Old Believer Works

On the 2nd day of November. A brief account of the valor, courage, elegant testimony, and patient suffering of the newly-revealed great martyr, the noblewoman Feodosiya Prokopievna, who in monasticism was named Feodora, and by her earthly fame called Morozova; together with her only sister and fellow-sufferer, the pious princess Evdokia, and their third companion in bonds, Maria.

This blessed and ever-memorable woman was born to noble and devout parents. Her father was Prokopiy, a senator of the reigning city of Moscow, from the family of Sokovnin; her mother was Anisiya. Both were faithful Christians who feared God. When she reached the age of seventeen, her parents married her to the boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov. She became a mother and gave birth to a son, who was named Ivan after a vision of the great wonder-worker Sergius.

Gleb’s brother, Boris Ivanovich Morozov, loved his sister-in-law Feodosiya with a deep spiritual love. Whenever she visited his house, he himself would come out to greet her warmly and say: “Come in, my spiritual friend! Come in, joy of my soul!” They would sit together for many hours, speaking only of spiritual matters. When she left, he would escort her and say: “Today I have tasted something sweeter than honey from your soul-strengthening words.”

After living only a few years in marriage, she was widowed and left with her young orphan son Ivan. She was instructed in the virtuous life and the true doctrines by the holy martyr and archpriest Avvakum. As soon as she learned the truth about Orthodoxy, she burned with zeal for it and turned away completely from everything corrupted.

By order of the Tsar, emissaries were sent to her: Joachim, archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, and Peter the key-keeper. She stood firm in her testimony and thoroughly shamed them. Because of her public exposure, the old form of the cross on the communion bread was abolished throughout all Russia, and half her estates were taken from her. Yet no matter how much she suffered, she refused under any circumstances to abandon her piety; she was ready to die for the truth. Thanks to the intercession of Tsaritsa Maria, who was very kind to her and loved her for her virtue, she received a brief reprieve after this trial.

Afterward she gave away huge amounts in charity: she distributed much of her wealth to the poor, redeemed many people from debt-collectors, gave generous support to monasteries, supplied churches with everything they needed, provided for desert hermits, and even cared for lepers in her own home.

Later, through the confessor Father Trifiliy, she heard about a reverent nun named Melania. She summoned her, listened to her words, loved her deeply, and chose her as her spiritual mother. In humility for Christ’s sake, Feodosiya placed herself completely under Melania’s guidance and cut off her own will to the end. She remained an obedient disciple until her dying day, never once disobeying her elder’s commands. Guided by Melania, she finally learned to understand and fulfill every deed pleasing to God. Together they walked on foot to prisons carrying alms, and very early in the morning—like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James hastening to the Lord’s tomb—they went together as a pair of doves to the Cathedral, to Chudov Monastery, and to the Lord’s Robe. There they placed the sacred robe upon themselves as worthy servants, kissed it with warm tears, and reverently kissed the relics of the wonder-workers with faithful hearts.

Feodosiya strove to fulfill God’s will in every action. She forced her body into ascetic labors, fed on fasting, flourished in prayer, trembled at the thought of death, and overflowed with tears of joy. Burned and kindled by the fire of divine love, she blazed without being consumed, for the Holy Spirit refreshed her. I do not know which virtue she neglected; above all, like a firm foundation, she held fast to the Orthodox faith, knowing full well that without faith it is impossible to please God. I boldly declare that this blessed woman could rightly cry out with the prophet of Tishbe and with the fiery-charioted Elijah: “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty! For they have abandoned the catholic faith, fallen in love with Roman-Latin doctrines, killed God’s servants, and are trying to destroy the Church of God to the end.” Anyone among her relatives who clung to the Nikonians she fearlessly rebuked.

Mikhail Alekseevich Rtishchev and his daughter Anna, ardent followers of Nikon, often visited her house. They would praise Nikon and bless his reforms, testing her and hoping to shake her and bring her over to their way of thinking. They said: “Patriarch Nikon was a great and wise teacher; the faith he handed down is perfectly orderly, and it is good and beautiful to serve according to the new books.” After listening in silence, Feodosiya would open her mouth and answer: “Truly, uncle, you have been deceived. You praise God’s enemy and apostate, and you call his books—sown with Roman and all kinds of heresies—blessed. An Orthodox Christian must turn away from his books, detest all his godless innovations, and curse him in every way as an enemy of Christ’s Church.”

The gray-haired elder pressed her further: “Oh, child Feodosiya! What are you doing? Why have you separated yourself from us? Don’t you see this vineyard—the children planted here? We were supposed to look at them like young olive shoots, rejoice and celebrate together with you, eating and drinking in shared love. But now one single division has come between us! I beg you: stop this quarrel, cross yourself with three fingers, and don’t oppose the great sovereign or any of the bishops in anything else! I know perfectly well who ruined you and deceived you—that worst of enemies, the archpriest whose very name I loathe to speak because of my great hatred. You yourself know who I mean—the one for whose teaching you are ready to die. Yet I will say it: Avvakum, cursed by our bishops!”

Feodosiya, seeing the old man raging like a madman, smiled gently and answered in a quiet voice: “No, uncle, no—that’s not right. Your answer is upside-down: you call the sweet bitter and the bitter sweet. Father Avvakum is a true disciple of Christ because he suffers for the law of his Master. Anyone who truly wants to please God need only listen to his teaching.”

She said many more things like this and always fought them with unstoppable courage, and by Christ’s help she put them to shame every time.

One day Anna Mikhailovna started in again: “Dear little sister, those Belëv crones have devoured you! They swallowed your soul like a baby bird and tore you away from us! You’ve not only scorned us—you don’t even care about your only son. You have just one child, and you won’t even look at him. And what a child! Who wouldn’t marvel at his beauty? You should be watching over him while he sleeps, lighting candles of the purest wax, burning a lamp above that lovely face, gazing at his handsome features and rejoicing that God gave you such a precious boy. The Tsar himself and the Tsaritsa have often marveled at his beauty, yet you treat him as nothing and refuse to obey the great sovereign. What if, because of your defiance, the Tsar’s fiery wrath falls on you and your house? What if he orders your home plundered? Then you’ll suffer greatly and make your own son a beggar through your hard-heartedness.”

Feodosiya opened her holy lips and replied: “You’re the one speaking falsehood! I was not deceived by those Belëv nuns, as you claim. By the grace of my Savior I worship God the Father with my whole mind. I love Ivan; I pray for him without ceasing and care for everything that is good for his soul and body. But if you think that for Ivan’s sake I would wound my own soul or, out of pity for my son, abandon piety—” She crossed herself with the two-fingered sign and continued, “May the Son of God preserve me from such unworthy tenderness! I will not—I will not ruin myself to spare my son. Even though he is my only child, I love Christ more than my son! Know this clearly: if you think you can use my son to block me from Christ’s path, you will never succeed. I tell you boldly: if you want, take my son Ivan out to the Lobnoye Mesto and throw him to the dogs to frighten me into abandoning the faith—I still will not do it. Even if I saw his beautiful body torn apart by dogs, I would not dream of betraying piety. Be certain of this: if I remain steadfast in Christ’s faith to the end and am found worthy to taste death for it, no one will ever snatch him from my hand.”

When Anna heard these words she recoiled as if struck by thunder, utterly astonished at Feodosiya’s iron courage and unshakable resolve.

Feodosiya prayed often that God would grant her sister, Princess Evdokia, the same burning love for Christ and the same care for her soul. She instructed her with great tenderness and urged her to place herself under Mother Melania’s obedience. Evdokia joyfully and eagerly begged the elder to take charge of her salvation. Melania refused for a long time, but the princess won her over with many tears and became an excellent disciple. Not only in obedience but in every virtue she emulated her elder sister Feodosiya—fasting, prayer, visiting prisoners—until one could say: two bodies, one soul.

Feodosiya now reached higher in her thoughts, longing intensely for the angelic habit. She fell at her mother’s feet, kissed her hands, bowed to the ground, and begged to be clothed in the monastic schema. Melania put it off for many reasons:

First, such a thing could not be hidden in her own house; if the Tsar found out, countless people would suffer interrogations to discover who had tonsured her.

Second, doing it secretly outside the house brought another danger.

Third, even if it stayed hidden, the time was coming for her son to marry, which would require much fuss, wedding preparations, and arrangements—things unseemly for a nun.

Fourth, once tonsured she would have to hide completely, stop even the little pretense she still kept, cease going to church altogether, and stand firm like a man to the end.

Yet Feodosiya burned with insatiable divine love and yearned for the monastic life. Seeing her immense faith, zeal, and unchangeable resolve, Melania finally consented. She asked Father Dosifei to bestow the angelic habit. He tonsured her, named her Feodora, and gave the Gospel portion to Mother Melania.

The blessed Feodora, now granted this great gift of God and seeing the longed-for angelic habit upon herself, plunged into even greater ascetic labors: stricter fasting, longer prayer, deeper silence. She withdrew completely from household affairs, claiming illness, and entrusted all legal matters to trusted servants.

When the Tsar’s wedding arrived and he took Tsaritsa Natalia, Feodora refused to attend with the other boyar ladies. Tsar Alexis took heavy offense, for she should have stood in the front rank and pronounced the ceremonial titles. He summoned her repeatedly; she refused to the end, saying, “My legs hurt terribly; I can neither walk nor stand.” The Tsar replied, “I know she has grown proud.” The real reason she stayed away was that she would have had to call the Tsar “most Orthodox,” kiss his hand, and receive the bishops’ blessing—things she could not avoid. She chose suffering over communion with them, knowing the Tsar would not let the matter drop. And so it was: all that summer he raged against her and began looking for any pretext to exile her without cause.

Toward autumn he first sent boyar Troekurov, then a month later Prince Pyotr Urusov, with stern warnings: submit, accept all the new rites, or face terrible consequences. Feodora, bold in the Lord’s name, answered the boyars: “I have done the Tsar no wrong and am amazed why his wrath falls on my lowliness. If he wants to tear me from the true faith, let him not be angry with me. Let him know plainly: until now the Son of God has protected me with His right hand; never once have I even thought of abandoning the fathers’ faith to accept Nikon’s decrees. I have chosen this: in the Christian faith into which I was born and baptized according to apostolic tradition, in that faith I wish to die. Let the sovereign stop troubling his poor servant; it is utterly impossible for me ever to renounce our Orthodox faith, confirmed by the seven ecumenical councils—as I have told him many times before.”

The envoys returned and reported her fearless words. The Tsar’s anger blazed hotter; he wanted to crush her and said to those around him: “It will be hard for her to fight me—one of us will surely prevail!”

He held council after council with his boyars about what to do with her. In the Upper Chambers they sat more than once, plotting how to break her. All the boyars saw the unjust fury and the evil conspiracy against innocent blood; they refused to join the counsel but, fearing for their lives, kept silent. The bishops, the “Jewish elders,” and the Jesuit-trained hieromonks egged the Tsar on most of all. They hated the blessed woman with a deadly hatred and longed to devour her alive, because wherever she was—at home with guests or visiting others—she fearlessly exposed their errors and publicly denounced their heretical wanderings in front of crowds. Everything reached their ears, and for this they loathed her.

While these plots were brewing, five exiled nuns were living in Feodora’s house. They begged to leave before they too were seized. She could not get enough of their company; she rejoiced to stand with them at the night rule before Christ and to eat with them at table. So she kept them about five weeks after the first warning. When they grew afraid, she comforted them: “No, my doves, do not fear! No one will come for me yet.” Princess Evdokia stayed with her and the nuns the whole time, inseparable, consoling her beloved sister in her trials; she only went home to the prince for brief visits.

On November 14 Feodora said to the nuns: “My mothers, my time has come. Each of you go wherever the Lord will keep you safe. Bless me for God’s work and pray that, through your prayers, the Lord will strengthen me to suffer without wavering for His name.” She kissed them tenderly and sent them away in peace.

On the eve of Meatfare Sunday the princess went home. While dining with her husband, he told her what was happening in the Upper Chambers: “Great sorrows are coming upon your sister; the Tsar is seized with uncontrollable rage and has decided to drive her from her house at once.” Another voice at table added: “Princess, listen carefully to what I am about to say. Christ said in the Gospel: ‘They will hand you over to synagogues and flog you in their assemblies; you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them… But I tell you, my friends: Do not fear those who kill the body and after that can do nothing more.’ Do you hear, princess? Christ Himself speaks—remember it well.” Evdokia rejoiced greatly at these words.

The next morning, as the prince was leaving for the palace, she begged him to let her visit Feodora. He said: “Go and say goodbye, but do not linger—I think today they will come for her.”

She arrived and stayed until nightfall; they were expecting guests.

Suddenly, at the second hour of the night, the great gates burst open. Feodora started a little, understood that the tormentors had come, and lay down on a bench. But the faithful princess, illumined by the Holy Spirit, strengthened her: “Dear mother-sister, take courage! Christ is with us—fear nothing! Rise, let us begin.” When they had finished the seven entrance bows, they blessed each other to bear witness to the truth. Feodora lay down on her featherbed near the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer of Theodorov, while the princess went into the little closet that Feodora had built in the same bedchamber for her spiritual mother Melania, and lay down on a mattress there.

Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov Monastery strode in with great arrogance, entered the bedchamber boldly, saw her lying down, announced that he had been sent by the Tsar, and ordered her to rise—at least to sit—so she could answer the Tsar’s words he was commanded to deliver. She refused to obey.

Then the archimandrite interrogated her: “How do you cross yourself? How do you pray?” She folded her fingers in the ancient two-fingered sign handed down by the holy fathers, opened her sacred lips, and chanted: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us! Thus I cross myself; thus I pray.”

The archimandrite pressed a second question: “The nun Melania—you gave her the name Alexandra in your house—where is she now? Tell us quickly; we need her.”

Blessed Feodora answered: “By God’s mercy and our parents’ prayers, as far as our poor house could, its doors were always open to receive Christ’s wandering servants. When the time came, we had Sidors, Karps, Melanias, Alexandras; now there is none of them.”

The duma secretary Hilarion Ivanovich stepped into the closet where it was dark, saw a person lying on the bed, and asked: “Who are you?” The princess replied: “I am the wife of Prince Pyotr Urusov.” He jumped back as if burned by fire. The archimandrite, seeing this, asked: “Who is in there?” Hilarion answered: “Princess Evdokia Prokopievna Urusova.” Joachim said: “Ask her how she crosses herself.” Hilarion, unwilling, replied: “We were sent only to boyarynya Feodosiya Prokopievna.” Joachim insisted: “Obey me—question her.”

Hilarion approached, asked, and she confessed. Lying on the bed, propped on her left elbow, she made the sign with her right hand—thumb joined to the two little fingers, the index and middle fingers extended—and showed it to him, proclaiming with her lips while glorifying the Lord Jesus as Son of God: “Thus I believe!” Hilarion went out and reported to the archimandrite. Joachim, no longer able to contain his fury at seeing his false faith trampled by faithful women, said to Hilarion: “Stay here. I will go tell the Tsar.”

He rushed off and found the Tsar sitting among the boyars in the Faceted Palace. He drew close and whispered in his ear that not only had the boyarynya stood firm like a man, but her sister Princess Evdokia, who happened to be in the house, was zealously resisting the Tsar’s command even more fiercely. The Tsar said: “Impossible! I heard that princess is gentle and does not scorn our services; it’s that madwoman who is the trouble.” But the archimandrite, filled with man-hating malice, pressed: “She has become exactly like her elder sister in everything—and mocks us even worse.” The Tsar replied: “If that is so, take her too.” Prince Pyotr, standing nearby, heard this, was deeply grieved, but could do nothing.

The archimandrite returned to the martyr’s house and began interrogating everyone present, especially her maidservants, to see who shared their mistress’s faith. The black deacon Iosaf, standing outside the door, said to him: “Question Ksenia Ivanova; interrogate Anna Soboleva.” He did. Both women stood firm, confessed, showed the two-fingered sign, prayed, and placed their hope in the Son of God. They were set apart on one side. All the rest, terrified, bowed to the new way and were placed on the left.

Then the archimandrite said to the boyarynya: “Since you refused to live in submission and hardened yourself in rebellion, the Tsar’s decree has overtaken you: you are to be driven from your house. Enough living in high places—come down! Rise and leave this place!” The blessed woman refused even this. He ordered the servants to carry her out. They brought an armchair, sat her in it by Joachim’s command, and carried her downstairs. Her son, the pious Ivan Glebovich, accompanied her as far as the middle porch, bowed to her from behind (she did not see him), then turned back.

They put horse-irons on the feet of Feodora and Evdokia, locked them in the servants’ quarters in the cellar, posted guards with strict orders to watch them, and left.

Two days later the duma secretary Hilarion returned, removed the irons from their feet, and ordered them to go wherever they were told. Blessed Feodora refused to walk; she commanded her servants to carry her. They spread out cloth, sat her on it, and carried her by Hilarion’s order all the way to Chudov Monastery; Princess Evdokia was led alongside.

They brought Feodora into one of the patriarchal chambers. As usual she bowed to the icon of God, but gave the authorities only a slight and reluctant bow. Present were Paul, Metropolitan of Krutitsa, Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov again, the duma secretary, and others. Blessed Feodora refused to stand while speaking with them; she answered sitting down. They pressed her hard to stand; she would not.

Then Metropolitan Paul began speaking softly, reminding her of her rank and lineage: “This is what those elders and nuns did to you—they bewitched you with their sweet talk, you spent time with them, listened to their teaching, and they brought you to this dishonor: your noble self dragged before a tribunal.” Then with many gentle words they tried to soothe her and persuade her to submit to the Tsar. They kept bringing up her son’s beauty, begging her to have pity on him and not let her defiance destroy his house.

Against every argument she gave wise answers. “I was not bewitched by elders and nuns, as you claim,” she said. “I learned the true path of Christ and piety from genuine servants of God. Stop talking to me about my son. I have promised myself to Christ my Light; I will not break that promise until my last breath. I live for Christ, not for my son.”

Seeing her unyielding courage and unable to silence her, they decided at least to frighten her. They put one final question bluntly: “Since you stubbornly resist our words, we ask you plainly and briefly: will you receive communion from the service-books by which the Tsar himself takes communion, and the pious Tsaritsa, the princes, and the princesses?” With a man’s heart she answered: “I will not receive!” “I know the Tsar communes from Nikon’s corrupted service-books; that is why I refuse!”

The metropolitan pressed further: “Then what do you think of all of us—are we all heretics?” She replied again: “Since that enemy of God Nikon vomited out his heresies like filth, and you now lick up his defilement, it is clear you are just like him.”

Then Paul of Krutitsa shouted loudly: “What are we to do? She calls every one of us a heretic!” Joachim shouted too: “Why, Archbishop Paul, did you ever call her a mother, and a righteous one at that? She is no such thing! She is no longer Prokopiy’s daughter; she deserves to be called the devil’s daughter!”

The blessed woman answered Joachim: “I curse the devil by the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ. Though unworthy, I am His daughter.” The dispute with them lasted from the second hour of the night until the tenth.

Then they brought in the pious princess and questioned her. She showed the same courage in everything.

Again they ordered Feodora carried on the cloth back to her house and placed in the same cellar where they had sat for two days, together with the princess once more. The irons were put back on their feet. Then blessed Feodora said to the princess: “If they separate us and send us into exile, I beg you—remember poor Feodora in your prayers.” Holy Evdokia was astonished; they had always been together and she had never heard such a thing.

The next morning, after their interrogation by the authorities, the duma secretary came. Chains with wooden stocks were brought in. The irons were removed from their feet and the chains fastened around their necks. Blessed Feodora crossed her face, kissed the collar of the chain, and said: “Glory to You, Lord, for making me worthy to put on Paul’s fetters!”

By the secretary’s order the servants lifted her onto a wood-sled and told a groom to drive. She sat down and placed the stock close beside her. As she was driven past Chudov under the Tsar’s covered walkway, great Feodora stretched out her right hand, clearly formed the two-fingered sign of the cross, raised it high, crossed herself repeatedly, and rattled her chain just as often. The saint believed the Tsar was watching her victory from the walkway, so she showed not only that she was not ashamed of their mockery but that she greatly rejoiced in Christ’s love and exulted in her bonds.

Princess Evdokia was likewise loaded with iron chains and taken to the Alexeevsky Convent, where she was ordered kept under strict guard and brought to church. Yet she displayed such courage that the whole royal city marveled at her bravery and how valiantly she resisted the tyrants’ will. Not only did she never walk to their services on her own feet, no matter how much they forced her; even when they dragged her on a mat (as they were ordered to do), she refused to lie on the mat by herself. Though perfectly healthy, at that moment she would make herself like a paralytic, unable to move hand or foot. When the nuns came to lift her, she sometimes made things difficult for them, even to the point of shamelessly slapping her holy, angelic face and saying: “Woe to us! What can we do with you? We ourselves saw you perfectly well and cheerfully talking with your friends just now, but the moment we arrive to call you to prayer you suddenly turn into a corpse and give us endless trouble, lying there like the dead and immovable.” The spotless lamb answered them: “Poor nuns, why do you exhaust yourselves for nothing? Did I force you to do this work? You are the ones running around in senseless frenzy. I weep even for you who are perishing—how could I ever think of going to your gathering? There you sing not to praise God but to blaspheme Him, your Savior, trampling His laws.” So they would lift the saint onto the mat like a dead body and drag her to the service.

Whenever the blessed woman caught sight of any of the faithful she knew standing in the monastery watching her ordeal, she would groan: “Alas, I am worn out—stop a moment!” The nuns would set the mat down. The great one would say: “Nuns! Why are you dragging me like this? Do I want to pray with you? Never! It is not right for us Christians to pray together with those who have abandoned Christ’s law. But let me tell you something: where your singing is heard, that is the proper place to go relieve oneself of excess belly-matter—that is how I regard your sacrifice.”

Feodora was taken to the metochion of the Pechersky Monastery and placed under heavy guard: two streltsy captains, relieving each other, watched her with ten soldiers.

Elena and the other sisters hid for fear; for a whole week they could learn nothing about holy Feodora, and they grieved deeply, weeping like babies torn from their mother. But on November 27, the feast of the Sign of the Most Holy God-bearer, Elena found her by God’s wonderful favor. Great Feodora had come out onto the back porch (the place used for necessary relief), and Elena happened to be walking along that street. By God’s guidance they recognized each other; the spot on the street served the same bodily need for passers-by. Elena drew near and spoke with Feodora, who stood above on the porch.

The blessed woman said: “O my beloved Elena! Nothing in these days has grieved me like being separated from you—not exile from my house, not the Tsar’s anger, not interrogation by the authorities, not chains, not guards. All these are dear to me for Christ’s sake; but it weighs heavily on me that for more than a week I have known nothing about you. For the Lord’s sake, do not abandon me, do not leave Moscow—stay here, do not be afraid! I trust in Christ: He will cover you. I do not sorrow this much even for blood relatives; I weep for you without ceasing. Through Christ who strengthens me all things are possible, but this one thing I cannot bear to the end.”

Maria, the third companion in their struggle, tried to flee while the Tsar’s wrath burned against blessed Feodora. Someone informed on her; a posse was sent, she was seized in the Podonsk region, brought back to Moscow, interrogated in the same way, and followed the example of the blessed sisters Feodora and Evdokia in everything. She fiercely resisted, publicly praised the ancient piety before everyone, and utterly rejected the new doctrines. They imprisoned her in chains under the Streltsy Office.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Ryazan often came to Feodora. She argued with him so courageously that he was repeatedly put to shame and left speechless.

Seeing herself loaded with heavy irons and tormented by the discomfort of the wooden stock, Feodora rejoiced. Yet one thing grieved her, and she wrote in her own hand to her spiritual mother Melania: “Alas, my mother! I have done no monastic deed at all! How can I now make full prostrations? Woe to me, a sinner! The day of death draws near, and I, wretched, remain in sloth! You, my joy, instead of earthly prostrations bless me to bear Paul’s chains for Christ’s sake and endure reproach. And if you will, bless me to abstain from beef fat, milk, cheese, and eggs, so that my monastic life may not be idle and the day of death not snatch me unprepared. Only command me to eat fasting oil.” The mother gave her blessing for suffering: “Stand bravely, you who suffer for the Lord’s name; may the Lord bless you to carry His chains. Go like a candle from us to God as an offering. As for food—eat whatever is provided.”

For many days after Feodora’s arrest the Tsar sat with his boyars plotting what to do with her for her fearless denunciations. He summoned her brother Feodor, interrogated him harshly about many things, and demanded: “Tell me—where is Melania? You know all your sister’s secrets!” He pressed Feodor with fierce anger.

He ordered Ivan Glebovich kept under guard. The boy fell ill from overwhelming grief. The Tsar sent his own physicians; they “cured” him so well that in a few days they sent him to his grave. When Ivan died, a Nikonians priest was sent to tell Feodora of her son’s death. The malicious man insulted the saint, quoting Psalm 108 about Judas and applying the godless, mitreless cleric’s words to the blessed woman: because she had turned from their faith, God’s punishment had come upon her—her house would be desolate and none would live in it. But the wise woman paid no attention to their madness. When she saw her beloved son dead, she was deeply wounded. She fell to the ground before the icon of God and wept with tender voice, sobbing: “Alas, my child—they have destroyed you, those apostates!” For many hours she did not rise from the floor, pouring out dirges over her son until others who heard her wept from pity.

The Tsar rejoiced at Ivan’s death, thinking he could now torment the mother more freely without her son. Not content with that, he sent her two brothers—Feodor to Chuguev, Alexei to Rybnoe—supposedly as military governors, but really into exile. Feodor grew so rich in his post that he spent a thousand of his own rubles. The Tsar did all this out of great malice toward the blessed woman, hoping no helping hand from anywhere would ever reach them in their great afflictions. Yet God was with them.

After Ivan’s death all the property was scattered: estates, herds, horses given away to boyars; every valuable thing—gold, silver, pearls, precious stones—was ordered sold. While demolishing the palace they found a huge amount of gold bricked into the wall. One of Feodora’s servants, Ivan, by his mistress’s command hid some precious items with a man thought to be trustworthy. Through the wife’s instigation he was betrayed, cruelly tortured—burned with fire and questioned by six men—and endured everything bravely. Like a good and faithful servant he sincerely followed his mistress’s example and was finally burned in Borovsk together with the other martyrs.

Later, as if the Tsar had softened, he allowed Feodora two of her maidservants to serve her in her chains. Anna Ammosova and Stefanida (called Gneva) ran to her with great joy and waited on her. Though righteous Princess Evdokia did not draw a servant by lot, God raised up a nobler one than any slave—the daughter of a lord—to serve her lady: the maiden Akilina, a boyar’s daughter, constantly came and went, serving her. Later Akilina herself took the veil and was named Anisia.

Maria, sitting there, suffered worse than either of the sisters. The shameless soldiers constantly tormented her with their crude behavior. Nikonians priests kept coming to her, troubling her spirit and cursing her as a schismatic. Once a priest and a deacon came in like devil paired with devil and forced her to cross herself with three fingers. She refused. They lost all shame, lunged at her like dogs, seized her fingers, and tried to twist them into the pinch. She pulled away in disgust and cried: “This is not the sign of the cross—it is the seal of Antichrist!” They shot back: “No! Those two fingers you use to make your cross are what mothers use to scrape filth off babies when they soil themselves.” That is how the godless knew how to curse!

So the three of them sat in separate places, enduring for the name of the Lord.

That same year God granted great Feodora, though in chains and under heavy guard, to receive communion from the hand of the holy father Job of Lgov (mentioned earlier). It happened miraculously. One of the captains on duty was very kind to her. The saint begged him: “When I still lived in my house, a certain elderly priest served in one of our villages; we were good to him. Now I hear he is here. I feel sorry for him because of his age. If you have any mercy for my lowliness, let me call him.” He allowed it. The holy elder came to the holy martyr like Barlaam to Josaphat, to give her the priceless pearl in the guise of a poor man. As he passed through the entryway, the captain himself stood up and bowed to him. After giving the martyr the Body and Blood of Christ, the elder left. The blessed old man was so moved at the sight of the great lady’s immense suffering that afterward he could never speak of her without tears.

