The Catalog of Good Deeds

By Father Andrew Lemeshonok

I would like to congratulate all of you with the feast day of our church in honor of the Reigning icon of the Mother of God! The Mother of God takes a scepter in her arms, which is exactly what a queen is supposed to do. The earthly kingdoms fall, and She offers us to come to the Kingdom which Her Son has told us about: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John, 18:36). No matter how good and fair are the laws of the earthly kingdoms, they are still imperfect, and this is why these kingdoms are temporary. And we all hope that we will manage to enter the Kingdom, which is not based on fair or unfair laws, but on love. Blessed Augustine talks about this love: “Love God, and do whatever you want”.

However, we really need laws, for we are used to this temporary kingdom. We are used to be pushed, watched and guarded… We need to feel this human fear, without which we just cannot live in this world. However, "perfect love casteth out fear” (1 John, 4:18). And we all did not come to church in order to set up our life in this temporary world, but to prevail over it and to enter a new world. The world, where the King becomes a servant; where He is not surrounded by an entourage of his subjects and warriors, but instead with love and grace. Who will discover this path of love, the path of service? We see that in this Kingdom of Heaven the last ones become first, and the one who is great should serve others. The laws and the rules of living are completely different there. We always try to conciliate the Church with this world, but they would not conciliate: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew, 22:21).

It is important that we recall at least sometimes that our homeland is in Heaven, but not on earth.

Do not look for earthly justice, for love is above it. And we learn through this love, that Christ is bringing us up with it. He believes that we will manage to defeat our flesh and blood, which do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. The Spirit of God will enter us and we will become the church of the Holy Spirit. “Ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (1 Corinthians, 3:16) – this is what Apostle Paul says about the life of a Christian, about the Kingdom which begins inside a person. These words may sound unclear to us, while God gave us an opportunity to build the very church we are standing in now. And this church is beautiful, because Orthodox Christians believe that nothing is too good for God. Just look how great the Holy Rus’ was! It was really holy, because people lived humbly in small houses, but at the same great churches were built in villages. How could that be? The reason is that people gave their best to God. And today people want to make Church equal to this world. But it is not about wealth: gold symbolizes the light of God’s love. The murals, the icons painted with the paints made from real precious stones – all these things are to inspire a person. To direct his mind and heart up high, but not to the ground.

March 15, 2017

St. Elisabeth Convent

In Honor of one hundred years since the appearance of the "Reigning" Icon of the Mother of God please find the following article as originally compiled by Compiled by Father Nektarios Serfes on 29 July, 1998:

The "Reigning" Icon of the Mother of God revealed itself to the Russian Orthodox people on 2/15 March 1917, exactly eighty years ago, in the village of the Kolomna, near Moscow.

Now concerning the revelation of the icon (also spelled ikon) of the "Reigning" Mother of God. This account was according to personal reflection of Professor Ivan M. Andreyev.

"Soon after the tragic abdication of the Throne by Tsar Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich, which took place on March 2, 1917, throughout Russia extended the news, that namely on this day, in the village of Kolomskoye in the vicinity of Moscow (at 6 versts from the Daniel entrance) there took place the miraculous revelation of a new icon of the Virgin Mother of God, called the "Reigning One", for the reason that the Queen of Heaven was depicted on this icon as the earthly Queen.

Shaken by the news, at the beginning of the summer of 1917, I decided to go to Moscow attempt to make my way into the village of Kolomskoye in order to pay homage before the newly revealed icon and personally ascertain the circumstances of its revelation.

The Lord helped me to realize my intention, although at the time pilgrimages of the type were extremely difficult to carry out. One good friend of mine, servant of God Mary (a collaborator at the University of Moscow, a big specialist on ancient Russian iconography), having constantly resided in Moscow and already having succeeded in visiting the village of Kolomskoye, - she undertook to help me, and together with her we proceeded with our journey. We went from Moscow to the village of Kolosmkoye village Ascension Church, Father Nicholas (the parish priest). He me us friendly and warmly, gave us food, showed us numerous icons in his home and related the following:

One elderly, pious woman, a peasant of Borovichy main district, Ziroshkino local district, village of Pochinok, Evdokia Andrianova, having lived in the village of Pererva during the month of February in the year 1917, thrice in a dream saw the most Pure Mother of God and heard Her voice, telling her to depart into the village of Kolomskoye, where in a church, amidst furniture, abandoned utensils and dust, was to be found a large old black icon. It was the icon of the Heavenly Queen commanded to be found, and incidentally, she said that from the "black one" it would be transformed into a "red one".

