security, as if = this were=20 the essential precondition of this =91peace=92. One cannot help but = recall the words=20 of the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Thessalonians: =91The day of = the Lord so=20 cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say peace and = security, then=20 sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child; = and they=20 shall not escape=92 (I Thess. 5.3). Everybody who loves the Truth = must not=20 only take note of the signs of the times, but also follow these = observations to=20 their logical conclusion.

=93Regarding = the affairs=20 of the Church, in the words of the Saviour, one of the most awesome = phenomena of=20 the last days is that at that time =91the stars shall fall from = heaven=92=20 (Matt. 24.29). According to the Saviour=92s own explanation, = these =91stars=92=20 are the Angels of the Churches, in other words, the = Bishops=20 (Rev. 1.20). The religious and moral fall of the Bishops is, = therefore,=20 one of the most characteristic signs of the last days. The fall of the = Bishops=20 is particularly horrifying when they deviate from the doctrines of the = faith,=20 or, as the Apostle put it, when they =91would pervert the Gospel of = Christ=92=20 (Gal. 1.7). The Apostle orders that such people be pronounced=20 =91anathema=92. He said, =91If any man preach any other gospel = unto you than=20 that which ye have received, let him be accursed (anathema)=92 = (Gal.=20 1.9). And one must not be slow about this, for he continues, =91A man = that is=20 an heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that = he that=20 is such is subverted, being condemned of himself=92 (Titus = 3.10-11).=20 Moreover, you may be subject to God=92s judgement if you are indifferent = to=20 deviation from the truth: =91So them because thou art lukewarm, and = neither cold=20 not hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth=92 (Rev.=20 3.6).

=93Clouds = are gathering=20 on the world=92s horizon. God=92s judgement of its peoples and of = hypocritical=20 Christians, beginning with heretics and lukewarm hierarchs, is=20 approaching.=94

Soon after = moving to=20 France, Vladyka discovered that he was being followed. He had to stop = going to=20 church in the Rue Odessa in Paris, and told one of his people in = Bulgaria that=20 life in Clamart was =93not peaceful=94. Later he explained that there = had been a=20 night-time descent on the house where he lived. It appears that the = Soviets were=20 trying to kidnap Vladyka as they had kidnapped General Kutepov in 1931 = and=20 General Miller in 1937. And although they did not succeed, after his = death his=20 papers were all sent to Moscow=85

Seeking a = safer=20 refuge, in 1936 Vladyka moved with the Porokhovs to Mosne, near Amboise = on the=20 Loire. Soon after this Theodore Vassilievich Porokhov was murdered. In = 1939=20 Lydia Nikolaevna Porokhova, in monasticism Maria, also died. Six months = later,=20 on September 1, 1939, Vladyka and the Porokhovs=92 niece, Anastasia = Vassilievna,=20 were taken by a former landowner of Poltava, Maria Vassilievna = Fedchenko, to a=20 little property which she rented at Limeray, in the same region. Here = there were=20 three caves suitable for living in. In the first lived Vladyka. In the = second=20 was a church. In the third lived Anastasia Vassilievna. And Maria = Vassilievna=20 lived in a house next to the caves. There was also a place for some = domestic=20 animals, and for twelve Doberman-pinchers, who were chained up during = the day=20 but were released into the park during the night, probably so as to = protect=20 Vladyka from his enemies. After his death, they were all=20 sold.

Archbishop = Theophanes=20 reposed peacefully at three o=92clock in the morning on February 6/19, = 1940, the=20 feast of the St. Photius the Great. According to one of those present, = there=20 were no more than four people present at the funeral of the great and = holy=20 hierarch, who was vested in his hierarchical vestments with the mitre = and=20 panagia that the Tsar had presented him with at his consecration. The = funeral=20 was celebrated by Hieromonk Barnabas, his confessor, who lived in the = same=20 village.

However, = according to=20 Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch: =93At Archbishop Theophanes=92s funeral he = was deprived=20 of the burial rite due to him as a bishop, and was buried as a simple = monk by=20 order of Metropolitan Eulogius. He was buried by Hieromonk Barnabas, who = had=20 inquired of Metropolitan Eulogius concerning the rite of=20 burial.=94

Vladyka was = buried in=20 plot =B9=20 432 in the municipal cemetery of Limeray.

