The Catalog of Good Deeds

Chrysostom frequently spoke about poverty and wealth, themes which were set for him by life in the large, noisy city. For him, these and all other social themes had primarily a moral significance, and he dealt with them in relation to the rules of Christian behavior. He judged the life around him on the basis of its morality. Everywhere he saw injustice, cruelty, suffering, and misery, and he understood that this was caused by the spirit of greed and by social inequality. He warned against idle luxury and also against wealth as a source of temptation, since money threatens to corrupt the man who possesses it. Wealth by itself has no value but is only a theatrical mask which covers the true image of man. However, the wealthy man comes to value his riches. He begins to deceive himself and he becomes attached to something which is good in appearance only. In Chrysostom's opinion there is danger not only in wealth which has been acquired by dishonest means but in all forms of personal property. These are not harmful in themselves but they may stimulate the will to desire things which are perishable and transient. "The love for wealth is an unnatural passion," Chrysostom writes. "The desire for wealth is neither natural nor necessary. It is superfluous." This movement of the will is dangerous and riches are a dangerous burden. "Wealth is harmful for you not because it arms thieves against you, nor because it completely darkens your mind but because it makes you the captives of soulless possessions and distracts you from the service of God."

The possession of wealth involves an unavoidable contradiction. By the spirit of greed men are attached to material things, but God teaches us to despise things and to renounce them. "There is harm not only in trying to gain wealth but also in excessive concern with even the most necessary things," Chrysostom writes. "Christ has demonstrated what kind of harm can come from the passion for money but His commandment goes even beyond this. Not only does He order us to scorn wealth, but he forbids us to be concerned that the food we eat is the best we can possibly get: 'Do not worry your soul about what you eat'." This does not exhaust the subject. "It is not enough to despise wealth," Chrysostom writes, "but you must also feed the poor and, more importantly, you must follow Christ." Thus another contradiction is revealed: the worldly drive of greed and the desire for the accumulation and preservation of material goods is opposed to the command of the Gospels to "give all you have to the poor." Against this background we see with greater clarity the injustice of the social inequality in the world. In the face of poverty and misery, all wealth is an unjust and dead thing. It testifies to hard-heartedness and the absence of love.

It is from this point of view that Chrysostom disapproves of the magnificent decoration of churches. "A church is not a place in which to melt gold or forge silver," he writes. "It is a triumphant assembly of the angels. Therefore it is souls which we demand as an offering because it is for the sake of souls that God accepts our other offerings. It was not at a silver table and it was not from a golden vessel that Christ offered His blood to His disciples to drink but nevertheless everything there was precious and called forth reverence, for it was filled with the Spirit. Do you want to honor the body of Christ? Do not scorn to see Christ naked. What good does it do you if here you honor His silken coverlings while outside the Church you continue to tolerate the coldness and nakedness of others? What good does it do you if the altar of Christ is covered with golden vessels, while Christ Himself suffers hunger? You make a golden goblet but you offer no cooling water to go with ft. Christ as a homeless pilgrim wanders and asks for shelter, but you, instead of accepting Him, adorn your floors, your walls, and the tops of your pillars, and you put silver harnesses on your horses. But Christ remains bound in the dungeon and you do not even want to look at Him."

It seemed to Chrysostom that each thing that one man puts aside is taken away from someone else who needs it, for there cannot be a man who is rich without another man being poor because of it. "The source and root of wealth must definitely be hidden in some act of injustice," he writes. Chrysostom did not consider that poverty as such was a virtue. Poverty attracted his attention as a form of need and suffering, and he considered that Christ is present among the poor, since He comes to us in the image of a beggar and not in the guise of a wealthy man. Furthermore, when poverty is voluntarily chosen for the sake of God and accepted with joy, it can be a path to virtue. This is primarily because a man without possessions is freer than a wealthy man and has fewer attachments and worries. It is easier for him to live and to strive to perfect himself.