Another wonder occurred. The two blood sisters—great Feodora and faithful Evdokia—longed to see each other face to face in this life and talk. They prayed to almighty God to comfort them. Finally Evdokia said to the noblewoman in whose cell she was kept: “Lady, you know the ache of leaving little children. I abandoned mine for Christ’s sake! If I have found favor with you, let me go home just long enough to kiss them and comfort them—and be comforted myself—and I will return before evening. No one will ever know except you and me. It can happen if you will only take pity on me. It is already midday; the abbess is visiting guests, the nuns have scattered, few people are about the monastery. If I cover myself with a veil I will pass unnoticed.” That lady, beyond all human expectation, let the martyr-princess go, asking her to leave the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer: “I know how you love the image of our Lady. Leave it here and go in peace; I am sure the Helper will bring you back.”

The blessed woman set out. On the way the devil stirred up some evil men who said to each other: “Grab her—she’s an escapee!” She boldly answered them back. On the road she met Elena, and together they reached the Pechersky metochion. The gatekeeper told Feodora of their arrival. The blessed woman sent her maid Anna away and Princess Evdokia went up instead; she passed the guard on the porch—he thought it was still Anna. The martyr and the confessor talked with great love.

The devil grew jealous, raised a storm, and the matter was discovered. All ten soldiers started a riot. Feodora begged the captain; he quieted the soldiers, and the uproar died down. For the martyrs it turned out for the better: the captain ordered the visitor to spend the night. “I will let her go secretly at night,” he said. The saints spent the whole night rejoicing in conversation. At dawn Evdokia left; Elena escorted her. She returned to the monastery and everything stayed hidden and calm. Elena stayed with them, serving, providing what they needed—food, clothing—sometimes carrying it herself, sometimes sending others.

Mikhail Alekseevich came to Evdokia more than once. Standing at the window he said with tears: “Your suffering amazes me, but one thing troubles me—I do not know whether you suffer for the truth.”

Crowds of noblewomen came to watch, and common people ran to see the princess dragged on the mat. The great ladies especially marveled with deep affection and grieved as if for a relative. When the abbess saw this she was torn two ways: pity bent her heart at the princess’s suffering and her high rank, yet she was also disturbed that the dragging only brought her more glory—crowds gathered to witness her patience. With these thoughts she went to Patriarch Pitirim (who was then in office) and told him everything: what was happening in their monastery, who the princess was, and why she was there—he had not known, for they had been imprisoned before his appointment. As he questioned the abbess more closely, it was natural for her to mention Feodora too. Finally the patriarch said: “Go. I will speak to the Tsar about this.”

He hurried to the Tsar and reminded him of great Feodora and the blessed princess. “I advise you, Sovereign,” he said, “to give the boyarynya-widow Morozova her house back and grant her a hundred peasant households for her support; give the princess back to her prince too. That would be more fitting. It is women’s business—how much do they really understand?”

The Tsar answered: “Most holy lord, I would have done it long ago, but you do not know that woman’s ferocity. How can I even tell you how she has mocked me—and still mocks me! No one has ever done me such evil as she has. She has caused me endless trouble and great inconvenience. If you do not believe my words, test it yourself: summon her, question her, and you will learn her stubbornness. When you start interrogating her you will taste her sharpness. Then do whatever your holiness commands—I will not disobey a single word.”

At the second hour of the night they took Feodora in her chains, put her on a wood-sled, and ordered the captain to go with her. They brought her to Chudov and led her into the Patriarchal Chamber. Patriarch Pitirim was there, Metropolitan Paul, other authorities, and many city officials. The great woman stood before the assembly wearing iron chains around her neck. First the patriarch said: “I am amazed that you have come to love this chain so much you will not part with it.” The saint, her face radiant and her heart rejoicing, answered: “Truly I love it—not just love it, I have not yet had my fill of gazing at these longed-for chains! How could I not love them? Though I am such a sinner, by God’s grace I have been found worthy to see and bear Paul’s chains on my body—and for love of God’s only-begotten Son!”

The patriarch: “How long will you stay in this madness? Stop clinging to that devilish behavior! How long will you refuse to pity yourself and keep troubling the Tsar’s soul with your defiance? Abandon all these absurd ideas and follow my counsel, which I offer out of mercy and pity: join the cathedral Church and the Russian assembly—confess and receive communion.” The blessed woman answered: “There is no one to confess to, no one to commune me.” The patriarch again: “There are plenty of priests in Moscow!” The saint: “Plenty of priests, but not one true one.” The patriarch once more: “Because I care deeply for you, I myself will take the trouble in my old age to hear your confession and serve—I will commune you myself.” The wise woman replied: “What do you mean ‘myself’? I do not understand! Are you any different from them? Do you not do their will? When you were Metropolitan of Krutitsa and kept the Christian customs handed down by the fathers of our Russian land, when you wore the old-shaped kuluk—then we loved you a little. But now you have chosen to do the will of an earthly tsar and despised the Heavenly King and your Creator; you have put the horned klobuk of the Roman pope on your head. That is why we turn away. So stop comforting me with ‘I myself’—I have no need of your service.”

Then the patriarch said to his bishops: “Vest me now in the sacred robes so I may anoint her forehead with holy oil—perhaps she will come to her senses; as we see, she has lost her mind.”

They vested him, brought the oil, and he took the brush dipped in it and started toward the saint. Until then she had never stood on her own feet; the captain and another man had held her up, and she had spoken leaning on their arms. But when she saw him coming, she stood on her own feet and readied herself like a wrestler. Metropolitan Paul of Krutitsa stretched out one hand to steady the patriarch and with the other tried to lift the fur hat from the blessed woman’s head so the patriarch could anoint her easily. The great woman pushed his hand away and said: “Get back!” She shoved both his hand and the brush: “How dare you presume to touch our face so clumsily? You should know our rank!”

The patriarch dipped the brush again and stretched out his hand to sign her forehead. The most blessed woman, like a brave warrior fully armed against the adversary, thrust out her own hand, knocked his aside together with the brush, and cried: “Do not destroy me, a sinner, with your apostate oil!” Rattling her chains she continued: “Why have I, a sinner, worn these chains a whole year? Precisely because I refuse to join your worthless faith. Yet with one moment you want to ruin all my unworthy labor! Back off—away! I will never need your holiness!”

Hearing this, the patriarch could not bear the great shame. He flew into a rage and from bitter grief roared: “O offspring of vipers! Devil’s daughter, troublemaker!” He turned back from her growling like a bear, shouting: “Throw her down, drag her without mercy! Drag her out by the chain around her neck like a dog! She is the devil’s daughter, a troublemaker—no more life for her! Tomorrow the troublemaker goes to the stake!”

The blessed woman answered quietly: “I am a sinner, yet not the devil’s daughter. Do not curse me with that name, Patriarch. By the grace of my Savior God I am Christ’s daughter, not the devil’s. Do not curse me with that, Patriarch!”

By the patriarch’s command they hurled her to the floor so hard she thought her skull would split. They dragged her across the chamber so brutally that she expected the iron collar to tear her neck in two and rip her head from her shoulders. As they hauled her down the stairs she counted every step with her head. They brought her back to the Pechersky metochion on the same sled at the ninth hour of the night.

That same night, at the same hour, the patriarch had Princess Evdokia and Maria brought before him, thinking perhaps one of them would yield. It did not happen. Strengthened by God’s grace they testified boldly and showed themselves ready to die for the Lord’s name rather than fall from His love. The patriarch tried to anoint the faithful princess as well. But the most holy sufferer did something even more astonishing. Just as the Samaritan woman Photini under Emperor Nero once tore the skin from her own head with her hands and threw it in the tyrant’s face, so our thrice-valiant fighter, when she saw the patriarch coming with the oily brush to anoint her, instantly snatched off her head-covering, bared her hair, and shouted: “Shameless madmen! What are you doing? Do you not know I am a woman?” They were covered with double shame and stood helpless; thus the saint escaped their anointing. When the questioning ended they were taken back to their places.

Unable to endure his humiliation, the patriarch told the Tsar everything, complaining especially about great Feodora. The Tsar answered: “Did I not tell you beforehand how fierce that woman is? I have experienced it and know her hardness. You saw her behavior only once; I have endured it for years and do not know what to do with her.” Speaking thus they agreed together to torture them, and if they still did not submit, to decide afterward what they deserved.

Again the next night, at the second hour, all three martyrs were taken to the Yam Coach Yard. A huge crowd had been gathered there. They put the martyrs in a hut so packed with people there was hardly room to move. The saints sat in dark corners among the throng, each thinking she was alone. They did not expect torture; they hoped after one last interrogation they would be sent into exile somewhere. Later Feodora realized they had been brought not for exile but for torment. She learned the other two martyrs were there too. Unable to speak with them or encourage them, she rattled her chains and said in her mind: “My beloved fellow-sufferers, I am here with you! Endure, my lights, like men, and pray for me!” She reached out through the press of bodies, grasped Princess Evdokia’s hand, squeezed it hard, and said: “Endure, my mother, endure!”

Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, Prince Yakov Odoevsky, and Vasily Volynsky were appointed to oversee the tortures.

Maria was led to the fire first. Stripped to the waist, hands tied behind her back, she was hoisted on the rack, then thrown to the ground when taken down.

Then they led the princess to the fire. The tormentors saw the colored cover on her hat and said: “Why do you do this—you are in the Tsar’s disgrace yet wear bright colors!” She answered: “I have not sinned against the Tsar.” They tore off the cover and threw her a plain one. Stripped to the waist like the first, hands tied behind, she was hoisted on the rack and thrown down beside Maria.

Last they brought great Feodora to the fire. Prince Vorotynsky spoke many words to her: “Look what you have done! From glory you have come to disgrace! Who are you, from what family! This happened to you because you received into your house the fools for Christ Kipriyan and Feodor and others like them, followed their teaching, and angered the Tsar.” The valiant woman answered: “Our great nobility of the flesh and human glory on earth are nothing. All you mentioned is worthless because it is perishable and passing. Stop your speeches and listen to what I will say. Think about Christ—who He is, whose Son, what He did! If you are puzzled, I will tell you: He is our Lord, Son of God and God Himself. For our salvation He left heaven, took flesh, lived in complete poverty, and finally was crucified by the Jews—just as we are now tortured by you all. Is this not astonishing? Our suffering is nothing.”

Seeing her boldness, the authorities ordered her seized. They tied the sleeves of her shirt around her breasts, bound her hands behind her back, and hung her on the rack. Even there the victorious woman did not stay silent but rebuked their wicked apostasy. For this they kept her on the rack a long time—half an hour—until the straps cut her wrists to the bone. When they took her down they laid her as the third beside the other two. Thus inhumanly mocking them, they left them lying naked-backed on the snow with arms wrenched backward. They lay there three hours.

They tried other torments: placed a frozen block on their chests, brought them close to the fire as if to burn them—but did not burn them. When all their tricks were finished and the martyrs stood up, they covered the bodies of two; the third, Maria, was laid at the feet of Feodora and Evdokia and beaten mercilessly with five whips in two rounds—first across the back, then across the belly. The duma secretary Hilarion said to the other two martyrs: “If you do not submit, the same will happen to you!” Feodora, seeing the inhumanity, the many wounds on holy Maria, and the flowing blood, wept and said to Hilarion: “Is this Christianity—to torture a human being like this?” Afterward they were taken back to their places at the tenth hour of the night.

The next morning the Tsar held council to decide their fate. A stake had been set up on the Boloto. The patriarch strongly urged Feodora’s burning, but the boyars would not agree; Dolgoruky cut the matter short with few words but great effect. For three days Feodora ate no bread and drank no water, trying to die.

Mother Melania had stood at the stake on the Boloto and, returning that same day to holy Feodora, kissed the wounds on her hands and said: “Your house is already prepared for you—very fine and orderly, lined with whole sheaves of straw! You are about to depart to your longed-for Christ, leaving us orphans behind!”

Feodora lovingly received her mother’s blessing to set out on the eternal path. They embraced and kissed; the mother went weeping to Evdokia and brought her the same glad tidings. Standing at the window, gazing at the princess and bathed in tears, she said: “You are our beloved guests. Today or tomorrow you go to the Master. Walk this path without any doubt! When you stand before the throne of the Almighty, do not forget us in our sorrows!”

Everyone expected this to happen, but God willed otherwise: He desired the martyrs to suffer yet longer.

After the beating stopped, Maria passed a towel along her back; it came away soaked with blood, and she sent it to her spiritual father Ioakinf. On the third day great scabs fell from her back like scales. The tormentors demanded them; out of humility she did not want to give them, but finally, forced, she handed them over along with the rest.

Three days after the torture the Tsar sent a streltsy captain to Feodora with these words: “Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna! You are a second martyr Catherine. I myself beg you—follow my advice. I want to raise you back to your former honor. For the sake of appearances before the people, so it does not seem I seized you for nothing, do not cross yourself with three fingers, but simply raise your hand and pass it over those three fingers! Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna, second Catherine! Obey—I will send my royal carriage for you with my own argamaks; many boyars will come and carry you on their heads. Obey, righteous mother—I, the Tsar, bow my head to you—do this!”

Hearing and seeing this, Feodora said to the messenger: “What are you doing, man? Why do you bow to me so much? Stop—listen to what I will say. That the sovereign speaks such words about me is far above my worth. I am a sinner and unworthy of the rank of the great martyr Catherine. As for merely passing my hand over the three-fingered sign—no, may the Son of God preserve me from ever even thinking such a thing about the seal of Antichrist! Know this clearly: by Christ’s help I will never do it! Even if I refuse and he orders me carried home in honor on the boyars’ heads, I will cry out that I cross myself according to the ancient tradition of the holy fathers! As for honoring me with his carriage and argamaks—truly, that means nothing to me. I have ridden in carriages and coaches, on argamaks and Turkomans; all that has passed away. This I count as great—truly wondrous—if God grants me to be burned with fire for His name in the stake you have prepared for me on the Boloto. That is glorious to me, for I have never tasted such honor and I long to receive such a gift from Christ.” Having spoken thus, the saint fell silent, and the captain said no more.

Soon afterward God’s judgment overtook Patriarch Pitirim; he perished by a cruel death.

The Tsar ordered Feodora moved from the Pechersky metochion to the Novodevichy Convent so that no one could bring her anything there. He commanded her kept under strict guard and dragged to services. Yet she showed great courage and rejected all their orders to the end.

God glorified His servant: so many noblewomen came that the whole monastery was blocked with their carriages and coaches. They did not come to plead but to behold her holy, angelic face and witness her steadfast endurance. Her loved ones and those who supplied her needs visited her there too, covered by God, just as they had at the Pechersky metochion, and comforted her suffering heart.

Unable to bear seeing crowds of nobles come to marvel at her suffering, the Tsar ordered her brought back to Moscow, to the Khamovniki quarter. In her old age she was taken to a courtyard; she rejoiced greatly. Her spiritual mother Melania came to visit her there, and Elena, servant of her chains. They rejoiced together with many tears.

Then the Tsar’s elder sister Irina said to him: “Brother, why do you act improperly and drag that poor widow from place to place? It is not good, brother! You should remember the service of Boris and his brother Gleb.” He roared with great anger and answered: “Very well, dear sister, very well! Since you chirp so much about her, I have a place ready for her at once!”

Immediately he sent her to Borovsk, to cruel imprisonment in the stockade built there and its earthen dungeon. Feodora entered the prison rejoicing and found a nun named Iustina already sitting there, confined for the same faith.

When the blessed princess heard that her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer had been taken far away, she wept bitterly like a child for its mother. The same with the passion-bearer Maria. But the all-seeing eye of God beheld their groaning and did not despise it; He desired to grant what they asked and join them inseparably to the great sufferer.

It happened thus: Tsar Alexis ordered the princess sent there too. As she drew near the prison, the doors were opened; she rejoiced greatly and began the prayer. When Feodora saw her beloved one, she seized both her hands and cried in a radiant voice: “All creation rejoices in you, O full of grace!”

A little later they brought Maria too, and their joy was complete.

Merciful God did not leave them without comfort even there, but consoled them like nestlings. Ioakinf, before the captains were sent to Borovsk, took them into his house in Moscow and fed them so they would not be savage. In Borovsk he sent his nephew Irodion, who visited the prison many times, along with many others. Their spiritual mother Melania visited them there more than once, and Elena many times.

But the evil one envied this and stirred up the authorities. They sent an order to investigate who was visiting them and how they got in. A certain Borovsk citizen Pamfil was tortured; they questioned Irodion. He endured great torment but betrayed no one. At that moment Irodion was hiding under the floor in Pamfil’s house. Since he did not confess, they let him go home. Lying there with blood flowing from his wounds, he said to his wife: “Agripina, now it is safe and free—quickly carry a basket of baked onions by daylight.” Later Pamfil and his wife were exiled to Smolensk, where they still suffer to this day.

While they sat in prison they often begged their spiritual mother Melania to visit them, but it was impossible. Then Feodora somehow learned that their departure was near, so she wrote in her own hand: “Take pity—visit us one last time,” and so it happened. She asked her to bring her elder brother too. God sped them on their way, for we heard that in those very days the Tsar planned to send someone to interrogate them strictly and, if they did not submit, to carry out the sentence. But God preserved us.

On Sunday, at the third hour of the night, we reached the prison. Our joy together with them was beyond words. Great Feodora—I do not know what to call her—named her prison a most radiant dungeon and called her spiritual mother Melania equal-to-the-apostles and an apostle of the Lord. “Why, my light,” she said, “have you left us, your fledglings, unvisited for so long? Without your guidance we cannot order our lives rightly.” They kissed both her hands again and again. Maria, the third with them, did the same. We talked the whole night. It was January 11. At dawn Irodion and I left. Mother Melania and Elena, at the martyrs’ pleading and out of their great love, dared to stay the whole day with them and were fully comforted.

After us, as I said, the next evening the captain still had not come to take us. We grieved, our souls torn in two.

But the Lord had mercy; we came to the prison again at midnight. The mother wanted to leave quickly. While all stood together, the mother instructed and admonished them. I do not fully know the reason for her admonition, but I relate what I heard. The teacher said: “I know my unworthiness, but since you yourselves press me hard and lay a heavy burden on my neck to show you God’s path—lest I forget—now, seeing your patience, I fear even to draw near you, lest fire come forth from you and burn me in my feebleness. Yet since you have bound me with the love of our Lord, listen to my unworthy words: strive to amend yourselves. I see that you are bound with the chains of demonic warfare; if you do not free yourselves from those chains, even these iron chains you wear for Christ will not help you.”

As the mother spoke these words to them, Feodora held her left hand with her right, and Evdokia her right hand. When blessed Feodora heard such words from her mother, fountains of tears poured down that holy face, and she never stopped kissing her mother’s hand with love. Whenever the mother paused, the most holy one, weeping, would say: “Did I not tell you before, my joy, that without your shepherding we can do no good at all? That is how we all are, lady—without you we follow our own will. Look what you saw in this short hour! Woe to us! We strayed from your guidance and lost the gift of obedience! From where did the Lord give you to us? You are Christ’s apostle to us! O our light! Do not leave us without guidance!”

Seeing and hearing this, I was utterly amazed at the understanding, endurance, and love of blessed Feodora—how, when lovingly corrected, she humbled herself though guilty of nothing.

When that winter had passed, the devil kind a great storm, raging with malice against the martyrs because he was defeated by their patience. It happened thus.

During Thomas week a Moscow clerk named Pavel suddenly burst into the prison with great ferocity. He seized all their necessities and even the scanty food—everything. He took whatever spare clothing they had, leaving them only the shirts on their backs. Not content with that, he took their little books and, in the ultimate satanic wickedness, even the holy icons the martyrs kept—small painted panels. Those foul vessels feared nothing and, worse than the Persian idolaters, stripped them of everything. Feodora had an icon of the most pure God-bearer, the wonder-working Hodegetria. When they carried it out of the prison, tearing it from her hands, she cried aloud with a mighty voice and wept bitterly over the icon. Blessed Evdokia comforted her: “Do not weep—the Helper has not only not abandoned us; Christ Himself is with us and will be!”

There was great uproar among the soldiers; the captains were interrogated about who brought them supplies and who let visitors in. Some confessed they had brought things themselves and allowed others to enter. The captains suffered terrible punishment. The captain under whom we had visited, Alexandr Sezonov son of Medvedevsky, was judged guiltier than the rest; he was flogged, reduced to common soldier, and exiled to Belgorod.

On St. Peter’s day the clerk Kuzmishchev was sent to Borovsk to investigate and interrogated the holy martyrs about visitors and supplies. He burned the venerable martyr Iustina in a log hut because she refused to cross herself with three fingers.

For the sake of those who remained they demolished the prison and made a worse one—dug very deep into the ground—and placed there the two blessed sisters, wise Feodora and glorious Evdokia. Maria they put in the jail where thieves were kept. They were forbidden food or drink. Anyone who dared to give them anything against the order, if later discovered, was to be executed.

The time that followed was utterly cruel. Everyone was now terrified to let anyone in or to offer the slightest comfort themselves.

Who can recount the fullness of their endurance in that deep dungeon—tormented by hunger in impenetrable darkness, choking from the foul air, for the earth’s vapors gathered and caused them great nausea? They could neither change nor wash their shirts. They constantly wore even their thin outer garments for warmth, and from this came countless lice—beyond telling. It was like an unceasing worm: by day it gnawed, by night it gave no sleep.

Yet though the earthly tsar strictly forbade giving them any food at all, the Heavenly King commanded that food be given to the teacher of wisdom—very little and poor: sometimes five or six crusts of bread, but then no water to drink; when water was given, do not ask for food. Sometimes they received one or two apples, sometimes nothing, sometimes a small piece of cucumber. This was done by soldiers who happened to be there and were kind-hearted; seeing the immense suffering of such great people, their hearts melted and, moved to tears, they showed a little mercy—lowering it secretly on a rope so their comrades would not know.

In such extreme need holy Evdokia endured patiently, thanking God, for two and a half months, and departed on September 11. Her passing was tearful. When she grew too weak from great hunger to stand for prayer, to bear her chains, or to move the stool, she lay down and sometimes prayed sitting, moving only her lips. They had no ladder—that is, no prayer rope—for the tormentors had taken that too. The martyrs tied fifty knots in rags and, like climbing the ladder to heaven, took turns sending prayers to God by those knots. When Evdokia saw she was clearly failing, she said to great Feodora: “Lady mother and sister! I am spent and think death is near. Release me to my Master, for whose love I embraced this hardship. I beg you, lady—according to Christian law, that we not remain outside church tradition—sing the departure canon for me. Say what you know, lady, and what I know I will say myself.” Thus both served the departure service. Martyr sang over martyr in the dark dungeon; prisoner wept over prisoner—one lying in chains and groaning, the other standing in chains and sobbing. So the faithful princess Evdokia gave her spirit into the Lord’s hands on September 11.

Feodora called one of the soldiers and ordered him to inform the city commander. He commanded the soldier to go into the prison and pull out her body. The soldier came. Feodora herself bound the body of her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer Evdokia with three threads in the name of the one-essence Trinity and tied it with a rope. When the soldier went out holding the end of the rope, Feodora helped him. The holy preacher poured warm tears upon the holy body of her sister confessor, saying softly: “Go, most beloved flower, and stand before your fair and longed-for Bridegroom Christ!” Having said this, she handed the body to the soldiers; they pulled it out and laid it simply on the ground, uncovered and unburied.

The commander sent a report to Moscow for instructions. The Tsar ordered the body taken outside and buried in the forest. But the duma secretary Hilarion said: “If that happens, the kapitonys and schismatics will find it, take it with great honor as a holy martyr’s relics, begin saying many miracles occur, and the last trouble will be worse than the first.” The Tsar agreed. He ordered the body kept under guard as if still alive and buried inside the stockade. They wrapped it in matting and did so. This was wondrous: until the order came from Moscow the holy body lay five days on the bare ground inside the stockade, yet not only did it not darken—it grew brighter and whiter every day. The soldiers who saw it marveled greatly and said: “Truly these are holy sufferers! This body shows no trace of death’s appearance; rather, as if alive and rejoicing, it blooms and grows more radiant before our eyes.” And they glorified God.

After the martyr Evdokia’s death, the Tsar imagined that great Feodora, worn down by terrible hunger, might soften a little, show some small yielding, and offer even slight submission. With this in mind he sent an elder monk of the Nikonians to persuade her.

The monk came to her prison and began the prayer, omitting the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He went on like this for a long time; there was no voice, no response. At last he pronounced the name of our Lord Jesus Christ as Son of God, and instantly the blessed woman answered: “Amen.” He entered the prison and said: “Why did you not say ‘Amen’ earlier while I stood outside praying so long?” The blessed woman replied: “When I heard a hostile voice I kept silent; when I sensed it was not hostile I answered.”

The monk spoke to her as he had been commanded, urging her to submit at least a little. But the valiant diamond, hearing such words, shook her head, sighed deeply, and said like a man: “Oh, what profound ignorance, what great darkness! How long will you be blinded by malice? How long will you refuse to rise to the light of piety? Do you not understand this? Even when I lived in my house in complete comfort, I did not want to join your falsehood and impiety. Clinging firmly to Orthodoxy, I spared neither property nor fear of suffering for the Lord’s name. Again, at the beginning of my struggle, when they bound me with these chains for Christ’s sake and showed me every torment, I turned away. And now, after I have tasted abundantly the sweet labors for the sweetest Jesus, do they think to separate me from my good and beautiful Master? For four years I have worn these irons, rejoicing greatly, never ceasing to kiss this chain in memory of Paul’s bonds—especially now that I have sent ahead my beloved blood-sister, my companion and fellow-sufferer, to the Master, and soon, with God’s strong help, I myself most eagerly strive to go there. So put aside all hope of separating me from Christ and trouble me no more about it! I am ready to die for the Lord’s name.”

Hearing this, the elder was moved, wept, and said to the great one: “Most honored lady! Truly blessed is your work! For the Lord’s sake I beg you—hasten to crown the beginning with the end. If you finish bravely to the last, who can recount your praises? You will receive great and unspeakable honor from Christ God.” Having said this, the monk left.

After the repose of the holy martyr Evdokia, blessed Maria was brought to great Feodora, and the two endured together in the same struggle. Who can describe their inexpressible patience—what they suffered from hunger and thirst, from suffocating air, from lice!

Later the most blessed Feodora grew utterly weak. She called one of the soldiers and said: “Servant of Christ! Do you still have father and mother alive, or have they reposed? If they live, let us pray for them and for you; if they have died, let us commemorate them. Take pity, servant of Christ! I am utterly spent from hunger and crave bread. Have mercy—give me a little roll.” He answered: “No, lady, I am afraid.” The martyr said: “Then at least a piece of bread.” He replied: “I dare not.” Again the martyr: “Then just a few crusts.” He said: “I dare not.” Feodora continued: “If you dare not, then bring at least an apple or a cucumber.” He answered: “I dare not.” The blessed woman said: “Very well, child. Blessed be our God who has willed it so! Since, as you say, it is impossible, I beg you—do one last kindness: cover my poor body with matting and lay it inseparably beside my beloved sister and fellow-sufferer.”

Later, when she was completely spent, she called another soldier and said: “Servant of Christ! Did you have a mother? I know you were born of a woman; therefore I beg you—arm yourself with the fear of God. I am a woman and, pressed by great need, must wash my shirt. As you yourself see, I cannot go and serve myself—I am in chains and have no maid to help me. Run to the river and wash this shirt for me. The Lord is about to take me from this life, and it is not fitting for this body to lie in unclean clothing in the bosom of its mother earth.”

Saying this, she gave him her headscarf. Hiding it under his coat, he went and washed it in the river. While washing that small cloth with water, he washed his own face with tears, thinking of her former greatness and her present need—how she endured for Christ’s sake and would not join the impious, and therefore was dying. For everyone knew that if she had agreed to even a little communion with them, she would have been honored more than before. But she utterly refused; she chose to die ten thousand times rather than fall from the love of Christ.

After this the blessed and great Feodora reposed in peace in the deep dungeon, from the first to the second day of November, in the hour of the night, on the commemoration of the holy martyrs Akindynos and Pegasios.