The apparition was unclear, she was unable to recall the details of the icon on awakening, but the general impression of an especial quality of the Reigning grandeur of the Mother of God depicted on the icon - this remained in her consciousness. Father Nicholas recounted how he did not immediately believe Evdokia Andrianova, and was even inclined to judge her for her having had faith in dreams: however, three repetitions of the dream, the meekness of the pious woman, and likewise the indications, that the icon was "large", "black", and remains amidst old furniture and dust somewhere in the church namely of the village of Kolomskoye - compelled him to go together with Evdokia Andrianova to the church, and to show her all the icons, both those that were hanging on the walls, as well as those that were laid up in various commodious places.

Not one icon was found to be in suitable accordance with the description. Then according to the advice of the church warden and also one church member who happened accidentally to come in, Father Nicholas started to earnestly seek for the icon everywhere: on the belfry, on the staircase, in closets, and, finally, in the basement. And now it was namely here, in the basement, amidst old boards, various cloths and old used utensils, in the dust, that the large, narrow, ancient black icon upon which at first nothing could be distinguished - was found. But when this "black" icon was carefully wiped off and washed off the dust and soot that had accumulated in the course of many years, - here to all present appeared the image of the Mother of God, sitting as a Queen on a throne, with a crown upon her head. Evdokia Andrianova immediately clearly recalled and recognized her last dream vision, fell face downwards, and with tears began to ask to serve a moleben service (a supplication service) of gratification with an akathist to the Mother of God (this was a general akathist hymn to the Mother of God). Father Nicholas immediately fulfilled her request.

The news of the revelation of the new icon on the day of the Tsar abdication of the Throne, on March 2, 1917 - quickly spread through the neighboring vicinities, penetrating into Moscow, and started to spread throughout all of Russia.

A huge number of pilgrims started to accumulate in the village of Kolomskoye, and before the icon miracles of healing of both physical and mental infirmities were manifested, according to the witness of those had received this help. They started to carry about the icon in the neighboring churches, factories, manufacturing plants, the icon remaining in the Ascension Russian Orthodox Church in Kolomskoye only on Sundays and holidays. I and servant of God Mary came to page homage before this icon namely on Sunday.

His recital concluded, Father Nicholas led us into the church. On entering the church I immediately noticed on the right, next to the kliros (right hand choir area), a big (to me it even seemed immense) narrow dark icon. The Heavenly Queen was depicted as the earthly Queen, sitting on a royal throne, in a dark red royal robe with a green lining, a crown upon Her head and with scepter and imperial globe in hand. Upon her lap was the blessing of Christ child. Unusual for the countenance of the Mother of God was stern, severe, and commanding gaze of her sorrowful eyes, filled with tears.

With trembling and fear, with prayer for forgiveness, I fell to the ground in homage, and, following three prostration's, I kissed the holy icon. For a long time, silently, with concentration, attentively, heart tensed with bitter tears of repentance and sweet tears of tenderness of feeling and gratefulness, I looked at the wondrous icon which was gracefully bedewed with the spiritual fragrance and with a fine physical odor of rose oil.

I together with servant of God Mary, became as if benumbed: we silently left the church, with tears we thanked the priest and silently went to Moscow afoot...

Following several weeks I again had occasions to be in the village of Kolomskoye, and I was profoundly shaken by the alteration in the appearance of the icon: by itself it had undergone a miraculous renewal, she had become bright, clear and ... "red", since it was with especial striking that the royal robe now impressed itself upon one's vision, as if it were soaked with blood.

