The Catalog of Good Deeds: Church History

Showing posts with label Church History. Show all posts

We all remember the story about the Lord making a whip and casting moneychangers and merchants out of the Jerusalem Temple. Do you know why they got to be there in the first place? Let’s explore some historical facts to make this Bible story more clear…

Holy Evangelist John the Theologian recounts, And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (John 2: 13‒16).

Note that, judging by the context, it happened in the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. He had just started making miracles. Many interpreters of the Holy Scripture believe that the Lord committed that act in order to forestall claims of his apostasy, which could be made after He started healing people on Sabbaths. That was how, showing his zeal in defense of the House of God, He proved once again that He wasn’t against God.

What Did Jews Need Moneychangers For?

Each Jew had to donate half a shekel (approx. 8 grams of silver) to the Temple. At that time, the Jews used Roman coins because they were under Roman rule. There were images of Roman emperors on those coins. The God’s people considered the emperors’ faces to be idolatry. Therefore, Roman currency wasn’t suitable for donations to the Temple. That was where moneychangers stepped in. They exchanged Roman coins for other coins without portraits on them.

However, people had to pay an exchange fee, too. The moneychangers, greedy to earn as much money as they could, forgot about the holiness of the place and started acting like robbers.

Who Was Disturbed by Trade Operations in the Temple?

Sellers of animals and birds weren’t perfect, either, as they were charging exorbitant prices for their products. Just consider this: it wasn’t easy for some people to get to the Jerusalem Temple and participate in a holiday. Scorching heat, a long road, lack of all kinds of comfort… Naturally, it was cumbersome to bring one’s own animal for the offering. That was why people preferred buying everything they needed right on the spot. It made the merchants who sold animals super-rich because they knew that people would buy their animals no matter how expensive they were.

But that’s not the end of the story. The enterprising merchants and moneychangers set their shop right in the inner yard of the Temple, where Gentiles were allowed to worship. What could be more damaging to the awe and sacredness of that holy place?

How Many Times Did Jesus Drive the Moneychangers out of the Temple?

Finally, another interesting fact. An attentive reader will notice that the story of driving the merchants and moneychangers out of the Temple is described in the Gospel according to Matthew, too (Matthew 21:12,13). However, Matthew puts that episode in a completely different context: it occurs not in the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry but near the end of it (just a couple of days prior to his Passion). It isn’t a mistake, though. Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria explains that the Lord simply did it several times…

By Ilya Alekseev

St. Elisabeth Convent

There is disagreement among contemporary scholars and commentators about which of the Evangelists wrote first: Matthew or Mark. But it is safe to assert that Luke was the third in order. He certainly knew Mark’s text well, and possible Matthew’s; he also made use of other sources. These three are often called the “synoptics”; the Greek word means that these three authors “saw together.” Their texts are much more similar to one another than to the Gospel according to John, which was written much later and in an entirely different manner; he sought to supplement the synoptics by elaborating on that which they had remained silent about.

Matthew and Mark were eyewitnesses of many events of the Gospel, but the same cannot be said of Luke. Tradition calls him one of the Apostles of the seventy, but the Gospels do not mention him; it is certainly not apparent from his own text that he spoke as an eyewitness. We encounter him only in Acts, not even at the very beginning, where he accompanies the Apostle Paul (who, incidentally, also did not participate in any way in the Gospel narrative). He is mentioned in several Pauline epistles as his most faithful and intimate companion and even as his personal physician. We know from the same sources that Paul suffered from some sort of serious illness, for which Luke’s help was necessary. Incidentally, a doctor’s perspective can also be seen in the pages of his Gospel: when describing the healing of the sick, Luke specifies the illnesses from which they were suffering.

But, one might wonder, what right did such a person have to talk about Jesus when immediate eyewitnesses to these events were still alive and known to all? Yet even today we rarely know about past events from eyewitnesses; we more often hear about them from historians. Luke was such an historian. As he himself says in the introduction to his Gospel, many had already told the life of Jesus (and, most likely, not always fairly), so it was worth carefully questioning eyewitnesses, comparing all available sources, and compiling a fuller and more trustworthy account. And this is just what he did. The text was apparently composed in Rome in the beginning of the 60s, most likely under Paul’s guidance.