At that time her mother Melania was in the wilderness and that night saw in a dream great Feodora clothed in the schema and a most wondrous kukol. Her face was radiant and joyful; she rejoiced in her kukol, looked around everywhere, passed her hands over her garments, marveled at the beauty of her robes, and ceaselessly kissed the image of the Savior that was near her, and also the crosses on the schema. She went on doing this for a long time until the mother awoke from the vision. Rising, she wondered greatly. We came and she told us. Later we learned this too: the night Feodora the venerable departed to the Lord in the Borovsk prison was the same night the mother saw the vision in the wilderness. And we glorified God.

After her holy repose, her holy and much-suffering body was wrapped in matting, as the blessed woman herself had commanded, and buried there in the stockade beside her blood-sister, the faithful martyr princess Evdokia. When Tsar Alexis learned of it, he ordered that no one—no boyar or anyone else—be told. For three weeks it was kept secret in the Upper Chambers, but afterward it became known everywhere.

Blessed Maria outlived Feodora by only one month and reposed to the Lord on the ___ day of December (the manuscript leaves a blank for the number). Thus the third ascended to the two to rejoice eternally in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom belong all glory, honor, worship, and majesty, with His beginningless Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

When the Lord was about to lead great Feodora and her companions on the path of witness, that year, as they fasted, Father Dosifei communed them in the upper room of Ivan’s house in blessed Feodora’s home. As they drew near to receive the most pure Body and Blood of Christ, all three were bathed in warm tears. The holy father saw a wondrous thing: suddenly the three—glorious Feodora, faithful princess Evdokia, and blessed Maria—had their faces illumined and became marvelous to behold, exactly like angels of God. They remained in such radiance until they had received communion. Later the elder secretly told some people: “This is no ordinary thing; I think this year they will suffer for Christ”—and so it came to pass.

Once Mother Melania fell gravely ill and was dying. Feodora, then at the Pechersky metochion, wept bitterly, unable to bear separation from her mother, and said: “Lord, do not make us orphans! Who will guide us to You and lead us unfailingly on Your path?”

One night the mother grew so weak that she no longer recognized the sisters standing by her and weeping bitterly. Her breath came rarely; the sisters fully expected her to die. Suddenly the mother came to herself and the next day was well. She told the sisters: “I did not expect to live when you were weeping over me that night. My spirit was gathering in my breast; I felt something living drawing from my whole body toward my heart, as if about to leave through my throat. It was terribly hard for me. My legs and arms felt dead; it was so hard I thought my heart would burst. I clearly understood that all the gathered spirit swelling in my breast was about to leave my body at once. Then suddenly I felt that surge of spirit retreat from my breast; like water it flowed through my whole body. I felt my hands and feet come alive; I grew easier, immediately opened my eyes, and saw you weeping.”

The mother sent Feodora a maternal blessing. The maiden Maria came and saw Feodora not only black-faced but with lips cracked apart. She quickly asked: “Is our mother better?” Maria answered: “By your prayers she is well. But tell me—why are you so grieved?” The blessed woman, tears still in her eyes, said: “O Maria! I wept inconsolably over my orphanhood and begged Christ to leave us our mother. Yet I also said to the Master that He should give her something better. I was torn both ways—asking for the better yet desiring with all my heart that she live longer with us, send us to Christ, and herself become a martyr. So I spent the whole night weeping. Now blessed be the Lord our God who has left us our guide to restrain our lack of self-control and comfort us in sorrows!”

Maria went and told the mother everything the blessed woman had said. Everyone understood in their hearts that just as God, because of the tears and pity of the fathers, commanded the soul of Abbot Kozma to return, so here, because of the weeping of His servant Feodora, He granted life to her spiritual mother Melania.

While blessed Maria sat in chains under guard, Feodora sent her this message: “Unless you place yourself under obedience to our mother, you cannot be saved. If you beg her and she takes pity and accepts you as her disciple, you will do all good things and be able to endure to the end.” As soon as Maria heard this, without any delay she begged the mother to come to her. The way was extremely difficult, yet because of her earnest pleading the mother could not refuse. When they met, Maria began to entreat her. The mother refused, saying she was unworthy. The blessed woman fell to the ground, wept bitterly, and never stopped kissing the mother’s hands with her lips and washing them with tears. “Why will you not have mercy on me as you did on those two blessed sisters? I know I am not worthy to be called your daughter like those great ladies—great boyarynya Feodora and faithful princess Evdokia Prokopievna, your excellent and beloved disciples. But count me not even to your little finger—count me to one of your fingernails, only call me yours so that I may be your disciple! For the Lord’s sake take pity—do not separate me from my beloved ones, from Feodora and Evdokia, my lights!” Though the mother strongly refused, she finally said: “You are Christ’s and mine.” Maria rejoiced greatly. Thus all three rivaled one another in obedience.

When the mother and Elena were in the prison that day, the mother told Iustina to leave the prison in her place and go free while she herself remained. Iustina went to ask her elder, who had been her husband by law when they lived in the world; he was confined in another prison in the same stockade. He confirmed her resolve to endure to the end and not lose her crown. “See,” he said, “how they love Christ and willingly accept chains and death for His sake. You have endured much—do not now destroy everything.” She obeyed, strengthened herself to endure unto death. Returning from that prison to the martyrs, while between the two prisons she cried aloud, lifted her voice, wept bitterly, and poured out many words in her sobbing as was her custom. Mother Melania and Elena listened to her weeping, and the martyrs with them; they marveled and glorified God.

Iustina had this habit of weeping: whenever sorrowful thoughts came upon her, she could neither restrain herself nor hide it but wept bitterly for all to hear.

This was the beginning of her lament: “O my light, most holy God-bearer, Queen of heaven! O my light, Helper and Protectress Hodegetria! I have neither kin nor tribe—you are my helper in all things, my kin, my tribe, my protectress, Hodegetria! O my light, Christ Son of God! When You come to judge all on the last day and render to each according to his deeds, I beg You, O Son of God—have mercy on me and make me worthy to stand at Your right hand and hear Your sweet voice saying to the righteous: ‘Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ Deliver me from that fearful and most cruel voice You will say to the sinners on Your left: ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ And do not say to me, O sweetest Jesus: ‘Depart from me, you cursed!’” When Iustina reached this word…

source

May 10. Presided over by I. I. Zykov.

Chairman. Honorable and devout assembly! In this session, the question of the mystery of Holy Communion will be discussed. Given the importance of the subject, I most humbly request that the public conduct itself as peacefully as possible and follow the discussion with all humility, silence, and meekness—not only outwardly, but also in the heart. I ask that there be no repetitions of the applause and whistling that occurred yesterday and the day before. The first speech belongs to the esteemed defenders and advocates of the Austrian priesthood. I now declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. According to the established program, today the precise question to be discussed is this: Will the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord remain in Christ’s Church until His second coming? If it is proven that the sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, then it is clear that no powers of hell, nor the Antichrist, can destroy what Christ established in His Church. Then it will also be clear that yesterday’s proofs by our interlocutor—that the Antichrist is already reigning—do not change this question. Even if we were to agree that the Antichrist is reigning, the priesthood and sacrifice must still exist.

So I proceed to the question at hand. Christ the Savior, before His sufferings, desired to partake of the Passover with His disciples for the last time. This Passover was prepared in one of the upper rooms in Jerusalem, where Christ Himself and the holy apostles were present. Judas was there too. When they

“were reclining at table,” as the Gospel says, “Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19–20).

Thus Christ took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying:

“This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you and for many.”

From these few words of Christ the Savior, it is clear that He instituted the mystery of Holy Communion at the Mystical Supper and commanded that it be done in remembrance of His saving Passion. Did Christ command everyone to do what He Himself did at the Mystical Supper? No. He commanded the apostles to do it—that is, to bless and break in the same way He did, as stated on page 358 of the Great Catechism:

“For if in the Old Covenant no one dared to perform the mystery without being consecrated, how much less should it be permitted among us. Therefore, the Lord at the Mystical Supper made His apostles priests.”

Thus, this sacrifice must be performed not by ordinary people, not by laity, but by specially appointed persons, as the Catechism says: “those who bear the priesthood upon themselves.” Was this established by Christ the Savior only temporarily? Perhaps it was instituted only until the coming of the last Antichrist; when the Antichrist comes, will he destroy all this in the Church? No, the answer to this is given by the holy Apostle Paul, whose mouth—according to one of the Paschal matins teachings—is “the mouth of Christ”:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,” writes the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (Reading 149).

What he received from the Lord, he passes on to them. What is it?

“That the Lord Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread” (1 Cor. 10:16, Matt. 26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’”

Thus I, says the apostle, received this from the Lord and pass it on to you:

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’”

All this Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of the Lord’s saving Passion, which He endured for the sins of the whole world. Then the Apostle Paul continues:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

Consequently, until Christ comes a second time to earth to judge the living and the dead, this eating and drinking must remain in Christ’s Church. On these words of the Apostle Paul, the great teacher of the universal Church, John Chrysostom—whose mouth, according to the same teaching, is the mouth of Paul and of Christ—testifies in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (p. 871) as follows:

“‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.’ Interpretation: Just as Christ said concerning the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with other things, is sufficient for us to show reverence—when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical—so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death.’ And this is that very Supper. Then, showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes.’”

We read the same in the Great Catechism, on page 384:

“These are the words of the Lord: ‘Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins. And drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. And do this in remembrance of Me.’ That is, offer and bring with thanksgiving, and consecrate with blessing. Concerning this, Paul writes to the Corinthians: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (Reading 145). Then Matthew in the 108th reading of his Gospel shows the same. Luke also says the same. All these things pertain to the performance of the sacrifice and this mystery. But these words are the most efficacious for that mystery: ‘This is My body, this is My blood.’ Concerning this, Saint John Chrysostom, in the third [book, that is, the second volume], on Judas’s betrayal, says thus: Just as that word which the Lord God spoke, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth, so this word of the Lord, spoken once, gives power to the sacrifice on all altars even to this day and until His coming.”

Just as God once commanded “be fruitful and multiply,” and this is always fulfilled by His command with no possibility of stopping the power of those words, so the Lord’s words about the sacrifice were spoken once, but the power of the sacrifice will remain on all altars even until His coming. If we were to admit that the Antichrist reigns and has destroyed everything in the Church, then the words of the Apostle Paul “till He comes”—that is, until the second coming—and the words of Saint John Chrysostom would be rendered empty; but even to think this is dreadful. In the Book of Cyril, on the reverse of page 78, it is written as follows:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

These are the words of Christ at the Mystical Supper. This, it says, is sufficient for our assurance, because it is strong and invincible. On the same page it is written that the sacrifice and the priesthood have equal power, equal significance, and equal promise. This is evident from the words in the Book of Cyril, on the same page:

“The priesthood and the sacrifice are one and the same; one cannot exist without the other.”

They are together, inseparable, and one cannot be without the other. For example, could someone decide to say that there is priesthood but no sacrifice, or that there is sacrifice but no priesthood? One cannot say this in either case; rather, priesthood and sacrifice are together. The same is testified in the Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 545:

“Therefore, if there was a daily sacrifice there [in the Old Testament], then in the new there is one far better and more honorable. For the holy Paul says: when the priesthood of the old law is changed, so is the law. And if the priesthood, then also the sacrifice. For these two go together; one cannot exist without the other.”

The same regarding the eternity of the sacrifice is said in the same Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 544:

“But what the Lord Himself did and commanded His disciples and those after them to do until His coming. For if this sign of Melchizedek the priest after the Lord’s Supper had not been fulfilled, then it would have no place anywhere else. For the Prophet says God to the Jews: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering. For My name is great among the nations, says the Lord.’ That is, He no longer desires sacrifice from the hands of the Jews, and He names another sacrifice dear to Himself, written in three ways: it shall be among the nations, and in every place, and a pure sacrifice. And this is that sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world. And until the end of the age it will offer the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in remembrance of His death. And this prophecy is sufficient for assurance, since it is firm and unconquerable.”

From these clear testimonies, I believe it is understandable to everyone that Christ established priesthood and sacrifice in His Church until His second coming. This is also stated in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, and that it remains until the end is proven by the words: “till He comes,” as said by the Apostle Paul.

In this discussion, we will not examine the question of priesthood: which priesthood is good, which priesthood might be good—we will not debate this, because the question is not about that. The main question is: Will priesthood and sacrifice remain in Christ’s Church until Christ’s second coming? If it pleases our interlocutors to consider our priesthood unlawful, our sacrifice unlawful, we are not speaking about that in this discussion, but about something else—about the Lord’s sacrifice established in His Church. If such a sacrifice is acceptable among the Old Believer Pomortsy, then on the basis of what I have read, they must acknowledge that it will exist until the second coming, and then the question will be: where is this true sacrifice? But since they deny this and say that at present there is no such sacrifice, they are directly contradicting the teaching of the Apostle Paul, Saint John Chrysostom, and other holy fathers and teachers of the Church—they go against all the teachers of the Church. I say this only if they claim that it cannot be obtained anywhere now, or if they point out that they too have priesthood and sacrifice in the form Christ established at the Mystical Supper—then the question will depend on where the true sacrifice is and where it is not. But I know the view of our interlocutor: he considers the Antichrist to be the heretics. We cannot agree with this, because even in the ancient Church and before Patriarch Nikon there were many heretics, but they were not recognized as the final Antichrist, nor was it considered at that time that priesthood and sacrifice had been destroyed in Christ’s Church. I think that the testimonies I have read are sufficient to pose the question, and I consider it unnecessary to repeat or explain them, because they are so clear that explaining them would only obscure them.

Concluding my speech for the first time, I turn to my interlocutor Lev Feoktistovich with the following question: Show me in Holy Scripture where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming. I have pointed out that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the world, until the second coming. But where is it written that they will not remain? This will depend on your proofs. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, be so kind as to read for us and all the respected listeners a place in Holy Scripture where it is said that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in His Church will not remain until the second coming. This is my question. If you resolve this in your first speech, then it will not need to be repeated and will be considered exhausted by your arguments. But if in your first speech you do not give a substantive answer, I will remind you that I will repeat this question in each subsequent speech. We need clear testimonies, just as clear as those I have presented in proof that the sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming—we need equally clear proofs from your side that the sacrifice and priesthood will not remain.

Concluding my speech, I address my interlocutor with the following reminder, simply as a brother, not in offense or reproach: one should not evade the question; that is not how to conduct a discussion. Instead, point directly to where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming.

And we should not touch upon the question of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, as you call it. Just in case there is any attempt on your part to address this question, I invite you once again to discuss it specifically. If one discussion on the hierarchy is not enough for you, I invite you to two discussions.

Please, Lev Feoktistovich, answer the posed question: where is it written that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. Dear and highly respected assembly! The mystery of Communion was undoubtedly given by Christ the Savior to the holy apostles in the upper room on Zion, but I must make an important qualification on this matter. The Holy Church received from Christ an inheritance: priesthood and the grace-filled mysteries dependent on priesthood. Everything that took place in the upper room on Zion was done by the Master Christ Himself; and everything that was received by the holy apostles—His disciples and His divine preachers—and everything that the divine preacher-apostles passed on to their successors in faith, all this, in truth, was given only to Orthodox Christians. But from the time when this sacred mystery was entrusted by Christ the Savior, Christians divided into various sects and heretical societies. In heretical societies there could be no grace of Christ, and therefore there was none, nor is there among them the sacred mystery of the Eucharist, nor the other mysteries. Christ’s Church followed the path appointed by the Master Christ and the proclamation of the holy prophets and apostles. From the proclamation of the holy apostles, it is evident that heretics undermined the authority of the Church. Everything that my interlocutor read from Holy Scripture I accept unconditionally, but I ask him to pay special attention to the fact that this was said in its time and for the times of continuing piety. At the same time, we must not forget in what period of time we live, for the almighty Master God indicated to us through the prophet Daniel four periods of kingdoms in the world, which, according to the indication of Scripture, we have actually lived through. Now we are living through a period of time whose end is hidden solely in the counsel of God; and this end is the second coming of Christ to earth. Since in the last period of time the Roman kingdom was divided into 10 parts, after the division of the Roman kingdom into 10 parts, according to the prediction of the prophets, only the day of God’s Judgment remains. About this period of time, the divine prophets, holy apostles, and apostolic men said that in this time false prophets and false christs will nest and deceive many. Christ the Savior said:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Gospel of Matthew, Reading 22).

It is in such an unfortunate period of time that we live. Having said this preliminarily for your information, dear listeners, I proceed to analyze the testimonies that my interlocutor has put forward against me as accusations. First of all, I must answer: “Is the priesthood and sacrifice eternal?” I pay special attention to this question. I answer: Christ the Savior said about the Church in the Gospel of Matthew, Reading 67:

“I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

About the Church Christ said: “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” but about priesthood He did not make such a promise: “I will build My priesthood, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”—such words are nowhere said in the holy Gospel. On the contrary, about priesthood Christ the Savior made a qualification in the following words. Christ said about priesthood in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, Reading 10, at the end:

“You are the salt of the earth.” “But if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?”

That is, you are the salt of the earth. Just as salt seasons the body and prevents it from decomposing, so the priesthood in the person of the apostles must season with the living word of divine teaching the body of the Church. The Church is the assembly of the faithful people in one spirit according to faith and in united dogmas, constituting one body, and the sacred persons are members of the Church. Christ says to them: “You are the light of the world and the salt of the earth,” but “if the salt loses its flavor.” You are the salt of the earth, you season with the life-giving word of your grace-filled teaching the body of the Church, but if you lose flavor—that is, deviate into teaching alien to grace or fall away from what I have entrusted to you—then you are no longer priests, but “flavorless, stinking salt, fit for nothing.” What should the Church—that is, the body—do with this salt? Throw it out. But how will the body of the Church remain without salt—that is, without priesthood? In answer to this question, I will read the words of Christ the Savior, Reading 42 in the Gospel of Mark:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire,”

that is, every believing Christian, when the priesthood loses its flavor, will be seasoned—that is, governed—by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is here called fire. But “salt is good,” that is, priesthood.

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Here stands a question mark. Christ Himself answered:

“It is thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matthew, Reading 10).

Not only must such salt be thrown out of the Church, but even “trampled underfoot by men”—that is, despised by all. The Evangelist Mark, from the words of Jesus Christ, says:

“And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble—it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”

Thus, for this stumbling block it is better to hang a stone around the neck and throw oneself into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble in faith. And how to cause stumbling? To destroy with false teaching in faith. Further comes the parable:

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Dear listeners, do not think that this speaks of the right and left hand. No! You will hear that hand here mysteriously means a sacred person. It is better for you, says Christ, to go without a hand into the kingdom of God—that is, without a flavorless priest—than with a sacred person who causes you to stumble, to go into the fiery hell.

“And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off.”

The foot means church servants:

“It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Further comes speech about the eye.

“And if your eye causes you to stumble,”

in this case do not go to a doctor or a knowledgeable person to remove this bad eye. But you yourself, the body of the Church, if you see that a bishop causes you to stumble, cast him aside. The eye means bishop and priest, the right hand—deacon, the foot—church servants. Consequently, all three ranks can lose flavor; and the question is, how will the sacred body of the Church live without members? How will it be seasoned?

I, as one of the mortals, am not able to answer this, but I see the resolution of the Master Christ Himself to this question:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire.”

So do not think, Christian, that you cannot be saved without a priest and bishop, for you will be seasoned with fire.

What does this fire mean? In the first discussion I showed that this fire is the Holy Spirit; consequently, according to the words of Jesus Christ, in need one can be seasoned by the grace of the Holy Spirit:

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Answer:

“Have salt in yourselves.”

Have the teaching of the holy Gospel in yourselves; have the teaching of the holy apostles in yourselves; finally, have the teaching of all the divine men of the Church in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves (Mark 9). And so, dear listeners, I have said briefly and clearly regarding priesthood that it will lose flavor and not remain until the end, but to the body—that is, the Church—the Savior promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Now I will present the interpretation of what hand, foot, and eye mean. The Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 7, page 48, interpretation of Athanasius of Alexandria: “Those walking the undeceived and life-giving path should cast out the eye—not the sensory one, but the noetic one. That is, if a bishop or presbyter, who are the eyes of the church, live improperly and cause people to stumble, it is fitting to cast them out; it is better to gather in a house of prayer without them than to be cast with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas, into the fiery hell. Likewise the hand, which is the deacon, if he does something unworthy, let him be removed from the altar. The foot, which is the servant, if he runs badly into falsehood, let him also be made alien to service, as a wicked and senseless man, so that the Church gathered may be preserved without stumbling.” Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, tells all truly believing Christians to beware of the eye: the bishop and priest. If they are Orthodox, they are bright eyes and bear the image of Christ Himself; but if they are heretics, by that damage they are already servants of hell. It is better for you, he says, to gather in a house of prayer without them—that is, better for simple, believing people to gather in a house of prayer without heretical bishops and priests than with them. What benefit was there to the Jews who remained with the Christ-killing high priests Annas and Caiaphas? So there will be no benefit to those who are governed by false priesthood. It is better to be in poverty according to faith than to perish from heretics. The apostles were simple poor fishermen; they themselves said of themselves:

“We are poor, yet making many rich.”

With Christ, these humble fishermen entered the dwelling that the Heavenly Father promised for all believers, while the unbelievers with the high priests went to the depths of hell. And now let those who wish to be saved walk the narrow evangelical path, not the broad splendid road that blinds the world; for a person attempting faith walks not the narrow evangelical path but the broad and destructive one, looking at appearances.

I openly say and answer the question that the priesthood at the present time has completely lost its flavor. And my most honorable interlocutor took priesthood from this flavorless, rotten root and supposes that it can bring him life-giving fruits—that is, the mystery of Communion. The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Reading 106, writes:

“If the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.”

But the firstfruit of your root is not holy, but heretical. You yourselves called this root “the harlot Babylon; the dwelling place of demons and a hold of every unclean spirit” and, finally, “the heretical church”; and a heretical root is the root of Sodom and Gomorrah. From Sodom and Gomorrah you took a dry vine, lifeless—that is, graceless—and therefore this dry vine does not bring you the fruits of Communion. Only the living grapevine brings life-giving fruits. Christ the Savior in the Gospel of John, Reading 50, said:

“Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. Whoever does not abide in Me is thrown away. Like a branch, it withers, and they gather it and throw it into the fire, and it burns.”

The branches are the apostles and their successors—the bishops, builders of Christ’s mysteries. Christ said to them:

“Without Me you can do nothing.”

Then how can a Sodomite branch without Christ produce the fruits of Christ’s mysteries? A cut-off vine no longer bears fruit; it withers, according to the word of God. They gather it, throw it into the fire, and burn it.

Then, you read Christ’s words spoken regarding the mystery of Communion at the Mystical Supper. With all my soul I confess that this is true; as a believing person, I accept that it was all unconditionally so, but to my regret, I must say, according to Scripture, that this highest mystery is now emptied, corrupted by heretics. As for the words of the Apostle Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians, Reading 149, which my interlocutor read without discernment, I will read them again to restore the truth. The Apostle says:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

I will read the words of Christ the Savior spoken in the upper room on Zion to His disciples:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to them and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.”

The Apostle adds:

“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (Reading 149).

The meaning of these words is this: If anyone receives the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, he pronounces judgment on himself, because he partakes unworthily. Consequently, even in the sacred mystery of Communion there are distinctions: not everyone can always partake unconditionally, but only, according to the proclamation of the Divine Church, “the holy things to the holy.” A Christian must prepare for receiving this sacred mystery and necessarily from the hand of an Orthodox builder. Thus the Apostle Paul said about this:

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.”

Already the Apostle Paul mentions two cups: one the Lord’s, the other demonic. At the present time the Lord’s cup is not visible, and to partake of the demonic cup is terrifying. And the demonic cup is the pretended communion arranged by false priests, like demons disguised as angels of light. For at the present time, in the period of the misfortune that has befallen us since 1666, there is no servant of this mystery in the true spirit, and all that exist are either artificial or derived from heretics.

Here I must tell you, beloved assembly, that it is precisely these mysteries—artificial and lifeless, heretical—that we shun. But we believe that, according to our warmest desire and faith, in these last Antichrist times, for the need of salvation, the Lord will grant us the mystery of “the Holy of Holies” if we walk the Lord’s path. Finally, my interlocutor posed the question: “Point out where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the end of the age?” I will answer this question with the words of Christ the Savior, that

“On the holy place: the abomination of desolation will stand.”

The priesthood, the builders of this mystery, will lose flavor, and once the builders have lost flavor, consequently there is no longer the true mystery.

To prove that instead of true Communion such a high mystery will have the abomination of desolation, I must take the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior says in the Evangelist Matthew, Reading 99:

“When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

First testimony. Then the second, from Mark, Reading 60:

“But when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

Here, brethren, Christ the Savior said that there will be a time when, instead of the true sacrifice, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. Before finishing reading the words of the Gospel, I must explain what the holy place is that Christ speaks of. About this testifies the Book of Cyril, page 54:

“The holy place understand as Jerusalem chosen throughout the whole world, as Matthew writes, the holy city. And Cyril of Jerusalem says the supreme Apostolic Church. Understand also that in every place where there are Christian churches, on the altars the throne is the holy place, on which the priests offer sacrifice to God, consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.”

Thus, in the supreme Apostolic Church the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place—not only simply in the Church, but on the very altars the abomination of desolation will finally stand. If according to the word of Christ the Savior the abomination of desolation will stand on the altars even in the initial Jerusalem church and in all churches, then it is precisely this abomination of desolation that we now shun, and along with it we shun the builders of this improper mystery. I read the words of Christ the Savior:

“And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.”

When the last week of Daniel comes—and this, according to Scripture, is our time—in that time, it is said, when you see the abomination of desolation, they will say to you: here is an Orthodox bishop, and others will say: here is a more Orthodox bishop, others will say that a bishop is hiding in the desert (the bishop signifies the person of Christ), then

“Do not be deceived, for many will come in My name, even to deceive the elect.”

So it is said in the interpretation. But do not believe, do not enter into union with them; if you believe and enter into union with them, you will perish—said our Master Christ. The word false christ in a figurative sense means false anointed, for the true anointed is Jesus Christ, and the false anointed is a heretical bishop, just as the Antichrist is a false christ. Such a false anointed will give, supposedly in the name of Christ, such false christs as himself, and false prophets, and will show signs and wonders, and many in delusion will recognize him as Christ, for he will create an appearance similar to Christ’s Church, priesthood similar to Christ’s priesthood, and similar to everything that the Apostolic Church instituted. In this temptation, if one does not sober up, even the most elect person cannot discern; not to mention a person who cares little about this. But take heed—you poor, humble, trampled-upon apostles—and not the proud Jewish high priests, take heed. (Testimony from the Evangelist Matthew). Christ the Savior here by parable indicates: “Who stands in faith on a false foundation and who on a firm one,” Gospel of Matthew, Reading 24.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.”

By this Christ means a person’s firm faith in Christ, for the rock is Christ. If someone is established in truly Christ-like faith, no temptations in faith will shake him, for Christ says: “Whoever hears these sayings of Mine—sayings of teaching, counsel, and prohibition—and does them,” “I will liken him to a wise man”—that is, a person able to distinguish truth from deception and harmful from useful. And this high understanding, with God’s help, is precisely applied now. Christ seems to say: “You see false christs, false prophets, deceiving many in My name, and the abomination of desolation standing in the churches, and temptations attacking you from these false priests—take heed, stand firm in faith, do not fear, I am with you; if people destroy you in faith and shake your mind like a storm, hold fast, for the root of your faith is in Me. If you strengthen yourself thus in faith, neither the rain of afflictions nor the rivers of heretical teachings will undermine the house of your faith. For it is not people who will exalt you, not people who will set you on the rock—that is, false christs—but I will help you in your trouble. I will liken you to a wise man, and this wisdom the whole world will not be able to resist, for he built his house on the rock.” A wise person builds his house in faith on the rock, and no storms of afflictions or whirlwinds of lies will scatter it; he will never be shaken, because he stands on the firm rock of confession. But if someone bases his hope in faith on sand—that is, on human invention—then his spiritual house will fall; for it is founded not on Christ but on false teaching, and this person is no longer wise but foolish, as Christ says:

“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”

My brethren in faith, though they do not accept the modern priesthood, are founded on the rock of sound faith and are likened in faith in Christ to a wise man. But the faith of my honorable interlocutors is founded on sand, for by their own invention they established a priesthood that began only in 1846. What is the abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation is false teaching, false mystery of the Eucharist, and all Antichrist activity. And this is now—witness to this is blessed Jerome, part 16, p. 250: “Under the abomination of desolation can be understood any perverted teaching. When we see it standing in the holy place—that is, in the Church—and showing itself as God, we must flee from Judea to the mountains—that is, leaving the killing letter and Jewish corruption, draw near to the eternal mountains in which God wonderfully shines.”