Chrysostom knew also that poverty could be a heavy burden not only in terms of external and material things, but internally, as a source of envy, spite, and despair. For this reason he tried to fight against poverty, but his attention was always occupied with its moral implications. In this respect he functioned as a spiritual pastor, not as a social reformer. Although it is true that he did have an ideal vision of society, this ideal was primarily moral. It was the ideal of equality because inequality makes true love impossible.

The basic premise of Chrysostom's thought is that strictly speaking there can be no such thing as "personal property" because everything belongs to God and to Him only. All things are given by Him as a gift in the form of a loan. Everything is God's, and all that man can claim as truly his own are his good works. Everything God gives is intended for common ownership. "If the good things we enjoy belong to the Master of all of us, then they all belong equally to our fellow slaves. That which belongs to the Master belongs to everyone in common. Do we not see a similar arrangement in great houses?"

"The possessions of the Emperor, the city, the squares, and the streets, belong to all men, and we all use them in an equal degree. Look at the economy that God has arranged. He has created some things that are for everyone, including the air, sun, water, earth, heaven, sea, light, and stars, and He has divided them equally among all men, as if they were brothers. This, if nothing else, should shame the human race. The Emperor has made other things common to all, including the baths, cities, squares, and streets. There is not the slightest disagreement over this common property but everything is accomplished peacefully. If someone tries to take something and claim it as his own personal possession, then quarrels arise. It is as if the very forces of natures were complaining, and as if at that time when God was gathering them from everywhere they were trying with all their might to separate among themselves, to isolate them selves from each other, and to distinguish their own individual property by coldly saying that 'this is yours but that is mine'. If this were true, quarrels and bitterness would arise, but where there is nothing of this sort neither quarrels nor disagreements occur. In this way we see that for us as well a common and not an individual ownership of things has been ordained, and that this is according to nature itself. Is not the reason that no one ever goes to court about the ownership of a public square the fact that this square belongs to all?"

It seems to Chrysostom that in this respect even the animals are better than men. "They hold everything in common, the earth, and springs, and pastures, and mountains, and forests, and not one of them has more than the others. But you, O man, the most gentle of animals, have become more fierce than the beasts. In a single one of your houses you store up enough to feed thousands and even many thousands of the poor. How can this be, when we have one common nature, and much else in common besides this? We share a common heaven, sun, moon, choir of stars, air, sea, fire, water, earth, life, death, youth, old age, sickness, health, and the need for food and clothing. Our spiritual goods are also common to all: our holy altar, the body of our Lord, His sacred blood, the promised Kingdom, the bath of renewal, the purification of sins, truth, sanctity, redemption, and ineffable bliss. Is it therefore not madness for those who share so much in common, their nature, grace, covenant, and laws, to have such a passion for wealth that it causes them to forget their equality and to exceed the savageness of beasts? This is all the worse since they must of necessity soon leave these things behind them."

Chrysostom sees the source of inequality in man's free will and desire for personal property. Free will determines how an individual will manage the gifts he had been given, and Chrysostom considers that this is the heart of the problem. He does not recommend poverty for all men and, although he denounces superfluous luxury, it is primarily inequality to which he is opposed. Chrysostom demands equality and justice. Material goods are given by God and for this reason there can be no cause to abominate them. However, they must not be used to the personal advantage of one man in such a way that another man suffers for lack of them. Chrysostom believes that the problem can be solved by love because "love seeks nothing for itself." It seems to him that this solution was realized by the earliest members of the Church in the manner described in the Acts of the Apostles. "They renounced property and rejoiced greatly because in this way they gained blessings that were even greater. The cold words 'mine and yours' did not exist, and there was joy at the altar . . . The expression 'mine and yours', which is so harsh and has caused so many wars in the world, was driven out of that holy Church, and men on earth lived like angels in heaven. The poor did not envy the rich, for there were no rich, and the rich did not despise the poor, for there were no poor. At that time things were not the way they are now. Now those who have property give to the poor, but at that time it was not so . . . All of them were equal and all wealth was shared among them." This example has been frequently cited by the supporters of communal monasticism who absolutely reject the right to personal property.