On the = fortieth day=20 after his repose he appeared to his spiritual son and the future = Archbishop of=20 Canada Joasaph, who witnessed: =93After the death of my marvelous = instructor, I=20 was terribly afflicted=85 It was very difficult for me and I prayed much = for him.=20 And then, on the night of the fortieth day after his repose, I dreamed = that I=20 was standing in front of a magnificent church from which were proceeding = a=20 multitude of hierarchs after the service. I recognized the great = hierarchs:=20 Saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian and many = others.=20 Suddenly, in the middle of them I saw his Eminence Theophanes! I ran up = to=20 him:

=93=92Your = Eminence, where=20 are you coming from? =91

=93=92Well, = as you can=20 see, we have just celebrated the Liturgy together. Come with=20 us.=92

=93I = followed him. All=20 this took place in a spacious automobile =96 or was it a boat? =96 which = began to=20 sail in the air, so to speak. We passed by mountains, forests and = valleys of an=20 indescribable beauty. My elder began to show me these dwellings and = revealed to=20 me their destiny:

=93=92That = one will be=20 saved, but that one over there at the bottom of the valley will=20 perish.=92

=93It was = terrible to=20 see! And all around us there were beautiful gardens and a sweet perfume. = I=20 contemplated them with delight and without being sated. For a long time = we were=20 carried about in this way in the air, in the middle of this = magnificence.=20 Finally I could not restrain myself and asked:

=93=92But = where are=20 we?=92

=93His = Eminence=20 Theophanes answered me: =91And why do you not understand=85? In=20 Paradise!=92

=93From that = moment I=20 was reassured, having understood that my dear instructor had been found = worthy=20 of eternal blessedness.=94

Miracles of = healing=20 have been attributed to Archbishop Theophanes since his repose. Thus = when he=20 died in 1940 Helen=20 Yurievna Kontzevich had had a terrible toothache; she prayed to him and = the pain=20 disappeared instantly. And towards the end of her life she had a vision = of him,=20 after which she wrote a troparion to him.

Here is the = troparion=20 written by her:

TROPARION.=20 TONE 3

Defender=20 of the right belief in Christ=92s redemption, thou didst endure = afflictions and=20 death in exile, O holy father, Hierarch Theophanes, pray to Christ God = to save=20 our souls.

Sources: The Works of Archbishop = Theophanes=20 in printed and manuscript form; Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava and=20 Pereyaslavl, Selected Letters, Liberty, TN: St. John of Kronstadt = Press,=20 1989; V.K., Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov=92 na Steziakh = Otstupnichestva (The=20 Russian Church Abroad on the paths of Apostasy), St. Petersburg, = 1999, pp.=20 29-30 (in Russian); Monk Anthony (Chernov), Vie de Monseigneur = Théophane,=20 Archevêque de Poltava et de Pereiaslavl (The Life of his Eminence = Theophanes,=20 Archbishop of Poltava and Pereyaslavl), Lavardac: Monastère = Orthodoxe St.=20 Michel, 1988 (in French); Monk Anthony (Chernov), private communication; = Sergius=20 and Tamara Fomin, Rossia pered Vtorym Prishestviem (Russia before the = Second=20 Coming), Sergiev Posad, 1994; Richard Bettes, Vyacheslav Marchenko,=20 Dukhovnik Tsarskoj Sem=92i (Spiritual Father of the Royal = Family), Moscow:=20 Valaam Society of America, 1994, pp. 60-61 (in Russian); Archbishop = Averky=20 (Taushev), Vysokopreosviaschennij Feofan, Arkhiepiskop Poltavskij i=20 Pereiaslavskij (His Eminence Theophanes, Archbishop of Poltava and=20 Pereyaslavl), Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1974 (in = Russian);=20 Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, The Young Elder: A Biography of = Blessed=20 Archimandrite Ambrose of Milkovo, Jordanville: Holy Trinity = Monastery, 1974,=20 p. 39; Abbot Herman, =93Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch=94, The Orthodox = Word,=20 vol. 35, =B9 6 (209), November-December, 1999, pp. 286-290; Edvard = Radzinsky,=20 Rasputin, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000; Polischuk, = E.S. (ed.),=20 Imiaslavie. Antologia (Name-worshipping. An Anthology), Moscow, = 2002, p.=20 518 (in Russian); Gubanov, Tsar Nikolai II-ij i Novie Mucheniki (Tsar = Nicholas II and the New Martyrs), St. Petersburg, 2000, p. 770 (in = Russian);=20 M.E. Gubonin, Akty Sviateishago Patriarkha Tikhona (The Acts of His = Holiness=20 Patriarch Tikhon), Moscow, 1994, p. 995 (in Russian); Pis=92ma=20 Blazhennejshago Mitropolita Antonia (Khrapovitskago), (The = Letters of His=20 Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)),Jordanville: Holy = Trinity=20 Monastery, 1988 (in Russian); =93Vie de l=92Archevêque = Théophane de Poltava=94,=20 Orthodoxie, =B9, December, 1996, pp. 6-12 (in French); V. Moss, = The=20 Mystery of Redemption, Cafepress, 2004.