When we see false teaching dominating in the Church, we do not seek salvation in the letter but on the mountains—that is, in the high prophetic writings.

Thus, I have proven that the priesthood has lost its flavor. Christ the Savior said that the sacrifice will also be subject to the abomination of desolation. Now let my interlocutor answer this.

D. S. Varakin. You have heard, most respected listeners, the first speech of our interlocutor and have probably become convinced that Mr. Pichugin not only did not answer the question posed to him but did not even approach an answer to the question. I asked, on the basis of the whole series of testimonies I read, to point out: where is it written in Holy Scripture that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming? For now the question remains with him. Then Mr. Pichugin throughout his speech tried again to attack our priesthood. It seems to me there can be no clearer sign of the weakness of our interlocutors’ convictions. When a person speaks off-topic, it means he has nothing to say. If he had proofs from Holy Scripture for his conviction, he would have read a whole mountain of them, but since he read not one, it means there are none, and if there are none, it means their conviction, as he himself read, is founded like a house on sand. This is not new. After all, the two previous discussions (the third was specifically on the question of priesthood) were also directed against our priesthood, which did not relate to the question. So my interlocutor tries to proceed in this discussion as well. I challenged him: if you wish to discuss our priesthood further, I ask you, Lev Feoktistovich, to appoint—not just one—two special discussions, and I am at your service; but he said not a word to me whether he agrees or not to discuss priesthood. After all, we had conditions even before the discussions with you: when speaking about one side, not to mention the other, and you said: “yes, yes.” I wanted you to sign the condition, you said: “why, don’t you believe me if I say it.” It turns out you cannot be trusted. I should have asked you to sign the condition so that everything would be documented and everyone convinced that you are going against the promise you gave, which you signed, and evading the question. But God be your judge. I will not touch upon the question of our priesthood; I said I will go the straight path: will priesthood and sacrifice remain until the second coming, and I will prove that they will remain, but you did not read that they will not. Appoint further discussions about our priesthood; I agree to discuss with you as much as you like, but not now.

He also began with the Gospel, that in Christ the Savior’s Gospel it is said: “You are the salt of the earth” and “The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place.” No one is forcing you to accept the heretical; point out what you have if you have Christ’s Church; and do not point out that there and there is heretical. But since it is said that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, it means you must have it, but you do not. Therefore your Church is not Christ’s. Regarding the abomination of desolation, the honorable interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril:

“The abomination of desolation is the corpse of a dead man, which is a body of desolation without soul and without blood, dead and emptied, doing nothing. And when Vespasian and Titus the Roman emperors came, they captured Jerusalem, laid it waste, and set up their idol in the altar in the holy place. The Jews called the idol a human corpse, abomination, as they were defiled by hypocrisy, envy, and evil deeds” (Page 31 reverse).

This is the place my interlocutor read. Where is this abomination of desolation? It means where there is no true sacrifice, where there is no true piety. I agree with this. But on page 32 of the same book we see this:

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

But you do not have this. Here is where the abomination of desolation is. Note what abomination means. It is that heretics have no sacrifice. But it is known that in some Pomortsy prayer houses there are altars. But are there thrones and altars? No. There is neither throne nor altar. Instead of throne and altar, they have arranged a sideboard. This, I think, is known even to those Old Believer Pomortsy brethren present here. Did not the Antichrist drag it there? No, they arranged it themselves. The Antichrist has nothing to do with it. When rebuilding the temple, they drew up a plan and made a place for the altar, and said: here, instead of the altar, put a sideboard.

“And they do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice” (Cyril, p. 32).

This, it says, heretics themselves stripped from their altars. For example, take a Pomortsy temple. There is no Antichrist there. They themselves arrange everything without the Antichrist and decided that an altar is not needed. And instead of the altar here we will drink tea, snack, as in inns, and blame everything on the Antichrist: supposedly the Antichrist destroyed priesthood and sacrifice before the second coming. What else happens in this abomination of desolation?

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse” (Ibid., p. 32).

This is what all heretics do who have no sacrifice. This is what happens in their altars. This was not done by the Antichrist or his forerunner, but by those who call themselves pious Old Believer Pomortsy; so they vainly shift all the blame onto the Antichrist.

To make this even clearer to you, respected assembly, I will read what the Apostle Paul and Saint John Chrysostom—whose mouths are the mouths of Christ—say:

“Just as Christ said about the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing to us the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with others, is sufficient for us to show reverence (for when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical), so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death,’ and this is that Supper. Then showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes’” (Homilies on the Acts, p. 871).

Here, not until some time, not until 1666, not until 1846. No. Till Christ comes a second time. And Christ has not yet come a second time, but for 250 years you have had nothing.

We were read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where it is said that pastors are called “evil eye.” Yes, I agree with this. One must beware of an evil bishop, priest, or deacon preaching false teaching. But if they repent, they should be accepted, because we see that in ancient times pastors deviated into error, but they repented and again became Orthodox pastors, and with them were all Orthodox Christians. I fully agree with this. But having read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain about the “evil eye,” you did not read in it the most important thing that precisely concerns your society. You should have finished reading it; but since you did not, I will do it myself. Here is what is said in Word 53, page 445 reverse:

“‘This is My body,’ He said. This word presents what is set before us, just as that voice saying ‘increase and fill the earth’… so this voice, spoken once, on every table in the churches from then until this day, and until His coming, makes the sacrifice perfect.”

This he did not read, but it is in the same book. To what my respected interlocutor said, I directly declare that he spoke off-topic, that he said not a word on the question; I do not even find anything to examine in his speech. Heretics should not be accepted—I agree with this; heretical pastors, he says, should not be accepted—I agree with this too. But I do not agree that when a pastor repents, he should not be accepted either; when he repents, he will be an Orthodox pastor just as before. And all this does not change our question. The question remains with him. Point out where it is written that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

We should dwell a little on the expression quoted by my interlocutor: “he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.” Is it possible that for 250 years among them in all Russia and the universe not one worthy person was found? According to my interlocutor’s conclusion, this is true. It turns out that for 250 years not one worthy person was found among them to receive the body and blood of Christ. An extremely sad and lamentable situation.

About the fact that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, testifies in another place the great teacher of the Church Saint John Chrysostom (part 7, p. 820): “As the old covenant had rams and bulls, so the new has the blood of the Lord. By this Christ shows that He will suffer death; therefore He mentions the covenant and recalls the first, since that covenant was also renewed with blood. Further, He again speaks of the reason for His death: which is shed for many for the remission of sins, and adds: do this in remembrance of Me. Do you see how Christ turns them away from Jewish customs? As you celebrated the Passover in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so celebrate this mystery in My remembrance. The blood of the old covenant was shed for the salvation of the firstborn, but this blood is shed for the remission of the sins of the whole world: this is My blood, He says, shed for the remission of sins. He said this also to show that the suffering and the cross are a mystery, and by this again consoles the disciples. And as Moses said: this shall be an eternal memorial for you (Ex. III, 15), so Christ says: in My remembrance, until that time when I come.”

Until what time? Until the coming of the Antichrist, perhaps? No, “until that time when I come.” And the Antichrist will come before Christ’s coming, and according to you he has already come, but Christ is not yet here. “Until that time when I come.” Are these words of Christ the Savior, transmitted through the mouth of John Chrysostom, false? Are they powerless? Is the Antichrist, such as you preach—even if he were the most terrible—stronger than Christ? The same Saint Chrysostom in another book, in Homilies on Various Occasions (vol. 2, p. 91), writes the following: “But it is already time to approach this fearful table. Let us all approach with due philosophy and attention, and let no one be a Judas, let nothing be evil, let no one hide poison in himself, bearing one thing on the lips and another in the mind. Christ is present; He who instituted that table also now arranges this one. For it is not a man who transforms what is set before us into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands bearing His image and pronounces the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. These words transform what is set before us, and just as that saying: ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28), spoken once, but throughout all time actually gives our nature the power of childbearing; so that saying, spoken once, from that time until now and until His coming, makes the perfect sacrifice on every table in the Churches.”

Can one in any way establish that the human race cease to multiply? Can this be done? Even the priestless celibates cannot do this, not to mention other priestless who accept marriages. This cannot be done because it is fulfilled by God’s command; likewise the sacrifice about which Christ spoke will remain until He comes—“until His second coming.” In the Book on Faith, on page 51, the following is written about those who do not have such a great gift—holy Communion:

“Drink of it, all of you, and confirming that no one should despise His command, He teaches with these words: Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

Here, those who do not receive the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, because they say there is none now, truly these people are like dead corpses:

“Terrible is the answer of Christ’s words, for His words are true; with this He concludes: heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

This is not said in vain. No.

“Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord, except the one who wishes to destroy eternal life?”

Who does not partake? Who? Except “the one who wishes to destroy his life.” This is where you are leading your people. Only the one who does not spare his life and wants to destroy it will not obey this voice.

Also on the words of the Apostle Paul writes the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (part 7, p. 248): “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” Why only until the second coming, why not further? The blessed Theodoret answers: “For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body.” And why? Answer: “because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said, till He comes.” Why will we not need at the second coming what we now perform—the offering of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine? Why? Because Christ Himself will come—the Body itself will appear—then its likeness will not be needed. This is why it is indicated to exist until Christ’s second coming.

About this, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming, I will also read a testimony from the Explanatory Apostle (page 536 reverse):

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Interpretation of Chrysostom: For when you understand that for your sake your Lord endured, you will be wise. This is what it means when it says: as often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death. And that it will remain even until His second coming, it indicates: till He comes.”

I do not know what further proofs from Holy Scripture are needed to show that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming. This promise is strong and invincible, and just as it is impossible to stop the continuation of the human race, so it is impossible to stop the offering of this sacrifice. I will repeat the passage I read from the Book of Cyril, because my interlocutor did not even approach the proofs I read; he only spoke of “heretical communion,” “heretical priesthood”… No one is forcing you to accept the heretical. If you say it is heretical with us, then show where it is not heretical with you, because it is said: sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the end of the age, and if you do not have it, it means you do not have Christ’s Church. It means Christ did not say this about you. The Book of Cyril (page 78 reverse) says:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

How are we to recall His divine redemption of the human race from sin? Only by partaking of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, as it was at the Mystical Supper. In those societies where this is not performed, they have forgotten that Christ suffered; moreover, they do not want to remember. Here is the sorrow, here is the famine of the soul!

I consider the passages cited sufficient to prove the continuance of priesthood and sacrifice until Christ’s second coming. Concluding my speech, I again remind my honorable interlocutor: there is no need to speak of heretics—this or that—it does not pertain to the question. I ask only one thing from you, I ask little from you. You give much more, but not to the point. Please point out to me: where in Holy Scripture is it said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming? If you do not show this and do not have it yourselves, then you do not have Christ’s Church. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, show me: where is it written in Holy Scripture that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention! You have heard the refutation of my speech by my interlocutor. But to my regret, my interlocutor keeps speaking about that mystery and that priesthood which once existed. We believe in the ancient priesthood and the mystery of Communion, and we pray that the Lord may grant us to partake of this great gift spiritually, in view of the present need. We also believe and pray to those holy hierarchs who were Orthodox and by whose holy hands the holy church mysteries were performed. But that time has passed. Enter into yourself, my most honorable interlocutor, and ask your conscience: in what time do we live? That priesthood about which you speak and testify has ceased. That priesthood was truly Christ’s; it flowed successively from the apostles and, as a precious gift of Jesus Christ, flowed like a grace-filled river from the years of the Gospel’s preaching until the year 1666, which you yourselves confirmed—that the true succession of grace-filled ordination was broken at that date. This is factually confirmed also by the fact that you had no sacred ordination for about 200 years. By this you yourselves proved that Christ’s ordination ceased in 1666, and therefore the priesthood as well—for one cannot exist without the other. Meanwhile you forget what you should remember: that Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, was a suffering bishop and confessor; he could have restored the priesthood in the manner of Eusebius of Samosata, who, disguised in military clothing, during the Arian heresy went through cities and ordained bishops alone as needed. Therefore, if Paul of Kolomna did not ordain a bishop to continue the priesthood, it was not because he was unable to ordain, but because it was God’s will; consequently, the time had come when impiety had to fully manifest itself in the world. God permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the whole world. But you keep speaking about that priesthood which we know better than you and believe in better than you, because it was lawful. We also believe that ordination was successive from the apostles. So it is not about that time and priesthood that you need to reason—about which there can be no dispute between us—but you need to speak about the time in which we live, about the priesthood that we see.

You said here that the Pomortsy in the temple built here arranged a sideboard instead of an altar. I do not understand what the man is talking about. Allow me to note, my dear brethren in faith, whose zeal has exceeded all expectations, built us such a magnificent temple for offering prayers to the Lord God. If they had no living faith, there would be no such temple; if they had no hope in God for salvation, there would be no such zeal. But I assure you, my brethren in faith had no thought of making an altar. They knew there was no priesthood, and instead of an altar they made a consultation room for spiritual persons and the council, where at the end of conciliar sessions, for lack of space, some of the brethren reverently partook of food. Tell me, did they not spend the night in churches in ancient times? Did they not dine in churches in ancient times? There were cases where even cattle were brought into the church, but the church was not harmed by this. No one laughed or mocked it, but my interlocutor spoke out of place about some sideboard, which has no place here. My dear brethren in faith did nothing unlawful in arranging a consultation room behind the iconostasis, claiming no altar; but you, inflamed with the bile of envy, spread to the public such words that the Pomortsy have a sideboard behind the iconostasis, but the public will evaluate this and understand that all your reproaches are worth nothing. You also referred to page 445 of the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where Saint Chrysostom speaks:

“Christ is present now, He who adorned that table; He adorns this one now. For it is not a man who makes what is set before us to be the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands fulfilling the image, pronouncing the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. This word transforms what is set before us.”

I well understand that all this was in former times, but at the present time Christ no longer stands at your modern priesthood. I am not leading you into delusion regarding priesthood; you yourselves prove that any priesthood besides yours is deprived of grace. If you say that until Christ’s second coming the sacrifice will be offered in the church, you must indicate—in which church. Is the holy sacrifice offered in the Greek and dominant church in Russia? You yourselves factually confirm that it is not, for you call them heretical. Is it offered in the Armenian church? No, because the Armenians are heretics. Is it offered in the Western Catholic church? You also confirm that the pope fell away from the truth and that with him all Western countries fell into heresy. Why do you proceed so covertly and silently say that only with you is the truth, with you is priesthood and sacrifice, and nowhere else? Why lead yourselves and such a chosen people into delusion—people who for 4 days have reverently listened to our contestations? Speak openly about your church, about your sacrifice. So I will tell you that your sacrifice and church are not living—Christ’s—but artificial, human. It is proven in deed that you received priesthood from where, as you yourselves said, nothing good and holy can come. (Voices: “Off-topic.”)

No, on topic. My interlocutor cited the apostle’s words: “He who eats and drinks unworthily” directly against us. I am not offended that my interlocutor said the apostle supposedly speaks this about the Pomortsy: “Are the Pomortsy unworthy, that none of them has partaken for 250 years?” said my interlocutor. I will say to this: if the Pomortsy have not partaken for 250 years, it is only because they do not want to partake from heretics, but not out of caprice, not out of hostility to the holy, but out of extreme necessity, because all priesthood has fallen into heresy. I will read here a passage from the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior in a prefiguration said the following parable for this time—Gospel of Luke, Reading 87:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away.”

In that day, in that time when there will be temptation in faith and life, when false prophets appear, when false christs arise, then he who is on the housetop—that is, at the height of virtues and true faith—let him not take anything belonging to him below, not even a vessel:

“In that day of the Antichrist’s coming, he who is on the housetop, which is the height of virtues, let him not descend nor weaken for any pretext of worldly life: for all worldly things are called vessels to man. Thus he who stands at the height of virtue descends for worldly reasons and falls from his height, but let him stand against evil and not be silent.”

This is what these words mean. Further Christ says:

“Remember Lot’s wife.”

Tell me, my honorable interlocutor, why did Christ the Savior here mention not Lot, but only Lot’s wife? I am obliged to explain this: the holy Lot lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, whose inhabitants so angered God that God decided to destroy them for their impiety. Sending angels, God said to Lot:

“Go out, lest you also perish in the iniquity of the city. And it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, ‘Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain.’”

Lot, leaving the city, following God’s commandments, did not look back, but what did Lot’s wife do? She felt sorry for what she had in Sodom and Gomorrah; she looked back and turned into a “pillar of salt.”

I have cited this parable not of a mere mortal man; this is the parable of Christ the Savior Himself. Before Christ’s words we must revere, listen to His words with contrition of heart and tenderness, for it pertains to the present time:

“By this parable God indicates Lot’s wife, who, turning back, became a pillar of salt. This means: not departing from evil, but remaining in its sweetness, becoming evil to the end.”

This event was a prefiguration of what happened in the days when our ancestors received the blow, when faith in the Church was shaken. Tell me, which of our ancestors, like Lot, fled without looking back at impiety, and which, like Lot’s wife, looked back at impiety? The Pomortsy, our ancestors, the sufferers of the Solovetsky Monastery, in the person of Paul of Kolomna, seeing the shaking of faith, went the path of personal salvation and, passing through temptations, never once looked back, but your ancestors, like Lot’s wife, looked back, pitying the priests, and became petrified, saying: “But how will we go to salvation without priests?” They forgot Lot’s exodus and, losing hope in God, looked back at heretical priesthood and became salted. In such petrification all the priestly ones remain to this day. This is what this parable means.

Further, in my interlocutor’s speech it was said: “is the Antichrist stronger than God?” What, what, my dear interlocutor. I did not think you would take such a direction—to make the Antichrist stronger than God! No, no! It is not the Antichrist who is stronger than God, but God is stronger than the Antichrist. God, because of our weakness, permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the world. He set in the parable that the bridegroom will come at midnight. Whoever waits for him in faith to the end will enter with the bridegroom into the bridal chamber, but whoever weakens will be outside the chamber. So the Antichrist will deceive people not by his own power, but by people’s unbelief—those who, not enduring need and not believing the truth, act falsely. So, to distinguish truth from falsehood, God permitted the Antichrist to tempt the whole world. The elect, as those who endured, will go to eternal life, said Christ, but those who are tempted will go to eternal fire:

“He who endures to the end will be saved.”

Such are God’s words spoken regarding the Antichrist and his deception.

Then, you read words from the Book on Faith, page 51:

“Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.—Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord. Except the one who wishes to destroy his life.”

These words are in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

“I am the living bread… Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh… The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’”

To whom were these words addressed—to the faithful or the unfaithful? Christ the Savior always spoke according to the occasion: in parables, edifyingly, and with rebukes. So in this case, when the Jews saw that Christ performed a miracle, feeding 5000 people with five loaves and two fish, and wanted to make Him king so as always to live idly, but the Savior got into a boat and sailed to the other side. The Jews went after Him, and to their question He said:

“Rabbi, when did You come here? Amen, amen I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.”

Speaking these words: “You seek Me not to believe in Me, but to live idly; you follow Me only for food and do not believe My miracles, but if you want to be Mine, believe in that bread which My Heavenly Father sent you.”

“I am the living bread. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst… This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

You see, here the speech is about faith; one must believe in Christ. By faith Christ promises eternal life.

As for the Book on Faith, undoubtedly it speaks of true Communion, for the holy Church itself added this mystery to the mystery of faith and visible Communion.

Then, finally, from chapter 6 of the interpretations of the holy men, Saint John Chrysostom and Theophylact, Bishop of Bulgaria, it is evident that there is also Communion by faith. The Gospel of John, Reading 24, chapter 6:

“Everywhere He mentions life and often brings this name, since nothing is so dear to men as this thing. And you can not only eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Master by the secret Communion, but in another way, for one eats flesh when he undergoes active work, for the flesh of the worker is necessary, just as work is difficult. But he drinks blood like wine that gladdens the heart, I mean vision, for vision without labor is more than labor rest. For drinking without labor is more than food.”

Here it speaks of mysterious spiritual Communion, by which a person can partake separately, besides a priest, and especially in need.

Thus, the holy Church did not understand as you do that Communion must be only under one form, but as it pleased God, commanded that one can partake also mysteriously—that is, spiritually—by faith and desire.

Finally, you ask me: will the sacrifice of Communion be offered until Christ’s coming? I answer, listen: according to the teaching of the holy men—it will not be. I will confirm my answer to you with Scripture, that the Antichrist will disturb the sacrifice of Communion, that the Antichrist will darken the sacrifice, that the Antichrist will defile the altar and the sacrifice. Book of Cyril, page 55:

“For about this Saint Chrysostom says that the Antichrist, before his coming, will do what is everywhere on the altars, and will destroy the true sacrifice, and set up his idol in the holy place. For already such abominable desolation the false prophets sent by him begin. And from this we know that the day of the Lord is near. For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s Church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s Temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

The Antichrist, as it is said, will everywhere destroy the true altars and the true sacrifice—that is, true Communion. How to understand “destroy”? He will corrupt with false teaching not simply the sacrifice, but the “true” sacrifice, and along with it the holy place—that is, the altar. And what will replace it? As it is said, he will set up his idol in the holy place. And the idol is false teaching, heresies, evil teaching, which, as the abomination of desolation, will stand in the holy place. So may God save and preserve us from partaking of the Antichrist’s abomination of desolation! And if you say that this time has not yet come, the answer has already been read: “it was fulfilled and accomplished, and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed.” And then: “so it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice.” A clear answer! There will be no sacrifice: and not only in some particular place, not in Solomon’s temple, but throughout the whole world, as Scripture says, which I will read:

“And not only everywhere and in all places, but even in the initial Apostolic Church in Jerusalem he will bring the true sacrifice into desolation.”

This Scripture sorrowfully and truly speaks not simply of the sacrifice, but with emphasis: “He will bring the true sacrifice into desolation” and “everywhere and in all places”—that is, in all parts of the world; which has already been accomplished. The last words of the testimony say:

“And he will set his evil abomination in the holy place, as it is written: When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

I have laid as the foundation of my speech the prophetic and Gospel teaching on the mystery of Communion together with the Old Testament sacrifice and proved how the Jewish sacrifice was destroyed. And the Antichrist has emptied the holy sacrifice. And what is done in heretical temples, Holy Scripture relates that this is not a holy sacrifice, but the abomination of desolation. The Great Catechism speaks on this question, page 25:

“The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

In general, it turns out that we shun not the holy great mystery of Communion, but the abomination of desolation. I read again the interrupted place in the Catechism:

“This abomination is interpreted according to the writing of John Chrysostom as the army of the Antichrist destroying the Church of God (below). This is the third reason. Because of which they will depart from the faith and approach heresy by desire. Which will have in itself Judaism and every impiety will be found in it.”

And what does this word “Judaism” mean? It means, on the one hand, to revile heretics, and on the other hand, to have communion with them either in dogmas of faith or in anything else—this is Judaism. And among the priestly ones it is evident.

Then blessed Jerome explains what the mountains are to which one must flee from the abomination of desolation. His Works, part 3, p. 182: “But we, hearing the words of the Lord Savior: let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let us lift our eyes to those mountains of which it is written: ‘I will lift up my eyes to the mountains, from where my help will come’ (Ps. 120:1). And in another place: ‘Its foundations are on the holy mountains’ (Ps. 86:1). Again: ‘The mountains surround it, and the Lord surrounds His people’ (Ps. 124:2), and ‘A city set on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matt. 5:14). Casting off from our feet the skin of the letter and entering with Moses barefoot onto the mountain, let us say: ‘I will pass by and see this great vision’ (Ex. 3:3).”

Here, my most honorable interlocutor, you must first cast off from your tongue the skin of the letter, since you judge everything by the letter; ascend with reason higher and look into the core of the word, look at the mystery of the spirit of Scripture, revering it, and give it a just evaluation. But you go by the letter, eating the skin, and it pricks your jaws. And what would this mean? Blessed Jerome says here: “When he sees the abomination of desolation standing in the Church, and Satan transforming himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). That is, when you see heresies in the church and Satan—that is, a false bishop—pretending to be an angel of light—that is, showing himself Orthodox—flee from this church and this deceiver, for “the apostle spoke of this abomination of heretical and impious teaching, that the man of sin and the opponent will exalt himself above every so-called God or object of worship, so as to sit in the Church of God, showing himself as God” (2 Thess. 2:4). So said blessed Jerome. If a false heretical bishop is Satan, how will I allow myself to be given alive to him as food? God save and preserve! My dear brethren in faith, though they live outwardly in poverty—that is, without priesthood—their wealth is in the inner state of right faith. They shun only the abomination of desolation. I ask you to pay attention to the following testimony. Works of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, interpretation on the prophet Daniel, p. 147: “And then the sacrifice and libation, which are now offered to God in every place and by all nations, will be taken away.” Do you see how Holy Scripture teaches us about the great mystery of Communion: it, says the great man of the Church, will be taken away, and taken away, understandably, from the Church. When will this be? The holy father says: in the last week of Daniel; and it is in this that we live.

Thus, you prove that Communion is eternal, but I have proved that the mystery of Communion will be emptied—that is, corrupted by heretics. There will be no this mystery, and if there is, it will only be the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

This has already factually been accomplished, which you yourselves prove by not communing in the sacrifice with Christians of the whole universe, but disputing about universal Communion. Why then deceive the public in this? If universal Communion is eternal, why do you shun all nationalities in the Christian name, and go only your own narrow path, not even communing with the priestly anti-Okružhniki? Do you not clearly prove your weakness by this? You speak of Communion, but do not point out where it is. Speak with the tongue of a truthful, honest man, but do not point to what was in the ancient Church regarding priesthood.

If we remain without priesthood, it is not by our own will, but because priesthood has fallen into heresies. To this accusation of yours I will answer with the words of the patriarch of blessed memory Jeremiah of Constantinople (Historical Acts of Southwestern Russia, vol. 5, p. 241): “What does he do (Jeremiah)? He gathers the verbal flock, the sheep of Christ, be they tanners, saddlers, shoemakers of every estate, rank, and age, Orthodox Christians. Having gathered them, he says to them with these words: Save yourselves, my brethren, yourselves, for you cannot be saved by pastors! Why? Because they think not only of your salvation but not even of their own; already the pastors pilgrimage according to the light of this world, already the pastors have enlisted in the service of the prince of this world. Already the pastors care nothing for eternal life, yours or their own. Already the present pastors intend to live out the age in luxury, to glorify themselves, to play, to enrich themselves, to become wise. Save yourselves, my beloved brethren, faithful flock of Christ, chosen race, holy tongue, royal priesthood, people of renewal, pious Russian people—yourselves; save yourselves by faith, save yourselves by the Gospel commandments; save yourselves by the paternal law; save yourselves by honest and chaste life.”

Do you see what the pastor of Christ’s Church says: brethren, simple folk, craftsmen, laborers of every kind and position, save yourselves if you want to be saved yourselves; you, simple folk, save yourselves! For the time has come when your pastors have departed from the truth, think not of God’s Judgment, but care only for themselves—to grow rich, live luxuriously, glorify themselves with clothing and wealth, but not with faith, not according to God’s Law, and not with a meek and humble life. Therefore know, children, says blessed Jeremiah, that the church pastors have given themselves to the service not of God but of the prince of this world—that is, the devil. Your pastors, bishops and priests, have betrayed God in faith; they are distinguished not by truth, seek not eternal life, but splendor of clothing and work only for gluttony. These are not pastors but wolves! But what should simple people do without pastors? How to be saved? And this is the main thing. To these questions the true pastor and man of wisdom says: “Save yourselves by yourselves.” The great teacher as if climbs a high tower and makes a call, tearfully pleading, says: “Save yourselves, brethren, by yourselves, do not abandon the covenants of our fathers, walk the Gospel path, perform virtues and God’s commandments, live abstinently and chastely, hold to right faith, and faith will save you. Believe that you can be saved even without priesthood.”

