The Catalog of Good Deeds

The teachings and instructions of St. John of Kronstadt are filled with love and faith, and now they sound just as if he were speaking directly to us of the twenty-first century:

Why did the Lord give me life? So that I would turn with my whole heart to God, for my purification and correction. Remember this and correct yourself.

Why does the Lord add day after day, year after year to our existence? So that we would gradually tear away and cast aside the evil from our souls (cf. Is. 1:16)—each person his own, and take on a blessed simplicity; so that we would, for example, become like meek lambs, like simple babes.

Our earthly life should be a constant hope in the Lord under all circumstances, for we and everything we have is from the Lord.

On the eve of the commemoration of St. John of Kronstadt, Pravoslavie.ru asked its readers to share their own stories of miraculous help from this great saint. OrthoChristian.com gladly reproduces them here in English, with thanks to those who responded.

* * *

Elena Tryastsyna, parishioner of the Monastery of St. John, St. Petersburg

“The boy is absolutely healthy!”

In Spring of 1994, a son was born to our family. Everything went well, and we were hoping to be quickly released from the hospital.

However, on the morning of the third day, when the infant was brought to me for feeding, he was burning up. His temperature was very high, and he had lost a critical amount of weight from dehydration. When the doctor was making her rounds, she informed us that several newborns in that department had the same diagnosis. It seems there were about six. An emergency!

All the infants were immediately given IVs. It is difficult to convey with words what I was feeling. It seems that time had stopped. I couldn’t lie down; I walked up and down the long corridor and prayed. My husband was due to come that afternoon. Knowing that I would not be able to tell him about what was happening in words, I wrote him a letter in advance and gave it to my him with the request that he go without delay to the St. John Monastery, to our father confessor, and ask him to pray to Father John of Kronstadt.

My husband went right way. How the time dragged! The next morning there were the doctor’s routine rounds. The doctor explained to the worried mothers that their children are better, and that they needn’t fret too much; but about my son—she was silent.

My heart froze. I asked her myself how my son is. The doctor answered, “Mama, there must have been some mistake with your son. It can’t be explained any other way. The boy is absolutely healthy. His weight and temperature are normal. They will bring him to you now to breastfeed.” Glory be to God!!!

This is only one of the many incidents of prayerful help from Father John of Kronstadt to our family. It would be impossible to count them all. There are things too personal to entrust them to paper. But it is all in my memory, and thankfulness for it is in the hearts of everyone in my family. We bow deeply to our holy Father and thank God!

Oksana A.

“My son just can’t learn languages”

Greetings, editors! My son Ivan was having a very hard time in school. One day in a conversation with grandma I complained that my son “just can’t learn languages”. She said that she would pray for Vanya to St. John of Kronstadt. I also prayed (only a few times and doubting, at that—forgive me Lord) to the saint for help to my son in school.

Well, in the third grade he finally got an interest in English, and his quarterly grades went up in Russian and English. Holy Righteous Father John of Kronstadt, pray to God for us! Pray to the Lord to strengthen our faith!

Tatiana

“I looked at his icon and prayed for help however I could”

Several years ago, I and all my family had to deal with a serious problem of mine: drug addiction. This addiction happened because of extreme sports, when I unthinkingly received traumas and broken bones.

My best friend, who sensed that I had problems but did not fully know what they were, simply gave me a link to the “St. John of Kronstadt Orthodox Center for Care of Souls”. At that moment, everything inside of me was resisting treatment and healing. To be more precise, it seemed to me that it was nothing serious, only a stage of growing up. Only later did I understand how great is God’s mercy, His love, and His constant care for our salvation!!! Probably it is impossible for us to imagine it to the full extent.

I kept the link, and after some time, with God’s help, I came to this center. At that time I knew nothing about St. John of Kronstadt. I simply sat in the Center’s reception room, looked at the icon, and prayed for help however I could.

Then something inside me changed, and I recognized something important—my shame, and God’s mercy! Afterwards began a long and torturous struggle with the evil inside of me. Every time I prayed to God and the saints to give me strength just to make it to the church. I am very grateful to the holy patron of the St. John of Kronstadt Center, that by his prayers there are specialists and church servants working there, saving hundreds of people and families. It is a miracle!

Now everything is well for me. I have married, and our marriage was sanctified in the church. I have a wonderful job as a speech therapist. My husband and I are expecting a baby.

Believe in the prayers of the holy Fathers! God’s mercy is enormous beyond comprehension!

Evgenia

“I prayed to be granted a child”

Two years ago, I and my husband made a pilgrimage on the New Year to St. Petersburg, where I prayed at the relics of St. John of Kronstadt that we be granted a child.

When I returned to Moscow, I realized that I was pregnant. Now we have a son, Ivan. Glory be to God!!!

Archpriest Vladimir Gamaris

“The atheists backed off”

St. John of Kronstadt helped me in 1982, when I was subjected to persecutions by the atheist authorities—the Kiev regional plenipotentiary council for religious affairs—and they were actively aided by two slanderers who had it in for me. A dirty provocation was engineered against me in my parish in the town of Irpen. I wrote a report about the attempted interruption of divine services, and sent it to the bishop with great difficulty. Only late that night did I fall asleep, completely crushed.

That night I had a dream. I saw our altar, and I was standing near the Holy Throne. Into to the altar with energetic steps came St. John of Kronstadt, then knelt and prayed. He gave me a few words of support and encouragement and left the altar. After taking Communion the next morning, I went to my bishop. I felt that the well-planned and organized provocation by the enemies of the Church had failed. Everything was crashing down on them. The atheists backed off, my bishop smoothed over the problems with the plenipotentiary council and defended me. I was twenty-eight at the time, and my wife was nineteen…

I have no doubt that the Lord protected me at the prayers of Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt. Therefore, when we had a son in 1984 we named him John.

Svetlana Tvirko

“They wanted to amputate my mother-in-law’s leg”

In 2012 I was studying in St. Petersburg during for five days. The first day after my lesson I went to the St. John Monastery, where I had never been before. I wanted very much to do so in order to visit the grave of Father John.

My mother was supposed to go the next day for medical testing, and the doctors expected the worst. My mother-in-law was also in the hospital. She was seventy-six at the time. They wanted to amputate her leg—it was gangrenous and turning black. I was very upset and afraid for her. I was also worried for my husband—how would he take it if she would not live through the amputation?

I came to the grave of Father John and begged, begged, begged. In the morning I phoned my mother after her tests and she said there was no cancer, but she would have to get treatment. Ten days later when I returned, my husband told me that his mother had been released from the hospital: the gangrene was gone, and the doctors, so to say, had managed… Glory to God for all things!!!

Now I know that Father John helped us. His icon that had been touched to his grave is always before my eyes. Holy Righteous Father John, pray to God for us!

Priest Evgeny Tsyplenkov

“One day I read an article against Father John”

This happened at the dawn of my priestly service in 2002.