Chrysostom wanted to realize the example provided by monastic communities in the world, having in mind a comparatively small society in Antioch or Constantinople. In his homilies he tried to demonstrate how the voluntary renunciation of property and its equal distribution could provide for the needs of all. This is the way in which the property of the Church was organized at that time. It was held in common and was distributed by the bishop. Part of it was devoted to upkeep of churches and to the support of the clergy, but most of it was the "property of the poor." Chrysostom emphasized that such a socialization of property could be truly effective only if it was voluntary and if it was the expression of true self-renunciation and love.

All of this would presuppose a high degree of moral development and perfection. It would be the ultimate and ideal expression of Christian charity. However, Chrysostom was content to limit his demands to generous almsgiving and works of charity. His conception of charity was very broad, extending from material contributions to consolation and comfort. "Is it not also an act of great charity when a soul, which is overwhelmed by grief, threatened by extreme danger, and held in thrall by the flames (of passion), is freed by someone from this affliction?"

An article by Fr. George Florovsky

Source: johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/09/st-john-chrysostom-on-poverty-and.html

Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (perhaps the leading dispensational seminary in the world), wrote a thoughtful blog posting: “The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology.”

He starts off by unabashedly proclaiming his Protestant convictions. Then, amazingly, he points out what he sees as Protestantism’s weakness, its ecclesiology.

Prof. Wallace notes that: 1) there is a lack of consistency in Protestant worship services; 2) many Protestant congregations are ill prepared to deal with a pastor who forsakes the historic Christian faith; 3) recent scholarship is drawing attention to the fact that canonicity – which books belong to the Bible – cannot be understood apart from the authority of the church. Orthodox Christians have made similar criticisms, but these are stunning admissions and observations coming from within the Protestant camp. Protestants, whether of dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or more mainstream persuasion, should give attention to what Prof. Wallace has to say.

He closes with the suggestion that Protestants be open to learning from the more ancient branches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He also recommends that Protestants listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the early church fathers and embrace the ancient historic forms of worship.

This blog posting has three parts: 1) my personal reactions to Prof. Wallace’s posting; 2) a discussion of the evidence that point to the role of the traditioning process in canon formation; 3) a discussion of an Orthodox approach to canon formation.

1. My Reactions

As I read through Prof. Wallace’s blog posting I had a sense of déjà vu. It reminded me of the time I had graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with an M.A. in Church History and was committed to helping to bring the United Church of Christ back to its biblical roots. Yet unbeknownst to me at the time were the tiny cracks in my Protestant theology that would in time become major fissures that would result in a theological crisis. The concerns voiced by Prof. Wallace are quite similar that I and others were asking when we embarked on our journey to Orthodoxy. I was just a seminary graduate then, here we have similar critical questions being voiced by a seminary professor at a major Protestant seminary!

My studies in church history made me keenly aware of Protestantism’s theological anarchy. My involvement in the evangelical renewal movement put me squarely in the middle of the Cold War hostilities between Evangelicals and Liberals who belonged to the same denomination. Prof. Wallace recounted the struggle of one Protestant congregation with an apostate pastor; I had to struggle with the question of a denomination that had gone apostate. Could I as an Evangelical belong to a denomination with historic roots in Puritan New England and yet had many pastors and theologians who had become de facto Arians?

As I wrestled with the doctrinal controversies of modern Protestantism I was at the same time haunted by voices from the early church. It took the form of quotes from two church fathers. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century church father, wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

This quote by Irenaeus described the organic connection between church unity and doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church. What I longed for was not an impossible ideal but had existed in fact in the early church. It caused me wonder: How did Protestant Christianity get into such a mess and how could we recover the church unity and orthodoxy of the early Church?

The other quote came from Augustine of Hippo, the towering giant of Western theology. He is reputed to have said:

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

This quote by Augustine shone a spotlight on the egocentric core of the Protestant approach to doing theology. I realized that my evangelical theology was at its core my personal interpretation of the Bible and my church identity the result of which denomination I chose to affiliate with.