As with the other synoptics, we know relatively little about Luke. He was born, according to tradition, in Antioch, Syria; this was one of the largest cities of the time, where a Christian community arose immediately after the Resurrection. He was most likely not a Jew, but a Greek (the only one of all the New Testament writers!); in any case, he received a fine education and wrote in excellent Greek. Tradition calls him a doctor and an artist (an iconographer, as it is called in church tradition); it was he who painted the first portrait, or icon, of the Theotokos. There is nothing unusual about this: in those days there was not the same kind of narrow specialization as exists today; someone well versed in the healing arts could well delve into art and historiography.

In any case, it is only this Gospel that relates the story of the Nativity in such detail and even an episode from the childhood of Jesus: how He went with His family to Jerusalem for the feast day and later lingered in His Father’s house, that is, the Temple. Joseph had by then long since died, so only the Virgin Mary could have told Luke about this. Might she have told him about this while he was painting her portrait?

Accuracy and attention to detail are characteristic of Luke. For instance, he alone tells of the wise thief who turned to Christ when already on the cross. There is nothing surprising about this: almost all of Jesus’ disciples had fled and whoever remained at the Cross would likely not have heard the words of the thieves crucified with Him. But Luke found an eyewitness who had heard and remembered the conversation of Jesus with the repentant thief, who was promised an immediate encounter in Paradise.

Just as Matthew cites Old Testament prophecies in detail and Mark emphasizes Jesus’ power and majesty, Luke speaks with special thoroughness about His sacrificial death and its salvific meaning for humanity. This is why the ox, a sacrificial animal, was chosen as his symbol.

But the primary distinction of this Gospel from the others is its literary elegance. Luke combines different styles (which, unfortunately, is normally lost in modern translations): here we see refined Greek prose, poetic hymns (the only in the entire New Testament), grand narrative in the style of the Old Testament, and aphoristic sayings. Luke clearly wrote for the discerning and educated Hellenistic public, which did not need to be simply surprised by new ideas, but to have these ideas presented in an elegant form in order for them to listen.

The parables are likely the peak of his literary craftsmanship. It is in Luke that we find stories that even people who have never opened the Bible know well: for instance, the parables of the prodigal son and of the rich man and Lazarus. Parables make up a significant part of his book: these are little stories that one can understand without any deep knowledge of history or Palestinian geography; indeed, one hardly need know anything in order to grasp their general meaning. But to penetrate their depths is no simple matter. A series of easily remembered everyday events pass before us, but it is not always possible to reach unequivocal conclusions concerning them. Why, for instance, did Christ praise the unjust steward who wrote off part of the debt of his master’s debtors? To this day, interpreters offer different responses.

Luke, as we see, is not aspiring towards didacticism (do good and do not do bad), but rather expresses his thought in metaphors. Take, for instance, the parable of the prodigal son. Is the son its main hero? A dissolute youth who affronts his father, squanders his money, and then returns to him – this is a clear picture, one that indeed happens in real life. There is nothing in particular to say here. But this parable compels us to marvel at something else: the father’s behavior seems completely illogical. He does not hinder his insolent son from leaving; he patiently awaits his return; and he accepts him as soon as he sees him. He has the right to punish him severely, but he forgives him; he does not even allow him to finish speaking, but returns him to his former dignity. Is this not how the Heavenly Father awaits our repentance? Thus it turns out that this parable is not in fact about the prodigal son, but about the patient and endlessly loving father.

Or perhaps it is also about the elder brother? He diligently fulfilled all instructions; he was a model son. And he, of course, was not at all happy that his father showed mercy to this dissolute young man, whom he did not want to call his own brother. Was this fair? But it turns out that you can be your father’ son only when your most dissolute brother remains a brother to you. Indeed, one could say much more about this parable; it does not resemble the sort of fable in which there is only one obvious moral. This story gives us several lessons at once, revealing different layers depending on how we look at it.