APPENDIX=20 2: ARCHBISHOP THEOPHANES OF POLTAVA ON REDEMPTION

The doctrine = of his=20 Excellency Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky of Kiev) differs in two = ways from=20 the official doctrine of the Church:

(a) the = centre of=20 gravity of the redemptive act of Christ is displaced from Golgotha to=20 Gethsemane,

(b) the = redemptive act=20 itself is conceived not at all as an expiatory sacrifice offered for = humanity,=20 but as an act of compassion and love for it...

Is our = author right in=20 transferring the centre of gravity of the redemptive act of the Saviour = from=20 Golgotha to Gethsemane, and does he understand well, in its essence, the = prayer=20 of Gethsemane?

Metropolitan = Anthony=20 affirms that the words of Christ "May this cup pass from Me" refer not = at all to=20 His imminent crucifixion and death, but to the torments undergone in the = Garden=20 of Gethsemane and elicited by the sight of the sin of men, and by = compassion. He=20 supports his idea by reference to the words of the apostle Paul in the = Epistle=20 to the Hebrews, which say that in the Garden of Gethsemane the Saviour = besought=20 with great cries Him Who was able to save from death, His heavenly = Father, and=20 that He was heard in His prayer because of His piety (Hebrews = 5.7-10).=20 If, continues our author, the Saviour prayed that He should be spared = the=20 crucifixion and death, the Apostle would not have written that He had = been=20 heard, since He endured the crucifixion and death. And if the Apostle = wrote that=20 His prayer had been heard, it was that He was not asking that He should = be=20 spared death, but something else: that He should be spared the internal=20 sufferings experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane because of the sins = of=20 humanity. But it is impossible to concur with this interpretation. Why = does our=20 author limit the Gethsemane prayer to the words "May this cup pass from = Me"=20 (Matthew 26.39) and omits the second part of the prayer: = "Nevertheless,=20 not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matthew 26.39)? And besides, it = emerges=20 from the complete text of the prayer that Christ was not positively = asking to be=20 spared death, but conditionally, if that was the will of God. And the = will of=20 God was that Christ should drink to the dregs the cup of sufferings of = Calvary=20 for the sins of men.

He was heard = and his=20 prayer granted, but in what was his prayer granted, if He was not spared = suffering and death? He was delivered from death according to His = humanity: that=20 is how the Fathers and Teachers of the Church have always interpreted = this=20 passage!..

[St. = Athanasius the=20 Great writes:] "When [the Saviour] says 'Father, if it is possible, may = this cup=20 pass from Me' (Matthew 26.39), 'nevertheless not My will but = Thine be=20 done' (Luke 22.42), and 'for the spirit is willing, but the flesh = is=20 weak' (Matthew 26.41), He expresses two wills: the human will, = which is=20 proper to the flesh, and the Divine will, which is proper to God; the = human=20 will, by the weakness of the flesh, recoils before sufferings, while His = Divine=20 will accepts them.

In the same = way, when=20 Peter learned that Christ was going to suffer, took fear and said 'Be it = far=20 from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee', Christ, without = reproaching him,=20 said: 'Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou=20 savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men'=20 (Matthew 16.22-23).