Even the Reformed tradition with confessional statements like the Westminster Confession suffered from this egocentric flaw. There were not one but a variety of confessions one could choose from. Moreover, the authority of these confessions was contingent and provisional at best. These confessions had no authority in themselves but were dependent on their faithfully reflecting Scripture. Absent from the Reformed creeds were any claim to a universal binding authority on all Christians. Among Presbyterians the conservatives view the confessions as prescriptive and binding while the liberals understand them to be historic witnesses and no longer binding. I had no objective guarantee that this was the true Christian faith. As a Protestant I had no external authority like the Church to fall back on.

As Prof. Wallace suggested, I started listening to what the Holy Spirit had to say through the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies. This led me to follow in the paths of the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevins and Philip Schaff, who advocated a catholic and Reformed Christianity. This took me to the Seven Ecumenical Councils that claimed to make decisions binding on all Christians. But the weakness of Mercersburg theology was that the early church fathers for the most part were books on my bookshelf and most people in my former home church couldn’t care less about patristics and ancient liturgies. Ultimately I found myself caught between a Protestantism that suffered from extensive historical amnesia and the Orthodox Church which claimed to have unbroken historic continuity going back to the original Apostles.

2. The Importance of the Traditioning Process to Canon Formation

The unexpected surprise in Prof. Wallace’s blog posting was his discussion of what Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, had to say about the formation of the biblical canon. Unlike today’s bibles that have neatly printed table of contents in the front, the early church had no clear cut listing. Even by the fourth century there were still some debate as to what books belonged to the canon, that is, were divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture. So Eusebius needed to distinguish between homolegoumena (that which everyone agreed was Scripture), antilegomena (that which was in question or disputed), apocrypha (that which was rejected by many but accepted by some), and pseudepigrapha (that which was rejected by all) (Church History 3.3.6). Prof. Wallace paraphrasing David Dungan observes:

What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church.

This observation points to a tension embedded in the Protestant view of Scripture; despite Protestantism’s assigning supreme authority to Scripture, Scripture itself is unavoidably a product of the Church. It did not come into existence independently of the Church. Moreover, the early bishops played a key role in determining which books would comprise Scripture. One cannot understand the formation of the biblical canon without taking into account the early bishops. To ignore the bishops is to create an artificial mental construct that has no historical basis.

For modern Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, to grasp the nature of canon formation they must beware of inadvertently imposing their modern assumptions on the early church. They should research the early church and try to imagine themselves in the early church service when there were no electric guitars, PowerPoint overheads, worship bulletins, or leather bound gold leaf Bibles. Early Christians did not have personal Bibles. Scripture in the early church consisted of a limited number of copied scrolls or codices in the safekeeping of one of the clergy. This was especially critical in times of persecution. Back then Christians would painstakingly copy by hand whatever Scripture they could borrow from another church. There were no denominational publishing houses back then! Early Christians experienced the Bible in the context of the Sunday worship. A reader would stand in the front of the assembly and read out loud the Scripture. The bishop was responsible for deciding what would be read in the Sunday Liturgy. This meant that he needed to identify spurious books be excluded from the Sunday worship.

What is fascinating about Book 3 of Eusebius’ Church History is his juxtaposing of accounts of canon formation with accounts of apostolic succession. Church History 3.4 describes the immediate successors to the Apostles: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete. Linus who was mentioned in II Timothy was Peter’s successor to the episcopacy in Rome. We learn that the third bishop of Rome was Clement. Church History 3.22 describes Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch. Thus, Eusebius provides a valuable external witness to some of the early post-apostolic writings.

In Church History 3.9-10 Eusebius draws on Josephus for a description of the Old Testament canon. In Church History 3.25 Eusebius describes the undisputed and disputed books of the New Testament writings.

What is striking about Eusebius’ discussion of the biblical canon are his references to the traditioning process. In Church History 3.26.6 Eusebius wrote:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers…. (Emphasis added)

In Church History 6.12, Eusebius quotes from a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, concerning a question about a so-called Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. (Emphasis added)

Bishop Serapion’s principal criterion for determining canonicity was apostolic tradition. The way the early Christians approached canonicity is at variance with the more recent discussion about canon formation which asume a tension between the authority of the writings and the authority of the church. The issue of Scripture versus the Church was not a concern of the early Christians. Instead they were more concerned about the traditioning process: Could a bishopric, a liturgical practice, or an alleged apostolic writing be shown to have apostolic origins?