Luke is also a master of artistic detail. He describes how Jesus healed ten lepers, who went to the Temple in order to live henceforth among other healthy and happy people. Only one returns to thank the Healer: and he was a Samaritan (Luke 17:16). A despised alien, an outsider! Perhaps the remaining nine tolerated him only so long as they were all leprous outcasts, but now they are going to the Temple, which the Samaritan cannot enter, and he has no choice but to part from them? Or perhaps he thought of simple human gratitude precisely because he was not able to perform the rite? Thus it happened that the person who was most distant, the Samarian, suddenly became the one who was closest – just as in the other parable about mercy. There is something worth pondering here.

Luke accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys, which he describes thoroughly in Acts, constantly using the pronoun “we” while never saying anything about himself personally. This, too, is a vivid personality trait! The level of detail in the depiction of Paul, his unfailing teacher and companion from the moment they left to preach, is matched only by the inconspicuousness of the author himself.

After the death of the Apostle Paul, Luke continued his missionary work in Italy, Gaul, Dalmatia, Greece, and Africa. He preached the Gospel in these countries, established Christian communities, and healed the sick – not only as a physician, but as an Apostle. He was martyred in old age in the Greek city of Thebes, where he was crucified on an olive tree for lack of a prepared cross. His body was buried there; later, in the fourth century, it was taken to Constantinople. His relics remained there until the Turkish conquest, after which they, like many other sacred objects, fell into the hands of the Venetians. Today they are preserved in the Italian city of Padua; a portion of these relics was returned to Thebes in the 1990s. The Apostle’s memory is celebrated on April 22 and October 18 (Old Calendar).

It was stated above that nothing about Luke himself is mentioned in the Gospels. While this is the case, there is still one clue. At the very end of his Gospel, Luke mentions a nameless disciple of Jesus who, along with his fellow disciple Cleopas, travelled from Jerusalem to a village called Emmaus shortly after the Resurrection (about which they still knew nothing). On the way they spoke about everything that had taken place in Jerusalem: their hope that Jesus would establish His Kingdom here and now had not proven true. They suddenly met a stranger who began to ask them why they were so downhearted. Then he began to explain to them, beginning with the prophecies of the Old Testament, that this was how Christ was to suffer for people’s salvation.

They continued their learned conversation along the way; when evening had arrived, they invited their companion to share a meal with them. When he blessed and broke the bread, they recognized His voice, His hands, His face – this was their risen Teacher! Their hearts burned while they were talking on the road, but their minds were too occupied with difficult theological questions simply to recognize Him. This required accepting the bread broken by Him, participating in a meal with Him.

It appears that this story was indeed told by an eyewitness – he cites so many details and is so captivated by his narration. Perhaps the second disciple, who is not named in the account, was indeed named Luke? In any case, this account tells the story of all who have received a good education, who have gathered a multitude of historical facts, and who have given thought to their interpretation – but for whom the primary, decisive conclusion required a living and immediate encounter with the Teacher. This lesson of the Apostle and Evangelist Luke is especially dear and intimate to me.

By Dr. Andrei Desnitsky

Source: http://www.pravmir.com/the-evangelist-luke-historian-and-literary-genius/

Compared to the contemporary worship of most Protestant churches and post-Vatican II Roman Catholic churches, the worship of the Orthodox Church seems overly-formal, complicated, and rigid in its rubrics. Why are there so many rituals in the Orthodox Church? Why isn’t there more spontaneity, creativity, and freedom of expression? Why is the Orthodox Sunday worship service—the Divine Liturgy—essentially the same week after week, every year, for more than fifteen-hundred years? Most Orthodox believers would respond, “Because it is our Tradition.” However, do you know why it is our Tradition and why rituals are so important to our Christian Faith?