My time is coming to an end; I must say in my defense a few more words from the Scripture of the holy father of the Church and teacher, the venerable Ephrem the Syrian, who, grieving over the present times, says (Word 105):

“Then the earth and the sea will weep”…

And tell me, can the earth weep, can the soulless and voiceless sea weep, if only understood literally? “Then the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

This is as if people will be without singing and without voice.

“Then all Christ’s Churches will weep with great weeping.”

I explain: Christ’s Churches are believing people; they will not simply weep, but weep with great weeping.

“Because there will be no holy service in the altars nor offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ.”

This is what they will weep over: that there will be no service in the altars—not simply no service, but no holy service in the altars; not only no holy service, but no offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ. Over this the pious people will weep: that there will be nowhere to receive this great mystery. This Scripture has been fulfilled. The time has come; the pious people weep over the altars and the mystery of offering. And who is this pious people? These are my dear brethren in faith, whom I have the happiness to defend.

BREAK

Chairman. Honorable assembly! I declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. We have heard another speech from my interlocutor, Mr. Pichugin. In this speech he gave an answer: “I am asked, he says, where in Holy Scripture it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. I answer: they will not remain.” We will approach this answer and see how much foundation it has. But first let us pay attention to some of his words. It seems it has become a little offensive to my interlocutor when I pointed out that it is not the Antichrist who is to blame for the priestless having no sacrifice, but that they themselves build temples and allocate places for altars, but do not place altars in them. He says: “well, our benefactors and trustees built these temples and wished to arrange a council room behind the iconostasis.” They did this. It is clear that they did it, not the Antichrist. They made a council room instead of an altar, but testify against the Antichrist: the Antichrist destroyed everything. But they had nothing there that could be destroyed. So here you vainly accuse the Antichrist: this is the work of your hands. You yourselves did not set up an altar but set up something else, not what should have been. (The speaker is interrupted, saying this does not pertain to the matter.) It pertains: since our discussion is about the sacrifice, and they have none, it pertains.

Now let us pay attention to what my interlocutor said regarding Lot’s wife. He says: “look at Lot’s wife.” Before developing this subject, I will ask my interlocutor: where in Scripture is it said that Lot’s wife supposedly means accepting the second and third ranks of priesthood from heretics? Where is such an example? First, this does not exist; this is Mr. Pichugin’s own interpretation; but such has no value for us. And second, Lot’s wife means the holy Church. About this writes blessed Irenaeus of Lyons (p. 403): “His wife remained in the land of Sodom no longer with corruptible flesh, but as a pillar of salt, always abiding, which through natural functions shows what is usual in man, just as the Church, which is the salt of the earth, remained within the bounds of the earth and is subject to human things; and while whole members are taken from her, she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends forth sons to their Father.” Here is what Lot’s wife means: the Church, which is the salt of the earth. Lot’s wife turned back and became a pillar of salt. What comparison is here? Did not the Church turn back to return the erring? Throughout the entire history of Christ’s Church do we not see tens, hundreds of thousands of examples that the holy Church, like Lot’s wife, turned back and waited for the conversion and repentance of those who fell into heresy and error? This is the salt of the earth and the support of humanity. As whole members are taken from her and she remains a pillar of salt, so from the Church members are taken who deviate into error, and she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends sons to their fathers. The very foundation of faith in the Church is unshakable; but you have none. Among the foundations of faith Christ established until His second coming the sacrifice. This is a foundation of faith; but you have none, so there is no foundation of faith.

Then you said that in the Gospel of John Christ said: “I am the living bread…” and that to believe the teaching means also to partake. But is not the teaching about the sacrifice contained in Christ’s teaching? Is there not in this teaching the indispensable question of the sacrifice, without which the Church cannot be? In this teaching there is the sacrifice arranged by the Lord Himself, and it will remain until the second coming, as the holy Apostle Paul and John Chrysostom say. The interlocutor says that under the living bread is meant teaching. This is a great error of my interlocutor. To correct this error, it is worth turning to the holy Gospel and learning what is meant here by living bread.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (Gospel of John, ch. 6, v. 51).

Further it says:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (Ibid., v. 53).

This is what this bread means in the Gospel to which you referred. Then my interlocutor read in defense of his conviction from the Great Catechism, page 24 reverse:

“The prophet Daniel said, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

What is this abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation in the holy place is heretical teaching. What kind of teaching is this? That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. Here with you instead of the sacrifice this impious teaching is set up. Then, reading this place, you omitted another place in this same Catechism, which testifies that this sacrifice and this very teaching about it will remain until the end of the age:

“That which the Lord God said, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth. So this word of the Lord was spoken once. Which on all altar thrones even to this day, and until His coming, gives power to the sacrifice” (Great Catechism, p. 384).

To this place, when I read it to the interlocutor, he paid no attention. But I repeat and continue further:

“Do you see, heretic, that this mystery is not accomplished by the mere reading of the epistle of the holy Apostle Paul or by preaching. Nor by simple prayers. But by blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? We bless the cup—that is, we consecrate the wine in the cup and say Christ’s words: this is My blood. Not by preaching, nor by reading do they act, but by blessing. Just as Christ blessed the bread, so we bless on the divine table. By this also the other heretical deception is driven away, which thinks that the mystery is accomplished not in consecration but in the very use.”

About the teaching, he read from the Apostle Paul that supposedly the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. He speaks in vain. It is not the preaching itself or the reading of the apostle’s epistle, or our simple prayers, but blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says. Here it is—not teaching, but the actions of the priest, even blessing. This is what teaching means. This is what living bread means.

Then my interlocutor read from Ephrem the Syrian, Word 105:

“Then all Christ’s churches will weep with great weeping, because there will be no holy service in the altars, no offering.”

And it seems he almost wept himself. This is Word 105, page 304 reverse. But it is a pity that the interlocutor did not read everything. And why? Because if everything is read, it only exposes them. I will take just two and a half lines higher, starting with a capital letter. But you began with a small one.

“Then the earth and the sea will weep, for suddenly the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

But did you hear what they sang yesterday? I was with them during the service; they sang then too.

“All Christ’s Church will weep with great weeping, because there will be no sacrifice in the altar.”

There are not even any offerings in the altar, but they sing and do not cease. Well, what kind of teaching is this? The Antichrist came and destroyed everything, destroyed the sacrifices and arranged something else, but could not eliminate singing. So according to you, simple singing is stronger than Christ’s sacrifice. Dear interlocutor, I should read this passage against you. After all, all holy services are performed in the altar: the liturgy and the all-night vigil. I am very grateful to you for acknowledging that you have nothing holy—only you say the liturgy alone is holy, but nothing else is holy. So, does that mean you have no holy service? Then why do you pray, why do you sing?

When Ephrem the Syrian says that singing from human lips will cease, he writes about visible churches. Where in the last kingdom of the last Antichrist they accept his teaching, there the churches will weep and there will be no service. The interlocutor will say: in Christ’s Church there will be no holy service. Who will destroy it? He says—the Antichrist. You say there is no Christ’s Church with us, no in the dominant church, no with the Armenians, no with the Catholics. Where is it then? With you, you will say? Yes! That means the Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice with you. That means you have the Antichrist. I congratulate you on the Antichrist.

But that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, that this sacrifice will not cease, and that the Antichrist will not be able to destroy it in Christ’s Church (the Antichrist is able to destroy the sacrifice only with you, but he is unable to destroy it in Christ’s Church), the same Ephrem the Syrian on page 320 of his book writes the following:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man (1 Cor., Reading 149), for the word of God is living and active. And all this, as much as God desired, He created. And if there is the word: let there be light, and there was light. Let there be a firmament, and there was (Genesis, ch. 2). And if by the Lord’s words the heavens were established. So if heaven and earth, water and fire, air and all creation were accomplished by God’s words, and the word-speaking man, and if the God-Word of all things desired to become man, then can He not make this prosphora His flesh, and wine and water His blood? In the beginning He commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and even until this hour, when rain comes, it immediately brings forth its growths by God’s command and as if coming from the earth, having first received the power of the Lord’s words. For God said: this is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance (Matt. 108, Mark 64, Luke 108), so by His almighty command it happens until He comes (1 Cor., Reading 149), for so He spoke: until I come. And just as rain coming upon the earth immediately grows grass, so this holy rain—I mean the Holy Spirit—called by the priest’s prayer, visiting by His power, immediately makes this bread flesh and wine blood. Just as God created from the beginning by the action of that Holy Spirit.”

Once God said: “let the earth bring forth grass,” no one can forbid this creation of God from growing. It always grows throughout the entire history of the world. So it is impossible to stop this command of God: “this is My body, this is My blood, do this in My remembrance, so the proclaimed command happens until He comes.” So God spoke: until I come. This is what Ephrem the Syrian writes. Where will the sacrifice cease? There where they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, because there where they accept it, there is the abomination of desolation. And since you have neither throne nor altar, but the abomination of desolation, it means you have accepted the Antichrist. From the soul I wish you to be delivered from this enemy, the Antichrist. Our interlocutor read to us that the Antichrist will everywhere destroy the altar and the sacrifice, but I read to him that it is not the Antichrist who will destroy it, but He who instituted it will abolish it. The same holy Ephrem the Syrian, from whom my interlocutor read, in part 6, on p. 75 writes: “And He will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King—Christ—will confirm a covenant with many with His blood. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” And who instituted? Christ. He will abolish. Blessed Theodoret says that there will be no need for the sacrifice at Christ’s coming, because the Body itself will appear. Christ Himself will come then. But if, according to you, the Antichrist abolished it, does that mean he instituted it? This is horror what you say. Then my honorable interlocutor, answering that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming, read to us a passage from the Book of Cyril, page 32.

“For the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the altars and the sacrifice everywhere.”

Pay attention, here it says before his coming, meaning before the Antichrist came. He is not yet here, he has not come, but before coming he destroyed the sacrifice. How is it that he has not come but destroyed? Here in the Book of Cyril there is a scribal error or misprint. This in the Book of Cyril is taken from the Explanatory Apostle, where it says “before Christ’s coming,” not his own. Here is the scribe’s error who copied this book. These words are placed in the Book of Cyril and instead of “Christ’s” it says before “his own” coming. That is the matter. Second, the Antichrist will destroy it. And where? There where

“Heretics have no sacrifice, note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar” (Book of Cyril, p. 32).

Saint Chrysostom writes about the same, that heretics, once they stopped offering sacrifices, destroyed the altars, made something improper in the altars for themselves, meaning here is the abomination of desolation. Further my interlocutor read:

“For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

Here, he says, nothing will be, but what will be after this he does not say. He did not finish reading:

“Then this age will also end.”

But he left this out. When everywhere on earth they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, the faithful will be persecuted and oppressed and there will be no possibility to offer bloodless sacrifices, then the age will end. But when did your age end? After Nikon we have lived another 250 years and cannot convince you that you are in error. That indeed, during the time of the Antichrist the priesthood will remain, there are also proofs for this. Even if we accept that the last Antichrist reigns, even then the priesthood will remain. Here is what Saint Andrew of Caesarea writes in the interpretation of the Apocalypse:

Present. “And every mountain and hill will be moved from their places. Interpretation: When the powerful of this life or those of church rank, called mountains, and the fathers of the faithful churches according to Isaiah, flee from their places, changing place for place because of the Antichrist.”

This is what is said. As a result of such unprecedented persecution in the times of the last Antichrist, the leaders of church order and the faithful churches will not cease, but will flee from the Antichrist, changing places one for another. Why then do they (the Pomortsy) not flee anywhere? Who persecutes them? Is it not known to everyone that they freely build temples, freely gather for celebrations and prayers, perform processions. Who persecutes them? They themselves simply did not want to arrange altars.

Then, honorable listeners, my interlocutor read so plaintively from the Historical Acts the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. But here too there is a distortion. To give more authority to these words, which were written by the monk John of Vyshensky, he read these words in the name of the patriarch, for this monk is not a very authoritative person. What is the speech about there? Why, dear interlocutor, did you not point out to the people what the speech is about there? There the speech is about the Little Russian Christians who remained alone with pious priests as a result of the bishops’ retreat to the pope. “Save yourselves… do not retreat from the pious faith.” Here the speech is specifically about the Little Russian Christians. And after this, a hundred years later there was Paul, Bishop of Kolomna. After all, the Little Russian Christians did not begin to save themselves as you do—they did not place a council room instead of altars in their places. So here too you have untruth. We were told here that Paul of Kolomna could have appointed a successor for himself. Why was this said? I suppose that if my interlocutor—of course, God forbid this, I only say as an example—if he had to sit locked in a casemate for something, guards were assigned, icons were not hung and they said: why do you not bow to the icon, he would say there is no icon. So too Paul of Kolomna: since he was kept in exile, deprived of all communication with the world, he was deprived of the opportunity not only to ordain but even to serve the liturgy. What to demand from him. But that there be teaching from Paul of Kolomna that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming—this does not exist. On the contrary, our ancestors wrote this: Protopope Avvakum writes:

“Do not move the boundaries which the fathers set, and hold the tradition unchanged. One must be baptized as we received, believe as we were baptized. But ring this in your ears, adversary: you abolish the priesthood, and the mystery in a Lutheran and Calvinist way. You have wandered, friend, into the depth of evils; arise; for neither the devil himself can abolish the holy mysteries, nor the Antichrist with his offspring. The Master said to His disciples: I am with you until the end of the age, amen. Our head is Christ, King and High Priest. When He allows the order (of holiness) to be abolished, do not be tempted, child: even if the priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. And those people who do not partake, they do not do well; with their own invention they say: grace has been taken away. And after the Antichrist, after the last devil, grace will not abandon His faithful” (Book of Borozdin “Protopope Avvakum”, p. 15 in the appendix).

This is what our ancestors wrote. So you stop your ears. Thus the asps stop their ears, the psalmist writes: “like a deaf asp stopping its ears.”

“And those who separate themselves from Communion, when it is possible to receive the holy sacrament, pure holy service, I do not praise that. For the Lord Himself said: he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. How boldly they say that the holy mysteries cannot be found. Only we are supposedly the holy people, and everyone else has perished! Dear fathers, good is zeal for God, but know its measure. Do not beware, the sacrifice will not be abolished to the end even by the Antichrist himself. For the Master said: I am with you until the end of the age” (Ibid., appendix p. 15).

This is what Protopope Avvakum says regarding the eternity of the priesthood. Here are how many proofs from our ancestors and the strongest from Holy Scripture that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. But with them there is none, none, and none. It is said: “the sacrifice will cease and singing will stop,” but they sing, but there is no sacrifice. You read this to your own head. Saint John of Damascus also writes. See, brethren, how many proofs in defense of the eternal abiding in Christ’s Church of priesthood and sacrifice:

“Then breaking the bread, He gave it to them saying: take and eat, this is My body, broken for you for the remission of sins. Likewise taking the cup of wine and water, He gave it to them saying: drink of it all of you, this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for you for the remission of sins. Do this in My remembrance. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man and confess His resurrection until He comes. If then the word of God is living and active, and the Lord did whatever He desired. If He said: let there be light, and there was: let there be a firmament, and there was. If by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. If heaven and earth, water and fire and air, and all their beauty were accomplished by the Lord’s word, and this most glorious living creature man. If God the Word Himself desiring became man, and from the holy ever-Virgin, pure and undefiled blood seedlessly formed flesh, can He not make bread His body, and wine and water blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and until now when rain comes, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: This is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance. And by His almighty command, until He comes, it happens. For so He said: until He comes” (Book “The Heavens” of Damascus, p. 77).

I have finished the proofs, and my time is ending. Concluding my speech, I turn again to my interlocutor. That it is bad with heretics, I do not need to speak: I myself know that it is bad with heretics. There is no need to speak about our hierarchy either. If you wish to continue discussions about this, I agree to discuss for another two days specifically about our hierarchy, but now I ask you not to deviate one inch from the question. So you see that the holy fathers wrote that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Please answer the question?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! You have heard the second and third speech of my interlocutor and his refutations regarding my testimonial data from Holy Scripture and heard his interpretation. Everything that my interlocutor said only confirms my words; he only repeated once again the same truth that I told you from a pure heart. My interlocutor spoke about the eternity of the sacrifice, that the sacrifice will continue until the end of the age, and showed himself in his actions that he has nothing in common with Scripture and with those holy men who wrote about this. About the New Testament sacrifice wrote holy men, church teachers, Orthodox and having direct succession of ordination from Christ. So these are not your men, with whom Christ’s men and the teachers of the truly Christ’s Church have nothing in common. But your priesthood and sacrifice do not depict the eternity of Christ’s sacrifice and ordination, but only a crude heretical counterfeit of soulless priesthood, as you yourselves testified that you received priesthood from a heretic. Therefore the full obligation lies on you to defend only your priesthood and your sacrifice, but you, as everyone now sees, try to bypass this question in silence and fear it like red-hot iron, fearing exposure; you hide your hands in your pockets and do not touch it. For this deceptive sacrifice of yours is performed only since 1846, it is a little over 60 years old, younger than a human age, remade from new to old style.

Now I will follow in your footsteps. Tell me, why did you say nothing to me about the words of the Gospel of Christ the Savior “about the salt of lost-flavor priesthood”? And why do you think, listeners? Because this lost-flavor priesthood is precisely with them; it is thrown outside the church fence by law and trampled by reasonable people.

My interlocutor also read about altars and thrones from the Book of Cyril. Before I speak about altars, I will repeat the words of my interlocutor. He said that we without priests constitute nothing. On the contrary, even without visible priesthood we constitute a single whole, first of all by the inner power of hope, the beauty of expectation, and we are built on the granite of faith, not communing with false priesthood. Our holy faith is not darkened by either heretical baptism or heretical priesthood. This is the only beauty shining everywhere. But your faith is darkened by your superstition in soulless priesthood, your mysteries are darkened by false priests and bishops. So you have nothing in common with us. You throw mud at a crystal, but no matter how much you throw, your mud remains mud for you, and the crystal will not dim. And that without priesthood, in need, one can be saved, here is what the venerable John of Vyshensky tells us, book of Zachariah Kopystensky On the One Truth, page 224: “For your speech about the purification of the church has begun, and we will continue to do so. Let them ascend to the priestly degree according to the rules of the holy fathers, and not according to their own carnal desires, for the sake of property and papacy seizing the rank. And every such one who jumps in himself, do not accept, and even given by the king without your election, expel and curse. For you were not baptized into the pope, nor into the king’s power, that he give you wolves, villains, robbers and Antichrist’s mystagogues. It is better for you without bishops and without priests set by the devil to go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not called by God to be in the church and mock it and trample Orthodoxy. It is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your Orthodox faith, keeping God’s commandments, that wants to save us.”

Heretics, false bishops and priests do not do good, but evil, they make money by evil, live for contentment, deceive people; they are not pastors but robbers in the spiritual sense. False teachers, false priests who by deception destroy the souls trusting them—these are all your priests who entered not by the lawful door but over the fence of the law. These words of Christ the Savior are repeated by the holy man. Then—Antichrist’s mystagogues. By these words it is made known that false bishops are not Christ’s servants but Antichrist’s accomplices, for they originated not from Christ but from the Antichrist. I have proved to you on the basis of part 13 of blessed Jerome that as many false teachings as there are, so many Antichrists. Where there is only false teaching, there is the Antichrist, and false teaching regarding heretical priesthood is with you. That place where you took your bishop, you call Babylon, the dwelling of demons and a nest of every unclean spirit, as testifies the book of your bishop Ivan Grigorievich Usov. By this you convicted yourselves: you bought one demon, and from him by evil spirit you perform mysteries. As for the bishop, he can be recreated only by a grace-filled hand; like an unfired clay vessel, he must be tempered by fire—that is, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but there was no one with you to do this, therefore I can compare your modern priesthood only with raw clay pots. Then it is said: “it is better for you to be without priests and without bishops set by the devil.” So who sets priests and bishops among heretics—not Christ, but the devil. Do not count it rudeness, beloved listeners, I am forced to testify this and object to the remarks of my interlocutor. (Noise, cries: “To the point.”) I ask for your attention, do not betray your weakness by noise. I ask for attention! I was silent on everything my interlocutor said; I did not say a word when he applied the abomination of desolation to us. And my brethren in faith did not say a word to all the reproaches of my opponent. The behavior of my brethren in the discussions is instructive for you. By your protest you only declare once again your weakness. I am reading a book. (Cries: “Speak to the substance!”) I know better than you how to speak to the substance.

Chairman. Gentlemen, for God’s sake do not interfere.

Pichugin. I read: “It would be better for you to be without bishops and without priests set by the devil.” Perhaps this reading offends you, especially those of you who consider yourselves bishop or priest. But do not be offended at me. I am the same mortal as you, and only serve as an instrument of Scripture. My lips speak, but it is not I who speak; the church teachers speak.

Thus, heretical priests and bishops, as false, are not set by Christ, but by the devil. And you, gentlemen, not fearing God’s Judgment, not heeding the duty of conscience, carry this devilish priesthood around Russia. It would be better for you to be without devilish priesthood and go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not come to you from God to mock the church and trample its sacred laws!

To us pertain the words of the venerable man: “it is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your faith and good deeds,” and this teaching is precisely applicable to our time. Here is our justification by faith, hope for the future, and foundation in our present life. Following the teaching of Christ’s Church, we firmly hold to it. It is not I who built our position by faith, dear listeners, but the Spirit of God through the lips of holy men. If I do not tell the truth, what kind of defender of my conviction by faith will I be? Likewise your defender, if he does not say what needs to be said, what kind of interlocutor will he be? After all, you heard, dear listeners, what my interlocutor said: “with you, priestless Pomortsy, is the Antichrist.” I endured this reproach, and my brethren in faith also endured it. Here, he said, “they build temples, made a council room instead of an altar, here is the abomination of desolation.” We listened, did not protest. So, gentlemen, learn patience from us.

The abomination of desolation has indeed stood, but let us see where: with us or with you? Christ the Savior said to one cunning servant:

“Cunning servant, by your own mouth I will judge you.”

So I will pronounce judgment, pronounced by the lips of your own bishops. Your bishop of Zadunai Anastasius writes: “Peace and God’s blessing to my children in the Lord! Know, children, that certain shameless ones thinking themselves Christians announced that finding in a cave the relics of the holy martyrs Dada, Gaveddai, and Kozdoi, but as doctors examined these bones, it turned out that these are corpses of Circassians, a dog, and a hare, and the accursed priest Stefan consecrated altars on these bones” p. 11. Further he writes: “Under the temple a cave is dug, on the floor of the cave lie two corpses, there lie corpses of a dog and a hare.” “By this abomination he (the priest) defiled many churches.” So here is where the abomination of desolation is.

My brethren in faith with flaming zeal and prayer built a temple to the Lord God and a section for spiritual affairs and council, but on what do you build your churches and altars? Your bishop Anastasius directly says: on the corpses of a dog and a hare—here is the abomination of desolation! Unknown corpses lay in the crypt without any Christian signs, and suddenly, out of nowhere, your council recognized them as relics of Persian martyrs.

It is not in the council room of my brethren in faith that the abomination of desolation is, but in your churches. And who writes about this? Your Anastasius, bishop of the city of Izmail. I think this is enough. You spoke out of place, my interlocutor, to offend my beloved brethren for building the temple. To such inappropriate statements and claims, as not pertaining to the matter, I gave you a rebuff.

You also said: “Where is it said that under Lot’s wife one can understand that we accept heretical bishops and priests?” But I did not say that under Lot’s wife one should understand that you accept bishops and priests. I said: your ancestors saw the need for priests and looked back. Meanwhile they said: “It is bad to live with heretical priests, but worse without them.” So too Lot’s wife: it is bad to live without house and property, but worse to live with beasts and suffer hunger; she looked back, through unbelief, to the perishing place and became salted. Thus you too did not believe God’s command to flee without looking back from the fall, looked back at heretical priests and became petrified.

I draw attention to the following words of my interlocutor: “What is the abomination of desolation? It is with you, he says, Pomortsy, because you teach that the sacrifice will cease.” To this I can object to my interlocutor: it is not we who teach that instead of the mystery of Communion the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place, but God Himself, through the lips of the prophet Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere on the altars and destroy the sacrifice.” But what did my interlocutor say to this passage from the Book of Cyril? He resorted to an improper device and with mockery said: “This is an error in the Book of Cyril, simply a misprint.” But allow me to ask you, Mr. interlocutor, on what basis do you say this is a misprint? Where did you find in Scripture such a remark to diminish the Book of Cyril by this? I will point you to the title page of the Book of Cyril, where it says:

“Truly this most excellent book is like a great ship laden with great wealth, for it is richly furnished with divine Scripture as a shield and barrier against evil heretics.”

Here is a worthy review of this holy book.

Then you also noted: “Then singing in churches will cease, but you, he says, sing, and sang yesterday.” First of all, I could say that my interlocutor speaks this off-topic. We sang yesterday in the temple, yes! But Saint Ephrem the Syrian does not speak of this ordinary singing, but of sacrificial singing, the Cherubic Hymn, and praise over the sacrifice. This is the singing in question.

For this singing occurs not in a common assembly, but where a true bishop in concelebration with presbyters and deacons offers the sacred sacrifice to the Lord God.

I will go further following the words of my interlocutor. He said another impropriety: “You have the Antichrist, congratulations.” But what signs do we have that the Antichrist is with us? For the Antichrist, like a wolf, will clothe himself in the robe of a true pastor, will be a pretended bishop. And that this is so, I will confirm by the thirteenth chapter of the book of the Apocalypse. There it says:

“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb.”

Like a lamb, it is said. What lamb? The true Lamb Jesus Christ, standing on Mount Zion. So the false christ appears for the deception of the deluded in the form of Christ. So does anyone among the Pomortsy dress in sacred robes and call himself by the name of Christ—a bishop? How out of place! This does not mean a simpleton in modest clothing, but a hidden wolf, according to the interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, a false bishop, for

“The Antichrist desires to imitate the Son of God in everything.”

Who, one asks, pretends to be in the image of Christ? False bishops and false priests. But we have none, and the insult inflicted on us falls with all its weight on your head. This happens with you, not with us.

Then, you cited page 75 of part 6 of the Works of Ephrem the Syrian, with the words that “He who instituted the sacrifices will abolish them.” Most honorable interlocutor, from the passage you read and your personal explanation it is evident that you are as ignorant in prophetic Scripture as you are intemperate in words and tongue. Reading the prophet’s words in Ephrem the Syrian, you should have thought and asked yourself what and about whom this is spoken. For this is spoken about Old Testament sacrifices, not about the mystery of Communion. I will read this passage and you will see that it will be as I say: “For this migration will not be like the Egyptian or Babylonian migration. From Egypt the Jews returned after four hundred years, and from Babylon they will return after seventy.” One asks: about whom is the speech? About the Jews who returned from Egypt after four hundred years, and from Babylon after seventy. Is this not clear? Further the holy father says: “But this desolation appointed by God will not cease, and forever it will be given to desolation.” Is it not evident here that this speaks of the last desolation of the Jews by the Romans? Finally, Saint Ephrem cites the words of the prophet Daniel: “And he will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King Christ with His blood will confirm a covenant with many. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice and offering will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” It turns out my interlocutor did not understand the most important thing. “Them”—that is, lawful sacrifices, and if this were spoken about the mystery of Communion, it would say: “He who instituted it will abolish it.” This is what my interlocutor lacks. And this is clear as God’s day that here it speaks of the institution of Old Testament sacrifices. God instituted them in the Sinai desert through Moses and Aaron the high priest, and on the cross abolished them. This is the sacrifice spoken of here. One needs to read a little more diligently and tell the public only what is truth. Then, what does my interlocutor say: “Here we have been struggling with the Pomortsy after Nikon.” But I have seen you only for the third time, Dmitry Sergeevich. We are comparatively so young, but after Nikon 250 years have passed, and no mortal could achieve such longevity.