"It is the = same thing=20 here. As man, he pushes away suffering, as a man would do, but as God = and not=20 being subject to suffering by His Divine nature, He completely accepts = suffering=20 and death." (On the Incarnation of the Word and Against the=20 Arians)...

[Then = Archbishop=20 Theophanes cites another passage from St. Athanasius, followed by = citations from=20 St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom (two passages), St. Cyril of=20 Alexandria (three texts) and St. Ephraim the = Syrian.]

[St. John of = Damascus=20 writes:] "On the eve of His redemptive passion, He says: 'Father, if it = is=20 possible, may this cup pass from Me' (Matthew 26.39), but it is = clear=20 that He must drink this cup in His capacity as man, and not as God. That = is why,=20 as a man would do, He wishes to be spared this cup. These words are = dictated by=20 a natural fear... 'Nevertheless, not My will but Thine be done' = (Luke=20 22.42): not Mine to the extent that I have a different nature from = Thine, that=20 is, Mine and Thine insofar as I am consubstantial with=20 Thee.

"Evidently = He had a=20 will both as man and as God; for the rest, His human will submitted to = and=20 obeyed His Divine will, without following its own inclinations, but = desiring=20 only what His Divine will wanted. When the Divine will permitted it, His = human=20 will found itself naturally subject to that which was proper to it. That = is why=20 when it pushed away death and His Divine will permitted it, it then = really=20 pushed away death, and was in a state of fear and agony. But when His = Divine=20 will wanted His human will to choose death, then His sufferings became = fully=20 accepted and willed, because He delivered Himself voluntarily to death, = not only=20 as God, but also as man." (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, = 18).

After all = the above,=20 one sees that for the Fathers the Gethsemane prayer of our Saviour was = not the=20 exploit of love and compassion for the sin of the human race, but the = expression=20 of the agony of Christ and the fear of the pain suffered on=20 Golgotha.

Metropolitan = Anthony=20 finds this interpretation unworthy of the person of Christ... But we can = be=20 convinced that this objection of our very reverend author is largely = based on a=20 misunderstanding by studying the teaching of the Fathers on what they = call he=20 irreproachable and natural passions of human nature. According to the = Fathers,=20 Christ the Saviour took upon Himself the natural and irreproachable = passions,=20 but he did not take upon Himself sin and the sinful=20 passions.

"We = confess," writes=20 St. John of Damascus, "that Christ assumed all the natural and = irreproachable=20 passions (sufferings) of man. For He assumed the whole man and all that = is=20 proper to man, except sin, for sin is not natural and has not been = placed in us=20 by the Creator: it arises only under the influence of the devil, who = acts with=20 our consent and does not do us violence. The natural and irreproachable = passions=20 (sufferings) are external to our will, - they are those which have been=20 introduced into human life as a consequence of disobedience and = condemnation,=20 being hunger, thirst, fatigue, toil, tears, decay, fear, agony which = produces=20 sweat, tears of blood and the help of angels who take pity on our = weakness, and=20 others besides, which are proper to all men in accordance with their = nature."=20 (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, = 20).

With regard = to fear,=20 St. John of Damascus writes: "The word fear has a double meaning. There = is=20 natural fear, which comes when the soul refuses to be separated from the = body,=20 in accordance with the natural sympathy and kinship which the Creator = breathed=20 into the soul from its origin and which make the soul have a natural = experience=20 of fear, anguish and horror of death. The definiton of this fear is as = follows:=20 natural fear is the effort made to preserve one's existence out of = disgust at=20 death. For if the Creator has brought all things into being out of = nothing, it=20 is natural that all things should aspire to be and refuse=20 nothingness...

"But there = is another=20 fear, that which comes from a darkening of the spirit, from lack of = faith and=20 ignorance of the hour of one's death - for example, the fear that we = experience=20 in the night when we hear an unusual sound. That fear is contrary to = nature and=20 to define it we shall say: anti-natural fear is terror in face of the = unknown.=20 That fear was not experienced by the Saviour..." (Exposition of the = Orthodox=20 Faith)...