I had heard of the miracles that occurred after prayer to Righteous John of Kronstadt, and venerated him as a saint. It was important to me that he had lived not long ago, and there were still eye-witnesses living. But one day I read an article written by a person who was against his canonization… My onerous thoughts about that article occupied me from the end of evening services and all through the night.

In the morning I was to serve the Liturgy, but I was completely exhausted by these thoughts and my insomnia… What kind of prayer could I have? However, it was impossible to cancel the services. In a state of total anxiety I vested before the Proskemidia, when someone called me out of the altar.

An elderly woman was asking for me. “Father, my family has a little religious book, but no one seems to need it. No one reads it, and they use it as a hot pad for frying pans; it’s all dog-eared, and I think this must be a sin. Please take it!” I took the book in my hands and it really was dog-eared: the cover was stained so bad you couldn’t read the title, the spine was torn off… I opened it and saw: Archpriest John Sergeyev. My Life in Christ… The Liturgy seemed to pass by in a breath.

Olga

“I asked Father to bring my son to reason”

Our family moved to live in another city when my son was fourteen years old. He missed his friends very much, and the next summer, when we went to visit the grandparent on my husband’s side, he went straight to his friends in our former apartment complex and stayed so late that the public transportation had stopped running. I bawled him out over the phone and told him to take a taxi home. He said that he wouldn’t have any money left in his pocket, that he would spend the night on the street, and turned off his phone. Time went on and the anxiety felt by me and his grandparents grew, and we were unable to sleep.

I was then making my first steps to the faith, and wasn’t even baptized yet. I prayed in whatever way I could. Then suddenly in my consciousness the name of St. John of Kronstadt came up, and I started asking him to bring my son to reason. Immediately the phone rang: my son asked forgiveness and said that he was already in the taxi on his way home. This incident helped strengthen my faith. And I have very warm feeling for Father John.

Maxim Zlobin

“I received not only an icon, but also the saint’s blessing”

I experienced a small miracle, but it meant very much to me. About a year ago I began praying to St. John of Kronstadt to help me find an icon of him. The thing is that I have a great veneration for this great saint, but out of forgetfulness and the cares of life, for several years I could not find an icon of him.

Well, in just a few weeks my friend called me suddenly and said that he wanted to give me an icon… of St. John of Kronstad. And it was not only an icon—on the reverse side was a photograph of the saint with his own signature: “I bless you in the name of the Lord. Archpriest John Sergeyev, January 28, 1904.”

So, I received not only an icon, but also the saint’s blessing. That is how swiftly St. John of Kronstadt answered my prayer.

Natalya

“And the whole world became beautiful”

In 2007 I was leaving my job, and I walked out of the building after meeting with the personnel manager all bent out of shape. The St. John Monastery was located nearby, and I walked over there, stood by the sepulcher, cried at the grave of Father John, and left feeling very upset.

I had only just thought about what others had written—that no one leaves Father John without consolation—when at that very moment everything changed. The sun came out from behind the clouds, everything was shining, and my soul felt very good--peaceful, quiet, calm, light; and the whole world around me became beautiful.

All the necessary papers and signatures for my departure were collected in two days without the slightest hindrance. When the personnel manager received it he was greatly surprised and admitted that this had only happened with one other person in his memory. He apologized to me and was very polite.

Natalia, Berlin

“St. John of Kronstadt sent you that book!”

I will tell you how St. John of Kronstadt sent a book to my mother. Once some books were brought to our church and I purchased a large number of them immediately. About a half a year went by from the time I had begun reading one of them entitled, Life, Miracles, and Instructions, about St. John of Kronstadt. I began to read it and was so displeased with myself for not buying one for my mother. I’ll explain: I normally buy books in twos—one for myself and one for my mother, or rather my parents (father also reads them). It only now hits me that my father’s name is John!

So, I was reading and regretting—the book is thin, I can’t copy it, I won’t be able to buy it because they’ve all been sold. The next time I came to church I saw that book on the shelf by the entrance. I went up to pay for it and everyone jumped on me: where did I find it? Many were asking for that book, but all copies been sold long ago.

I told the priest and he said, “Oh, St. John of Kronstadt sent you that book!” I was overjoyed! I sent a letter telling them that the book was from St. John of Kronstadt and sent it together with the book to my parents, who live in the Ukraine. St. John of Kronstadt is my most beloved of all saints; he helps us continually.

Holy Righteous Father John, pray to God for us!

Source: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/67251.htm

Saint John of Kronstadt recalled this vision which he had in January of 1901:

After evening prayers I laid down to rest a little in my dimly lit cell since I was fatigued. Hanging before the icon of the Mother of God was my lit lampada. Not more than a half hour had passed when I heard soft rustle. Someone touched my left shoulder, and in tender voice said to me, 'Arise servant of God John and follow the will of God!'

I arose and saw near the window glorious starets (elder) with frosty grey hair, wearing a black mantia, and holding staff in his hand. He looked at me tenderly, and I could scarcely keep from falling because of my great fear. My hands and feet trembled, and I wanted to speak, but my tongue would not obey me. The starets made the sign of the cross over me, and calm and joy soon came over me. Then I made the sign of the cross myself. He then pointed to the western wall of my cell with his staff in order that I should notice certain spot. The starets had inscribed on the wall the following numbers: 1913, 1914, 1917, 1922, 1924, and 1934.

Suddenly the wall vanished, and I walked with the starets toward a green field and saw a mass of crosses-thousands standing as gravemarkers. They were wooden, clay, or gold. I asked the starets, 'What are these crosses for' He softly answered, "These crosses are for those who suffered and were murdered for their faith in Christ and for the Word of God and have become martyrs!"

And so we continued to walk. Suddenly I saw an entire river of blood and asked the starets, 'What is the meaning of this blood? How much has been spilled?' The starets looked around and replied, This is the blood of true Christians!' The starets then pointed to some clouds, and I saw mass of burning white lamps. They began to fall to the ground one after another by the tens and by the hundreds. During their descent they grew dim and turned to ashes. The starets then said to me, 'Look!' I saw on a cloud seven burning lamps. I asked, 'What is the meaning of the burning lamps which fell to the ground' He said, Those are the churches of God which have fallen into heresy, but these seven lamps on the clouds are the seven Catholic and Apostolic Churches which will remain until the end of the world!'

The starets then pointed high into the air and I saw and heard angels singing, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabbaoth!' Then a large crowd of people with candles in their hands rushed by with joy on their shining faces. They were archbishops, monks, nuns, groups of laymen, young adults, and even children and babies. I asked the wonderworking starets, 'What is the meaning of these people' He responded, These are all the people who suffered for the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, for the holy icons at the hands of the wicked destroyers.' I then asked the great starets if I could sit down next to them. The starets said, 'It is too early for you to suffer, so joining them would not be blessed by God!'