Many Protestants and Evangelicals admire Athanasius the Great for his staunch defense of Christ’s divinity. But many are not aware of his role as a bishop in the early church. Athanasius’ Letter 39 which provides one of the earliest listing of canonical books also affirmed the traditioning process as critical to canon formation. He wrote:

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand, to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scriptures, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine…. (Emphasis added)

Letter 39 was not an ordinary correspondence. It was the custom for the Patriarch of Alexandria to send a letter to the churches in the diocese every Easter. In other words this was an authoritative letter by the bishop to all those under his care. There was a practical aspect to the letter. Apparently there was some confusion as to which books ought to be read out loud in the Sunday Liturgy. As bishop Athanasius sought to bring order and regularity to the congregations under his care. What is striking here is that Athanasius did not invoke the institutional power of the church but rather he referenced the traditioning process that he was part of. As a bishop of the early church he was obligated to safeguard the sacred deposit of Faith which included the writings of the Apostles.

Eusebius and Athanasius were bishops who lived in the fourth century. When we look for earlier evidence we find similar evidence in the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons. In his defense of the four Gospels, Irenaeus made reference to the traditioning process. He wrote:

For if what they [the heretics] had published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. (Against the Heretics 3.11.9, p. 429; Emphasis added)

Going back even earlier to the New Testament period we find evidence of the traditioning process. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (NKJV; emphasis added)

What is striking in this verse is Paul’s use of the word “whether.” This means that oral tradition is just as authoritative as written tradition. We also find Paul exhorting Timothy to pass on the deposit of faith to other faithful men when ordaining the future generation of clergy (II Timothy 2:2).

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)

The word “commit” used by Paul is similar to: “delivered,” “pass on,” and “hand down” terms used by the church fathers; they are all refer to the traditioning process.

When we consider that I and II Thessalonians were among Paul’s earliest letters and that the two letters to Timothy were written just before his death we find that the traditioning process was an integral to the Apostle Paul’s ministry. So I was shocked when I read Eusebius’ Church History and discovered that II Timothy 2:2 did not disappear into the foggy mists of church history but continued like a strong iron chain in the form detailed listings of bishops. Eusebius’ Church History gives us long detailed lists of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles! Thus, the traditioning of Scripture was a widely known practice endorsed by both Scripture and the early church fathers. (See my article on Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Basis for the Tradition.)

3. An Orthodox Approach to Canon Formation

The significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of debate. The tension between an authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue. This is because both have a common source, the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.

The dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect. This tension apparently stem from the Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s. Defining the canon as an authoritative listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is authoritative because it has the backing of the Church. Defining the canon as a listing of authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is independent of the church.

The Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative listing of authoritative books. The apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors and the guardian of Scripture. For Orthodoxy, Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic whole.

This makes for some troubling practical consequences for Protestants. Scripture can no longer be viewed as existing independently of the Church. The Bible is the property of the Church, much like the bags of money stored in Brinks armored trucks. The money does not belong to the guards, but are nonetheless the guards’ responsibility. Similarly, Scripture is the word of God left in the care of the bishops.

The significance of the traditioning process is that it assumes that one belongs to a historic chain that goes back to the Apostles. With the advent of the printing press many Protestants have come to view the Bible as their personal property but such an understanding is a radical departure from historic Christianity which understood Scripture to be the sacred deposit entrusted to the Church. Where an Orthodox Christian is part of a historic chain of tradition that goes back to the original Apostles a Protestant Christian is not. They believe in a Bible that stands independently of the church. Professor Wallace rightly noted that the divorcing of Scripture from church has resulted in Protestantism’s weak ecclesiology. One can even question whether all the disparities in doctrine, worship, and church governance render “Protestant ecclesiology” an oxymoron – a self-contradictory statement.