Knowing the exclusive strength of faith and prayer of Tsar Nicholas II and His particularly reverent honoring of the Mother of God (let us recall the Sobor-Church of the Theodore icon of the Mother of God in the Tsarskoye Selo), - we may not doubt that it was he who succeeded through prayer in having the Mother of God take upon Herself the Supreme Royal authority over the people, who renounced their Tsar Anointed one. And the Mother of God came into the "Home of the Virgin Mother of God" that had been prepared for Her by the whole of Russian history, in the most difficult moments of life of the God chosen people, in the moment of its greatest fall, and took upon Herself the succession of authority of the Russian empire, when the idea itself of the Orthodox Supreme National Tsardom had been trampled in favor of satanic tyranny. It is for this reason that the gaze of Her wondrous eyes, filled with tears of Divine wrath and maternal love, are so stern, severe and filled with such sorrow: it is for this reason that Her royal robe is soaked with Russian martyr blood and the jewel tears of innocent Russian martyrs decorate Her crown.

The symbolic meaning of this holy icon is clear for spiritual eyes: through uncountable suffering, blood and tears, after repentance, the Russian people would be forgiven and the Supreme power, preserved by the Heavenly Queen Herself, would without any doubt be returned to Russia. Otherwise why should the most holy Mother of God preserve this power.

With joyful fear and repentant trepidation the Russian people began to pray before the "Reigning" icon of the Mother of God throughout Russia, and the icon itself, in innumerable reproductions, started to embellish all the Russian churches. A marvelous akathist and canon dedicated to this holy icon appeared, listening to which the whole church was to fall upon its knees. (Editors notes: The New Martyr And Confessor Patriarch Tikhon [1917-1925] wrote this akathist to the "Reigning" icon of the Mother of God. St. Tikhon was the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the time. This Venerable Patriarch said this Akathist frequently).)

Several years passed and then the most cruel persecution set in upon the heads of the pious reveres of this holy icon, who prayed before its copies throughout all of Russia. (Editors Notes: Please note a copy on my web site: "Bury Me And Mention My Name Tsar Nicholas II And Family".)

Where the original of the "Reigning" icon of the Mother of God is at the present time - is unknown. Soon after the appearance of this holy icon in the village of Kolomskoye, the Ascension convent in Moscow, according to reports in its books, ascertained that this icon belonged to it, and in 1812, before the invasion by Napoleon, this icon together with other icons, at the evacuation of the monastery from the Kremlin, was given over to be cared for into the Ascension church of the village of Kolomskoye, later not being returned and at the convent they forgot about it. Apparently the icon was given over to the Ascension convent. Later the icon was present for a period of time in the Ss. Mary & Martha Convent in Zamoskovorechje, where the prioress, up until her holy martyrdom, was Grand Duchess Elizabeth. (Editors notes: the Holy Royal Martyr Grand Duchess Elisabeth loved this "Reigning" icon of the Mother of God in which she and her sisters, as well as those at the hospital convent found it to be a great spiritual comfort). Information given by one nun "from there" (Orthodox Russia, 1947, No. 16), that this "Reigning icon of the Mother of God at the middle of the 20's was located in the church of St. Alexis man of God Russian Orthodox Church, at the Petrograd side of the city of Petrograd - does not correspond to reality. At the middle of the second decade I also was a parishioner of the Church of St. Alexis, man of God, I saw the icon and not once was present at the the akathist that were then served by Archpriest Michael Prudnikoff and by the sacristan of the church, Archpriest Paul Vinogradov. According to the interpretation of the the latter sacristan, this was not the authentic icon, but only a very good and exact reproduction of the original."

(Source: Orthodox Life, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York., Vol. 4/76, July & August, 1962., 4-8).

Source: http://www.serfes.org/royal/miracle4.htm

Introduction

“Ashes to ashes and dust to dust” is a common phrase we hear associated with funeral practices. This first appeared in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The phrase “dust to dust” has some biblical origin from Gen. 3:19 and Ecclesiastes 3:20 but the words “ashes to ashes” do not appear anywhere in the bible. As we will see from Alvin Schmidt’s book, “Dust to Dust or Ashes to Ashes? A Biblical and Christian Examination of Cremation”, the scriptures never instruct people to burn dead bodies turning them into ashes (p.67).

History of Cremation

Cremation comes from Latin word “cremare” meaning “to burn” (p.6).
Some historical reasons for cremating the dead were (p.7):

1. To cope with fear of the dead.

2. To enable easy transportation of bones back to homes or other places.

3. To prevent bodies from being stolen by thieves and miscreants.

4. Belief that fire freed the soul from wandering and searching.

5. Belief that fire purifies the departed person’s soul.

By the latter part of the fourth century, the burning of human corpses had become increasingly rare in the Roman Empire. Likely, the consistent Christian rejection of cremation, long before Christianity became legal, was having an empire-wide impact (p.18-19).