Again I saw a large group of infants who had suffered for Christ under Herod and had received crowns from the Heavenly King. We walked further and went into large church. I wanted to make the sign of the cross, but the starets said, 'It is not necessary to cross yourself because this is a place of abomination and desolation!' The church was very gloomy. On the altar was a star and a Gospel book with stars. Candles made of tar were burning and crackling like firewood. The chalice was standing there covered by strong stench. There was prosphora with stars. A priest stood before the altar with face like pitch and woman was under the altar covered in red with a star on her lips and she screamed and laughed throughout the church saying, 'I am free!' I thought Oh, Lord, how awful! The people, like madmen, began to run around the altar, scream, whistle, and clap their hands. Then they began to sing lecherous songs. Suddenly lightning flashed, frightening thunderbolt resounded, the earth trembled, and the church collapsed, sending the woman, the people, the priest, and the rest into the abyss. I thought Oh Lord, how awful, save us!

The starets saw what had happened as did I. I asked, 'Father, tell me, what is the meaning of this frightening church?' He responded, These are the earthly people, heretics who have abandoned the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and recognized the newly innovated church which God has not blessed. In this church they do not fast, do not attend services, and do not receive Holy Communion!' I was frightened and said, The Lord has pity on us, but curses those with death!' The starets interrupted me and said, 'Do not mourn, but just pray!' Then I saw a throng of people, each of whom had a star on his lips and was. terribly exhausted from thirst, walking here and there. They saw us and yelled loudly, 'Holy Fathers, pray for us. It is very hard for us because we ourselves cannot. Our Fathers and Mothers did not teach us the Law of God. 'We do not even have the name of Christ, and we have received no peace. We rejected the Holy Spirit and the sign of the cross!' They began to cry.

I followed after the starets. 'Look!' he said pointing with his hand. I saw a mountain of human corpses stained in blood. I was very frightened, and I asked the starets, 'What is the meaning of these dead bodies?' He replied, These are people who lived the monastic life, were rejected by the Antichrist, and did not receive his seal. They suffered for their faith in Christ and the Apostolic Church and received martyrs crowns dying for Christ. Pray for these servants of God!'

Without warning the starets turned to the north and pointed with his hand. I saw an imperial palace, around which dogs were running. Wild beasts and scorpions were roaring and charging and baring their teeth. And I saw the Tsar sitting on a throne. His face was pale and masculine. He was reciting the Jesus Prayer. Suddenly he fell like a dead man. His crown fell. The wild beasts, dogs, and scorpions trampled on the anointed Sovereign. I was frightened and cried bitterly. The starets took me by my right shoulder. I saw a figure shrouded in white - it was Nicholas II. On his head was a wreath of green leaves, and his face was white and somewhat bloodied. He wore a gold cross around his neck and was quietly whispering a prayer. And then he said to me with tears, 'Pray for me, Fr. John. Tell all Orthodox Christians that I, the Tsar-martyr, died manfully for my faith in Christ and the Orthodox Church. Tell the Holy Fathers that they should serve a Panachida for me, a sinner, but there will be no grave for me!'

Soon everything became hidden in the fog. I cried bitterly praying for the Tsar-martyr. My hands and feet trembled from fear. The starets said, :Look! Then I saw a throng of people scattered about the land who had died from starvation while others were eating grass and vegetation. Dogs were devouring the bodies of the dead, and the stench was terrible. I thought, Oh Lord, these people had no faith. From their lips they expelled blasphemy, and for this they received God's anger.

I also saw an entire mountain of books and among the books worms were crawling emitting ? terrible stench. I asked the starets, 'What was the meaning of these books?' ?? said, These books are the Godlessness and blasphemy which will infect all Christians with heretical teachings!' Then the starets touched his staff to some of the books, and they ignited into flames. The wind scattered the ashes. Further on, I saw a church around which was a large pile of prayer intentions for the departed. I bent over and wanted to read them, but the starets said, These prayer requests for the dead have been lying here for many years, and the priests have forgotten about them. They are never going to read them, but the dead will ask someone to pray for them!' I asked, 'Who, will they get to pray for them?' The starets answered: 'The Angels will pray for them!'

We proceeded further, and the starets quickened the pace so that I could hardly keep up with him. 'Look!' he said. I saw a large crowd of people being persecuted by demons who were beating them with stakes, pitchforks, and hooks. I asked the starets, 'What is the meaning of these people?' He answered, These are the ones who renounced their faith and left the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and accepted the new innovative church. This group represents priests, monks, nuns, and laymen who renounced their vows or marriage, and engaged in drinking and all sorts of blasphemy and slander. All of these have terrible faces and a terrible stench comes from their mouths. The demons beat them, driving them into the terrible abyss, from where hell fire comes forth. ' I was terribly frightened. I made the sign of the cross while praying, Lord deliver us from such a fate!

I then saw a group of people, both old and young, all of whom were terribly dressed, and who were raising a large, five pointed star. On each corner were twelve demons and in the middle was Satan himself with terrifying horns and a straw head. He emitted a noxious foam onto the people while pronouncing these words, 'Arise you accursed ones with the seal of â€¦..' Suddenly many demons appeared with branding irons and on all the people they placed the seal: on their lips, above the elbow and on their right hands. I asked the starets, 'What is the meaning of this?' He responded, This is the mark of the Antichrist!' I made the sign of the cross and followed after the starets.

He suddenly stopped and pointed to the east with his hand. I saw a large gathering of people with joyous faces carrying crosses and candles in their hands. In their midst stood a large altar as white as snow. On the altar was the cross and the Holy Gospel and over the altar was the vosduch with golden imperial crown on which was written in golden letter, 'For the short term.' Patriarchs, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, and laymen stood around the altar. They were all singing, 'Glory to God in the highest and peace on Earth' Out of great joy I made the sign of the cross and praised God. Suddenly the starets waved his cross upwards three times, and I saw mountain of corpses covered in human blood and above them Angels were flying. They were taking the souls of those murdered for the Word of God to heaven while they sang, Alleluia!' I observed all this and cried loudly.

The starets took me by the hand and forbade me to cry. 'What is pleasing to God is that Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and shed His precious blood for us. Such ones will become martyrs who do not accept the seal of the antichrist, and all who shed their blood will receive heavenly crowns.' The starets then prayed for these servants of God and pointed to the east as the words of the Prophet Daniel came true, 'Abomination of desolation.' Finally, I saw the cupola of Jerusalem. Above it was a star. Within the church millions of people thronged and still many more were trying to enter inside. I wanted to make the sign of the cross, but the starets grabbed my hand and said, 'Here is the abomination of desolation!'