But here is what you said well: “that from the years of Nikon to the present time we cannot prove to you.” Here is honor to you. This is the truth you said, that you cannot prove the correctness of your priesthood.

Then you say: “They will flee from the Antichrist, but where will the priestless flee?” And in this case you are gravely mistaken. The priestless do not commune with those close to the Antichrist; in this respect they flee. And how do they flee? By removing themselves from those fallen into heresies, from the teaching of the erring, from the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

Then you said that I supposedly read incorrectly from the book of Southwestern Acts, that it is not Patriarch Jeremiah who writes, but the monk John. Untruth. You must read books too dully. Here look: “What does he do?”

One must read more attentively. Look at the words: “What does he do?” Jeremiah gathers the flock. For if John were writing, he would say what I do, what I perform, what I gather the flock. The monk John would have no right to say that he gathers the flock, because he is a simple monk, and this is proper only to bishops. Tell me, how dull this is.

Then you stopped again on Avvakum. Tell me, dear interlocutor, it seems all your hope is only on Avvakum. But Avvakum did not write such words, and you should not have spoken them in a public discussion. What kind of words are these: “You have wandered, my friend.” Tell me, are these the words of a sufferer, the words of a martyr? No, these are the words of a merry company, words of a freethinker, words of an unbeliever. For you wrote this in the person of your ancestors; this was concocted by your Iona Kur-nosy. So this is false history!

Having examined your arguments, I will now present new testimonies that in need we can partake by faith, spiritually. The venerable Ephrem the Syrian in his book, Word 83, writes:

“Let there be churches of God, and the Most High God will dwell in you. For the soul having God in itself will be called a holy and pure Church, and divine mysteries are served in it.”

And how is this highest mystery of Communion accomplished in a person? Let us listen to reasonable Scripture: Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 63, page 568:

“The body of a person is the church of God, and the heart of a person is the altar of the Holy Spirit.”

On this altar—a pure heart—God comes and performs the mystery, by faith. Allow me to present to you also the interpretation of the holy blessed Ephrem the Syrian, his Works, part 4, p. 349:

“As long as the heart abides in good, so long God abides in it, so long it serves as a source of life. The heart is God’s dwelling, therefore it needs guarding so that evil does not enter it and God does not depart from it.”

“Wonderful this is, my brethren: most marvelous, my beloved; incomprehensible to the heavenly, and inexpressible to the earthly. Inaccessible to every mind enters the heart and dwells in it. Hidden from the fiery-eyed is found in the heart. The earth does not bear His footsteps, but a pure heart bears Him in itself. Heaven is small for His span, but the heart is His dwelling. Heaven He encompasses with His handful, and one span of space is His habitation. If He spreads out—all creation will not contain Him within its bounds, but if He seeks the heart, even a small heart contains Him. A small place He chooses in man for His dwelling, and man becomes a temple of God in which God dwells. The soul is His temple, and the heart is the Holy altar on which praise, glorification, and sacrifices are offered; and the priest is the Spirit who stands and officiates there.”

This is the kind of Communion true Christians, my brethren in faith, have.

Then, dear listeners, I also cite the testimony of Saint John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria. Cheti-Minei, month of November, 11th day, article 46:

“And this the blessed one taught and testified, that in no way ever should one partake of heretical communion, especially defilement. Even if your whole life, said the blessed one, and from some need or misfortune you remain without Communion, not finding a conciliar church (below). How then, having yoked oneself with right faith to the conciliar church, as the apostle said: betrothing a pure virgin to one husband, to present to God. If we defile the Orthodox and holy faith by heretical communion, will we not be partakers of the torment awaiting heretics in the age to come (below). Therefore do not, O children, touch such praying ones for the sake of bread.”

Now I have sufficiently proved, beloved listeners, all that was required of me.

A person, a true Christian, can and must hope for that Communion which the Heavenly King Himself gives by faith.

D. S. Varakin. The question was posed whether priesthood and sacrifice will remain in the Church until Christ’s second coming. Did my interlocutor say anything about this question in this speech? No, he did not. I am sure that more than half of you will agree that on the question he said nothing in this speech. He dragged in something about dogs and hares. But is our question today about dogs and hares? If you are interested in dogs and hares, take a rifle after Peter’s day and go hunting in the forest. Did you not hear that today our question is about Christ’s holy sacrifice: will it remain until the second coming? I simply do not understand your reasoning: the question is posed about the sacrifice, and he tells about dogs and hares. I think there is a difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs and hares, or have you become so coarsened that you no longer have a concept of the difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs? One must have no shame, my dearest interlocutor, to speak such baseness.

Then, again there was in his speech the question of our hierarchy. I told you, gentlemen, and addressed the dear interlocutor: appoint another two days for a discussion on our hierarchy and we will speak specifically about the hierarchy. Why do you not accept my challenge, if you wish, to speak another two days about our hierarchy? Why do you remain silent on this direct challenge? For the fourth speech I ask him to appoint a discussion specifically on the question of the hierarchy, but he seems not to hear. He needs to abuse, because he cannot answer the question, because in Scripture there is no such heretical teaching. So he must abuse. If it pleases my dear interlocutor even to discuss the bodies found there in the Caucasus, a special discussion must be appointed for this too; I agree to discuss the question of the martyrs’ bodies. However, where there is no true sacrifice, where instead of an altar they arrange something else that should not be in the church, there dogs and hares are most likely to appear. In good conscience I say that I would wish to speak on the question of relics and specifically on the question of the hierarchy for another two days. Let him accept the challenge and appoint the discussion; I am ready, but now I will not speak on this question because it does not pertain to the matter.

You read the last proof from the Cheti-Minei of John the Merciful, not to accept heretical teaching. I agree with this. But it was proved that until the second coming Christ’s sacrifice will remain in Christ’s Church. You say it is not suitable in the dominant church. But do you have it yourselves? It is not suitable there and not here, and I have none; but it will remain until the second coming. So where is it? This is why you needed dogs with hares.

Then, honorable listeners, I pointed out that my interlocutor read from the Historical Acts the words of the monk John of Vyshensky and intertwined them with the name of the patriarch. He says, here is where I read this, here is where I took this book. We see that indeed, instead of John of Vyshensky, he slipped in Patriarch Jeremiah (page 227 of the epistle of the Athonite monk John of Vyshensky). And he reads this epistle, passing off the words of John of Vyshensky as the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. “Here I,” says Vyshensky, “will now speak with you about the patriarch’s arrival as follows.” Can a patriarch speak about his own arrival where he has not yet been? What are you doing, interlocutor. This is a clear deception, to say no more. Is such defense fitting for truly Orthodox Christians? Is it fitting to lead the public into delusion? There he hides it. (Pichugin: “Please, whoever wants, if you wish, I will give it now.”) Calm down, brethren, calm down. So, honorable assembly, this is the epistle of the monk Vyshensky, but to give more weight to these words, my interlocutor needed the mask of Patriarch Jeremiah.

Then, supposedly I said that we have had disputes about faith for 250 years and cannot prove to you. And here you wished to rephrase. I said we cannot convince you; this does not mean we cannot prove. That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming you did not read in Scripture. Then, I read the words of Protopope Avvakum, where it is said that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the age, that even if priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. Our interlocutor does not believe this. But did not the Apostle Paul write the same? Protopope Avvakum said until the end of the age, Chrysostom says: until He comes, John of Damascus that it will remain until Christ’s coming, Ephrem the Syrian that it will remain until Christ’s coming. All exactly as one. Then he said: the bishop will be the Antichrist. This means that our Pichugin, uncompelled by anyone, confessed that the Antichrist is not yet here; he will be and come as a hierarch in a mitre. It is not I who needs to come to senses, but you, dear interlocutor. When my interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril that the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the sacrifice, I say these words are taken from the Explanatory Apostle, in whose interpretation it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” I say this is a scribal error or misprint. Pichugin objects: what right does he (i.e., I) have to say this? Here is what I will tell you. In the Gospel it is said:

“It will be fulfilled as spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: and they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s field.”

It turns out that Jeremiah does not have this, but Zechariah does. What is this? Who could have done this? We see that Zechariah has it. This is a scribal error. But for this error no one blames anyone. Here (Explanatory Apostle) it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” but here (in Cyril): “before his own coming,” i.e., the Antichrist’s. Where is my injustice here? I told the pure truth. So here it is said as I interpreted.

Then I read Ephrem the Syrian on page 75, part 6; here it speaks of the New Testament sacrifice. “The slain kingdom Christ with His blood will confirm covenants with many.” About the Old Testament sacrifice, says Pichugin, the speech is, Christ confirmed it with His blood. What do you think, Lev Feoktistovich, did Christ suffer in the Old Testament? “Christ with His blood confirmed covenants with many.” And why, for example, did you not pay attention to the words of Ephrem the Syrian where it is said that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s coming. Why do you not pay attention to these words. For if you say: it is not so with us, others have none, you must have it. Just as one cannot say that the human race will cease to be born, so one cannot say that the sacrifice will cease. In your society children are born; you cannot in any way make them not be born, because God said, increase and multiply; so too the sacrifice: once said, but until the second coming it has power. When the human race ceases to be born, then only can one say that the sacrifice has ceased, but as long as this exists, so long will the sacrifice exist. And this will exist until the second coming. That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, this is written in yet a third place by the same venerable Ephrem the Syrian. One I read, the other read by him does not serve him in justification. From the third place I read (part VII, pp. 250–51): “But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God the Father, who loved us and gave us eternal consolation, that is, instead of temporary sacrifices given to the former (ancient generations) and passed away. But consolation instead of sacrifices He will give us in eternal service: for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifices, however our sacrifice, which is our consolation itself, will not cease even in the second coming itself, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. He also gave us good hope, that our hearts may be consoled by it in sorrow from persecutors.” And what is eternal will not cease—that is, instead of the temporary sacrifice given to former generations, an eternal one will be given to us, for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifice, but this “will not cease until the second coming.” This is how Saint Ephrem the Syrian writes about the sacrifice, that even in the second coming the sacrifice which Christ established in the Church will not cease, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. Now we partake of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, but then, when Christ Himself comes, then, as Saint Theodoret writes, there will be no need for bread and wine, because “the Body itself will appear.”

That indeed in the kingdom of the Antichrist the priesthood will not cease, we read this from another testimony, of Saint Andrew of Caesarea, chapter 12, verse 17:

Present. “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Interpretation: And he went to make war with the rest.—But when the best and chosen church teachers and those who despised the earth withdraw because of distresses into the desert, then the Antichrist, though deceived in them, will raise war against those warring for Christ in the world.”

Here, even in the time of the Antichrist’s kingdom the chosen church teachers will overcome the Antichrist and not follow him. So priesthood will be. One can see many proofs that indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will not cease. About this also writes Saint Gregory the Dialogist: “The good Shepherd laid down His soul for His sheep so that in our mystery His body and blood might be inexhaustible, and that the sheep He redeemed might be satisfied with the nourishment of His flesh” (Homilies on the Gospel by Gregory the Dialogist, book one, p. 124).

Christ established: “do this in My remembrance,” the apostle says: “until the second coming.” But for 250 years you have neither body nor blood. Why do you live not as the holy apostles and Chrysostom write, but simply as you please. That indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will remain until the second coming, testifies also Saint John of Damascus: “The word of God is living and active and the Lord did whatever He desired; if He said: let there be light: and there was; let there be a firmament: and there was; if by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host; if heaven and earth, and water, and fire, and air, and all their adornment were accomplished by the Lord’s word, likewise this most glorious living creature: man; if God the Word Himself desiring became man and from the pure and undefiled blood of the holy Ever-Virgin seedlessly formed flesh for Himself; then can He not make bread His body and wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and even until now, whenever rain occurs, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: this is My body; and: this is My blood; and: do this in My remembrance; and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes; for so (Scripture) said: until He comes” (Exact Exposition, ch. XIII, pp. 220–221). God said: “this is My body and this is My blood and do this in My remembrance” and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes. So instead of resorting to hares in the discussion, which pertain to nothing here, you should read where the holy fathers wrote that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. No, you did not even think to answer; we knew in advance that we would not receive this answer from you. So how can one call that society which does not follow Scripture? Can one call it Christ’s Church? No, simply a crowd of people led by blind guides, like my interlocutor.

The same about the eternity of the sacrifice writes blessed Simeon of Thessalonica (in the Russian translation of his works, p. 182): “Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the age; for He said this not as if after this He would not always be with us, as when praying to the Father He says: Father, those You gave Me, I desire that where I am they also may be with Me, that they may see My glory, and before the prayer: and the glory You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one as We are one, and I in them and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, but until the end of the age He will be through His mysteries, and He said this also because He is not now seen, having ascended bodily, until He comes.” This is how Christ will be with us until the end of the age—through His mysteries. If you have none of this, Christ is not with you, and if He is not with you, you are not Christians, and if you are not Christians, you are anti-Christians. This is the conclusion—sound, logical conclusion—because Christ has communion with us in the mysteries. Saint Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent writes the following about those who do not partake (Book “Chrysostom”, fifth week of Lent, p. 129 reverse):

“If anyone lives purely in repentance but does not receive Christ’s mysteries, he cannot be saved.”

One must think about this. By my duties and by my work, which I do by calling, I have had to be in the Pomor lands, among the priestless. When I asked them: tell me please, when you read the above words of Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent, what do you think at that time? They told me: “We do not read them.” And why? “So as not to tempt the people. For the people will hear and revolt. We take and skip this place.” Here is an example of this. In the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle writes: “The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” So these words for those being saved, who believe all Scripture, are the power of God. And for those who do not believe this Scripture and do not live so, it is foolishness for them. Therefore they skip these words. This is the judgment lying on those who do not partake of Christ’s Body and Blood. This Scripture about the eternity of the sacrifice serves them only as poverty, reproach, and foolishness, but for the saved it serves as the power of God, on which alone we can rely, on which we hope. By works we cannot be justified, but can only hope to repent of our sins and by receiving the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood obtain eternal life.

That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, further testimonies are given from the Great Collection (page 559):

“Just as that voice saying ‘increase and multiply and fill the earth’ was spoken once, but every year the deed occurs, giving power to our nature for procreation. So this voice was spoken once, but always (ever) on the tables in the churches from that day and until His coming makes the perfect sacrifice.”

See, honorable listeners, how many proofs, almost letter for letter identical. All Scripture says one and the same. There are no disagreements about the sacrifice. Disagreements are only in the own language of my interlocutor. If you have no sacrifice, it means either Christ has come, or since this is not so, it means you are deceived. The same is written in the Book of Cyril (page 351):

“But at every time, and every hour, every year, even until the end of the world, He left His most pure body and life-giving divine blood, shed for the world for the remission of sins, for His faithful to eat, uniting and joining them to His divine and incorruptible nature. As Chrysostom also recalling this writes thus: for just as after the creation of all things the Lord’s word abounds, as He said: increase and multiply and fill the earth. Which spoken once occurs in deed every year, helping our nature to childbearing; so the word of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, proclaiming all creation from corruption to resurrection. Especially man possessing all these, spoken once: take and eat and drink of it all, never fails, helping His faithful to union and joining to the divine nature and inheritance of the heavenly kingdom.”

Here more than 20 testimonies have been read by me in proof that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, because priesthood and sacrifice are together; one cannot be without the other. So, my interlocutor, take at least one of these proofs in hand. Where is the truth here? Where is the sincerely expressed desire by him to defend his supposed brethren as truly Orthodox Christians? Where is this desire? This desire, these tears of yours, are mere pretense, only pretense. Here is such a cloud of witnesses in defense of Christ’s saving sacrifice, established by Him at the Mystical Supper in the presence of His disciples.

Concluding my speech with this, I turn again to my dear interlocutor: let him go the straight path, let him read in Holy Scripture where it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. If he mentions our priesthood once more, or another priesthood, or generally touches questions that do not pertain to this discussion, I will again remind him of the challenge. I wish to conduct with him a two-day discussion on the question of our hierarchy and on the question of relics. I ask you to accept my challenge and answer the question on the basis of Holy Scripture: where is it written that the sacrifice will not remain until Christ’s second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! My interlocutor has fallen into irritation. He himself spoke nonsense and is offended himself. I presented such a cloud of testimonies that my interlocutor cannot fly above this cloud. This cloud soaring in the air is the testimonies of holy men. I advise you, gentlemen priestly ones, to look around, enter into yourselves and ask: where now is this sacrifice actually offered in the Orthodox spirit? In Rome you do not recognize, in the East and Arabia you do not recognize, in Uniates what is done you reject, in Gregorian Armenians you do not recognize, in the Armenian common-heretical church also you do not recognize, finally you do not recognize in the Greco-Russian church. Where is the true sacrifice? For you factually sum it up yourselves that only with you is the sacrifice, but about your sacrifice, gentlemen, you must speak cautiously, because it is foreign with you, not your own, not Christ’s, but heretical and Antichrist’s, bought for money, assembled by human inventions, not by the living word of the Gospel. You ask, let Lev Feoktistovich show me where in Scripture it is written about the final desolation or cessation of the sacrifice? To this I can say to my interlocutor with the words of the Gospel. “Tell us, blind man, ask the proud Pharisees, who healed you? Who opened your eyes?” The healed one answers: “I have told you several times that Jesus healed me, or do you not hear?” These sacred words are precisely applicable to my interlocutor. I have testified to you several times from the Book of Cyril that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere to destroy the true sacrifice and set the abomination of desolation in the holy place,” that is, impious heresies.

Then, I brought you a series of other testimonies and, finally, here is the following conclusion of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, in the Great Collection, Meatfare week, third word: “The sun and moon will weep at that time,” he says.

But the sun naturally cannot weep, nor can the moon shed tears. This must be understood spiritually.

“Then the wild animals with the birds will weep, the mountains and hills will weep, and the field trees, for the sake of the human race, because all have turned away from God and believed the deceiver.”

And it is said that this will be in the days of the Antichrist. So if understood literally, as you do, one must literally account for how birds and beasts will weep? How will mountains, hills, and trees weep? For in essence this cannot be. Well, so here it speaks not of birds and beasts, but of people similar to them.

Then: “Having received the mark of the foul God-fighter instead of the life-giving Cross of the Savior.”

Who among us has received this number 666?

“Then God’s churches will also weep with great weeping, because neither offering nor incense is performed, nor is there God-pleasing service. For the sacred churches will be like vegetable storehouses, and the honorable body and blood of Christ will not appear in those days.”

So, brethren, understand that in these days there will be no body and blood of Christ, for they will be destroyed by the Antichrist, the enemy of the human race—the devil.

But my interlocutor as if intentionally pointed out to me that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be helpers of the Church: pastors and excellent church teachers. This he read from chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, and adding his own words said: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be priests and bishops.” But is this really so? Let us see: Apocalypse, chapter 12, says thus:

“And the dragon persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child.”

The woman is Christ’s Church, desiring to give birth through holy baptism by faith of the baptized. The dragon is the devil:

“He spews water like a river after the woman.”

This is heretical teaching, by which he wanted to drown the child of the woman—that is, destroy it in the muddy water of heretical teaching.

“And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon spewed from his mouth. And the dragon went to make war with the rest; Excellent and chosen church teachers, it says.”

Thus it is written in the explanatory Apocalypse that in the time of the Antichrist there will truly be the best church teachers. And therefore my interlocutor says: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be bishops and priests.” In this place my interlocutor is gravely mistaken: these excellent church teachers were, but will not be. This I say on the basis of the Great Collection, page 877 reverse and in the margin. Apocalypse, chapter 12, where it is written:

“This war I think John the Theologian shows in the revelation, that the dragon persecuted the woman desiring to give birth to lawful children, that is, the church of the new covenant, against which the dragon spewed water, that is, those heretics. Which God seeing not a little shaken and afflicted by him, raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors.”

“He raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors, of whom I say the first and most wise and great Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, and Irenaeus, and the divine Hippolytus, and the wonderful and excellent among philosophers Cyprian. And the strong and invincible warrior for the Holy Trinity Athanasius the Great. The firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, who truly helped the church, swallowing heretical teaching like the earth water with right teachings, which even now are set before the faithful to drive away such abomination.”

See, dear listeners, my words are confirmed by Scripture. The dragon persecuted the woman—that is, the Antichrist the holy Church. He spewed water after the woman—that is, the teaching of heretics. “He raised up for her strong fighters”—already, not will raise in the future. He raised Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin the Philosopher, Irenaeus the most holy, Hippolytus, the divine Cyprian, Athanasius the Great, the firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom. These are the true helpers of the holy Church. And since they are no longer in life, they reign with Christ, but we still suffer in this life and see with our eyes the flood-like false teaching, so how can we repel the foul wiles of the deceiver Antichrist?

Whoever reads impartially and reasons soundly Scripture will be a champion of truth and follower of those great pillars. This is the meaning of the said Scripture. So, my dearest interlocutor, you should read the original books of the holy fathers, not those little books and small brochures, but take the holy books and read them diligently. Then you noted to me: “one must have shame to speak such baseness about hares and dogs.” Forgive me, for I did not speak this in my own words; I read the letter of your lord Anastasius. You yourself call this shame and reproach, and do not call me a blind guide and my brethren in faith.

I will answer this too not in my own words, but in the words of one holy man. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (part 2, p. 235) says this to people who attribute their absurdities to others: “Be ashamed, second Babylon and new Sodomite mixture. How long will you mix tongues? How long will you dare against those whom you harm not at all? You seek to do violence to angelic powers, casting out words of truth from the church and saying to holy Lot: bring out the men (Gen. 19:5). But what you undertake, you undertake against yourself. For you will not cast out words of truth, but strike yourself with blindness (Gen. 19:11). And you walk in dark night, groping for the door and not finding it, until the sun rises, and you see the day of judgment, when fire (Gen. 19:23, 24) will overtake you for lying words.”

“Be ashamed,” says the holy father, “second Babylon.” So, to whom does this rebuke apply if not to you? Babylon means mixture.

Where is the first Babylon? I will answer in your words. There where you took your priesthood. And who is the second Babylon? It is you.

I will now speak about that Communion you mentioned. Saint Theodore the Studite on this occasion says, his letter, part 1, p. 325: “For Communion from a heretic or one openly condemned by life separates from God and delivers to the devil.” So we avoid this devilish Communion.

Part two of the same book of the venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 81:

“Communion with heretics is not common bread, but poison, damaging not the body but blackening and darkening the soul.” Consequently, whoever partakes with heretics and false priests has his soul poisoned with spiritual poison.

Further I read, part two, p. 219: “For a temple defiled by heretics is not a holy and God’s temple, but an ordinary house, as Basil the Great says, since the angel formerly present in each church has departed from it for impiety. Therefore the sacrifice performed in it is not accepted by God. Listen how he himself says: the sinner sacrificing a calf to Me is like one killing a dog” (Isa. 66:3).

This is what heretical Communion is like. We avoid and abhor such Communion. But Christ’s Communion in the present last time there is none, for false priests cannot arrange it.

Further I read, part two of the same venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 339: “What is this forced participation, under threat of bodily unpleasantness in case of refusal, to participate in heterodox bread. The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—O most Christian thought!—is a voluntary sacrifice.”

Thus, let those who forcibly draw us to communion with them against our will know that they act in a pagan way. “Offering not Christ’s body voluntarily sacrificed, but on the contrary some kind of idol-sacrificed, similar to involuntarily offered sacrifices to demons.”

Then I will also cite a testimony. Works of blessed Jerome, part 6, p. 78: “The church of heretics, which calls to itself the senseless in mind, so that deceived by it he accepts thievish breads.” What is this thievish bread? Heretics, stealing the Orthodox form of performance, perform mysteries with this form and deceive the senseless in mind—that is, simpletons. These are not my words, but the words of holy men. And not only did they accept thievish bread, but thievish water. And what does thievish water mean? False heretical baptism, as it is said: “Thievish water—that is, false mystery and foul baptism.” This is what we avoid.

Further I testify. In part 6 of the Works of blessed Jerome, on p. 254, it is written: “He commands then to the Jewish people and now to us, seemingly in the church, not to rely on the splendor of buildings, on gilded ceilings and marble-clad walls, and not to say: temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord. For the temple of the Lord is that in which true faith dwells, holy life, and the assembly of all virtues.”

Here only temples can be temples of the Lord, but Christ the Savior about such said in the Gospel of Luke, Reading 72:

“Then you will begin to say: we ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.”

This will be said at Christ’s Judgment by those who partook of false mysteries. And Christ answers them:

“I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.”

This is what bitter answer of the Savior to you. And after this He said:

“There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Thus, temples are recognized not by Communion, but by faith pure from heresies and virtuous life.

And if many people like you say that they partook, ate the body and drank the blood of Christ, Christ will say to such: “Depart from Me, I do not know you.”

Then another testimony. Work of blessed Jerome, part II, p. 159: “Thus all deceived by heretics serve as food for demons.” Whoever partakes with heretics becomes not a temple of God, but food for demons. P. 165: “For heretics also imitate church meekness, but their offering appears not as service to God, but as food to demons.”

So, although false priests and bishops perform similar rites in the service of the sacrifice, their offering—that is, Communion—appears not as service to God, but as food to demons. Strict words, dear listeners, but not my words, but the words of holy men. This is where heretics’ Communion leads—to food for demons, but Orthodox Communion nowhere now exists. Works of blessed Jerome, part 12, p. 88: “For all that was done afterward in the temple was not sacrifice to God, but service to the devil.”

Further I read on p. 238: “No one doubts that the hearts of heretics are kindled by the devil’s fire,” so that breads—that is, Communion—are baked in them for the Antichrist. I will make a comparison. The heart of a true Christian is God’s altar, but the heart of a heretic is an oven in which breads are baked for the Antichrist.

Further testimony of the same part of blessed Jerome, p. 265: “The sacrifices of heretics are bread of sorrow and tears, because all that they do will turn to weeping (below). By bread of sorrow we can call those pernicious words in which they express impiety against the Lord. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the assemblies of heretics are called not God’s house, but dens of robbers.” And everyone who eats partakes with these people and is defiled. These are blind guides, false teachers who lead the blind into the pit. The Master Christ said: “Woe to you, blind guides, you yourselves do not enter the Kingdom of God and do not allow those wishing to enter. You, He says, are like whitewashed tombs.” And who are these beautiful outward tombs? These are false bishops. Beautiful in appearance, but dead inside, they appear like children’s dolls. And what does the content of the tombs mean, dear listeners? Graceless priests. All that they do is done for pleasure, to deceive the people, to devour widows’ houses, to make more money. By bread of sorrow, says blessed Jerome, we can call those pernicious words in which impiety against the Lord is expressed. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the church of heretics is called not God’s house, but a den of robbers.

You say, interlocutor, we have no church. Untruth, with us precisely only the undefiled faith and right Church is preserved: we have neither heretical priesthood nor heretical baptism. On the contrary, look at yourselves. The holy father says that the assembly of heretics is not Christ’s Church, but “a den of robbers,” and this is factually true.

Further the same blessed Jerome says, in part 13, p. 154: “All this we can refer also to heretics: their altar is broken, and all dedications and sacrilegious mysteries are shaken: they had covetousness in their heads and are like a partridge which by cry gathers those it did not hatch, and acquires riches by unrighteousness (Jer. ch. 17).”

They had covetousness—that is, they arranged their priesthood for money, and most of all they had covetousness in their heads.

So this is not a mother Church, but a stepmother of demonic origin, which did not bear children by the Holy Spirit in baptism, but by the voice of a native mother gathers the inattentive for deception and boasts of them. You say we have flock and pastors. But by the words of the holy father you are convicted “that you acquire riches by unrighteousness.” Now judge for yourselves who you are.

Further I read, p. 191 of the same part: “For as you rejoiced at their slaughter and arranged feasts and on My holy mountain”—that is, in your madness, when you were carried away by the pleasures of the spiritual wealth you acquired—that is, priesthood—and arranged feasts—that is, offered sacrifices on the holy mountain in the church—“you drank not My cup, but the devil’s cup.” When you rejoiced at your find, you did not drink Christ’s cup when you partook, but partook of the devil’s cup. Thus said the holy father. Here is what bitter lesson to these people who do not heed God’s words and blaspheme them. Christ the Savior said:

“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will weep and wail and there will be none to comfort them.”