Cremation begins reappearing in the West following the efforts of Prussian pro-cremationists in 1855, when an international congress of medical experts met in Florence in 1869 contending that earth-burial was unhygienic (p.19). Cremation appealed not only to atheists and freethinkers but it was commonly requested—usually as an act of rebellion by Spiritualists, Theosophists, Unitarians, Universalists, anti-clerics and anti-church types (p.30). In 1875 the Cremation Societys in England and New York are formed (p.20).

Cremation rates in United States have increased dramatically over the last several decades, from .003% in 1900, .04% in 1920, 3.5% in 1960, to 27% in 2001 and are expected to rise to 40% by year 2010 (p.21).

What is Cremation?

Cremation is not a completely accurate term for the burning of a departed person. Human bones do not burn because they contain about 60% inorganic, non-combustible matter (p.23). Thus, the unburned bone portions are pulverized in today’s crematoria by a grinding process that reduces them to small granules resembling dried fertilizer pellets, the latter comprising at least half of the total remains. Sometimes a white colored substance is added to make the ashes look more attractive (p.24). As a result of package leakages, UPS and FedEx refuse to transport ashes of cremated bodies. Sometimes, human ashes are mixed with ashes from another person or other sources.

Burial in Ancient Judaism

The Hebrews/Israelites in the Old Testament era lived and were surrounded by pagan societies: Canaanites, Amorites, Edomites, Hittites, Philistines and others. Through the prophets, God frequently warned the Israelites not to adopt the pagan values, beliefs, or practices of those societies such as worshipping pagan polytheistic gods, marrying pagan wives, engaging in homosexual practices, eating unclean food, sacrificing infants, and making graven images of pagan idols (p.31).

In the OT, earth burial was the norm for treating departed persons. Cremation was used only as punishment and humiliation for those who engaged in grievous, sinful acts as recorded in Joshua 7:15; Leviticus 21:9; 20:14. Cremation was also an instrument of God’s wrath as He destroyed certain peoples by fire as recorded in Numbers 11:1-3; 16:35; Joshua 7:15,24-26; 2Kings 1:10-12 and famously the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:24 (p.35-36).

The Lord says through the prophet Amos, “For three sins of Moab, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath, because he burned, as if to lime, the bones of Edom’s king” (2:1-2). This is argued as a clear denunciation of cremation. (p.37)

The Israelites treated the body of a dead person with great respect by closing the eyes (Gen.46:4); washing the body (Acts 9:37); draping a napkin over the dead person’s face (John 11:44); anointing with aromatic spices (Lk.23:56; 24:1; Jn.19:40) and wrapping with linens (Mt.27:59; Mk.15:45; Lk.23:53; Jn.19:39-40).

Christian arguments against Cremation

1. Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ died on the Cross and was buried. (Nicene Creed) We should imitate Jesus.

2. Everyone will be bodily resurrected in the Second Coming of Christ. Cremation is a denial of the bodily resurrection.

3. The human body is a sacred sanctuary even after physical death.

4. Cremation with God’s blessing is never mentioned in the Old Testament

5. We must not be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2) especially as cremation becomes more common.

Benefits of Earth Burial

Cemeteries provide consecrated ground for survivors to visit the graves and honored loved ones. These visits reminded survivors of the brevity and uncertainty of their own lives and our inevitable destination to leave this world and meet our Lord (p.28). Studies show that survivors of the departed who are cremated express less grieving and weeping at time of funeral, rarely visit the site where their relatives or loved ones are kept, especially with those whose ashes are scattered.

Relics of the Saints

It is well known among church historians that the early Christians fervently opposed infanticide, child abandonment, abortion and suicide because they believed in the sanctity of the human being. In their minds, the sanctity of the human body did not come to an end when a person died. They saw the human being as the crown of God’s creation, for man was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:27) (p.49). “The saints, during their earthly lives, were filled with the Holy Spirit. And when they fulfill their course, the grace of the Holy Spirit does not depart from their souls or their bodies in the tombs” (St. John of Damascus). Cremation denies and deprives us of the sacred tradition and benefits of the presence of saintly holy relics.