So we entered into the church, and it was full of people. I saw an altar on which tallow candles were burning. On the altar was a king in red, blazing, porphyry. On his head was a golden crown with a star. I asked the starets, 'Who is this?' He replied, 'The Antichrist!' He was very tall with eyes like fire, black eyebrows, a wedge-shaped beard, a ferocious, cunning, evil, and terrible face. He alone was on the altar and he reached his hands out to the people. He had claws as those of a tiger for hands and he shouted, 'I am King. I am God. I am the Leader. He who does not have my seal will be put to death.' All the people fell down and worshipped him, and he began to place his seal on their lips and on their hands in order that they should receive some bread and not die from hunger and thirst.

Around the Antichrist his servants were leading several people whose hands were bound as they had not bowed down to worship him. They said, "We are Christians, and we all believe in our Lord Jesus Christ!' The Antichrist ripped off their heads in a flash and Christian blood began to flow A child was then led to the altar of the Antichrist to worship him, but he boldly proclaimed, 'I am a Christian and believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, but you are a minister, a servant of Satan!' 'Death to him!' exclaimed the Antichrist. Others who accepted the seal of the Antichrist fell down and worshipped him. Suddenly roar of thunder resounded and thousand lightning flashes began to sparkle. Arrows began to strike the servants of the Antichrist. Then a large flaming arrow flashed by and hit the Antichrist himself on the head. As he waved his hand, his crown fell and was crushed into the ground. Then millions of birds flew in and perched on the servants of the Antichrist.

I felt the starets take me by the hand. We walked further on, and I again saw much Christian blood. It was here that I remembered the words of Saint John the Theologian in the book of Revelation that blood would 'be up to the horse's bridle.' I thought, Oh my God, save us! At that time I saw Angels flying and singing, 'Holy, Holy, Holy. Lord of Sabbaoth!' The starets looked back and went on to say, 'Do not grieve, for soon, very soon, will come the end of the world! Pray to the Lord. God be merciful to His servants!' Time was drawing near to close. He pointed to the east, fell to his knees and began to pray So I prayed with him. Then the starets began to quickly depart from the earth to the heights of heaven. As he did so I remembered that I did not know his name, so cried out loudly, 'Father, what is your name?' He tenderly replied, 'Seraphim of Sarov!'

That is what 'saw, and this is what ' have recorded for Orthodox Christians. A large bell rang above my head, and I heard the sound and arose from bed. 'Lord, bless and help me through the prayers of the great starets! You have enlightened me, the sinful servant, the priest John of Kronstadt."

Source: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/vision-of-st-john-of-kronstadt.html

Trisagion Films recently interviewed Leslie Hansard about her experience serving as a missionary for the Orthodox Christian Mission Center. We hope that her story will serve as inspiration to others who may be considering this calling. Leslie has shared several articles about mission work with us already and we look forward to sharing more in the future. We thank Leslie for offering her time and graciously answering our questions.

Briefly describe your background.

I was raised in a Methodist home and went to church on a regular basis. I was very involved in youth group and choir. In college I met my husband Christopher who was also Methodist but eventually became a catechumen in the Orthodox Church. At the time, I had no intention of becoming Orthodox and was happy to simply be friends with Christopher. We spoke a lot about the Church as he was new and extremely excited to tell me all about what Orthodoxy had to offer. Eventually, we began dating and I was aware that if we were married, my husband and children would be Orthodox. I thought I should at least look into Orthodoxy to see if converting was something I wanted to do. Through my research, church services, and a lot of prayer, I decided to become a catechumen and eventually converted to the Church. I have been Orthodox for six years.

Describe for us your sense of call into this ministry.

I went on my first mission trip when I was 18 to Jamaica to build houses for hurricane victims. My second mission trip was to Peru for evangelism and this was where I felt the call to become involved in missions on a permanent basis. Whether short-term teams or possible long-term service, or simply telling more people about missions, I plan to stay involved in the mission field. I love serving others and expanding my church family

How many missions have you been on and to where?

This past summer was my 8th- Since 2004, I have been to Jamaica, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala (2x) and Moldova (3x)

What was the mission in Moldova?

The mission was to assist Moldovan and Romanian young adults to put on the 3rd annual Orthodox youth camp

How did the youth respond to the missionaries?

As Americans, we still a sense of novelty to us, and some of the campers came simply to hang out with us. Overall, everyone was positive towards us and happy to have us there.

Favorite moment(s) on the Moldova mission trips?

Sharing in the Liturgy together and making a Romanian/Moldovan/American choir. Co-leading the music workshop with my dear friend, Claudiu. Co-leading a small group with my dear friends Claudiu and Veaceslav and learning about the Brancoveni family of saints. Visiting many monasteries. Sharing s’mores with the campers at the big camp bonfire our last night at camp.

From reading about your trips to Moldova, it appears that the mission trips have made an impact on the lives of many children. Can you comment further?

Seeing tears in children’s when they are leaving camp tells me that they are enjoying the time together and feel like they are in a safe environment. Many of them do not receive the love at home that they deserve, and this camp is a positive place to come and feel love. Some of them are not hugged at home, and I was able to show affection to teenagers who needed it to feel that they are important and special.

Their interest in discussions about liturgical and spiritual aspects of the church tells me that they are interested in learning about how to live their life as an Orthodox Christian and need that foundation to carry them through. It is simply a matter of building a safe place to come and express themselves while also absorbing new information.

Moldova is at least 90% Orthodox. How different was it compared to the experience of being an Orthodox in America?

It’s amazing to be in the atmosphere of an Orthodox country. It’s hard to explain, but there is such a sense of peace to be in a place where you don’t have to explain or defend your faith to people. There is a sense of comfort to be around people who are like you.

Can you compare the difference between your experience as a Protestant missionary and as an Orthodox missionary? Interest and response from the community? What can we as Orthodox do to improve upon this ministry?

ocmcBeing an Orthodox missionary is more satisfying simply because I feel more full in my faith and it is wonderful to be around others who share the same beliefs and traditions. As a Protestant missionary, it is easier to many times to get funding and other support simply because the missionary movement is stronger than in the Orthodox Church. That is an area we can definitely improve on. In the GOA, many think that Philoptochos ladies are the only ones that need to be doing philanthropic work when it is everyone’s responsibility to share the blessings that we have received and spread the word of Christ. I have found though that once they become aware, most Orthodox people are extremely generous and excited to support missions. It is simply that initial awareness and push towards the cause that needs to happen.

Any advice for someone considering joining a short-term mission trip?

Mission work is one of the most rewarding and challenging things you can do. My best advice would be to keep an open mind in everything you do and be prepared to be flexible and do whatever is necessary to get the job done well.

Future mission plans?

I will continue to participate in short-term missions as often as possible. If someday Christopher were called to long-term service, that is definitely an avenue I would prayerfully consider following. I will never stop telling people about Moldova or the many other opportunities out there for people who want to serve the Church in an international capacity.