The Need For Peace And Order

Actually, the Bible and the Church Fathers rarely use the word “ritual” or “rite” when describing Judaic or Christian religious ceremonial practices. The words more often used are “ordinances” and “observances.” These words are more descriptive of what should be going on. For many, “rites” are just a series of behaviors people customarily do without knowing its meaning—perhaps there was once a reason for the behavior, but now people just “go through the motions.”

An “ordinance” is a decree that an activity be regulated (Hebrews 9:1)—kept to a particular sequence or boundary. In regards to worship services, the Apostle Paul stated, “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). The reason for this is given in a previous verse: “for God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (v.33). In fact, St. Paul praises the church at Colosse for how orderly (τάξιν) they are (Colossians 2:5). Being that our present day Liturgy of St. Chystostom is based on the first century Liturgy of St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the Orthodox Church has always practiced a formal, orderly pattern to its worship.

However, the formality of worship really goes back to Judaic practices starting 13 centuries before Christ with the exodus of Israel from Egypt. God, through Moses, gave explicit details about a very orderly and elaborate form of worship centered around the Tabernacle or Temple. Why? Because God knows how easy it is for mankind to argue about worship practice differences to the point of confusion (Acts 19:32), prejudice (John 4:20), and violence (Genesis 4:3-8). It is not hard to look through the history of mankind and find wars which were in part justified over disputed religious beliefs and practices. Though inter-faith conflict will likely continue (John 17:14), God wants to prevent intra-faith conflict within His Church (John 17:22-23). Therefore, it is necessary the Church be unified in Her worship practices. The Orthodox Church has kept the unity of the Faith in part by preserving a precise formula in Her worship. In doing so, the Orthodox Church has avoided a lot of dissension that has plagued other branches of Christianity.

The Need For Attention and Remembrance

“Observance” denotes the need to pay attention and to remember. Six times during the Divine Liturgy the priest or deacon is giving the exhortation “Let us be attentive.” God doesn’t want us to just show up at church and habitually say and do the rites while our minds are occupied with work, grocery lists, or a recent argument with our spouse. Such worship is not “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). God desires we focus on what every word said and every gesture made alludes to within the Divine Liturgy (and other worship services). This takes discipline on our part, but it is through discipline we become righteous sons and daughters of our Father (Hebrews 12:4-11). Observing the Divine Liturgy disciplines us to “fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2).

It is only by being attentive we will gain understanding (Proverbs 4:1, 20; 5:1; 7:24; 22:17), find God’s direction for us (Exodus 23:20-21), and enjoy His blessing (Deuteronomy 7:12-13; 28:13). Attending to the teachings of the Church both through Scripture (2 Peter 1:19) and Tradition (Hebrews 2:1) keeps us from drifting into heresy. A good Biblical definition of observance, that we should remind ourselves of as we enter a church, is: “Mortal, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I [God] shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you” (Ezekiel 40:4; see also Isaiah 28:23; 34:1).

The Bible is filled with exhortations to not only attend but to also remember. We need to continually be reminded of: who God is, how God has saved us, the miracles which attest to God’s love for us, the commands God taught us, the saints of old who inspire us, and also remember those that need charitable aide or divine intervention. The high point of the Divine Liturgy is when we observe the sacrament of communion, which was commanded by God to be done “in remembrance” of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). Orthodox worship services, particularly in its litanies and hymns, are specifically designed to help us remember.

The Need For Growth and Transformation

Some may argue it is easier to lose one’s attention within Orthodox services because they are so repetitive. It is believed contemporary services draw one’s attention better because they change from week to week and are therefore more stimulating. First, it should be noted that Orthodox services are not completely repetitive—the readings, the homilies, and a few of the hymns do change every week. Second, repetition is good for us: it is how we learn. Besides being an assembly by which we give God His due—praise and thanksgiving—Orthodox worship services are also classrooms of instruction about how to rightly believe and behave.