Finally, dear listeners, from whom, do you think, did the church of the priestly ones originate? Their church originated not from Christ successively, but from the heretic Ambrose, and they themselves called it Belokrinitsa, not apostolic or Christ’s. Having received beginning from a mortal man and heretic, what kind of church is it? Blessed Jerome about such in his Work, part 4, p. 92, said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from someone else (below), know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” For one must firmly hold to that Church which was founded by the apostles, not the new Belokrinitsa one.

Thus, now the totals are summed up. I will read to you another testimony from the book of Baronius, epistle of the sacred martyr Cyprian, page 165 reverse, about Communion: “You have, he says, beloved brethren, no vanity in reverence and faith, that there in this time God’s priests cannot perform offerings and sacrifices: offer as sacrifice a broken spirit, a contrite and humble heart, God will not despise. This sacrifice offer to God continually, day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice, as the apostle says, in your bodies.”

If you do not have priests and cannot perform the sacrifice, do not grieve over this.

Here, finally, is the holy teaching of the Church: where there are no priests, where there is no service, there you can yourselves offer, by faith, the sacrifice of your spirit and heart. Here is what Zachariah Kopystensky says about this (his book On the One Truth, page 152 reverse): “I know the three youths spoke. And there is in that hour neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader, nor whole burnt offering, nor sacrifice, nor offering, nor incense, nor place to offer (altar) before You, and find mercy, but with a contrite soul and humble spirit may we be accepted. As You see Yourself in that hour to have both prophet and place, and would offer to God; or wherever it could not be, a contrite soul hoping in God’s mercy, and a humble spirit offered (partook). And believing in this way they would be accepted by God as the foremost offering. Likewise the right-believing, and in the hour (of need) mentioned, then they will understand about their acceptance by God: and prophet—that is, priest; place—that is, Church. Sacrifice—that is, most holy mysteries (Communion), where there is none, as those three youths offered to God a contrite soul, a humble spirit. Do not be troubled, it is better and safer (for you) to fall thus into God’s hands, as the reigning prophet David says: then I will fall into the Lord’s hands, for I know His mercies are many and swift, but into human hands then I will not fall (below). To die with right faith, yes. So I know we fall into God’s hands and mercy and goodness, rather than into human hands—that is, impious and unOrthodox. Through this perdition and loss of salvation, not being faithful to the end. Be (be) carefree in the final step of your life, preserve yourself, remember that thief on the cross, remember the first-martyr Stephen and innumerable other martyrs, exiles and those exiled in deserts, who ended their life without Communion, preserving faith in their heads above all. For remembering I know: be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life; and be (be) more confident about baptism and confession and Communion—Eucharist, as it is written, for I know that you will do this not out of contempt or disdain, but because of persecution and through harms from visible tormentors, and striving to preserve and keep the right faith unbroken, I say again do not lament (do not grieve), but firmly assure this.”

D. S. Varakin. I ask for your attention. Only for half an hour I ask your precious attention. Here we have heard the last speech with the proofs of our interlocutor. In this speech he seems to have brought everything he had at hand to somehow defile that priesthood which has its succession from Christ through pious patriarchs, bishops, and priests and finally through Metropolitan Ambrose. Arming himself with Scripture against heretics, he does not inflict any defeat on us, because is it not known to anyone that we, truly Orthodox Christians, have no heresy and what was accepted in the holy universal Church from heretics, we accepted too. If we did this badly, let him first pour this poison on the holy Church. Then only will this poison be appropriately poured by him if he dares to pour it on the ecumenical councils. No matter how bold my interlocutor is, he will not do this. So let him stop pouring the poison of malice on what was also done by the holy Church. With his last proof he wanted to prove that the liturgy is not needed, that one can partake without sacrifice, with contrition of spirit, and sacrifice is prayer, and referred that this was said by Saint Cyprian. Reading the Chronicle of Baronius, he says: these are Cyprian’s words. If it were known to you, dear interlocutor, that this is in Cyprian’s book, you would have read it in Cyprian’s book. You have it at hand. And why did you not read it in it? Because Cyprian does not have this. And here too you told untruth. You did not finish reading the place that clarifies the main thought. And this is always his practice: he reads and does not finish. Like some epidemic, he cannot break the habit of reading and not finishing, necessarily cutting off. In Baronius he read a clear self-rebuke. Further is written what he left out.

“This sacrifice offer to God continually day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice (as the apostle says) in your bodies. Here he clearly distinguishes the external sacrifice, which they could not perform in prison—that is, the liturgy—from the internal, which they could offer with one heart. Lest the heretic say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice, which is contrary to truth and all antiquity” (Baronius, p. 165 reverse).

Well, if in prison, he says, a person is not given freedom, can he partake of Christ’s body and blood when neither priest is allowed nor holy gifts are brought? No, he says, he cannot. Then, he says, by force of this necessity, let him partake by prayer. For he is not released from this prison. What further?

“Lest heretics say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice.”

It is not Saint Cyprian who says that the Church of Christ now has no sacrifice, but lest heretics say this. This is contrary to all antiquity. He did not finish this. Well, what kind of interlocutor is this. This place strikes him, but he reads it against us. Here the heretic said that Christ’s Church has no external sacrifice, and he says this. This is what you have come to, L. F. Your head is simply spinning. You no longer know what you are reading.

It was read from Jerome parts 6 and 2, 13 and 17. And what is read here, that one must not have communion with heretics, must not have mixture, must turn away from heretics. But who disputes this with you? If you wish, I will read you not 5 proofs, but 205, that one must not have communion with heretics. But was the discussion about this? The discussion was about the following: will Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming? The question was posed by me. So know this, dearest interlocutor, and you, Pomortsy, remember that your interlocutor did not answer the question from Scripture and leaves without an answer, meaning he has nothing to justify himself with. But was our question about whether to have communion with heretics? There is no discussion about this at all.

Here he read from the fourth part of Jerome: “whoever,” he says, “is not from Christ, that,” he says, “is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” But this place, one can say, has two ends. According to him, we originated from the time of Metropolitan Ambrose. Let us stop at this for now. But as history says, they have their origin from Pomorye. So he says: “we Old Believers-Pomortsy earlier than them.” But they appeared from the time of the Denisov brothers. Consequently, you are not from the time of Christ, but from the time of the Denisov brothers; so you too are the synagogue of the Antichrist? This is also proved by the fact that in your temples instead of altars and thrones sideboards are set. Also, gentlemen, I draw your attention to this: the interlocutor condemned those persons in our society who have successive ordination descending from pious patriarchs and called our bishops, priests, and deacons by various shameful names. What cunning Mr. Pichugin has reached in abuse; it seems he has achieved virtuosity in this. But we will draw your attention to what he did at the council recently, how they appointed their mentors. Our bishops and priests received ordination. But with them they were only establishing conciliarly: how to count our fathers—spiritual persons or the same simple as we? It turned out that for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were? Does, they say, our mentor have succession? Yes, for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were. Here is this brochure—“List of subjects of conciliar discussion”—and it poses this question. Of course, we could read it in the big book, but since it is not written in the big book, by necessity one has to read from the small one. Thus, one must recognize their pastors not as simple laymen. But who are they? I do not know—who. Not priests, not deacons, not bishops, yet not laymen. Something in between. John the Theologian said about such: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot; I will spit you out.”

Then were read the words of Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “God’s Church will weep… there will be neither incense nor sacrifice.” I was recently in their temple. They have a large censer. But in the time of the Antichrist there is no incense. Where did you get it from? He, according to Hippolytus, destroyed even incense. So where did you get this censer? The Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice, but not the censer. Then they perform services: molebens, vespers, matins, panikhidas, hours, sing, read Scripture. Gentlemen, pay attention: in the 20th century, in Moscow, in a large auditorium, we read such a heap of Scriptures, but in the times of the Antichrist Scripture will not be heard, it will be impossible to read. Well, who can agree with such an absurd conclusion of my interlocutor that now is the kingdom of the last Antichrist. Then he said that “temples will be like vegetable storehouses.” But in their temples there are neither cucumbers nor potatoes, but in the place of the altar a council room, but no vegetables there. So be consistent in what you read: if you want to compare present life with Scripture, compare from beginning to end. But you say about the sacrifice that there is none, but singing, reading, and censer you have. So here is something else. This is not Christ’s Church, but what blessed Jerome said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from someone else, as for example about Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists or Campites, know that it is not Christ’s Church but the synagogue of the Antichrist” (part 4, p. 92). In the Russian translation of the same Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, it says: “Public worship will cease, psalm singing will fall silent, the reading of Scriptures will not resound” (Works of Hippolytus, issue II, p. 78). Even psalms will not be allowed to be sung. However, they read kathismas and read psalms. Here they even read, but there is no sacrifice. Can one recognize such a conclusion as correct that at present the last Antichrist reigns? I will say one can, but conditionally, that the kingdom of the Antichrist is with them, because the sacrifice with them is destroyed, the Antichrist destroyed it, destroyed everything, but could not manage to destroy the censer. In conclusion of the speech I will read to you that proof which I read from the Book of Cyril, since I have no right to bring new proofs.

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

“They do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice.”

Those temples which had altars, they chopped up and arranged something improper.

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse.”

This, he says, heretics do, but they have none, so they are heretics; in the altar, in the holy place, the abomination of desolation like a corpse is set. This they did. So say: the abomination of desolation is with you. Then, when I read Andrew of Caesarea the following: “those in charge of the Church and church pastors even in the time of the coming of the last Antichrist will overcome him,” my interlocutor takes the Collection and says they overcame, not will overcome. Athanasius the Great and other saints—they overcame. Does my interlocutor not know that Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century, 750 years after Athanasius the Great, but he says as if this is spoken about Athanasius the Great, but Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century and speaks of future time. See how many inconsistencies, misinterpretations, how much confusion he has in Scripture and interpretations. For when the apostles asked the Lord about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, He predicted the future. Where is the truth here? Here is only your sophism; you simply mix proofs, confuse. I will repeat another proof of blessed Theodoret: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Interp. For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body, because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said until He comes.” When Christ Himself comes, then, he says, we will have no need for this, but the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Then I will repeat another proof of Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 78 reverse of the Book of Cyril), where it is said that this sacrifice will be in the Christian Church:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church chosen from the nations offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death, and this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible” (78 reverse).

Thus, I had to repeat the proof only because I have no right to bring new proofs. You see, brethren, that sacrifice and priesthood, according to Scripture, will remain until the second coming. Therefore my interlocutor was obliged to point it out with himself, because he recognizes only himself as Christ’s Church, but he has no sacrifice—meaning he has no Christ’s church. Since Christ did not establish and did not indicate a church without mysteries, this church is not Christ’s, but, as blessed Jerome says, the synagogue of the Antichrist. About our hierarchy he touched many times. But this does not pertain to the question. I already challenged and said that if desired, I agree to discuss this question too. Thus, concluding my speech, I bring to all of you my deep gratitude, both to our brethren of the same faith and to the Old Believer Pomortsy brethren, and I ask you to imprint on the tablets of your hearts Holy Scripture, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming.

L. F. Pichugin. Most honorable listeners! Our discussion is ending. In this short speech I will make a brief review of all that was said.

The first discussion with us was about the Belokrinitsa priesthood. The Belokrinitsa priesthood turned out to be non-successive priesthood from the living source of the Savior Christ and the holy apostles, but it originated, in the words of the priestly ones themselves, from the harlot Babylon, where demons live and unclean spirits dwell, and was born into God’s world only in 1846.

The second discussion was about the baptism of heretics coming to the Church. I proved with full clarity that the holy Church never and nowhere accepted heretics with their baptism, but either chrismated or baptized anew, counting heretics’ baptism as nothing.

In the third discussion I also proved with clarity that, according to the prescribed prophetic, Gospel, apostolic, and holy fatherly Scripture, the Antichrist has come and reigns.

Finally, in this present fourth last discussion about the New Testament sacrifice of the Communion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I also proved that by God’s permission and according to the high-proclaiming writing of the prophet Daniel and the word of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ—this great mystery—alas, worthy of tears—has been corrupted by the Antichrist and his servants the heretics and false priests.

I pointed to the writing of the prophet Daniel and the words of Jesus Christ saying:

“Then in the holy place the abomination of desolation will stand.”

When the Roman kingdom falls and is divided into 10 parts. But the Roman kingdom was divided long ago into 10 monarchies, and the false lamb, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, has already appeared on earth under the name of Christ, bearing false symbols, two horns like the true Lamb, and deceived the sacred world.

The false lamb is a false bishop pretending to be the true Lamb.

The final enthronement of the Antichrist, the last appearance, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, and his actions are the number 666. This number, as a fateful event of the times, found its indicated place (Book on Faith, ch. 30): the year 1666. The fact has occurred.

There is no longer holy Communion; if it exists anywhere, it is false—because it is performed by false builders.

Thus, by force of compelled circumstances, we Old Believers priestless Pomortsy with great sorrow remain without priesthood and visible Communion for a very valid reason, for the pastors have retreated from Christ’s faith and gone astray, offering false instead of true sacrifice.

I am happy and consider it a high honor that at the present time I defend my brethren in faith and bring special thanks to the Lord God that He granted me strength to fight for the holy faith in this field these four days.

Forgive me, brethren, if I offended anyone; but to offend intentionally, believe me, I wished no one. In struggle there are extremes.

I bring thanksgiving and praise to the Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen!

The Chairman declares the session closed.

To the beloved children of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church, abiding everywhere and in all places, who preserve and keep the sacred dogmas of the right faith and the traditions of the holy Apostles and the holy and God-bearing fathers, pastors, and teachers of the ecumene.

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy and worshipful Spirit be with you all. Amen.

We must have every diligence and striving, beloved ones, to follow the teaching of the divine Scriptures and to preserve the sacred canons and traditions of the holy Apostles and holy fathers, who gathered at various times in the seven ecumenical and nine local councils for the eradication of God-abhorrent heresies and for the confirmation of right decrees. Concerning these, the Divine Apostle cries out, saying: Remember your leaders, who spoke to you the word of God; considering the outcome of their way of life, imitate their faith; and: Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings [Hebrews, ch. 13].

Heeding this, we must beware of all heresies and schisms, both manifest and hidden; and hold fast to and preserve the dogmas of the faith and the church traditions whole and unaltered, according to the saying: Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set [Proverbs, ch. 22]. For this reason, let us diligently search the Scriptures and the traditions of the fathers, and from these let us be zealous: and as we have found the Church from Christ’s descent, so let us preserve it, and so let us hand it down, and not separate ourselves from our fathers, reading some things one way and understanding them another [Sobornik Bol., fol. 337, verso].

Bearing these things in mind, it is fitting for us to walk the middle royal path, deviating neither to the right nor to the left, and to turn away from all blasphemies, shunning crooked teachings and falsely named knowledge. For many false prophets (false teachers) have gone out into the world [1 John, ch. 4], who set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth [Ps. 72]. Of these, some openly war against the ancient statutes and ordinances of the holy fathers, while others, following ancient church traditions but not thinking rightly, are stolen from the right and, as if out of zeal for ancient church piety—but truly speaking, according to their own false reasoning—compose scrolls of God-opposing wisdom and notebooks of lying teachings, and giving them plausible titles under the names of saints, they corrupt the right teaching of the holy Church, and with the poison of their wisdom they water the hearts of the guileless and draw them to death. To enumerate all these is not the task of the present time; however, it is necessarily needful and highly beneficial to mention some in brief.

There are circulating certain falsely composed notebooks, not only disagreeing with Holy Scripture and contrary to sound reason, but overflowing with blasphemous wisdom, which we here set forth in the midst:

1. The first place is occupied by a notebook under this title: The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse.
2. A notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian.
3. A notebook containing the false interpretation of Amphilochius on the second song of Moses.
4. A notebook under the title: A Word from the Elder, the Monk Zachariah, to His Disciple Stephen.
5. A falsely composed interpretation of the ten fingers and the ten horns of the beast.
6. A notebook: On the Drunkard.
7. A notebook: On the Creation of Wine.
8. A notebook: On the Potato, Supposedly from Pandok and Other Books.
9. A notebook containing strange reasoning about the spiritual Antichrist.
10. Prophetic notebooks in which the time and day of the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are appointed.

All these are false and fabulous compositions, in which is preached the cessation of the Christ-delivered priesthood, the ending of the new-grace law, the reign of the last Antichrist, who supposedly sits on the thrones of the altars of the Church now dominating in Russia, which as if believes in and worships another god, confessing under the name of Jesus—not Christ the Savior, but His adversary, the Antichrist.

Such baseless and absurd reasonings have been sown maliciously by the priestless ones who have darkened their conscience and imperceptibly creep into the Christ-named people, who breathe simplicity and guilelessness and cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

Guarding the flock of Christ’s verbal sheep from soul-destroying teaching and to avert such absurd reasonings and all-defiling tares sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith, we offer this epistle and beseech all the Christ-named heritage, together with the God-wise philosopher, the Venerable Maxim the Greek, saying: “Do not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, but with much caution and sober reason test the spirits, that is, the books written by certain ones, whether they are truly from God, according to the Divine Apostle and Evangelist John—that is, whether they agree in all things with the prophetic and apostolic and evangelical sacred and right words written by the Holy Spirit, and with the unerring theological dogmas of the God-inspired hierarchs and teachers who shone forth everywhere in the ecumene after them. But if the books written by certain ones do not agree in all things, nor conform with the God-inspired Scriptures, it is fitting to reject and abhor them as blasphemous and defiled and separating us from God… Let us attend to ourselves for the Lord’s sake, and not believe every spirit of teaching without testing, but let us diligently test the Scriptures, whether they agree in all things with the apostolic and prophetic traditions and teaching. For if they differ in any way, let us not receive them, but reject them from ourselves as the evil one’s tares, sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith for the deception and destruction of our souls” [Maxim the Greek, Word 10].

Following the teaching of the venerable man, let us return to the aforementioned compositions and examine with an impartial eye the false reasonings lying within them. Let us begin thus:

1. The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse, in which it is inscribed as if printed by the command of the pious sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and as if it has four hundred and one chapters, and not twenty-two, as contained in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, and as if John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue. In this God-abhorrent notebook, so many harmful reasonings are written that it is dreadful not only to speak of them but even to think of them. There (and in other false compositions), the four-ended cross is blasphemed (oh, the audacity!) as the image of the foul God-opposing Antichrist, an idol, the abomination of desolation, a graven image standing in the holy place, and other absurd reproaches are hurled against it: the name Jesus is attributed to the name of the last Antichrist himself; the Eucharist, performed under that name and with the four-ended cross, is called the serpent’s vomit and the lamb of the Antichrist; and finally, the destruction of sacred ordination throughout the entire universe is preached.

Such God-fighting teaching is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, cross-blasphemous, heretical, soul-destroying, and utterly false. False, because it is signed as if printed by the command of the sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich; but there was not only no printed edition of the book, but not even a single sheet of such content anywhere, and there absolutely is none. False, because it declares 401 chapters; but according to its content, it circulates everywhere among its lovers in a small notebook. Moreover, in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, not 401 but 22 chapters are set forth: whence, then, were 379 chapters added? False, because it fabulously claims that John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue; but John the Evangelist preached Christ in Asia, and there he wrote the Gospel and the Apocalypse by divine revelation; he was not among the Slavs and did not interpret in the Slavic tongue. To the Slavs, Andrew the First-Called proclaimed the saving preaching; but even he did not blaspheme the four-ended cross, concerning which see in his life [Book On Faith, fol. 70, and the Cheti-Menaion, November 30]. From this, it is also clearly seen that this pseudo-named Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse was composed not by John the Theologian but by some utterly audacious fabulist, and it is a falsely woven invention released by the priestless ones for the destruction of Christian souls. Concerning the blasphemies circulated in it, more will be said hereafter in its place.

2. The notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian—or truly speaking, of a marketplace babbler—in which it is preached that the Antichrist will kill three great kings: faith, love, and hope, and that the remaining seven, the seven church sacraments, have their origin (oh, dark delusion!) from the beast of the sea (which Daniel [ch. 7] saw having ten horns), from which the Antichrist himself will also come forth, and for this reason they will be near and akin to the Antichrist, as sprouting from the same root and perishing by the same offspring. And what could be more baseless than this vain and mad notion!
3. The notebook containing the false “Interpretation of Amphilochius on the Second Song of Moses” is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox Church.
4. The notebook under the title “A Word from the Elder”. In it, as if the monk Zachariah conversed with his disciple Stephen about the Antichrist and announced to him that the priestly and monastic orders will be utterly destroyed to the end, and other false fabrications are seen there, which are nothing else but fables repulsive to the hearing of the reasonable.
5. The notebook, the falsely composed “Interpretation of the Ten Toes of the Body Shown to Nebuchadnezzar and the Ten Horns of the Fourth Beast Seen by Daniel”, applied to the tsars of the God-preserved Russian state, is inconsistent with the book of the holy prophet Daniel and the interpretation of the holy fathers, full of untruth and false prediction, in which nothing is true, but all is vain and false; for the ten toes and ten horns signify the division of the Roman monarchy into ten parts, and not ten tsars of the Russian power succeeding one another.
6. The notebook “On the Drunkard”, falsely signed as if from the Gospel conversations, in which it is fabulously told how a drunkard caroused on earth, and after death, standing at the gates of holy paradise, reproached the holy King David and Solomon, together with the Apostle Peter and John the Theologian, and thus entered paradise. Likely composed by some blasphemer and serving as a stumbling block to a corrupt life.
7. The notebook “On the Creation of Wine”, as if the devil taught a man to brew intoxicating drink, and that man earned honor from the tsar for it, falsely signed as if from the Stoglav of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. But this is not in the Stoglav. Moreover, the blessed kyr Zinovii the monk, disciple of the Venerable Maxim the Greek, refutes such reasoning in the 45th word of his book, saying: “Hops are not from the devil, for the devil cannot create anything, he can only create illusions: hops are God’s creation, of Him who said: let the earth bring forth grass; it is manifest, then, that hops also sprouted then by that command of God.” (Further) “And concerning monks not drinking with hops, this is not a law, nor do I think it worthy of much condemnation, for to devise to keep what is not commanded to monks, to pretend not to drink, and for this reason to bring about such a rule” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, Word 45]. From this, it is evident that if hops are not from the devil, then neither did the devil teach to make that drink, but men themselves invented it. We say this to refute false fables, and not to open the door to drunkenness. For we know the Apostle crying out: Food (and drink) will not commend us to God [1 Cor., ch. 8]. And again: Do not get drunk with wine, in which is debauchery [Eph., ch. 5]. And the wise Solomon saying: Wine is not to blame, but drunkenness is cursed [Prov., ch. 2], from which every Christian must flee and avoid: for drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God [1 Cor., ch. 6].
8. The notebook “On the Bulb or Potato”, as if from Pandok and other books, and hiding secretly forged extracts of the dove, imposing heavy prohibition on those who use it, which is neither in the Kormchaia nor in the Nomokanon. And this reasoning is heretical, since it calls unclean a God-created herb given for food to men and used according to nature, and falsely refers to books in which there is not even a trace of this: but every lie is from the devil, for he is the father of lies and does not stand in the truth.
9. The notebook “On the Spiritual Antichrist”, a God-opposing composition intolerable to pious hearing, and the blasphemies circulated in it are not fit even to commit to writing.
10. The notebook composed by a false-prophetic spirit, appointing the time and day of the end of the world and the second and fearful coming of Christ, is truly filled with God-fighting teaching, as produced by the audacious contrary to the most pure words of Christ God Himself [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1].

These aforementioned and other similar compositions, compiled by brazen ignoramuses, are false and alien to the Church. Having set them forth and exposed the false teaching contained within them, which we reject and cast aside, and for the guidance of sound reasoning, we briefly propose here to all followers of ancient church piety:

First The holy orthodox-catholic Church and the priesthood, together with the offering of the bloodless sacrifice, will endure until the end of the age and until the day of judgment, according to the unfailing promise of the Lord, as He Himself said with His most pure lips: On this rock (of Peter’s right confession) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [Matt., ch. 16]. And: “As Christ does not die, so His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek will not cease forever” [Kirillova fol. 77].

Second The Church now dominating in Russia, as well as the Greek one, believes not in another God, but in the one with us: “Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” [Symbol of Faith]. I speak of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial and undivided: the Father without beginning, the Son co-beginningless, and the Holy Spirit co-enthroned. It confesses also the fleshly dispensation of Christ, accomplished for the redemption of the human race. It honors the honorable dominical feasts together with us (according to the ancient calendar) not in appearance but in deed: the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation, Theophany, the Crucifixion, the Burial, the three-day Resurrection, and the most glorious Ascension into the heavens, and others; likewise those of the Most Pure Theotokos and of God’s holy saints. It bows down to the holy icons of ancient depiction, with the inscription of Christ’s name: IC XC. It kisses the honorable nail and tunic of Christ, the holy and wonderworking icons, the relics of God’s holy saints. And by all these it is clearly proven that it believes in one and the same God, confesses one and the same Christ with us. And for the sake of such faith of hers, the baptism performed by her in three immersions—in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—and the ordination, on the basis of the sacred rules and holy-fatherly precedents, are accepted without repetition.

The reasons, however, for our not following the pastors of that church are weighty and well-founded. For by God’s permission, through Nikon the former patriarch, the ancient church traditions were altered. And subsequently, by a council (with the presence of the Greek patriarchs) in the year 1667, the most terrible curse and anathema were pronounced upon those who hold to the ancient holy-church traditions, and strict persecution and hunting were raised up with torment. And after this, polemical books were issued by the pastors contending for the newly set forth dogmas and traditions, in which the most holy and worshipful name of our Savior Christ (Jesus) was blasphemously reviled, as if it does not signify the Savior and Healer of our souls, but some other Jesus of equal ears [Rozysk, part I, ch. 15, fol. 18]. Moreover (oh, the audacity!), they called it monstrous and signifying nothing [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 87, edition 1854]. The two-fingered folding for depicting the sign of the cross was likewise reviled: Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, wicked division, Armenianism, Armenian heresy, Armenian fig, Arian abyss, gates of hell, magical sign, demon-slaying, and devilish tradition! [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 336]. But even in their three-fingered folding, their teaching is inconsistent with itself. For in the Skrizhal, in the Prashchitsa, and in the prefaces to the Psaltyrs, it is commanded in the three fingers to confess both mysteries: the mystery of the Trinity together with the dispensation; but the last two fingers to hold empty [Skrizhal, 805; Prashchitsa: answer 54; fol. 116; Psaltyrs of various editions]. In other books—in the three fingers the mystery of the Trinity, in the last two the mystery of the dispensation [Ob licheniye: fol. 24. Uveshchaniye of Metropolitan Platon, fol. 45; and Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 121]. To these are added other changes and adaptations, subtractions and additions, which it is not convenient to enumerate here. Let him who wishes read in the Answers of Hierodeacon Alexander, in the 50th answer of the Pomorskiye Otvety, and in the composition of the monk Nikodim, in the six articles and thirty indications.

For these reasons, our conscience does not allow us to be in submission to the pastors of that church, who, to the extreme regret of the sound-minded, do not pay due attention to the correction of their polemical books and do not abolish the indicated harsh-verbal reproaches—reproaches that are repulsive, intolerable to pious hearing, and utterly improper for Christian pastors.

But if someday, illuminated by the grace of God, they lay aside the aforementioned reproaches and conciliarly abandon their new dogmatizations, and “love and accept the holy antiquity and command those entrusted to them to preserve it” [Book On Faith, ch. 25, fol. 195 verso], and begin to follow all the ancient church traditions unchangingly, and the Church is arranged in such exactness of dogmas and traditions as it was from the years of the equal-to-the-apostles Prince Vladimir and until the years of Nikon the former patriarch: “then the whole rampart of that boundary will turn into a level plain, and hearts will come together one with another” [Book On Faith, fol. 185 verso; words of St. Maxim the Confessor: Cheti-Menaion, Jan. 21]. And we, without any human persuasion, will go to communion with her. But as long as the scandals and stumbling blocks remain that disturb our conscience, we cannot, contrary to the conviction of our conscience, follow the newly set forth dogmas and traditions.