Source: http://trisagionfilms.com/2014/09/20/interview-orthodox-missionary/

By Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev

When life in ecclesial communities flows on without significant interruptions within or without, in forms familiar to the church consciousness, particularly when there is no recollection of any noticeable or significant changes, then the broad masses within the Church are inclined to think that the existing forms are stable and inviolate. The usual canonical consciousness in those epochs emanates out of the very forms of Church life, i.e. everything which reflects those forms is considered canonical and everything which deviates is seen as a violation of the canons themselves. The basis of such conviction lies in the unshakable confidence that the Church structure sanctified by centuries cannot but rest upon canons and be regulated by them. The undisputed worthiness of such canonical consciousness is in the conclusion that if it does not resolve all canonical problems it, in any case, does away with them.

The obvious canonical problems are not confronted because the conflict between the canons and the life of the Church remains obscure. On the other hand such a blissful existence comes to an end when the smooth and calm flow of Church life is violated and when the very forms of Church life begin to change. All disruption, all change in the life of the Church, especially the evolution of new forms, demand a canonical evaluation. The usual canonical consciousness is helpless before such an evaluation since it itself has been shaken and has lost its firm foundation which it had under earlier forms. In such changing times a certain change takes place in the very foundation of canonical consciousness: canons are acknowledged as the foundation and the highest criteria as the means for the solution of canonical problems and in the evaluation of the old and the newly-evolving forms of Church life. The accepted formula: "that which corresponds to centuries-old forms of Church life is canonical," is replaced by: "that which corresponds to the canons, is canonical." The new formula demands a much more attentive study and a familiarity with canonical material than in the past. Incidentally, a close familiarity with the material shows that in this area, not everything is so simple as one may wish. It becomes evident that canons can not always be the final criteria and they themselves demand a more higher criterion. As a result not only is there an inability of the usual canonical consciousness to deal with canonical problems but there is a total uncertainty in the consciousness itself.

This uncertainty in the canonical consciousness is one reason for the many difficulties in current Church life. In time, of course, these difficulties will be overcome especially if the conditions of our life change as a result not only of purely Church matters but by other things, having no relation to the Church. On the other hand it seems to me that in whatever way we can assist towards a beneficial process of time, we can prepare for the overcoming of these difficulties by establishing a correct basis of canonical consciousness and a correct relationship to canons based on that consciousness.

* * *

In order to solve canonical problems a knowledge of canonical material is insufficient in itself, nor is the ability for applying this knowledge by referring to this or that canon in specific cases. One must know the meaning of "canonical" and "uncanonical," i.e. there must be a broader and a higher criterion which would be superior to individual canonical problems and by which the canons themselves and the external forms of Church life could be judged. This criterion can be manifest only under correct canonical consciousness, i.e. one which comes out not from temporary, changeable things, but out of things which are changeless, permanent, supratemporal, and eternal. In this way the question of correct canonical consciousness comes to the foundation upon which this consciousness must rest.

Is it possible to seek a foundation for the correct canonical consciousness exclusively from the forms of Church life developed through history, as the usual canonical consciousness is inclined to do? In other words, can the forms of Church life which evolved be considered unchangeable? This question can be rephrased in another way: are the historically evolved forms of Church life the only possible ones? Is it not possible, in an extreme case, to imagine other forms of Church life, as a result of other historical circumstances that the ones presently existing? If we turn to history then it seems that the answer can be in the affirmative. In reality, historical possibilities were diverse; the historical development could have gone in different directions and Church life did not always reflect that which was the basis of the first Christian communities, but was subject to substantial changes from those beginnings and an introduction of new ones. To see this, it is enough to compare the charismatic structure of Christian communities in the First century not only with our Church life, but with the structure of the Church in the Fourth and Fifth centuries, or the Church structure in the Second century with its small communities independent of each other, with the Church order during the formation of Patriarchal territories or, finally, the form of the Alexandrian Church of the Third century with the form found in its nearest neighbors: Antioch, Jerusalem and Ephesus. Even during the times when the basic foundations of Church organization saw their final development, one can find a number of examples of radical changes: the composition of councils in pre-Constantinian times and in later periods; the delineation of the bishop's authority, the significance of the lay element, etc. It would not be correct to say that the Roman community of the First century contained within itself all the attributes of future "Catholicism." As a result of a number of other historical conditions, the history of the Western Church could have had a different development: it could have been less divergent from the Eastern Church in its structure, just as the Eastern Church could have acquired more characteristics of "Catholicism." However, Church structure is influenced not only by different forms of historical conditions -- ecclesial, political, social, cultural, but even something more, which does not depend on these temporary, changeable influences. Canonical structure is only the external expression of the dogmatic teaching about the Church. This teaching is that changeless, timeless nucleus which lies, or must lie, as the foundation of all Church structure. Out of the same kernel, depending on different conditions, on differences in culture, grows the plant with different external variations. But no matter how far these variations go, a particular seed can only result in a particular growth. The canonical structure of the Church can be different, and this difference is legitimate and even necessary, as long as it does not impinge upon the changeless substance of the Church. In different historical epochs the substance of the Church could have various expressions inasmuch as it demands and looks for a more complete realization under given historical circumstances. This is an essential condition for every correct form of Church life -- to realize more fully the substance of the Church itself within historical circumstances -- but at the same time this is the boundary beyond which these changes can not go.

Thus it can be admitted that the historical process of Church life could have gone a different way and that Church structure could have adapted in different ways from what presently exists, but under the conditions that these variations do not touch upon and distort the substance of the Church. Protestantism was correct in its wishes to change the structure of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, as something that did not meet the needs of conditions of the new era (the Catholic Church very quickly and substantially changed and thus recognized the correctness of those needs) and which in some ways distorted the nature of the Church; but the Protestants themselves fell into a total tyranny since they fell away from the dogmatical teaching about the Church. Their Church structure did not have its nucleus, it did not have its carrier, since it found itself outside the Church, thus the changes which were allowed overstepped those bounds beyond which they became distortions. Every form of Church life is legitimate and acceptable as long as it is based on correct dogmatical teaching. Thus the Catholic structure would not call for substantial changes from our part only if the differences in the dogmatical teaching about the Church could be straightened out. On the other hand it is quite understandable that the Catholic Church would be willing to accept totally the structure of the Eastern Church only if Orthodoxy would accept the teaching on Papal authority, i.e. the Catholic teaching about the Church.

The dogmatic teaching about the Church, as all dogmas, is not only a theoretical truth: it must find its reflection and realization in life. This realization of dogmatical teaching about the Church is the canonical structure, but this realization of course, can never be complete. No form of Church life adequately expresses the fullness of the dogmatical teaching, and is only a relative approach to it under a given historical situation. Thus there can be no talk about any absolutization of whatever form of Church life, since such an absolutization would express the introduction of relative empirical forms to the level of absolute truth. However, on the other hand, historical forms are not completely incidental: they are always a valid attempt to express more completely the nature of the Church, or in any case, some of its aspects. Various historical forms, internally, in their depth, are linked with each other in the foundations of its dogmatic teaching. That is why any change must be in response not only to the changing historical conditions and the need to adapt to them, but at the same time, to the striving for a more complete, more adequate expression of the nature of the Church under the new historical circumstances. All this means that any such change becomes legitimate and justified when the new form of Church life will give a more fuller expression of the eternal dogmatic truth about the Church than did the older form. We are free to change and to create historical forms of Church life but we are not always correct in doing so. In this problem, as well as in Orthodoxy in general, we have a combination of conservatism and loyalty to tradition with the greatest freedom and boldness.