The teaching = of the=20 Fathers of the Church on the Gethsemane prayer, which we have just = expounded,=20 can be summarized in the following terms:

1) All the = Fathers=20 have seen in Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, by no means the redemptive = act=20 itself, which for them took place on Golgotha, but a pre-redemptory = struggle and=20 agony.

2) The essence of this = pre-redemptory act=20 resides not in the compassionate love of the Saviour suffering for the = sins of=20 men, but in the manifestation of the weakness of His human nature, which = expresses His fear of His coming Passion on = Golgotha.

3) The = manifestation=20 of this weakness of His human nature does not represent anything = whatever=20 unworthy of His holy Person, since it comes from His free Divine will = and has a=20 capital importance in the economy of salvation.

4) This act = of our=20 Saviour has a providential significance in that it attests to the fact = that the=20 Saviour took upon Himself human nature not at all in an illusory manner = but in=20 all its reality, with all its (non-sinful) weaknesses, and that He = triumphed in=20 His person over one of the principal weaknesses of men... =

The second = peculiarity=20 of Metropolitan Anthony's doctrine on the dogma of Redemption is his=20 interpretation of the redemptive act of Christ not at all as a sacrifice = offered=20 for the human race, but as an act of compassionate love towards=20 it.

[Bishop = Theophanes the=20 Recluse writes:] "We have fallen through the sin of our first parents = and we=20 have been plunged into irremediable corruption. Our salvation can only = come by=20 deliverance from this corruption. Our corruption comes from two = different evils:=20 from the wrath of God in the face of our disobedience and from the loss = of His=20 grace and from submission to the law, on the one hand; and on the other, = from=20 the alteration of our nature by sin, from the loss of true life, and = from=20 submission to death. That is why there were required for our salvation: = first,=20 that God should take pity on us, deliver us from the curse of the law = and=20 restore to us His grace, and then that he make us live again, we who = were dead=20 through sin, and give us a new life.

Both the one = and the=20 other are necessary: both that we should be delivered from the curse, = and that=20 our nature should be renewed. If God does not show Himself full of pity = for us,=20 we can not receive any pardon from Him, and if we receive no pardon, we = are not=20 worthy of His grace; and if we are not worthy of His grace, we cannot = receive=20 the new life. And even if we had received pardon and remission in some = fashion,=20 we would remain in our corrupted state, unrenewed, and we would derive = no profit=20 from it; for without renewment of our nature, we would remain in a = permanent=20 state of sin and we would constantly commit sins, sins which bring down = upon us=20 again our condemnation and disgrace - and so everything would be = maintained in=20 the same state of corruption.

Both the one = and the=20 other have been accomplished by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. By = His death=20 on the Cross he offered a sacrifice of pardon for the human race. He = lifted the=20 curse of sin and reconciled us to God. And by His pure life, by which in = a=20 perfect manner he accomplished the will of God in all its fullness, He = has=20 revealed and given to us, in His person, an unfailing source of justice = and=20 sanctification for the whole human race."

To this = teaching on=20 the Redemption which is retained in our dogmatic works and in the = 'Catechism' of=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Metropolitan Anthony made objections,=20 substituting for it his own doctrine...

[But] = according to St.=20 Gregory the Theologian, these [old-testament] sacrifices were, on the = one hand,=20 a concession made to the young Israel in view of his young age, so that = he=20 should not allow himself to be seduced by the pagan sacrifices, and on = the=20 other, the prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ on Golgotha.. This = mystical=20 prefigurative value is borne especially by the paschal=20 lamb.

"All that = took place=20 in old-testament times with regard to the worship of God," writes St. = John=20 Chrysostom, "leads always to the Saviour - whether these are the = prophecies, the=20 priesthood, the kingship, the temple, the altar, the veil of the temple, = the=20 ark, the manna, the rod, or anything else - everything is in relation = with Him.=20 If the one God authorized the Hebrews to offer a sacrificial worship to = Him,=20 this is not at all because He was satisfied with sacrifices, but because = He=20 wanted to turn the Hebrews from the pagan superstitions... In His wisdom = and=20 omnipotence He yielded to the desire of the Hebrews and in authorizing = them to=20 offer sacrifices to Him, He prepared the image of things to come, so = that the=20 victim, in itself useless, might show itself to be useful as an image... = By all=20 the sacrifices He prepares the image of Christ and the events to=20 come.