Part of the reason why the worship of the Orthodox Church is so ritualistic is because a lot of information is being condensed within a ninety minute service. You can spend decades going to Divine Liturgies every Sunday and still not plumb all the rich, symbolic depths of meaning found in that ceremony. The Divine Liturgy is unchanging because its formula works to help us grow in knowledge and virtue to become Christ-like—which is the purpose of our lives (Colossians 1:28-29; 2 Peter 3:18). Even if our attentions occasionally wander (which they shouldn’t!), something of the service is still absorbed within our spirit to bless our souls. Repetition is transformational. After a while, the Divine Liturgy becomes more than an ordinance or an observance; it becomes something intimately a part of out lives—like the beating of our hearts (and no one complains when are hearts keep the same life-giving rhythm!).

The contemporary worship services of non-Orthodox churches can be very entertaining. The electronically amplified instruments, the emotional praise choruses, the dramatic preaching, the multimedia presentations, can all make for an enjoyable service. However, watching TV, going to a movie, or being at a music concert can also be pleasurable. Yet how much do we actually remember from these events? How much of it helps us to grow towards maturity in the Faith (Hebrew 5:12-6:1)? We must ask ourselves whether worship was meant by God to be entertaining. Shouldn’t worship be something different than what the world produces? Shouldn’t worship be something that reverences God rather than regales the congregation?

The Need For Costly Worship

“Liturgy” means “work of the people.” God desires that we love Him with all our heart, all our soul, and all our might (Deuteronomy 6:5, emphasis added). Participating in the Divine Liturgy is not a physically comfortable experience: there is standing, kneeling, and prostrations. One doesn’t (or shouldn’t!) just passively watch a performance at an Orthodox church service. The laity is invited to be involved throughout the service in reverencing icons, joining in the singing of the hymns, reciting the Nicene Creed, and adding their hearts or voices to the prayers. It you are not a little tired when the Divine Liturgy is finished then you haven’t fully been worshiping God.

Though worship can be a joyful celebration (Psalm 100:1-2), Scripture makes it clear that God desires worship to also be costly. The first recorded act of worship was the story of Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, when God accepts Abel’s sacrifice but rejects Cain’s (Genesis 4:3-7). God explained that not just any offering will do, but only the best of what we have to give will receive His approval. The animals sacrificed to God had to be without defect and therefore they were the most valuable of the herd (Leviticus 1:3). The Divine Liturgy was refined over the early centuries to make it the best worship service we can offer to God. It has stayed the same since then because no Orthodox theologian has figured out how to make it any better than St. Chrystostom’s fourth century version.

In summary, Orthodox worship services are ritualistic because: (1) God desires that our services be orderly as a reflection of Himself. (2) Our Lord desires a set pattern of worship to maintain unity and avoid dissension. (3) The services require we discipline ourselves to attend, remember, and participate; so that we might be perfected in the Faith. (4) Worship was meant to be costly—requiring the best that we have to honor God with. “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29).

“It behooves us to do all things in order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has commanded offerings and service to be performed. And these things are not to be performed thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours.” — St. Clement of Rome, 96AD

Source: http://pemptousia.com/2016/11/why-all-the-rituals/

Patriarch Tikhon was head of the Russian church during the revolution, and courageously condemned what he saw as a demonic attack on a Christian civilization. Previously he was a bishop in the US, from 1898 - 1907, where he was a very successful missionary.

The first Bolshevik government, which consisted mostly of atheists, tolerated the popular Patriarch for a while, realizing that if they martyred him, it would only increase the church's influence, but eventually they pushed him out, put him under house arrest, and demonized and harassed him until his death in 1925. The Russian church made him into a saint in 1989.

This remarkable letter survives as a testimony of what was really happening in Russia at the time, and to the extraordinary courage of this man to speak the truth, knowing it would cost him his life.

It is all the more important because the accounts to the West that came out of Russia at the time, and subsequent histories, were mostly written by left-leaning sympathizers who cheered the revolution on, having little idea what it really was. This obfuscation continues to this day.

Take a few minutes to read this passionate and poetic condemnation of evil. Its startling clarity comes down to us through the years with great force. We highlighted a few of the more moving lines, but honestly, almost every sentence is gripping.