Canonical consciousness cannot have its basic strong point in historically evolved forms because of their relativeness and impermanence. If it attempts to be dependent on them then this will result in an incorrect relationship to historical forms and to a distortion of the canonical consciousness itself. It is unavoidable that one of such temporary forms of Church life is elevated to a permanent and unchangeable status. This will bring about a weakness and even a loss of the critical relationship to contemporary forms of life. A proper feeling for history disappears or must disappear, and with it, any creative energy. The eternal dynamic Church life is replaced by one that is static: an absolute subordination to the relative. The general rule becomes effective under which every attempt of absolute assertion of empirical relativism results in that what is absolute, and truly unchangeable becomes relative. Canonical consciousness becomes a brake which attempts to hold Church life in one place, it stifles any new currents of life, not only the undesirable but even the healthy. Of course it is possible to interfere and to oppose the historical process, but history cannot be delayed or stopped. A different historical epoch must naturally accept its form of Church life as the basis for canonical consciousness. Consequently, there cannot be a single canonical consciousness and every period has its own canonical consciousness, and thus there is no single criterion but there are any number of them. The absence of a single canonical consciousness tears the history of the Church apart and violates the unity of the Church itself.

If one cannot find the sources for correct canonical consciousness in historical manifestations of Church life then perhaps it is possible to find them in the canons themselves, in the ecclesiastical legislation, i.e. to consider canonical that which corresponds to canons. I will not touch upon the very complex problem of the interrelation of juridical consciousness and juridical norms but only wish to point out one circumstance: in order that canonical consciousness can really have a basis in canonical norms, it is essential that these norms encompass and delineate all canonical life in the Church and all its order such as, for example, Hebrew legislation which encompassed and regulated the total life of the Hebrew people. Hebrew Old Testament juridical consciousness is the classic and perhaps the only example of juridical consciousness completely conditioned by existing norms. This was possible only because the Old Testament norms, at least in the consciousness of the Hebrew people, were given once and for all and had their source in the will of God. Incidentally, if we turn to canonical legislation we will find extremely curious features. The Orthodox Church never had and to this day does not have a common codex of Church law which could compare to the codex of canon law of the Catholic Church. In this I do not in any way suggest that the Orthodox Church must correct that deficiency. Each local Church has its own compendium which reflects the local characteristics. The source of all such compendia lie those collections of Church law compiled in Medieval Byzantium. These contain decisions of Church authorities which were reached in totally different historical epochs and in different Churches, as well as decrees of Byzantine emperors and a number of statutes which are of purely local character. The form in which these codices of local Church law presently exist cannot fully serve as practical guides and are in reality only of historical interest. Today's Church organization outgrew these codices. A significant part of their norms cannot be applied to present conditions and have been changed and even discarded in various autocephalous Churches. Along with these codices the autocephalous Churches publish and continue to publish their own canons either making up a part of local compilations or exist in separate forms. Naturally there is neither external nor internal agreement among all these norms which make up the Canon Law of each local Church.

In all these laws of the local Churches a number of decrees can be extracted which apply to the whole Orthodox Church. These are, in a narrow sense, canons based on decisions of Ecumenical Councils, local Councils, and Church Fathers which were accepted by the whole Church. These enactments were collected in a special compilation by the Russian Church called Kniga Pravil [Book of Rules]. Even though the Church always treated these with special respect they nonetheless were subject to changes, additions and deletions from the time of their promulgation (approx. from IX to X centuries) through later years. But only in extreme cases did the issue of new decrees included directions about the discarding of the corresponding previous canon. This presents one of the difficulties in the application of these canons which has no analogous example in any other form of jurisprudence. At the present time we can not always have the ability to determine which canons are effective and which are not. Thus it is possible to state with certainty that certain canons are no longer effective, for example all canons dealing with the reception into the Church of individuals from ancient heresies which no longer exist, such as Montanists, Novatians, Photinians, Arians, etc., and canons governing institutions which disappeared from the Church such as penitential discipline. It becomes more difficult to deal with canons no longer observed which govern the age of clerics, forbidding the translation of presbyters and bishops, the summoning of councils, courts, ecclesiastical penalties, etc. Inasmuch as they are no longer observed, can they be ignored or should Church life be changed to allow these canons to be effective once again?

It is obvious, in the light of the state of ecclesiastical legislation described above, that the agenda of a future Council must include the question of the codification of canons. It is true that we have no definite indication as what this codification can be. It is entirely possible that the model for the compilation of the general rules for all Orthodox Churches which will be the Corpus Juris Canonis for them, be the one issued recently by the Catholic Church. The compilation of such a Codex is not likely to meet the present needs of the Orthodox Church nor is it likely to become a reality. A general Orthodox compilation of laws would be an innovation which would not reflect the spirit of the Orthodox Church. A unification of canonical legislation assumes such a state of uniformity in the canonical structures of Church life of Autocephalous Churches which the Orthodox world does not know especially from the time of the fall of Byzantium. External administrative uniformity of local Churches would be foreign: this uniformity would be in contrast to the internal unity, the unity of Spirit and Faith. A common compilation of rules would forcibly violate the particularities of life of the local Churches and would do little to contribute to their internal, spiritual oneness. But should a future council attempt to create such a compilation it would be faced with such difficulties which it would not be able to overcome. How would it be possible to find agreement in and combine all existing differences in the legislation of local Churches especially at this time when the separatism of individual local Churches has reached a point unprecedented in the history of Orthodoxy? Finally, by what means can such a compendium be made mandatory, since this would depend not only upon the supreme Ecclesial authority but upon the civil authority in the territories in which these Churches are found? One must hope only that what is understood here is the codification of canons of past Ecumenical and Local Councils which are recognized as obligatory and effective at the present time and which are supplemented by those passed by a future Council.

This lack of complete internal and external unity does not reflect on the one hand, the most characteristic mark of canonical legislation. Such a mark is its incompleteness.