There are problems with the Protestant approach to the biblical canon as just a list. How should a Protestant respond to Martin Luther wanting to exclude the book of James from the New Testament or Thomas Jefferson excising passages from the Bible based upon his well informed judgment? And how should a Protestant respond to a “prophet” like Joseph Smith who wants expand the canonical collection? Or a university scholar who discovered a “lost gospel”? Without being able to appeal to an authoritative listing, a Protestant will be forced to fall back on reason, scholarship, or inner conscience. But would one have confidence in a round table of scholars like the Jesus Seminar voting by means of colored slips? An Orthodox Christian can simply reply that to tamper with the biblical canon is to break with the historic Christian faith that goes back to the Apostles. This is because the Church as the recipient and guardian of Scripture has the authority to draw up an authoritative listing of biblical books.

The Jurassic Park Experience

Professor Daniel Wallace is perceptive when he recognizes that Protestantism’s ecclesiology is its weakness. This leaves him yearning for a church unified in worship and doctrine but he dismisses that as just a dream. My response is that the true church is not wishful thinking but a living reality. Professor Wallace wrote positively about his visits to the Orthodox Church. He may not know it but every time he visits an Orthodox Liturgy he is seeing a living walking dinosaur straight from the ancient church. The Orthodox Church today is the same church as the church described by Irenaeus of Lyons. This is because it has not suffered a break in the traditioning process like Protestantism. Orthodoxy’s strong ecclesiology has enabled it to maintain unity in worship and doctrinal orthodoxy for the past two millennia.

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/holy-traditions-importance-to-canon-formation/

The holy right-believing Prince Theodore of Smolensk and Yaroslavl, nicknamed the “Black” [i.e. “dark” or “swarthy”], was born at a terrible time for Rus: the Mongol invasion of 1237-1239. At Baptism he was named for the holy Great Martyr Theodore Stratelates (February 8), who was particularly esteemed by the Russian warrior-princes.

Prince Theodore was famed for his military exploits. The child Theodore was not in the city when, through the prayers of the Most Holy Theotokos, the holy Martyr Mercurius (November 24) delivered Smolensk from being captured by Batu In the year 1239. They had taken him away and hidden him in a safe place during the warfare. In 1240 his father, Prince Rostislav died. He was a great-grandson of the holy Prince Rostislav of Smolensk and Kiev (March 14).

His elder brothers as heirs divided their father’s lands among themselves, allotting to the child Theodore the small holding of Mozhaisk. Here he spent his childhood, and here he studied Holy Scripture, the church services and military science.

In the year 1260, Prince Theodore was married to Maria Vasilievna, daughter of holy Prince Basil of Yaroslavl (July 3), and Theodore became Prince of Yaroslavl. They had a son named Michael, but Saint Theodore was soon widowed. He spent much of his time on military campaigns, and his son was raised by his mother-in-law, Princess Xenia.

In 1277, the allied forces of the Russian princes, in union with the Tatar forces, took part in a campaign in the Osetian land and in the taking of “its famed city Tetyakov.” In this war the allied forces won a complete victory. From the time of Saint Alexander Nevsky (November 23), the khans of the Golden Horde, seeing the uncrushable spiritual and the military strength of Orthodox Russia, were compelled to change their attitude. They began to draw the Russian princes into alliances, and the khans turned to them for military assistance.

The Russian Church made use of these providentially improved relations for the Christian enlightenment of the foreigners. Already in 1261, through the efforts of Saint Alexander Nevsky and Metropolitan Cyril III at Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church was established. In the year 1276, a Constantinople Council presided over by Patriarch John Bekkos (1275-1282) replied to questions of the Russian Bishop Theognostus of Sarai concerning the order for baptizing Tatars, and also for receiving Monophysite and Nestorian Christians among them into Orthodoxy.

During these years Prince Theodore was at the Horde. Having distinguished himself by military exploits on the Osetian campaign, he won the favorable attention of Khan Mengu-Temir, who regarded the Orthodox Church with respect, and who as Khan issued the first decree exempting the church from taxes for Metropolitan Cyril.

The Chronicles say: “The emperor Mengu-Temir and his empress were fond of Prince Theodore Rostislavich, and did not want to permit him return back to Rus because of his bravery and the comeliness of his face.”