St. Paul emphasizes this in the Epistle reading from the 9th Sunday of Matthew: “16Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person. For God's temple is holy and you are that temple” (1Cor.3:16-17). He repeats this again later, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which have from God? You are not your own” (1Cor.6:19). So, even though we may not have attained a level of saintliness like some of our spiritual predecessors, nevertheless, God’s Holy Spirit lives and dwells within us.

Conclusion

Cremation is the denial and purposeful destruction of God’s human temple. As follower’s of Christ, we are not dualists or spiritualists who believe that the material world is inherently evil and to be despised. Rather, as Christians, we believe in the inherent goodness of the material world, especially our human bodies. Together, our body and soul, are created in God’s image and likeness. We are called to redeem and transfigure the creation to its original glory and beauty by continually resisting sin and temptation, repenting of our transgressions, and opening our hearts, minds and bodies to the indwelling presence of God’s divine grace through His only-begotten Son and live-giving Holy Spirit.

The only fire we should submit ourselves to is the fire of God’s love and holy presence. St. Paul also says, “Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done… If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved but only through fire” (1Cor.3:14,15). Amen!

Because the Orthodox Faith affirms the fundamental goodness of creation, it understands the body to be an integral part of the human person and the temple of the Holy Spirit, and expects the resurrection of the dead. The Church considers cremation to be the deliberate desecration and destruction of what God has made and ordained for us. The Church instead insists that the body be buried so that the natural physical process of decomposition may take place. The Church does not grant funerals, either in the sanctuary, or at the funeral home, or at any other place, to persons who have chosen to be cremated. Additionally, memorial services with kolyva (boiled wheat) are not allowed in such instances, inasmuch as the similarity between the "kernel of wheat" and the "body" has been intentionally destroyed.

Source: http://www.stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/cremation

Question: “If the Orthodox faith is the only true faith, can Christians of other confessions be saved? May a person who has led a righteous life on earth be saved, while not being a Christian?”

Answer: “For He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that struggles, but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:15–16). In the Orthodox Church we have the most direct and complete path of salvation indicated to us, and we are given the means by which a person may be purified and have a direct promise of salvation. In this sense St. Cyprian of Carthage says, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” The Apostle Peter writes exclusively to Christians saying: “According as His divine power He has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that has called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:3).

And what should one say of those outside the Church, who do not belong to Her? Another apostle provides us with an idea: “For what have I to do with judging them that are without? You judge them that are within? But them that are without, God judges” (1 Cor. 5:12–13), having “mercy on whom He will have mercy” (Rom 9:18). The question, “Can the non-Orthodox, i.e. those who do not belong to Orthodoxy — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — be saved?” has become particularly painful and acute in our days. In attempting to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that in His Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ Himself mentions but one state of the human soul that unfailingly leads to perdition — i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:1–32). The Holy Spirit is, above all, the Spirit of Truth, as the Savior loved to refer to Him. Accordingly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Truth, conscious and persistent opposition to it. The same text makes it clear that even blasphemy against the Son of Man — i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God Himself, may be forgiven, as it may be uttered in error or in ignorance, and subsequently may be covered by conversion and repentance. (An example of such a converted and repentant blasphemer is the Apostle Paul. See Acts 26:11 and 1 Tim. 1:13.) If, however, a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide, for he thereby likens himself to the devil, who believes in God and dreads Him, yet hates, blasphemes, and opposes Him.

Thus, man's refusal to accept the Divine Truth and his opposition to it makes him a son of condemnation. Accordingly, in sending His disciples to preach, the Lord told them: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16), for the latter heard the Lord's Truth and was called upon to accept it, yet refused, thereby inheriting the condemnation of those who “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:12).

The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Savior Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8–9), threatening them with eternal condemnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold.

It is self-evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth. The Greek word for “heresy” is derived from the word for “choice” and inherently implies conscious, willful rejection or opposition to the Divine Truth manifest in the Orthodox Church. They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox. In their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “who desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and “who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way.

An inquirer once asked St. Theophan the Recluse if the non- Orthodox would be saved. The blessed one replied, “You ask, will the non-Orthodox be saved? Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.”