In reality, it completely lacks those norms which by analogy with juridical legislation, can be referred to as "fundamental." The more complete canonical compilations not only Eastern but Western as well, have no canons which establish general and fundamental principles of Church organization. These compilations have any number of canons regulating the relationship of bishops among themselves, the interrelation of presbyters and deacons, but we would not be able to find canons defining the very principle of hierarchy. There is not a single rule calling for the Church to have all three orders of clerics. The basic organization of a Christian community headed by a bishop is not to be found. This is especially evident if one takes note that the canons quite thoroughly determine the Metropolitan's administration. The same incompleteness can be found with other canonical problems for example with Ecclesiastical juridical process, as well as Sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist and Matrimony. In textbooks of Canon Law these lacunae are completed by teaching found in the New Testament and in the writings of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. The Apostolic Canons and the commandments of Christ himself are given the characteristics of canonical norms although not a single Council ruled which of these must be considered as such. We are so accustomed to these gaps that they are not even noticed, but if some historian would attempt to describe the organization of the Church based exclusively on canonical norms he would fall into a number of serious errors. The same mistake is made by those who attempt to base canonical consciousness exclusively on the canons. This attempt is nothing more than an illusion. If canonical norms speak of this or that fact or manifestation of Church life, it can be judged to be correct based on these canonical norms. But, what can be said about something which the canonical norms did not even anticipate? If only that is canonical which corresponds to canons and what does not so correspond is uncanonical then, as we have seen, there is no indication in the canons about the most basic and fundamental areas of Church structures. Finally if all the canonical legislation is taken as a whole as the basis of canonical consciousness then it must be accepted that each local Church enjoys its own canonical consciousness. This not only reduces the dimension of the sphere of canonical consciousness but the possibility of any canonical assessment of any local Church disappears. This concept does not allow for a solution of canonical problems applicable to the whole Orthodox Church but does allow each Autocephalous Church to resolve these problems only for itself. This would undermine the oneness of Orthodox consciousness which unites all local Churches, even in the absence of mutual juridical relations, into the One Apostolic Church. That separatism and that isolation of local Churches which is presently quite evident, can be partly explained by this defect in canonical consciousness.

If the absence of unity and completeness of canonical norms is a hindrance for the acceptance of these norms as the foundation of canonical consciousness then, on the other hand, these features of canonical creativity should not be blamed on those deficiencies. Canonical legislation never had the task to establish basic norms and basic principles of Ecclesiastical organization. These were given once and for all in the dogmatical teaching about the Church which not only anticipates canonical creativity but becomes its basis and precondition. Canonical creativity in the Church has the task to further that which would enable the dogmatical teaching about the Church to find a more correct and complete realization in the given historical condition of the Church's organization, and to protect the Church's life from deviations and error. The content of the dogmatical teaching about the Church determines the content of canonical legislation. A different teaching about the Church would invariably result in different canons since they make up the active force in the life of the Church. Ecclesiastical decisions are in effect the canonical interpretations of the dogma about the Church during a particular moment in the history of its existence. The basic principles of the Church's teachings do not fall into the area of canon law but are a part of dogmatics. This gives canonical norms a special characteristic distinguishing them from juridical norms, and canon law is given those characteristics which make of it a particularly unique law.

The attempts to extrapolate canonical consciousness out of the existing historical forms of Church life or out of the canons themselves are wrong in that they ignore the foundations of Church life and accept it in an empirical and temporary aspect. The foundation of correct canonical consciousness cannot be that which is transient and temporary, that which depends upon the historical moment, but that which in her is not transient and not temporary, which does not depend on historical conditions and historical circumstances. This means that the foundation of canonical consciousness can be found only in the dogmatical teaching on the Church. Such a canonical consciousness is very close to dogmatical consciousness and only differs from it in its direction and purpose. It is the moving force of Church history which is intended to actualize the complete expression of the dogmatic teaching at any given moment, in its canonical expression. It remains without change among the changing forms of Church life and is unique for all times, and inasmuch as the dogmatical teaching remains changeless and unique it becomes universal for all Churches since all Orthodox Churches confess a single dogmatical teaching. It alone has the only correct and true criterion not only for the solution of individual canonical problems but for an evaluation of canonical forms and for a judgment of the character of the canons themselves.

* * *

Today the question on the character of canons, i.e. whether they are subject to change or whether they remain absolutely changeless, is of particular practical significance. This problem is not new and repeatedly came to the fore by life itself. The Council in Trullo resolved this on the side of the immutability of canons. On the other hand, canonical creativity was a fact throughout its existence and even decrees of Imperial authority in effect repealed purely Ecclesiastical enactments. How little the Imperial authority felt constrained can be seen in the opinions of jurists in the days of Manuel Comnenus, that his royal decrees superseded not only the Code of Justinian but collections of canons as well. It is true that these views did not find official endorsement and were completely forgotten with the fall of Byzantium, but the decision of the Trullan Council found broad acceptance. It is not uncommon today to find, if not in literature then in various Church circles, the conviction that equates the canons, as to their obligation and immutability, with dogmatic formulations. It is not really necessary to point out that such a view can be derived not only from theological misunderstanding but from ignorance. To insist upon the absolute immutability of canons is tantamount to the admission that not only our generation but preceding ones, have been excluded from the Church. It is sufficient to point to the ninth Apostolic Canon, which decrees the excommunication all laymen (as well as the eighth for clerics) who "do not remain for prayer and the Eucharist to the end." If all canons are immutable then they all are, and remain, in force. It is not likely that this view is agreeable to those who defend it. Furthermore, such a teaching does not take into account that state of ecclesiastical legislation described above.

The theological misunderstanding consists in that this opinion does not take into account that the absolutely immutable character of dogmas is not conditioned upon by their being enacted by Councils and accepted by the Church, but because they are an expression of absolute truth. Their formulation by Councils and their acceptance by the Church are but the solemn witness of their truth. They express not what is temporary but what is eternal, but incidentally, just as do the canons, they have to do with the temporary forms of Church life, even though these forms can be considered unchangeable within the limits of empirical existence.

Canonical scholarship cannot accept this point of view about the canons. On the one hand, one can find both in the Orthodox but especially in the Catholic canonical literature, another view which defines as immutable only those canons which are based on Divine law. All those norms, which emanate from the clearly expressed Divine will contained in Scripture and in Tradition have an immutable and an absolute character, all other norms are related to the area of human law and thus can be subject to change. Of course, the believer cannot knowingly encroach upon the absolute character of Divine commandments but it appears that the distinction between jus divinum and jus humanum is far from certain. In practice most of the arguments are brought about by the question of the character of that or another decree, is it attributable to Divine or to human law. The norms affirmed in the Gospel are indisputable from this point of view, but with respect to norms found in the Epistles, one cannot always be categorical. The Apostle Paul in certain cases clearly indicates the source of his rules, and in other cases there are no such clear indications. It is with great difficulty that one discovers the teaching about the immutable character of norms, based on Divine law in those cases when some of those norms have been subject to change in the life of the Church. Even Christ's commandments, if they be given a canonical meaning, assume a temporary character, i.e. they are considered obligatory for certain epochs and not obligatory for others (e.g. those dealing with the dissolution of marriage and the grounds for it). The Church structure of the Corinthian community described by Apostle Paul has existed for a few decades. Neither was the so-called Apostolic decretal -- the decision of the Jerusalem Apostolic council considered of long duration. There is no need to give any more such examples, since we have seen more than once how the absolutization of the temporary leads to the relativization of the eternal.