This view of what actually happened during the revolution is as important today as it was 100 years ago. The 100 year commemoration of the Russian revolution shows starkly divergent views of what it was continue to our own day.

This excellent translation is by Nun Cornelia Rees:

“We address this prophecy of the Savior to you, the current makers of our Fatherland’s fate, who call yourself “the people’s” commissars.

For an entire year, you have been gripping the power of the government in your hands, and you are already preparing to celebrate the anniversary of the October revolution; but the rivers of the blood of our brothers, pitilessly murdered at your rallying, cry out to heaven and force us to tell you the bitter truth.

You have traded the Fatherland for soulless internationalism, although you yourselves know perfectly well that when it comes to defending the Fatherland, the proletarians of all countries are those countries’ faithful sons, and not their betrayers.

Having seized power and called the people to entrust themselves to you, what promises have you given them, and how have you kept these promises?

Truly you have given them a stone instead of bread, and a serpent instead of a fish (cf. Matt. 7:9-10). To a people worn out by a bloody war you promised to give peace “without annexation or contribution”.

What victory could you have turned down, you who have led Russia to a shameful truce, with humiliating conditions that even you did not resolve to make fully public? Instead of “annexations and contributions” the great Motherland is conquered, diminished, dismembered; and as pay for the tribute placed on it you secretly transport to Germany gold that you yourself did not amass.

... the great Motherland is conquered, diminished, dismembered; and as pay for the tribute placed on it you secretly transport to Germany gold that you yourself did not amass.

You have taken away from the soldiers everything for which they had valorously fought. You have taught them, only recently brave and invincible, to leave off protecting the Motherland and to run from the field of battle.

You have extinguished in their hearts the inspiring consciousness that there is no greater love than should one lay down his life for his friends (Jn. 15:13).

... the freedom you have given consists in all manner of indulgence to the lowest crowd instincts, in murder and theft with impunity.

And although you have refused to protect the Motherland from external enemies, you are ceaselessly gathering armies.

Against whom will you lead them?

You have divided the entire nation into warring camps and cast it into a fratricide unprecedented for its cruelty.

You have openly exchanged love of Christ for hatred, and instead of peace you have artificially fomented enmity between the classes. And there is no end in sight to the war you’ve generated, since you aim to deliver triumph to the phantom of world revolution with the hands of Russian worker and peasants.

It was not Russia who needed the disgraceful peace with its external enemy but you yourselves, who have plotted to irreparably destroy Russia’s internal peace.

No one feels safe; everyone lives in constant fear of searches, robbery, eviction, arrest, and execution.

Hundreds of defenseless people are seized, then languish for whole months in prisons, are often executed without investigation or trial, even without going to the court you have simplified.

Not only those who are somehow guilty before you, but even those who are in no way guilty, but were taken only as “captives”—these unfortunate people are killed to answer for crimes committed by persons who not only are not of one mind with them, but very often your own followers or those with convictions similar to yours.

Bishops, priests, monks and nuns who are guilty of nothing are executed simply because of some wild accusations of vague and indeterminate “counterrevolution”. This inhuman execution is made even more onerous for the Orthodox because they are deprived of the final consolation before their deaths—the Sacraments—and the bodies of the slain are not given to their families for a Christian burial.

Isn’t this the height of aimless cruelty on the part of those who pretend to be the benefactors of mankind and who themselves supposedly suffered from cruel rulers?

But it’s not enough for you that you have reddened the hands of the Russian people with their brother’s blood; hiding behind various names—contributions, requisitions, and nationalization—you have pushed them into the most barefaced and wanton thievery.

At your hinting were plundered or seized lands, mansions, factories, houses, farm animals, money, personal things, furniture, clothing.

First the wealthy, whom you’ve called “bourgeois”, were robbed; then under the epithet of “kulaks” were the more well-off and industrious peasants also plundered, thus increasing the number of paupers—although you cannot but recognize that with the impoverishment of a great multitude of individual citizens the wealth of the nation as a whole is lost, and the country is impoverished.