Saint Theodore spent three years at the Horde. Finally, “the emperor sent him off with great honor,” and the prince arrived in Yaroslavl. His wife Maria had already died, and in the city Princess Xenia ruled with her grandson Michael. The people of Yaroslavl would not receive the prince returning from the Horde, “not allowing him to enter the city but saying to him, ‘this is Princess Xenia’s city, and Michael is our prince.’”

Saint Theodore had to return to the Horde. The empress, wife of khan Mengu-Temir, “had a great fondness for him and wished for him to marry her own daughter.” Such a marriage had tremendous significance for Rus. For a long time the Khan would not agree to it, regarding the Russian princes as mere vassals or subjects.

To give his daughter in marriage to a Russian prince meant to acknowledge him as an equal. More importantly, it meant that the khan would acknowledge the primacy of Orthodoxy, since before the wedding, the Tatar princess had to accept holy Baptism. The khan went along with this, since an alliance with Russia was very important for him, “and he ordered his daughter to be given to Prince Theodore, and for her to be baptized first, and he commanded that the Orthodox Faith not be insulted.” Thus Saint Theodore was married to the mighty khan's daughter, who was baptized with the name Anna. “The emperor held him in great esteem and commanded that he be seated opposite himself, he built him a palace, and gave him princes and nobles in retinue.”

There at the Golden Horde Saint Theodore’s sons, Prince David and Prince Constantine were also born. The tremendous influence which Saint Theodore gained at the Horde, he used to the glory of the Russian Land and the Russian Church. Orthodoxy gained strength among the Tatars, and the Horde began to adopt Russian customs, morals and piety. Russian merchants, architects, and skilled craftsmen carried Russian culture to the shores of the Don, the Volga, the Urals and even into Mongolia itself.

From this period archeologists find Orthodox icons, and crosses and lampadas, throughout all the former territories of the Golden Horde, since included as part of Russia. So began a great missionary movement of the Russian Church towards the East, and the enlightening of all the tribes with the light of the Gospel truth all the way to the Great Ocean (i.e. the Pacific). Russian Orthodox princes and their retinues, participating as allies in the Mongol campaigns, learned of and became familiar with the boundless expanses of Asia, Siberia and the Far East. In the year 1330, more than thirty years after the death of Saint Theodore, Chinese chronicles mention Russians in Peking.

Saint Theodore lived in Sarai until 1290, when “news reached him from Rus, from the city of Yaroslavl, that his first son, Prince Michael, had died.” Having given the prince rich gifts and a large retinue, the khan sent him back to Rus. Again he became the prince at Yaroslavl. Saint Theodore began zealously to concern himself with strengthening and building up his city and principality. He had a special love for the monastery of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

His fame resounded throughout Rus, and all the princes sought friendship and alliances with him. But most of all, he was fond of the son of Saint Alexander Nevsky, Andrew Alexandrovich, supporting him in all undertakings. When Prince Andrew became Great Prince of Vladimir, he went with him on military campaigns. He was gladdened by the victories, and he grieved over his defeat. In 1296, a bloody fratricidal war was just breaking out between two groups of princes: on the one side was Saint Theodore and Great Prince Andrew, and on the other side, Saint Michael of Tver (November 22) and Saint Daniel of Moscow (March 4). But with the help of God the bloodshed was successfully averted.

At a meeting of the princes (in 1296) Bishop Simeon of Vladimir and Bishop Ishmael of Sarai managed to bring peace to both sides. This fact, that holy Prince Theodore and Bishop Ishmael participated in the meeting, shows that Saint Theodore used all his diplomatic talents and influence at the Horde to establish peace in the Russian Land.

Saint Theodore the Black’s ties to his Smolensk origins were not sundered, though it would have been difficult for him to be Prince of Smolensk. Thus, in the year 1297, Saint Theodore went on a campaign to Smolensk to reclaim his lawful rights to the Smolensk principality, which had been usurped by his nephews. But he did not take the city and become the Prince of Smolensk again.