"Whether = this image is=20 a sheep, it is an image of Christ; or an ox, it is also an image of = Christ; or a=20 calf or a heifer, or any other animal offered in sacrifice, a pigeon or = a=20 turtle-dove, everything is in relation to the = Saviour...

"And so as = not to fall=20 into prolixity, I counsel you to reread the commentary on all this in = St. Paul,=20 which forbids the consideration of anything outside its relation to = Christ, but=20 rather orders you to bind everything to Him."

[There = follow=20 quotations from St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. = Gregory=20 the Theologian, eight quotations; St. Athanasius of Alexandria, eight=20 quotations; St. Gregory of Nyssa, three; St. John Chrysostom, eight; St. = Cyril=20 of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, four; John of Damascus, two=20 quotations.]

The Council = [of=20 Constantinople] of 1156 considers it indisputable that the death of = Christ on=20 Golgotha was a propitiatory sacrifice for the human race and is only = concerned=20 to know to whom the sacrifice was offered. It concludes that the = sacrifice was=20 offered by Christ the Saviour to the Holy Trinity. In doing this, Christ = was at=20 the same time both the victim and the sacrifice (in accordance with His = human=20 nature) and God receiving the Sacrifice, with God the Father and the = Holy Spirit=20 (in accordance with His consubstantiality with the Father and the Holy = Spirit).=20 The Council also established that the eucharistic sacrifice is this same = Sacrifice, that of Golgotha. The Council consigns to anathema those who = think=20 otherwise.

Metropolitan = Anthony=20 refers to St. Gregory the Theologian, whom he considers an adversary of = the=20 teaching of the death of Christ on Golgotha as a sacrifice in the usual = sense.=20 But one cannot agree with him on this point. It is sufficient to recover = the=20 words of St. Gregory to be convinced: see On the Holy Pascha, Against = Apollinarius.

To defend = his point of=20 view on the redemptive act of Christ considered as an act of love and = compassion=20 for the sins of men, Metropolitan Anthony cites the passage of the = prayer of=20 Symeon the New Theologian before communion in which he speaks of the = mercy, the=20 'com-passion' by which the faithful and the communicants become = co-possessors of=20 the Divine light and nature. The writings of Symeon the New Theologian = which=20 have been preserved leave no doubt as to the interpretation he made of = the=20 redemptive act of Christ. [Homilies I, 1-2, I, 3, II, 3, XXXVIII, = 3]

[Then come = texts from=20 St. John Chrysostom (two), St. John of Damascus (two), St. Athanasius of = Alexandria (five) and St. Cyril of Alexandria = (five)].

From all = that has been=20 said above concerning the death on the cross of the Saviour Christ, one = can draw=20 the following conclusions:

1) The death = on the=20 cross of Christ at Golgotha, according to the teaching of the Fathers of = the=20 Church, is undoubtedly an expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice for the = sins of=20 the human race.

2) Although = one says=20 readily enough that this sacrifice was offered by the One Son to His = Father, one=20 must understand well that the Son offers the sacrifice in His capacity = as=20 Sacrificer, in accordance with His human nature, but that this sacrifice = is=20 accepted by the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit, in accordance = with the=20 indivisibility of their Divine nature. In other words, the sacrifice is = offered=20 to the Holy Trinity, and the Son is at the same time He Who offers and = He Who=20 receives.

3) This = sacrifice was=20 offered, not because the Father "demanded it or had need of it", to = satisfy His=20 wrath or His justice, but by "economy", for the salvation of the human=20 race.

4) The = essence of the=20 sacrifice consists in the fact that the Saviour took upon Himself the = sins of=20 the whole of humanity and endured, because of them, the punishment which = humanity should have undergone because of them.

5) The = consequence of=20 this sacrifice of expiation was the reconciliation of humanity with God, = which=20 was sealed by the sending of the Holy Spirit upon us, by which we have = been made=20 capable of entering into communion with God and thus becoming heirs of = eternal=20 life.