By Metropolitan Philaret (+1985)

Other Quotes To Ponder:

St. Theophan the Recluse: "Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior, Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your sins.... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox, and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

Elder Nektary of Optina: One of Elder Nektary's spiritual children then inquired: "But what about the millions of Chinese, Indians, Turks and other non-Christians?" The elder replied:

"God desires not only that the nations be saved, but each individual soul. A simpl...e Indian, believing in his own way in the Creator and fulfilling His will as best he can, will be saved; but he who, knowing about Christianity, follows the Indian mystical path, will not." [Ivan Kontzevitch, Elder Nektary of Optina, p. 181].

Source: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/will-non-orthodox-be-saved.html

St. John Cassian, in his 75 year life lived at the turn of the fifth century, interacted with every major Christian figure of the Patristic Age, founded monasticism in the West, laid the theological foundation for the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’, wrote the papal brief for the position of the Roman See at the Third Ecumenical Council, and wrote the most read work of devotional piety in late antique and medieval Latin Christianity. He is more likely than not the first saint ‘canonized’ by a Pope of Old Rome. Nonetheless, today, nearly no one has heard of him. His name has been removed from the popular Western calendar, and outside of the Provence, his feast day is not regularly celebrated by Western Christians. Those who have heard of him, primarily Protestants of a Calvinist stripe, hold him as the historical personage in which all of Christianity went wrong (a slander similar to the way in which some Orthodox scholars have treated St. Augustine of Hippo). How exactly this happened is one of the real curiosities of Church history and patristics.

Born ca. 360 in Scythia (modern day Romania) and given the name Cassianus, the saint first emerges in history some 20 years later. Having journeyed to Palestine (specifically Bethlehem) and entered the monastic life (there given the name ‘John’), Cassian journeyed with his friend, St. Germanus, to Egypt, there to study the more rigorous and (already at that early date) more traditional way of life of the desert. St. John there overstayed the release he had been given by his monastic elder by a period of several years, and this seems to have led to a situation in which he was no longer able to return to his original monastic home. Around the year 400, he and St. Germanus made their way to Constantinople. There they were ordained (St. Germanus a presbyter and St. John a deacon) and were part of St. John Chrysostom’s inner circle of clergy during his initial period as archbishop. Cassian’s specific task was the oversight of the treasury, which included both overseeing moneys managed by the Church and various objects and vessels of great value of ecclesiastical use. At the infamous Synod of the Oak, it was St. Germanus who brought Chrysostom’s response to the case against him and argued it against his opponents. When those efforts failed, St. John Cassian was dispatched to Rome to seek the support of the Pope of Rome in restoring St. John Chrysostom to his see.

After his journey to Rome, St. John Cassian settled in the West after forming a friendship with the Archdeacon Leo (later St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome). He was ordained a presbyter, and was charged with bringing the monastic life of the East to Western Europe. He did so by two means: First, by establishing the Monastery of St. Victor in Gaul (what is now Marseilles to be precise) and second through the composition of his work The Institutes of the Cenobitic Life. The latter is a treasure trove of historical information, as St. John systematically compares and contrasts the traditions of Egypt and Palestine in all aspects of monastic life, and offers suggestions as to how the basic principles involved might find indigenous expression in Western Europe. The latter portion of the Institutes consists of a discussion of the ‘Eight Evil Thoughts’, which would later become the Seven Deadly Sins as they are known in the Western tradition. After concluding that work, St. John Cassian began another, his most famous, The Conferences. This work is really a collection of 24 shorter works, written as dialogues between St. Germanus and various of the Desert Fathers during St. John’s time in Egypt. These 24 Conferences were published in several small batches, one of which, comprising Conferences 11-17, would become the primary source of the controversy concerning St. John’s life and work.