It is only through the correct canonical consciousness that a correct relationship to canons is to be found. Not a single one of Christ's commandments carries a character of a positive norm. They are all eternal, immutable, all relate to the area of dogmatical teaching about the Church, on marriage, on baptism, etc. Christ did not establish any canonical structure for his Church, nor did he give any canonical norms. "...Who made me a judge or divider over you?"(Lk 12:14) From the time of the Apostles the force which generates law was without exception found in the Church. The right to "bind and loose," potestas clavium [the power of the keys] included within itself the right to establish canonical norms. Thus there can be no talk of a division of canons between those based on Divine law and others based on human law. They all flow out of the right, given to Church authority, to promulgate directives which would regulate the order of the Church. Of greater importance is that what these directives, which the Church can and must give, do not determine the foundation of the Church's organization as we have seen, but are meant to expose a more complete and more accurate realization of these foundations in each given historical epoch. They are temporary, but not just in a sense that a part of them is called to existence by a complex of purely external reasons, but in that they all are a part of that which in the Church is temporary. As temporary directives, the canons are mutable, even in the case when they directly refer to one or another statement of the Apostles or even of Christ. Of course, these statements in themselves are absolute and immutable but they do not belong to canons but only show that Church authority, issuing decisions, considered it essential to refer to the dogmatical foundation of its directives. The fiftieth Apostolic Canon demands the deposition of a presbyter or bishop who performs the Sacrament of Baptism with one immersion since Christ Himself commanded: "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The Church can change this, its own, canonical decree, increasing or decreasing the punishment for the guilty party, but this will not subject the words of Christ to a change, inasmuch as it does not belong to a canonical norm but belongs to the dogmatical teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, of which this decree is an interpretation.

Frequently there ate strange points of approach of Orthodox teaching with Protestantism but these really, are only points, beyond which begins a substantial diversion. The principle of mutability of all canonical enactments in Protestantism flows out of completely different beginnings than in Orthodoxy. With us, behind the mutability of canons stands canonical consciousness or, in the end result, the dogmatical teaching on the Church. Every canonical decree is related to the exposition of an absolute truth which lies as the basis of canonical consciousness. If this exposition can and even must be changed then the truth which lies in the basis remains forever immutable. Different historical periods, different spiritual development, can demand changes or revocation only of that external cover of the truth, but they cannot change the truth itself. Just as in the teaching about the structure of the Church and just on the question of the mutability of canons, Protestantism overlooked this truth.

In that the canons can be changed does not mean that they must be changed or that they can be changed by the personal whim of every Church member or even of a whole Church community. The canonical creativity of the Orthodox Church in its fullness, notwithstanding this or that detail, is an experience of many years of the Church's and of its consciousness, of its attempt towards the realization of the teaching of the Church in different historical epochs. We only continue that which was not started by us although we are somewhat inclined to think that history begins only with us. Thus our activity always has a combination of tradition and creativity, and tradition is the fulcrum for our creativity and a guarantee that even our creativity will not end with us. None the less, all human creativity is a manner of destruction of the past, that past which ceased to be a creative tradition, and turned into inertia and stagnation interfering with creativity. We can and must change Church decrees but only when they ceased to be canons, when they can no longer carry our their purpose -- to direct Church forms towards a more complete and a more better realization of the teaching on the Church, i.e. when they cease to be those decrees through which canonical consciousness can be expressed. There are times when canonical truth is on the side of those who violate one or another of the canons, and not on the side of those who comply with them and demand compliance. We must prove the truthfulness of such a paradox from experience, and this paradox is engendered from the conflict of canonical consciousness as the creative principle and as the highest criterion and a canonical consciousness as a blind and dead compliance with the letter of the law, a service to the letter, which finds its expression in the canons. A deep and tragic conflict of two types of canonical consciousness from which only one eternally comes forth as the creative moment, and the other, the inert and fossilized form of Church life.

The designation of canons as Ecclesiastical prescriptions is to promote -- positively or negatively -- that the Church life would more closely realize its dogmatical teaching. The closer the ecclesiastical norms approach dogmatical teaching, the greater is their approach towards the possession of immutability, but this immutability does not lie in the canons but in the dogmatical teachings which they express. Therefore we believe that certain canonical decrees of the Councils will preserve their strength to the end of time and for us, they are sacred just as are those dogmas which they express.

* * *

In the passage of time canonical consciousness always remains one, always equal to itself. Through its unity the various forms of Church life are not seen as separate moments in history, but are tied together into one intact process, uniting the first point of Church structure -- the charismatic structure -- with the foundation of our ecclesiastical organization. It urges us to look not backwards but through the present -- ahead, into the future. In the life of the Apostolic Church what was beyond value was not the form of that life but that through this form the Church life almost completely, as an exceptional image, realized the dogmatical teaching on the Church. If we were to transpose this structure mechanically into our life, we would accomplish the ideal of Church life that much less than under the present conditions. We can only hope that our canonical consciousness achieves that clarity which it had in Apostolic times. The more we manifest the dogmatic truth in our Church life the closer we would approach the apostolic times, although under our external structure we would move even farther from it.

Canonical consciousness demands from us a constant creativity of Church life, but not only creativity but new forms if this becomes necessary, but a creative concern for older forms, i.e. so they can become for us not a self-satisfying value, but really a form through which the dogmatical teaching is realized. We must likewise approach the canons with creativity. Should it happen that some ecclesiastical decree no longer reflects its purpose, then we are obliged to reject it, since not only is that which corresponds to canons canonical, but the canons themselves may be "canonical" and not "canonical".

However it would be a mistake to think that the canonical consciousness is of such magnitude that it can be determined for any concrete situation. There are no such magnitudes in the Orthodox Church, not only in the sphere of canons but in the area of dogma. Temporary distortions and loss of direction are always possible. However, truth was given to the Church and thus the truth always abides in her, even though we may not be able to determine this formally. A different point of view would indicate a lack of faith in the Church, an understanding of the Church as only a human and not a Divine foundation. That which may not be possible in a formal order is possible on the order of grace.

N. Afanasiev in Put' No. 39 (1933) Appendix

Translated by Fr. Alvian Smirensky

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/afanasiev-canons.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Short Stories about Miraculous Help from St. John of Kronstadt Today

The Vision of Holy and Righteous John of Kronstadt

An Interview with an Orthodox Missionary

Orthodox Church Canons and Canonical Consciousness

By Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Short Stories about Miraculous Help from St. John of Kronstadt Today

The Vision of Holy and Righteous John of Kronstadt

An Interview with an Orthodox Missionary

Orthodox Church Canons and Canonical Consciousness

By Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners