The Catalog of Good Deeds

The Uncut Icon of the Mother of God, also called the “Clouded Mount” (Ru: Tuchnaya Gora – Тучная Гора) is particularly associated with the Annunciation (March 25), as this icon was revealed as miracle-working on the eve of the feast.

In the 18th century, the icon was presented by the abbot of the Tver monastery to Cosmas Volchaninov, in gratitude for his fine work in the monastery’s church. Taken from the monastery, it was passed on from generation to generation in the Volchaninov family, until it came into the possession of one of Cosmas’ grandsons.

This grandson treated his wife harshly, and allowed his relatives to do likewise. Being impious, he hid the icon of the Clouded Mount away in an attic. It was in this atmosphere of worldly sin that the icon suddenly revealed the glory of God, in accordance with the words of Jesus Christ: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)

In despair over her marriage, the wife of this impious grandson resolved to commit suicide in a deserted bath-house. On the way there, on the Eve of the Annunciation, a monk appeared to her and said, “Where are you going, unhappy one? Go back, pray to the Theotokos of The Clouded Mountain, and you will live in peace.”

The agitated young wife returned home and revealed everything, including her intention to commit suicide. They searched for the monk, but they did not find him, and no one had seen him but her. However, they found the icon of the Mother of God in the attic. In the icon, the Mother of God stood full-length on a rounded mound, the mount, holding Christ in her left arm. Christ was leaning over to bless the small mountain held in Mary’s right hand; on top of the mountain were churches with many cupolas and crosses. Recognizing this as the icon the monk referred to, the family cleaned off the dirt and set it up in the house in a place of honor. In the evening, the parish priest served the all-night Vigil before the icon. From that time, Vigil was served in the house every year on the eve of the Annunciation, celebrating the joy that was brought to the house.

For more than 150 years the icon was in the family until Katherine, the last of the Volchaninov line, married George Ivanovich Konyaev, taking with her the icon of the Mother of God as a precious inheritance.

In 1863 near a cemetery church of the Smolensk Icon of the Mother of God it was decided to build a chapel in honor of St Tikhon and St Macarius of Kalyazin. The then owner of the icon, George Konyaev, already 92 years old, wanted to donate the icon of the Theotokos to the church. He asked the clergy to build another chapel for the wonderworking icon of the Mother of God of the “Clouded Mountain.” He said:

I feel the very best place for it is the temple of the Smolensk Icon of the Mother of God, since the place on which the church was built, in former times was called a Mount, since it was the highest place in the city. The inhabitants took their possessions to the Mount and saved themselves from ruin during a flood. Let the icon, The Clouded Mountain, remain on this mountain with your blessing, and let all who are buried here be veiled with Her mercy.

Source: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/the-clouded-mount-icon-of-the-mother-of-god/

By Father Andrew Lemeshonok

Repentance – is a certain grace, it is God’s love, which engulf a person’s heart. And the heart lives through this love and responds with its own love. The beginning of every sin – is deviation of our ancestors from God, which occurred in Heaven. Yet the first person who enters Heaven is a criminal, who is dying on the cross, who is suffering, a man who saw God next to him. As long as the Devine Liturgy is still served and God calls upon us to join Him in The Kingdom of Heaven, while the Church is alive, repentance will continue to occur. This mystery, this internal life of a person, which cannot be seen by the naked eye, gives a person spiritual strength and a new birth.

A person cannot be born without agony, suffering and repentance. But everyone has their own potential, their own abilities, their own limits. For example, for someone abstaining from fish during lent can be a true accomplishment. Perhaps we could not even imagine the struggle and suffering that this person might be going through to accomplish this small Lenten feat.

At our rehabilitation center for men I often say: “Everyone need to have repentance inside them. You didn’t just come here to find shelter, a roof over your head, but your main goal is to repent”. I see a person who did not do anything his entire life, lived by feeding his desires and then he takes a shovel and starts to dig. For 20 years he did not pick up anything heavier than a shot glass but here, he is shoveling manure… Maybe this is his level of repentance, and we do not even see it…

St. Mary of Egypt did not become a saint simply because she worked and struggled. She became a saint through God’s grace and love. I think that even when she walked on water and God’s grace had engulfed her to a visible extent, the repentance in her did not diminish, in fact, it only grew. When a person gets closer to God, feels God’s grace and actually lives it, then his sins are seen in a different light, one that is more agonizing and frightful.

Saints never called themselves saints, but referred to themselves as the last sinners on earth who are not worthy of anything and can only cry over their sins.

Before his repose to the Lord, Saint Sisoi the Great was tempted by demons with the following words: “You already repented, you’re already saved”. But he responded, “I have not even began to repent”. This is the true measure of realizing one's weaknesses and faults before God.

A person needs to constantly feel his dependence on God and our falsehood before God. Only the acceptance on God’s mercy and love and help a person develop spiritually. The is no limit to repentance on this earth. Not one person can say that he has fully and completely repented. God of course gives us time to work on ourselves, to right our wrongs, to change our life and to return to our Creator. Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. (Matthew 4:17)

April 3, 2017

St. Elisabeth Convent

At the request of one of the readers of "Orthodox Tradition," I would like to make a few comments about Churches. I have decided not to write my comments for "Orthodox Tradition," since the majority of our readers would simply be infuriated by what I have to write.

First, let me note that Orthodox Churches are not "Temples," as we see them so often called. The Greek word for Temple, "Naos," actually means house.

This reminds us that the early Christians, under persecution, worshipped in houses, when necessary. The Jewish Temple was transformed, in Christianity, into something quite different than the fearsome place where the Jews encountered God. In Christianity, fear and awe became the roots of piety, despite the fact that, following Western scholars, certain Orthodox observers (Schmemann chief among them), have tried to attribute this piety to a deviation from the Apostolic spirit. And this worship of God in fear and trembling, as Scripture describes it, took on a new dimension in the Christian Church, by virtue of Christ's Incarnation and manifestation of God's boundless love. The Temple became, as it should properly be, the "House" of God, wherein the family of man has been reconciled to the Father through the Sacrifice of the Son, comforted by the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me, as well, wholly inappropriate that, in English, we should call our Churches "Temples." This gives the impression that we have something to do with the Jewish religion or with certain cults, where this term is almost exclusively used. Orthodox "exotica" aside, we should be very careful in our terms. "Naos" describes the House of God and Ekklesia, while it does describe the Body of Christ and the "gathering of Christians," also applies to the building in which they worship. The House of God is a Church, not a Temple.

Second, having said this, we must be very careful not to misunderstand what the House of God is. I once heard a very pious Abbess, a Romanian here in America, say: "We think of our Churches as our homes." This is a wonderful image. But it can be misleading, if it is taken beyond the realm of imagery. The Church is our spiritual home, in an emotional and pastoral way; however, it is not a house in the normal sense of that word. Thinking so, there is a great temptation to retreat into the coy primitive notions of the Church that so mutilated Roman Catholicism in the '60s, when the notion of primitive house Churches and primitive liturgical practices was thought to embody a return to "authentic" Christianity. This thinking is so aberrant as to flirt with heresy, since the Church is revealed in history through the Holy Spirit and never loses its authenticity. Those who believe that they are in the Church, but must recapture its authenticity, are, by the very nature of their thinking, alienated from the authentic Church.

As soon as Christianity was free, when it blossomed in the fourth century, contrary to the mistaken notion that its piety was diminished, its piety was in fact given full expression. Beautiful Churches, magnificent services, vestments, and the like became critical and integral parts of worship. They became indispensable parts of true Christianity. Living in the eschatological "now," Christians felt the need to capture the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to make manifest, through the Icon of the Church, the Grace and the glory which have even now, by virtue of the transforming power of the Resurrection, been made available to us in the fallen world. And it was in the Church and its beauty that the "otherly" found expression. The Church became royal, the dwelling-place of the King and the repository of all of the whole royal heritage that has been promised to us as Christians.

It is for this reason that the Church should be adorned with the best that the world has to offer. It should be decorated with gold and silver. And like a proper Icon, it should present us with an image of another world, of a world strange to this one and yet somehow familiar to the spiritual impulses within our hearts. It should be strange and different to what is worldly and should provoke fear and awe, in the love of Christ, from the inner world of the soul. Indeed, we see in the Church itself an image of the universe, divided as it is between the Holy Place and the rest of the Church, the Saints peering out at us with spiritual eyes through the Templon (Iconostasion), as we see through their Icons, with our worldly eyes, into the Kingdom of Heaven, which we thus understand in a glimpse and which we come to know, however imperfectly, as our ultimate goal. The Church is built not for our physical comfort, but as a place of asceticism: dark, isolated from worldly comforts and things, a place in which we stand and struggle with the flesh. It is primarily a place for spiritual comfort, a place where the Divine Paraclete dwells and in which our hearts take wings. It contains that glory for which our flesh suffers and groans.

In the Church, from earliest times, vessels, vestments, the names of objects, chanting, Icons, and every form of decoration found in it were something different than what we encountered in everyday life. The very best and the very richest we put in our Churches. And, in a psychological sense, we have endowed our Churches with those things which say to the world around us that it is the repository of our dreams, the treasury in which we store the best that we have gleaned from the world, and the most important thing on earth. The Church has always represented the best that man has to offer, so that in the Icon of the material House of God we might accommodate the Grace of the Ineffable. Even the appearance of our clergy, who should AT ALL TIMES wear their clerical robes, offers us an image of God's Grace: properly dressed, beard and hair uncut, the servants of God provide us with an image of the Prophets and the ascetics. Their bodies covered and modest, we see in the clergymen (or the monks and nuns) what man can be, when he is transformed by Grace and called to perfection in Christ.

We find an image of the restored human, who is not contained in the body, adorning it with a personality, but who rises above the material and is served by the flesh, which is lifted above style, fashion, and the ego.

A Church, then, should contain nothing of the world. I have been in Churches where pots and pans, garage sale junk, and every little gadget could be found. The Altars of such Churches look more like the storage room of a Salvation Army thrift shop than the place where the King of Glory dwells eternally on the Holy Table. And they reveal a lack of true belief.

Churches are often decorated, and here in America, as though we were living in the smallest village in the remote mountains of Eastern Europe, with junk, left-overs from believers' houses, and "homey" things have no place in the Church. If, in isolated villages, poor peasants gave the best that they could offer, this does not mean that we, who are not peasants isolated in the mountains, need not give the best that we have to offer. And our best is something quite different than that of indigent villagers. The poverty of pious believers in tragic circumstances does not allow us to be cheap and to introduce into the House of God the scraps that we can no longer use in our own homes. This is blasphemy. And it is blasphemy that becomes particularly harmful when it leads to the coy primitive: Americans, who are unbelievably wealthy, even in the poorest circles, by comparison to many of the poor Orthodox in Eastern Europe, living the fantasy of being Greek or Russian peasants and making of Orthodoxy some romantic "return to the soil." This is NOT the Faith of our Fathers. If I am despised for saying so, let me say it again and again.

It speaks for itself that, except in the poorest of places, Orthodox in native Orthodox lands do not, in fact, worship in makeshift Churches. If one travels through villages in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, or the Levant, the most beautiful building in a town is inevitably the Church, adorned with all that is beautiful and priceless. And even though the temporary garage Churches of the Orthodox in diaspora are now an object of imitation by some Orthodox converts, the same Orthodox immigrants who built these temporary Churches, out of necessity, also built, with their pennies and by saving, not for vacations and college educations for their children, but for the glory of God, some of the most magnificent edifices to be found in America. This alone should put to rest the trend, among many Orthodox converts, towards a coy primitive practice of Orthodoxy that does damage to the very core of our Faith.

I fully realize that not every community can afford, even with the greatest sacrifice, to build a beautiful Church. And, given the materialism of America, believers who are willing to sacrifice for the Church are becoming fewer and fewer. Some even expect the Priest, often serving without a salary, to build Churches for them! And what is temporary is, of course, better than nothing. I have no argument with those who find themselves in such circumstances. But, by the same token, we should, even when we have little, give that greater part to God. And it should show in our Churches.

They should not, even in the most difficult circumstances, become dumping-grounds for what we can no longer use in our homes. They should not be adorned with homemade art, makeshift trinkets, and the products of amateur skills and amateur construction. Nothing should be done hastily or built without absolute care for detail and beauty. And if one cannot afford what is correct, he should wait until he can buy what is appropriate, saving, once more, not for worldly distractions (vacations, televisions, and the like), but for the adornment and glorification of the Church.

What I have said is expressed in the Fathers and the Canons, if one examines them carefully. And it is evident, as I have said, in the magnificent monuments to God that even our poorest ancestors have left to inspire and instruct us. I have always felt this and have always been profoundly uncomfortable with the trend that I see in Orthodoxy towards the glorification of the primitive which, as I said above, seems to have shattered the Roman Catholic Church in its reforms some decades ago. But beyond these academic and theological arguments, something else has always motivated me, some intuitive feeling that I could never articulate. When I was in Sweden earlier this month, Metropolitan Cyprian gathered the clergy and spoke to us about proper behavior in the Altar. What he said on this occasion, much to my surprise and delight, suddenly enlightened me. I understood the real reason that I have always feared and even loathed the makeshift in Church. What he said shook me.

In telling the clergy to enter the Altar and approach the Holy Table with fear and awe, never leaning on the latter and always showing proper respect to the holy things within the Altar, His Eminence said: "Nothing is more dangerous to a Priest than 'familiarity' with holy things." Immediately I understood the spiritual psychology of Orthodox Church architecture and decoration that I had only before felt intuitively. When the "House of God" becomes our "home," and when we fill it with what is familiar, with what we find in everyday life, we lose our sense of awe. We forget that the things of the Church lift us up, like Icons, to spiritual archetypes. We become, through the familiar, earth-bound, and we compromise that transcendence which, in the properly appointed Church, spontaneously comes upon us, on account of the transformation of our senses. The chanting, the incense, the subdued, dark atmosphere of the Church: all of these things help us to see a different world, to reach up to the loftiness of the other world. With the familiar, this is difficult. And the Church, which treats us spiritually, physically, and psychologically through its therapeutic traditions, has not by accident taken on its present form. Should we ignore this form for the coy primitive, we court disaster and foster that spiritual superficiality, that romantic notion of the Church as our "home" and a thing of the "soil," and deny ourselves the wonderful privilege of sacrificing beyond our means to leave here in the world, in the beauty of our Churches, an external token of the restoration of fallen man that is contained within the very structure of the buildings in which we worship.

By Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna

Source: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/churchnote.aspx

by Ekaterini

I am a convert to Orthodoxy and live in regional Australia. I came to my local Greek Orthodox Church from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch whose Patriarch is based in Syria. In Australia, this Church is known as the Antiochian Orthodox Church. There are five traditions of World Orthodoxy represented in my area, but only the Greek and Serbian traditions are "affiliated" with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Only rarely do these churches offer a Divine Liturgy in English.

I'd like to share with you some of my thoughts on what difficulties converts face on coming into the Orthodox Faith. It has been my experience that, if one wants to do more than just participate in a "nominal way" in the life of the church, a full commitment to the Orthodox Faith is what is required. My sole purpose in writing this letter is to increase awareness of the process of conversion to the Faith. I pray that I will do this with humility. Hopefully, by sharing some of my thoughts with you, we can learn from one another that the road will be made just a little easier (not just for those converts who may come after people like me but for each one of us whose spiritual journeys are often unique and deeply personal as we aspire to live our lives in the Lord's name).

People who come to the Orthodox Church from another faith are required to do Catechesis. This means taking instructions in the Orthodox Faith. On transferring over to the Greek Church, I was given special permission by the Bishop so that I would not have to undertake any more catechesis. I was also granted approval to be Chrismated any time after that. Because of the unique circumstances that led me to the Greek Church, I found myself as the only convert attending the church on a regular basis, in need of a kind of "unofficial" catechesis. This was not only because I was grasping with a new faith and how to truly live an Orthodox life in the outside world, but also because of the particular demographics of the church and my reawakening to its different culture and language.

Such an experience has given me a good foundation in Orthodoxy and has helped when I have had to face the various challenges of life. I have held a strong conviction that Orthodoxy is the true Faith for a long time. I wanted to offer my commitment to God through not just the Sunday Services but some of the most wondrous services in the Orthodox Church including the Paraklesis (Service of Supplication) and Esperinos (Vespers). I longed for some English in the Services so that I could explore all the senses... Orthodoxy is certainly an encounter of the mind, body and soul.

Converts have a variety of experiences coming into the Faith ranging from virtually turning themselves inside out as they throw out a lot of their values and beliefs held for a life time. For others, the move to another faith can be quite smooth.

The difficulties of course are naturally more likely in parishes where only one or two converts come to church on an on-going basis and want to participate regularly in the various services and not just in the Divine Liturgy. The church may also be of one particular ethnic persuasion and/or have a particular age demographic.

This means that not only does a sole convert have to adapt to a new faith, they also have to deal with being virtually totally immersed into another culture overnight. Because of a lack of any sort of history of regular converts attending a particular church, there may also be some bewilderment on the part of some parishioners as to WHY the convert is actually there in the first place.

This lack of understanding may have been colored by a particular parishioner's personal experiences of family members becoming Orthodox for the sole reason of wanting to marry someone in the family who happens to be of that faith. Anecdotal evidence tends to show that once married, such new family members rarely, if ever, attend an Orthodox church.

As far as my own transition to Orthodoxy is concerned, I found myself asking lots of questions - everything from: "Why did God send me in such a roundabout way back to the Greek Church; the very church from where I thought about converting some 20 years ago?" to "What sort of spiritual and practical commitment is expected from anyone who is a member of a parish community such as the one I found myself in?"

It means:

Asking ourselves every day about what are we aiming for in the Christian life and being aware that what we think, say and do should be in line.
Offering ourselves to God in the service of His Kingdom, not just on Sundays, but every day of the year.
When you feel discouraged, being strengthened by encouraging comments from Greek-Australians.
Trying to throw out the legalisms carried over from one's former faith as one works through what should actually be one's personal response as an Orthodox confession and communion.
Learning that the role of the spiritual father is not the same as a Catholic Priest.
Exposing one's own weaknesses to a spiritual father in order to better understand one's response to the Faith; to better understand ourselves and with God's help see the inner state of our soul and grow even more from the experience.
Knowing that when things get really tough, we need to just step away and taking a sabbatical for a while, remembering not to be too hard on ourselves. There is so much to grasp as a committed convert coming into the Church and we are all only human, after all!

Despite the obstacles, coming to the Church has made me stronger spiritually in a lot of` ways. It has been difficult though, to offer patience in the midst of affliction. Sometimes, when the affliction brought about by others causes us immense pain, we need to try and liberate ourselves from such encounters by reminding ourselves that the suffering of the moment is not worth worrying about, considering the glory we will experience later on (Romans 8:18).

I understand that Orthodox witnessing is setting an example to others by bearing witness to the Truth and is the job of every member of the Church. By having such an outlook, we can actually help our local Parish in genuine service. So, ideally, this offering of ourselves should be a way of life. We should be in a continuous relationship with God and hopefully we should be having an ongoing dialogue with Him and His people. The words " Your own of Your Own, we offer to you" are a declaration of our Faith. We should give God all our time, talent and treasure every moment of the day, because He has given us His gift of grace out of unconditional love for us.

I feel we have a wonderful treasure in the Orthodox Christian Faith. Others really should be able to see the beauty of our Faith. Let us consider challenging the attitudes and modes of our being, so we can continue to grow in the Faith and the Love of Christ.

from The Greek Australian VEMA, Dec 2003, p. 39.

Source: http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/main.htm

By Deacon Andrei Psarev

In his artilce Professor of Canon Law shares his experience

of teaching this subject in Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, NY

Canonical to…

I have recently had occasion to address one of the dynamically growing parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia regarding the canonicity of rules in the Orthodox Church. It must be said that at present it is very hard to find a parish in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia without Russians who have emigrated in the past 10-15 years. The demography of such a parish differs markedly from customary norms. They have very few members who are representatives or descendants of the post-revolutionary or post-war waves of emigres. My address concerned certain thoughts from the introductory course of lectures on church law regarding which church rules do not impose any prohibitions as such, but are invoked by legitimate church power, which employs canons as a means of spiritual healing, and thus serve the salvation of the soul.

The questions put to me after my address, such as: Is it “canonical” to be inside church without a headscarf, or what is the canonical rule for crossing oneself –reflected the parishioner’s conception of “canonicity.”

From personal experience I can say that such an approach is perfectly normal for people who have come to the Church in maturity; therefore it is logical that church law is studied in the final course in seminaries, when it is obvious to the students that an Orthodox approach presumes the consideration of a given problem in context.

A Creative Approach is Essential

An adequate comprehension of the “intentions of the lawmakers” of church rules and their proper application requires knowledge of the Holy Scripture, Church and Byzantine history, moral and pastoral theology. Naturally, the main purpose of seminary is to prepare parish priests, not specialists in canon law. However, pastoral service calls for an understanding that in work touching upon canons, there must be an interdisciplinary approach. The experience acquired by students prior to studying this subject enables conducting the lessons in a sufficiently freestyle regime.

For me, the main point of reference in this matter is the approach of Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, whose lectures at the St Vladimir Theological Academy were based on team work, and who strove, together with the students, to determine what is the Orthodox position on any question, while avoiding the assumption that the lecturer is endowed with some kind of presumption of infallibility even when speaking ex cathedra.

It is my view that that the main importance in the purpose of these and other subjects is not to load the students with a mass of information they may have recourse to in any circumstances, but help them to reach an independent understanding of an Orthodox view of the world, to give them experience of a correct positioning of questions and seeking answers to them. The fact that it is impossible to activate the prescriptions of canon law without a personal creative approach ensues from the circumstance that the content of many rules is not self-evident and requires reference to various auxiliary aids; I should note that the last Ecumenical Council of significance for the Orthodox which attempted to regularize the canonical corpus of the Universal Church took place in the VII century.

Canonical Limits

From the very beginning of the course we find ourselves in the difficult position (books do not contain answers to all questions) when it emerges that even authoritative interpreters are frequently unable to explain how certain excesses of church life can be reconciled with the “theoretical part.” One can only reiterate that in order to avoid complex situations, the priest must approach his archbishop on all disputable matters, and the quality of one decision or another may be amenable to resolution only in the future, maybe in a future century.

The question why certain church rules are not observed in everyday life brings us right up to the broad subject of church oikonomia, the principles of which in the sphere of spiritual counselling are set out in the 102nd rule of the Council in Trullo (indicating that an imposed penance must be commensurate with the spiritual state of the penitent).

A preliminary study of church history helps students to examine the issue of oikonomia in the broader context of church creativity. For instance, in discussions concerning historical events in the recent period of the Russian Church lies the question of the limits of oikonomia (“house building”) in anomalous conditions of life, be it under a totalitarian regime or in the diaspora.

Can a Cleric be a Mathematician?

As the Holy Writ is a constant presence in the life of a Christian, the same cannot be said of canon laws that comprise an integral part of the Holy Heritage of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, one of the main tasks of the first semester is to enable students to develop a clear understanding of the content of the Book of Rules, where to find the rules regarding one or another theme.

The canons constitute the foundation for mastering the materials of the course, and their study is accompanied by interpretation, which allows the students a direct approach to the problems of our subject. In the course of studying the question regarding demands faced by the clergy, the students discover that the Greek words mathematikous in the 36 rules of the Council of Laodicea, Pedalion in English translation, reflect as “mathematicians”, while the Book of Rules defines it more clearly as “astrologers.”

A good example of canonical exegesis allows the students of the aforesaid Council, which set itself the task of regularizing the canonical heritage of the Orthodox Church at the end of the VII century – the Council of Trullo, the 16th rule of which looks at the evolution of the institute of the diaconate, studies the problem in both historical and sacramental dimensions.

Our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in North America

Without an introduction to Orthodox canon law in the first semester, it would be impossible in the second to turn to the subsections linked specifically to the Holy Trinity Seminary.

Most of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia are located on the North American continent, therefore it is not surprising that questions regarding it are based mainly on the experience of those parishes, established in the 1920s by representatives of the post-revolutionary emigration. The experience of the diocese existing from pre-revolutionary times, with its missionary purpose and multicultural, multinational composition, differed radically from the experience brought by the clergy and parishioners from their Great and Small Russian dioceses. Suffice it to say that the Russian Orthodox clergy abroad received the permission of the Holy Synod to cut their hair short and wear frock coats when not serving in church.

Yet nowadays, decades later, traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church in tsarist Russia such as the wearing of long cassocks and long hair in North America have value, especially for those coming to Orthodoxy in mature age, seeking a home within an authentic, generally accepted contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in Orthodoxy on the North American continent.

An important specific feature of the ROCOR lies in that having constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech within the American pluralistic society, it could expose apostasy in its various manifestations – ecumenism, modernism, and servility – through the efforts of its spiritual writers, such as archbishop Averky (Taushev) or archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev).

The ROCOR has never seen itself as independent, but rather a temporarily independent entity, apart from the section of the Russian Orthodox Church that was under political duress. This act of ring-fencing from political pressure was a significant factor in the relations of ROCOR with other Local Churches. Relative isolation caused an absence of dialogue, to the direction of orthodox ecclesiology represented by such theologians as proto-presbyter Nikolai Afanasiev and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) which did not find a timely response in the ROCOR.

Nonetheless, the situation is changing: speaking at the IV Council of the ROCOR in May 2006, the respected Archpriest Fr Victor Potapov stated that “the perception of the problems of an Orthodox parish in our time rests, among other things, on then works of Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) and Protopresbyters Nikolai Afanasiev and Alexander Schmemman.”

The aforesaid is also applicable to the position of the ROCOR regarding non-orthodox Christians. The basis of this position is the theology of the New Holy Martyr Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) of Vereisk, expressed in his work “Christianity or the Church.” In a practical sense, in 1971 ROCOR adopted the practice approved by the Council of the Constantinople Patriarchate in 1755, requiring the christening of all the non-Orthodox wishing to be received into the Orthodox Church. The question of the limits of oikonomia arises again, in this instance regarding reception into the Church.

The Great metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of the ROCOR frequently reminded his students that the canons are a living, not inert material. The importance of conveying this concept to the minds of the laity today is clear from the questions I faced in the discussion that took place in the parish on the role of canonical rules. In order to change the situation, it is essential that the study of canon law should inspire students to devote themselves to the not particularly popular, but much-needed sphere of theology – church law, to become serious theologians, and even better – serious clerics.

Translated from Russian by Alena Kozhevnikov

Source: http://www.bogoslov.ru/en/text/5090005.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

The History of the Clouded Mount Icon of the Mother of God

We Need to Feel our Falsehood before God

The Church: How we should view and treat the House of God

The difficulties a convert faces in approaching Orthodoxy

Good Deeds Stories: An American Parish

The Church Needs Canonists

Partners