The second decade of the fifth century in the West was rocked by one primary doctrinal controversy, that surrounding Pelagius, the British monk who had begun travelling the major cities of the Empire, preaching repentance, and focusing uncompromisingly upon every human being’s accountability before God. Most alarmingly, he proclaimed that Divine Grace was not necessary for salvation. Grace was, for Pelagius, a sort of fall back plan, a source of forgiveness for the lapsed. But for him the goal and purpose of the Christian life was never to lapse, and he claimed it was perfectly within the province of even fallen humanity to live a sinless and perfect life without any supernatural assistance and thereby attain to salvation. It was clear to many, chief among them St. Augustine, that this was heresy. Until this time, however (meaning the first two Ecumenical Councils and their related local councils), orthodoxy and heresy had been focused on conceptions of the Holy Trinity and the person of the Son in particular, not matters related to the path of salvation as such. Having brought Pelagius before the Holy Synod of Jerusalem for condemnation, Augustine was astonished that they cleared him of charges after only examining him regarding the Holy Trinity and the Creed. This set the Bishop of Hippo to writing, and his Anti-Pelagian works (quite literally) fill volumes. Finally, in 418, St. Augustine was successful in having Pelagius and his false teachings anathematized by the Council of Carthage.

In the process of arguing against Pelagius, however, St. Augustine had adopted (or at least seemed to adopt as a position from which to argue) the opposite extreme position. He seemed to argue for a form of Predestination and Reprobation in which human beings were completely passive in their salvation (as the flesh was a source only for concupiscence) and lived their entire lives of relative sanctity or wickedness playing out a pre-existing divine plan. At its extreme, St. Augustine even made the statement that the Holy Spirit had to constantly restrain the human flesh of Christ’s impulses in order to keep Him from sinning. These ideas were just as disturbing to many segments of the Church as those of Pelagius had been. It was especially disturbing to many of the fledgeling monastic communities in the West, whom St. John Cassian was serving. Therefore St. John composed Conference 13, “On Divine Protection”, in which he sets forward the basic principle of synergy in the Christian life. Pelagius was wrong that fallen man can do good and act under his own natural powers. Likewise, however, St. Augustine was wrong that God acts upon a passive (or actively fighting to fulfill opposite impulse) humanity. Rather, at the center of St. John’s text, every Christian ought, to quote St. Paul, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God Who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” The Divine Energies are the beginning, end, and basis of salvation, but do not negate, overpower, or snuff out the human.

At the end of his life, St. John Cassian’s final writing task was his Treatise Against Nestorius. Composed in 430 at the behest of Archdeacon Leo, the Treatise is really a sort of brief for the Pope of Rome explaining to him what the issues were with Nestorius’ Christology to allow him to prepare for what became the Third Ecumenical Council. Interestingly, in order to explain the Christological issues that St. Cyril had against Nestorius to a Latin audience, St. John connects Nestorius’ heresy to that of Pelagius. In the same way, he argues, that Pelagius separated the Divine Energies, God Himself, from His Creation, Nestorius was attempting to separate the Divine person of the Son from Christ’s human nature in a way which makes salvation impossible. Because of this connection drawn by St. John, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the anathema against Pelagius was renewed by the entire Church at the same time that Nestorius was condemned.

At the time of St. John Cassian’s repose in 435, there was no question whatsoever that he was in the full communion of the Church, and that he had been one of Her greatest spiritual teachers. Even those partisans of St. Augustine who had attempted to argue back against Conference 13, like Prosper of Aquitane, took issue with only ‘the author of the Conferences‘, being unwilling to speak St. John’s name in a negative light. A century and a half later, St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome, was so devoted to St. John’s memory that he had his relics at the monastery of St. Victor placed in a silver coffer of his own design, inscribed with ‘Saint John Cassian’. Thomas Aquinas, as was common in many monastic orders of the Medieval West, read portions of Holy Scripture and portions of the Conferences every day as part of his prayer rule. In the East, not only was St. John’s sanctity unquestioned, he is the only Latin author whose work is included in the Apophthegmata, the collection of sayings of the desert fathers and mothers.

Then, during the Protestant Reformation, the history of the Christian West was rather cleverly revised. The project, of course, of the Reformation was to attempt to return the Western church to its original state, after centuries of corruption and creeping error. St. Augustine, as a Church Father, was looked to, especially by the Calvinist ‘wing’ of the Reformed camp as one of the purest sources of doctrine from the perceived height of the Western Church’s theological power and influence. While St. Augustine’s theology still undergirded much of the doctrine of the West, the positions expressed (especially in the extreme form there presented) in the Anti-Pelagian writings were no place in evidence in the theology of a Gabriel Biel. Rather than concluding, as is accurate, that those views were corrected partially by St. Augustine himself in his Retractions, partly by other Fathers like St. John Cassian, and in the greatest part by the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit through history, the Reformed instead concluded that there was a historical move away from an original predestinarianism and monergism during St. Augustine’s time or afterward, and that this movement formed part of the corruption of the Western church which was in need of reform. As he was the first and most prestigious respondent to St. Augustine’s views, St. John Cassian became an obvious target.