Tempting uneducated and ignorant people with the opportunity for easy and unpunished gain, you have fogged their consciences and muffled in them the awareness of sin; but no matter what names you hide this evil-doing behind, murder, violence, and robbery will ever remain serious sins and crimes that cry out to heaven.

You promised freedom.

Freedom is a great good, if it is properly understood—like freedom from evil, not oppressing others, not turning into lawlessness and willfulness.

But you have not given that freedom; the freedom you have given consists in all manner of indulgence to the lowest crowd instincts, in murder and theft with impunity. All manifestations of both truly the civilian and higher spiritual freedom of mankind have you mercilessly crushed.

Is it freedom when no one can bring home food or rent an apartment without special permission, when families, and sometimes all the inhabitants of whole buildings are evicted and their possessions are thrown into the street, and when citizens are artificially divided into ranks, certain of which are consigned to hunger and being plundered?

Is it freedom when no one can speak his opinion openly without fear of being accused of counterrevolution?

Where is freedom of speech and press, where is freedom for preaching in church?

Many bold preachers have already paid with their martyrs’ blood; the voice of social and governmental discussion and criticism is being stifled; all press, other than the narrow Bolshevik press, has been completely strangled.

Especially painful and cruel is the violation of freedom in matters of faith.

Not a day goes by when the most monstrous slanders against Christ’s Church and her servants are not published in the agencies of your press, along with malicious blasphemy and mockery. You deride the servants of the altar, force bishops to dig trenches, and send priests to do dirty work. You have raised your hand against the Church’s inheritance gathered through many generations of the faithful, and have given no thought to violating their posthumous will.

You have closed a large number of monasteries and churches without any excuse or reason. You have blocked access to the Moscow Kremlin—that sacred inheritance of the faithful people. You are destroying the ancient form of church community—the parish; you destroy brotherhoods and other charitable and educational Church institutions, close and rout diocesan meetings, and interfere with the Orthodox Church’s internal government.

By banishing sacred images from schools and forbidding the teaching of faith to children there, you deprive them of the spiritual food necessary for an Orthodox upbringing.

What else can I say? The time fails me (Heb. 11:32) to describe all the catastrophes that have stricken our Motherland.

I will not speak of the collapse of a once great and mighty Russia, of the total fracturing of our railroad, of unprecedented agricultural devastation, of hunger and cold that threatens death in the cities, and of the lack of everything needed for maintaining a household in the villages. This everyone can see.

Yes, we are experiencing terrible times in our reign, and it will not be erased from the peoples’ soul for a long time, having darkened the image of God in it and stamping in it the image of the beast. The words of the prophet have been fulfilled:

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.(Is. 59:7).

We know that our rebukes will evoke only anger and indignation in you and that you will look for an excuse in them for accusing us of opposition to the authorities, but the higher your “column of wrath” rises, the more proven will be the testimony to the truth of our rebukes.

It is not our business to judge earthly authorities; all authority, allowed by God, would attract our blessing if it were truly “God’s servant” for the good of its subjects, and not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom. 13:3).

Now to you, who are using your authority to persecute your neighbors and decimate the innocent, we extend our word of instruction: celebrate the anniversary of your coming to power by freeing the prisoners, putting a stop to the bloodshed, violence, devastation, and persecution of faith; turn not to destruction but to the establishment of law and order, give the people their desired and deserved rest from civil war.

Otherwise all the righteous blood you have spilled will be required of you (cf. Lk. 11:50), and you who took sword in hand will yourselves die of the sword (cf. Matt. 26:52).”

November 7, 1918

Source: https://russian-faith.com/persecution/church-leaders-brilliant-1918-letter-lenin-speaks-truth-about-revolution-n1265

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Bible Stories: What Did Moneychangers Do in the Jerusalem Temple?

The Holy Lance: What Happened to the Spear of Longinus?

Evangelist Luke: The Path of a Historian and Literary Genius

Do We Really Need so Many Rituals in the Church?

Patriarch Tikhon's 1918 Letter to Lenin

Partners