Soon after this campaign the holy warrior-prince became ill. On September 18, 1299 the saint gave orders that he be carried to the Savior-Transfiguration monastery, and there he received monastic tonsure. Towards the end of the ritual, Saint Theodore asked that the service be interrupted. With the blessing of the igumen, and to grant the wish of the dying prince, they carried him into the monastery courtyard, where a throng of the Yaroslavl people had already gathered. “And the prince repented before all the people, if he had sinned against anyone or held ill-feelings against anyone. He blessed all those who had sinned against him or borne him enmity, and begged their pardon. He accepted his responsibility for all his deeds before God and man.” Only after this did the humble warrior achieve his desire to finish his unusual and much-troubled life’s path by accepting the angelic schema.

All night the igumen and the brethren prayed over the holy prince. At the second hour of the night they began to ring the bell for Matins. Saint Theodore lay silently upon his monk’s cot and received the Holy Mysteries of Christ. When the monks began the third “Glory” of the Psalter, he made the Sign of the Cross and gave up his soul to the Lord. His appearance at the grave was extraordinary: “Wondrous indeed was the appearance of the blessed one. He lay upon the cot not as one dead, but as one alive. His face shone like as the rays of the sun, adorned by his venerable grey hair, bearing witness to his purity of soul and his benevolence.”

After him, his son Saint David (+ 1321) ruled at Yaroslavl. The second of his sons, Constantine, had evidently died earlier. The Church veneration of Prince Theodore in the Yaroslavl region began soon after his death. During the years 1322-1327, Bishop Prochorus of Rostov commissioned the famous Theodorov Gospel, adorned with miniatures, in memory of Saint Theodore. Previously, Bishop Prochorus had been igumen of the Savior-Transfiguration monastery at Yaroslavl. Actually, he knew the holy prince personally, and witnessed his tonsure and public repentance before the people. Historians think that the fine miniatures sewn into this precious manuscript had come from an earlier Gospel owned by Saint Theodore himself, and which he had brought with him to Yaroslavl as a blessing from his native Smolensk.

On March 5, 1463, at Yaroslavl the relics of holy Prince Theodore and his sons, David and Constantine were uncovered. The chronicler, an eyewitness to the event, recorded under that year: “At the city of Yaroslavl in the monastery of the Holy Savior they unearthed three Great Princes: Prince Theodore Rostislavich and his sons David and Constantine, and brought them above the ground. Great Prince Theodore was a man of great stature, and they placed his sons David and Constantine beside him. Their stature was less than his. They had lain in a single grave.” The physical appearance of the holy prince so impressed the eyewitnesses and those present at the uncovering of the relics, that an account of this was entered into the Prologue (lives of saints) in Saint Theodore’s Life, and also into the text of the Manual for Iconographers.

The Life of the holy Prince Theodore the Black was written shortly after the uncovering of the relics, by the hieromonk Anthony of the Yaroslav Savior monastery, with the blessing of the Metropolitan Philip of Moscow and All Rus. Another version of the Life was written by Andrew Yuriev at the Saint Cyril of White Lake monastery. A third and more detailed Life of Saint Theodore was included in the “Book of Ranks of Imperial Geneology,” compiled under Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius.

The Russian people composed spiritual songs about Prince Theodore, which they sang over the centuries in “their destitute wanderings.” The verses glorify the saint’s piety and discernment, beneficence and kind-heartedness, and his concern for building and adorning churches. The complexity of historical destinies, the roughness of the era, the multitude of enemies (not personal, but enemies of Russia and the Church), reveal to us the great exploits of the saintly builders of the Russian Land.

Source: https://oca.org/saints/lives/2006/09/19/102667-st-theodore-the-prince-of-smolensk-and-yaroslav

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

The Teachings of St. John Chrysostom About Poverty and Wealth

Photo Blog: Exaltation of the Cross in St. Elisabeth Convent 2017

The Prayer Beads of St. Augustine (Belyaev) transferred to the Penza Diocese in St.Elisabeth Convent

Grasping the Nature of Canon Formation within the Holy Tradition

The Life of St. Theodore the Prince of Smolensk and Yaroslav

Partners