Seeing St. John Cassian’s position of synergism as a sort of ‘compromise’ between the human monergism of Pelagius and the Divine monergism of St. Augustine, the 16th century Reformed coined a new term: Semi-Pelagianism. Though they now had a good term linking St. John, ironically, to the man whose heresy he had actually brought to universal condemnation, historically speaking in both West and East, it was St. John’s position which had clearly won the day not only in terms of subsequent history (which the Reformed could write off as tainted) but also amongst his peers in the fifth century, many of whom were simultaneously being looked to by the Reformed as pillars of orthodoxy. In order to complete the historical revision, then, the early Reformed lit upon an episode that took place 100 years after St. John’s death, connected to him only in that it involved a subsequent generation of monks at the monastery in Marseilles which he had founded.

In the early 6th century, a heresy known as Massilianism had arisen in the Provence. In essence, the monastic clergy in the area were postponing baptism for recipients out of a belief that baptism, seen as the first interaction of the human person with divine grace sacramentally, must be merited by the recipient. In practical terms, an initiate to the Christian faith had to repent, amend his life, and become morally pure in advance in order to be worthy of being baptized. This was seen at the time to be a form of Pelagianism in that it held as a necessary presupposition that a person could somehow, apart from divine grace and the life of the Church, perfect him or herself in order to be worthy of reception into the Kingdom. This particular heresy was condemned by a local council, the Second Council of Orange, in 529. The Council was careful, however, in addition to recondemning Pelagianism, to also condemn the concept of reprobation (or predestination to damnation) on the opposite extreme, and to clearly teach that holy baptism has as its primary effect the remission of sins.

Despite the fact that the Reformed deny baptismal regeneration (that baptism actually forgives sins) and that they believed in the doctrine of reprobation so clearly anathematized by the Second Council of Orange, they re-branded Massilianism as a type of Semi-Pelagianism, then used the coincidence of Marseilles to tie this ‘Semi-Pelagianism’ to St. John’s (albeit quite different) supposed Semi-Pelagianism in order to assert that St. John Cassian’s views were condemned by the Second Council of Orange, casting St. Augustine’s most extreme positions as ‘the patristic viewpoint’. Despite its lack of basis in fact and the incredible tenuousness of its logic, this narrative prevails to this day in nearly all Protestant treatments of the topic. To compound the issue, rather than muster to St. John’s defense, the Rome of Trent yielded him completely, such that this narrative is even now frequently found in Roman Catholic sources, choosing to remove him from their calendar and defend only their (then) current teaching on merit and infused created grace. In truth, such a defense may have been impossible in the 16th century, as the theological categories in which Rome then spoke had ‘progressed’ so far beyond the mind of the Fathers as to render much of their work unintelligible (especially the Eastern Fathers).

Aside from the gross distortions of Christian history in the West and the slandering of a great and holy man, this re-characterization of St. John Cassian has had one particularly disastrous effect: It has deprived Christians of some of the greatest spiritual writing in the Church’s history. St. John composed all of his works in Latin, and so the East has known (and loved) him only through Greek quotations, excerpts, and summaries. His works in their entirety, in the original Latin, were entrusted to the West, and after the 16th century, they were largely abandoned. Perhaps the greatest evidence of this is the fact that even a resource such as Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers contains only portions of the Institutes and the Conferences. In fact, the first complete translation of the Conferences into English was published only in 1997. Fortunately, Christians of our era are finally in a position to reclaim these works, this portion of our shared history, and the man St. John Cassian himself.

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/08/13/the-curious-case-of-st-john-cassian/

Subscribe to: Comments ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

At the Feast of the Theotokos

100 Years Ago: Miracle On The Day Of The Abdication Of Tsar Nicholas II March 2, 1917

Orthodoxy and Cremation

The Path to Salvation

The Curious Case of St. John Cassian

Partners