And for this reason, we are not schismatics and dividers, but children of the one holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church.

Having declared, therefore, our confession and sacred desire, witnessed before the all-knowing God—that as we distance ourselves from those who revile the ancient church traditions, so we do not ally ourselves with the priestless blasphemies circulated in the aforementioned notebooks, against which we now make refutation. And we pray the One who dwells on high, the one beginningless King of glory, that this may serve as an example to the learned pastors of the Church now dominating in Russia, so that they too may turn due attention to the aforementioned harsh-verbal reproaches composed by their predecessors and published to the world. But we turn away from all blasphemy and reason thus:

Third Concerning the most holy and worshipful name of Christ, Jesus.

The most holy, most sweet, most beloved, and most desired name of our Savior Christ we write and pronounce in reading and singing thus: Jesus (Isus), as it was translated from the beginning into our Slavic language by the ancient holy translators. And thus it was written and pronounced until the years of Nikon the former patriarch, as is clearly seen in the Slavonic-Russian handwritten and ancient printed books and on countless holy and wonderworking icons. Therefore, henceforth it is fitting to hold to this ancient spelling and pronunciation unchangingly, unalterably, and inviolably, accepting no innovations or syllogistic suggestions, and to preserve it without addition or diminution. For this, according to the testimony of the holy fathers, signifies: Savior, Deliverer, Physician, and Healer of our souls and bodies. Thus confessing, we say with the Apostle: this is the most holy name besides which there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved [Acts, ch. 4]. And this is the worshipful name at which every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Phil., ch. 2].

Nevertheless, the name written and pronounced by the present-day Greeks and Russians thus: Iisus, we dare not blaspheme or call the name of another Jesus or the name of Christ’s adversary, as certain priestless ones wickedly reason. For the Church now dominating in Russia, together with the Greek one, under this name confesses the same Christ the Savior, according to the flesh the descendant of David, the son of Abraham, born of the tribe of Judah, from the Most Pure Virgin Mary without seed, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, who received circumcision on the eighth day, was then taken into the arms of Simeon the God-receiver, went into Egypt and returned from there, was raised in Nazareth, was baptized in the Jordan by the Forerunner, thereafter gathered the company of apostles, preached the Gospel of the kingdom of God, was betrayed by a disciple, crucified, buried, rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens on the fortieth, and sits at the right hand of the Father. We believe also that He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. From all the above-mentioned, it is most clearly shown that it confesses the same Christ the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and there is here no possibility of understanding another god or another “Jesus” in any way.

Moreover, it is seen in certain ancient books printed thus; as, for example, at the end of the Ostrozh Bible of the printing of the year 7089, on the last leaf arranged in two columns, where in the Slavic dialect it is printed IC (Jesus), but in Greek Iisus (Ιησοΰς).

It is further fitting to know: the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, in the year 1646 issued a small Katekhizis, into which he newly introduced the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the name of Christ the Savior, instead of IC (Jesus), printed Iisus. This Katekhizis the most holy Joseph, Patriarch of Moscow, in the year 7157 issued a second time and excluded from it the opinions inconsistent with church tradition, such as the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the newly introduced name Iisus; but he did not at all pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god or another Jesus. Likewise, the entire consecrated All-Russian Council, gathered in the reigning city of Moscow in the tsar’s chambers [Sluzhebnik in the 10th year of Patriarch Joseph, in the preface, fol. 7 verso], referring for the correction of church singing to the Apostolic Discourses issued in Kiev by Zakhariy Kopystensky in the year 7131, in which in many places the name of Christ is printed Iisus, saw this and did not accept it into church use, yet not only did they not pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god, but they did not even speak of this. But if the fathers of the All-Russian Council had understood Iisus to be another god, then certainly, for the sake of precaution before future generations, they would have declared this: for this matter is great and utterly unworthy of silence. But since they did not declare it, it is evident that the name Iisus is not the name of another god and is not the name of Christ’s adversary. And the entire error consists only in the addition to the name IC (Jesus) of one vowel letter I, which having added, they print and pronounce Iisus.

And since the most holy Moscow patriarchs—Job, Ermogen, Filaret, Ioasaf, and Joseph—did not introduce this name into use, neither do we introduce it, and just as they did not lay blasphemy and reproach upon it, neither do we lay such: moreover, we annul and reject the priestless blasphemy, not wrought by the Spirit of God, as well as the God-opposing mockery of the most holy and worshipful name IC (Jesus) circulated in the Rozysk, Prashchitsa, and other books, and serving as the greatest scandal and stone of stumbling; we repel and refute it, and hand over all blasphemers of the name of Christ to the judgment of that same almighty Jesus, who, when He comes in His glory, will render to each according to his deeds and to each according to the intent of his heart.

Fourth Concerning the honorable and life-giving cross.

We believe and confess that the honorable and life-giving cross of Christ, from three woods—cypress, pine, and cedar—was made for the three-day death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Isaiya the God-seer foretold of this from the Lord’s person, saying: and the glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the pine, and the cedar together, to glorify My holy place, and I will glorify the place of My feet [Isaiya, ch. 60]. For according to the testimony of the church teachers, the upright beam of the cross was of cypress, the crossbeam of pine, on which the hands of Christ were nailed, and the footrest of cedar, as the Church also sings [Oktoikh: on Wednesday and Friday at matins, tone 3], crying out: “on cypress and pine and cedar You were lifted up, Lamb of God.” On it also the titulus (according to the testimony of certain ones [Grigoriy of Omirot, discourse with Ervan, third day]) was made from olive wood, which Pilate commanded to be placed above the head of Christ the Savior, as the divine Evangelists proclaim [John, ch. 19]. This three-composite cross of Christ is of this form [an eight-pointed cross is depicted].

But after the voluntary crucifixion of Christ, whether from three woods, or from one, or from gold or silver, or copper and other metals, the holy Church makes the cross of Christ with the depiction of His flesh, and it is equally accepted and honored; or if only a single cross is depicted without the flesh of Christ, as on antiminses, on prosphora, on all-night breads, on artos, on the panagiarny bread, and on other various church objects, the image of that same cross of Christ is confessed; and thus it is also placed on the very domes of sacred temples. Not only this, but even the abbreviated form made in the image of that same cross of Christ is accepted: as, for example, the planted cross which is placed under the throne, having this appearance: [depicted are a seven-pointed cross: the titulus placed atop the vertical beam; a six-pointed cross without titulus; and a four-pointed cross].

Likewise, the four-pointed cross is not a shadow of the old shadowy covenant and is not abolished by the new-grace law of Christ. Moreover, it is not the image of the God-opposing Antichrist, nor an idol, nor the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, as it is blasphemed in the aforementioned notebooks; but it is the image of the cross of Christ, accepted by the orthodox-catholic Church from apostolic days until now, and formed “by shadow and depiction” [Lenten Triod, on Monday of the 4th week of Lent: 2nd canon of the second creator, last sticheron]. By shadow: when the sign of the cross is depicted by the overshadowing of the hand, with candles, with blowing, and by fencing oneself with the hand. By depiction: when the cross is drawn with oil, myrrh, wax, and any material formation. And thus it is accepted in the church mysteries and seals them: as in the anointing with oil, in the anointing with myrrh, in the cutting of hair, in the priest’s blowing over the water, and in overshadowing with the hand and candles, and in our fencing when we sign our faces. Likewise, it is placed on the sacred vestments of deacons, priests, and hierarchs, which, when one of the sacred order vests, he first overshadows the garment—not consecrating the cross, but blessing the garment—and then kisses the cross and vests [Ustav Bol., fol. 10].

And that the cross is not consecrated by the overshadowing of the hand, but its depiction consecrates, is witnessed by the holy Patriarch Kallistrat, saying: “wherever the cross is depicted, it blesses, and sanctifies, and enlightens, and gives all salvation” [Didactic Gospel on the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross, fol. 402].

Such a depiction of the cross is also placed on the sacred veils with which are covered the divine Lamb on the diskos and the life-giving blood in the chalice. Therefore, wherever with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering for us it is depicted or drawn, it is and is called the image of the cross of Christ, as the holy and God-bearing fathers teach concerning this, whom the Church following confesses that by the shadow and depiction of the cross all opposing powers are crushed, as is evident in the prayer at the baptism of a person over the water, which the priest, overshadowing crosswise with candles, with blowing and with the hand, says: “let all opposing powers be crushed under the sign of the depiction of Your cross” and so forth [P Trebnik Bol., fol. 102].

Not only is the sign of the cross depicted with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering not rejected, but it is accepted and honored with reverence; but wherever by chance the simple form of the cross is drawn or composed: +: even such, though not honored in a saintly manner, is nevertheless not defiled or dishonored, as proclaims the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: “The cross drawn on the ground shall be erased. That is: if the image of the cross is drawn or composed on the ground by someone, let it be trampled or scattered, lest it be trodden by unknowing people or animals and our victorious weapon be mocked” [Kormchaia, fol. 200]. But also in the rules of Iliya, Archbishop of Novgorod, it is enjoined: “and if it is not possible to sleep: it is blessed, as it is not to walk over them and not to trample them with feet. For the holy Church calls the Latins cross-tramplers, and moreover curses them, saying: ‘I curse the Latin hypocrisy concerning the depiction of the honorable cross, which the Latins do: entering the church and drawing the cross on the ground with two fingers, and having kissed it, they rise and again trample it with their feet, and thus appear as cross-tramplers'” [Ancient handwritten manuscript, written in the year 7078]. In accordance with this, the wise kyr Zinovii the Monk also writes, saying: “Henceforth we command to curse those who make the image of the cross on the ground” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, ch. 56].

Under this church curse inevitably fall the cross-mockers among the priestless, who with dreadful blasphemies defile the four-pointed cross, calling it the abomination of desolation and naming it the seal of the Antichrist (oh, the audacity!).

But we, as those redeemed by the honorable and God-flowing blood poured out on the cross for the salvation of the whole world, think in unison with the holy theologians concerning the honorable cross of Christ, keeping and preserving the eternal boundaries set by the fathers inviolably, sacredly, and unbroken. And the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ we depict on the three-composite cross unchangingly; but elsewhere, wherever any form of the cross is placed by the Church, we preserve it unalterably, and accept and honor it as the image of the cross of Christ, crying out with the Apostle: But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ [Gal., ch. 6]. “Therefore we too hold fast to the cross of the Lord, the boast of all: for this tree is our salvation, the weapon of peace, the unconquerable victory” [Ikos to the Cross]. But wherever by chance the form of the cross (+) is drawn or composed, even that we do not dishonor or blaspheme, for the sake of the original cross of Christ; but, according to the injunction of the holy fathers, we strive to preserve it from every mockery, as far as strength allows. All cross-blasphemy and cross-mockery we refute, cast aside, and annul.

To these we also forbid and prohibit making the cross (+) in improper places, where not honor but mockery may come to its depiction [Matfey Rule-compiler, comp. 200, ch. 3]: as on the ground, on soles, on carpets, on playful objects, and wherever by the smoke of incense or some stench it is dishonored, and other similar things. But if anywhere such is found, we command it to be covered, or erased, or scattered, according to the power of the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of the holy and God-bearing fathers.

Fifth The priestless ones, who do not confess the offering of the bloodless sacrifice upon the face of the universe, bring audacious mockery upon the Eucharist now performed in the Greek and Russian Churches. But to such audacious ones the eastern teachers stop their mouths: the most sacred Ioann of Kitros, the Venerable Matfey the Rule-compiler, and the all-honorable Sevast of Armenopol, who writing concerning the Roman unleavened breads do not command to partake of them, but bless them and do not count them as ordinary, for the sake of the Lord’s invocation and the sacred chants of Saint Iakov the Brother of God performed over them [most sacred Ioann of Kitros (Kormchaia ancient handwritten, ch. 4 [57?]); Matfey the Rule-compiler, comp. 800, ch. 12; Sevast of Armenopol, book 5, answer 3 of Archbishop Dimitriy Khomatin]. But if concerning the unleavened breads of the Roman Church there is such a conclusion by the interpreters of the sacred rules, and it is not condemned by the holy Church: then the priestless reasoning about the Eucharist of the Greek and Russian Churches is harmful. The mockery brought by them upon the mysteries performed according to ancient church tradition in our orthodox-catholic Church is exceedingly blasphemous and destructive.

For these reasons, we enjoin Orthodox Christians not to listen to the harmful teaching of the priestless, and all their compositions, the above-named and others, directed toward the destruction of the church mysteries and the mockery of holiness, inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, we command to be given to burning by fire, as tares sown by the enemy for the deception of the souls of the Christian race, as the sacred rules proclaim and the Venerable Maxim the Greek advises [Rules of the holy apostles 60; of the Sixth Ecum. Council 63; of the Seventh Ecum. Council 9; Maxim the Greek, word 3 (10?)].

Sixth To this we enjoin and beseech, together with the supreme Apostle Paul, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all men [1 Tim., ch. 2]; especially for the health, and salvation, and tsar’s victory of him who is set by the most high and all-ruling right hand of God, and crowned with glory and honor, our most autocratic, God-preserved Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince Alexander Nikolaevich, and all His Most August House, and all his palace and armies [Sobornik Bol., fol. 360 verso], for whom also at the holy proskomedia of the divine liturgy, among the great seven, the fifth prosphora is offered, and will be offered, as for him, so for his future successors to the throne and scepter, from generation to generation and forever, that the Lord God may preserve him healthy, peaceful, and long-lived, may grant him victory over enemies, may surround his dominion with peace, and may subdue under his feet every enemy and adversary, and may place in his heart good and useful things concerning the holy Church, that we too may live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and honesty under their tranquility [Stoglav, ch. 9; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Job; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Filaret; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Ioasaf; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Joseph; Potrebnik Bol., fol. 709; Nomokanon rule 210; Apostolic Discourses, fol. 2421].

Seventh Again for the second time we enjoin and beseech to flee crooked teachings, and not to accept at all falsely composed writings inconsistent with the narration and interpretation of the holy fathers, but to cast them aside, and to think in unison with the holy Church, with one voice and one mind, as the holy fathers handed down and taught.

Eighth And concerning the coming of the holy prophets Iliya and Enokh, to believe as the holy Church teaches, that before the end of this world they will be sent by God to expose the deception of the Antichrist, in their own true flesh, sensibly, visibly, and in their own form, and will be seen by fleshly mortal men, and will preach the good faith to the human race, and will work wonders and signs, and will suffer nothing from anyone until the end of their reproof, and then they will fulfill their martyrdom, and, having been killed by the Antichrist, will depart, and already not only as prophets but as martyrs will be crowned with victorious crowns by God the Giver of crowns [St. Ippolit; St. Ioann Zlatoust; Efrem word 105; St. Feofilakt; St. Simeon Metafrast, July 20; Ven. Ioann Damaskin; St. Andrey Kesariysky; Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday; Prolog, July 20; Svyattsy Iosifskiya, July 20, and others].

Ninth Likewise concerning the Antichrist, it is fitting to think in unison with the holy Church. For though there are many antichrists, according to Saint Ioann the Theologian [1 John, ch. 2], yet particularly and specially the Antichrist is spoken of, who will come at the end of the age, sensibly, visibly, and in his own form [Ancient handwritten book of Ioann Damaskin, word on the Antichrist], whose coming is according to the working of Satan, by God’s permission [2 Thess., ch. 2]. He will be born of the Jewish tribe, of the tribe of Dan, the seventh son of Iakov the Old Testament patriarch, from an unclean woman, a supposed virgin, but utterly defiled in every way. “He will be born of fornication, as we said, and will be nourished in secret and suddenly rise up, and oppose and reign.” He will raise great persecution and torment against all who abide in the faith of Christ. He will reign for three years and a half, as Holy Scripture teaches and the God-bearing fathers relate [St. Ippolit, Mirror of the Soul, Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday, Book On Faith ch. 30 fol. 270, Ioann Damaskin book 4 ch. 27, Church teachers. Daniel ch. 7, St. Ioann Zlatoust, Ven. Efrem Sirin, Kirill Ierusalimsky, and others]. Him our Lord Jesus Christ will slay with the breath of His mouth and abolish with the appearance of His coming [2 Thess., ch. 2]. For he will be seized together with his false prophet, and both will be cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone, as Christ’s bosom friend and Evangelist Ioann says in his Revelation, and Saint Andrey Kesariysky explains [St. Andrey Kesariysky in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, ch. 19].

Tenth But concerning the day and hour of the end of the world and the second coming of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but He alone [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1]. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone born of earth to know this, and it is not fitting to speculate at all, according to the saying: seek not things too high for you, and search not things too strong for you [Sirach ch. 3], and so forth.

In conclusion of this epistle, we announce to all Orthodox Christians that, with God’s help, an Ustav, or brief exposition of the dogmas and traditions of the ancient-orthodox-catholic confession of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, will be composed, which will be given for guidance and steering to all Orthodox, sacred and lay, that they may rightly and surely know concerning the dogmas of faith and the traditions, concerning the seven church mysteries and other necessary and theological matters.

Finally, again we enjoin and beseech those who kiss the ancient church traditions to keep all the commandments of God and the church traditions unchangingly, sacredly, and unbroken, and to distance themselves from all heresies and schisms and foreign customs, and to have among themselves agreement and unity of mind in all things, peace and love, which is the bond of perfection, and not to do to others what is not pleasing to themselves [Col., ch. 3; Acts, ch. 15; 1 Cor., ch. 4; Ps. 76].

But the God of peace and Father of mercies, the God of all consolation, who gathers the scattered and settles the like-minded in His house, may He gather the scattered sheep into the fold of His pasture and grant unanimity and unity of mind to all Orthodox Christians by His grace and love for mankind: that there may be one flock and one shepherd [John, ch. 10]. Amen.

This Encyclical Epistle was issued [written] in the reigning city of Moscow, in the year 1862 [7370], on the 24th day of the month of February.

The original was signed by: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Deacon Kirill of Archbishop Antoniy. Monk Olimpiy of the Belokrinitsa Monastery. Clerk Simeon Simeonov. [According to another list: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Hieromonk Evfrosin. Hieromonk Iliya. Hierodeacon Pakhomiy. Hierodeacon Ippolit. Hierodeacon Mitrofan. Monk Alimpiy].

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

In secular art, following a tradition that nonetheless has its roots in ancient Christian iconography, the Holy Virgin or the angel in depictions of the Annunciation is often shown with lilies.

The lily is a beautiful symbol of the chaste purity of the Holy Virgin—a fragrant, snow-white flower, joyfully opening itself to the sun. Was not the Most Pure Lily of Israel herself such a fragrant bloom? When we ask ourselves what quality of the Holy Virgin made her the Mother of the Most High, we will scarcely find it difficult to answer.

Was it her humility, her obedience, with which she received the angel’s message? But who would not bow in humble awe before the revelation of a heavenly messenger? Her graciousness? But that was revealed only later, when the Holy Virgin entered upon her life’s path. Her humility is great, the graciousness of her soul extraordinary, but above all these shines the purity of a soul that lives in love for the Lord, her Son. Her heart is filled with Christ, lives in Him. His image dwells and reigns within her soul and makes it a temple of grace.

“But what image?”—you may ask—“She is the Mother of the Lord and saw Him upon her bosom. Not an image, but He Himself was with her.” True—but the Holy Virgin was with Christ even before the Lord came down to earth through her. Consider the account which tells of the circumstances of the Annunciation. According to this account, the Holy Virgin was reading the Holy Scriptures. And she came to the familiar words of the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

“How I wish I could be even the lowest handmaiden of the Mother who bears this Son,” thought the Holy Virgin. And at that very moment, the angel-messenger appeared. This account reveals what filled the life of the Virgin: she lived with the thought of the Coming Savior, of the Lord who would come and redeem mankind. She thought of Him while living in the temple. She awaited Him, desired Him, and wished only one thing for herself—to serve Him, even as the humblest servant in His Kingdom. And she became His Mother, because her soul was already His Pure Bride, arrayed in the golden garments of love’s purity: “Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours.” And having become His Mother, she loves in her Son not only a Son, but the One whom she had long awaited: the Redeemer and Savior—her Lord. Thus, the purity of her soul, where even before Christ His image was enthroned, became a temple of Divinity.

We are not capable of receiving the likeness of the Lord into our souls to the same degree as St. Mary. We cannot, as she did, be so united in love with the Redeemer. But the path is shown to us nonetheless, by which we may draw near to the Most High and become worthy of the glad tidings. That path is to live after the example of the Pure One. She was raised in the air of the temple, breathed prayer, was nourished by the Word of God—and so received the image of Christ into her soul. And then she walked where the thought of Christ led her—His image, His word, His will—and with that guiding light, without stumbling, she walked the way of the Cross to eternal glory in the likeness of her Son.

This is the path of the Christian: to receive, in the air of the Church of God, by prayer and instruction in the Word, the image of Christ into oneself, and to follow Him wherever He leads. But how can we, sinners, walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, who knew no sin? In the footsteps of the One who is the very embodiment of Goodness and Truth? In the footsteps of God.

Indeed, her Son was man—but He was also God, and His Name fills us with awe. But she was a human being, born of righteous parents, yet not untouched by sin. She was not without human tenderness toward her Son, nor without human fear for Him. If the image of her Son dazzles like the noonday sun, her countenance is peaceful, like the gentle radiance of the morning dawn. Let us follow Him—learning from her humility, obedience, meek endurance of suffering, and devotion to the work of her Son. And she will cover us with her omophorion, and, like a mother leading her blind child, she will guide us to the Kingdom of God.

There is a story told of a Western ascetic, Anthony of Padua (whom we do not recognize as a saint, but the story remains edifying nonetheless): that once, the Holy Virgin cast to him her lilies, and all his life he perceived their fragrance. Let us ask the Holy Mother of God that she may grant us to breathe the fragrance of her lilies—the holy scent of her virtues—so that this aroma may never leave us, not for a moment, and may give us strength to imitate, even in part, the Inimitable.

Queen of Heaven, help us to love thy Son. Grant us the grace to hear with soul and heart His holy Good News—the Gospel. Before thy icon I stand, O All-Praised One:

“O Queen of Heaven! In my utter helplessness, in my complete unworthiness, in my condemnation and wretchedness, the gaze of this sinner rests upon thee. Thou dost not reject the despised and outcast. Thou art able to raise even from the depths of hell one who is perishing. Save me, O Sovereign Lady, by thy motherly intercession, even me, the wretched one! As the Mother of thy Son and my Judge, incline Him to mercy toward me! As my gracious Mother, incline thyself to come to my aid and to grant me mercy! O my Lady, O Theotokos! How much I need thee! How dear thou art to my sinful heart! How comforting it is to think of thee, to pray to thee, to imagine thee, to behold thy radiant, pure, virginally beautiful face, full of divine tenderness toward us—tenderness which in thy womanly gentleness and motherly care shines forth yet more beautifully, more majestically, more touchingly. O the Lord created and gave thee to us as the most perfect reflection of His ineffable goodness—as the clearest and most accessible embodiment of His love for mankind and mercy.”

May even a faint reflection of thy radiant light shine upon our soul.

“Thou seest all things, knowest all things—look thou into my soul and grant it what it needs. Thou who hast endured all things and conquered all things—thou wilt understand all things. Thou who didst wrap the Infant in swaddling clothes in the manger and didst receive Him in thine own hands from the Cross—thou alone knowest the full height of joy and the full weight of sorrow. Thou who hast received all mankind as thy children—look also upon me with motherly care. Lead me out of the snares of sin to thy Son. I see a tear that has moistened thy countenance. It is for me that thou hast shed it—may it wash away the traces of my transgressions.”

-Church, 1914, No. 12

source

Dimitry Urushev

Bishop Pavel of Kolomna is one of the most significant figures in Russian spiritual history of the 17th century. Alas, he was not fortunate. His name failed to attract the attention of scholars. He remained in the shadow of his more famous contemporaries—Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, and Archpriest Avvakum.

Pavel and Nikon

Bishop Pavel was remembered only by Old Believer scribes. It is no accident that the renowned 18th-century Old Believer writer Simeon Denisov began his book The Russian Vineyard—a collection of legends about martyrs for the old faith—with the story of Pavel. He began most solemnly:

“The leader of that goodly host was not of common folk, nor from the peasant estate, but a shepherd of Christ’s flock, a vigilant guardian of church virtue, a trumpet of gold-forged piety.”

Secular scholars took notice of Pavel of Kolomna only in the 19th century. The first to do so was the historian Mikhail Pogodin. In 1854, in one of the issues of the journal Moskvityanin, he published an article titled A Remark on the Homeland of Patriarch Nikon and His Opponents. In it, Pogodin urged young scholars:

“How much of importance and benefit for scholarship remains to be done, if one would become acquainted with the written literature and diligently gather information about our historical figures. What is known in general circulation about someone like… Bishop Pavel?”

Half a century passed. The only scholar to respond to that call was historian Sergei Belokurov. In 1905, he compiled and published two volumes titled Tales of Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna. However, Belokurov did not publish authentic historical documents, but rather hagiographical tales, far removed from historical reality.

Another 33 years passed. And in 1938, the French scholar Pierre Pascal released his book Archpriest Avvakum and the Beginning of the Schism. For the first time, Pavel of Kolomna was presented not as a figure of pious legend but as a living man of flesh and blood. The French historian helped the Russian bishop find his voice. And if we were to hear it, Pavel would begin his account as follows:

“My birth was in the lands of Nizhny Novgorod.”

This is how Archpriest Avvakum famously begins his Life. And Bishop Pavel might have said the same. According to Pascal, he was born “in the hills”—on the right bank of the Volga, in the village of Kolychevo, which stood on the Sundovik River.

We do not know the exact date of the bishop’s birth. But it can be assumed he was a contemporary of Nikon—that is, born in 1605. Pascal also tells us the name of the future bishop’s father—“a good priest named Ivan.”

According to Pascal, Priest Ivan taught literacy to Nikita Minin, the son of a Mordvin peasant from the neighboring village of Veldemanovo—who would later become Patriarch Nikon. In his Life, it is written that he was “given over to the study of the Divine Scriptures,” and, having left “the house of his father,” lived for a time with his teacher. If Nikita indeed studied with the priest from Kolychevo and lived in his house, one may suppose that the future hierarchs were friends from childhood. Who would have imagined that they would one day become bitter adversaries?

From Kolychevo, Priest Ivan moved with his family downstream along the Sundovik to the village of Kirikovo, where he continued his priestly ministry. Kirikovo was located not far from the large trading village of Lyskovo, situated on the Volga.

It was here that Pavel spent his adolescence and youth. From “the hills,” the future bishop crossed to the left bank of the Volga—“into the forests.” We encounter Pavel in the Makaryev Monastery on the Yellow Waters. The ancient Zheltovodsky Monastery, founded by Saint Macarius in the 15th century, had been destroyed by the Tatars and only revived in 1620. The monastery soon became one of the foremost centers of spiritual and cultural life in the Volga region. Among its brotherhood, we find many key figures of 17th-century ecclesiastical history.

It was to the Makaryev Monastery that the young Nikita Minin fled from his cruel stepmother. After making a small monetary contribution, he lived there for a time but was later brought back home by his father. Among those tonsured in the Zheltovodsky Monastery were Metropolitan Korniliy of Kazan, Archbishops Ilarion of Ryazan and Simeon of Siberia.

Undoubtedly, the Makaryev Monastery played a major role in the life of the future bishop of Kolomna. It was here that the priest’s son took monastic vows and was given the name Pavel. It is also most likely that he was ordained a priest here.

In the summer of 1651, Pavel was summoned to Moscow and appointed by Patriarch Joseph as abbot of the ancient Pafnutiev Monastery in Borovsk. His assignment to lead the renowned monastery was made upon the recommendation of Nikon, who by then was Metropolitan of Novgorod and a confidant of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Joseph died on April 15, 1652. The highest clergy of the Russian Church gathered in the capital for a Council and selected twelve “spiritual men” deemed worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne. Among those mentioned were Metropolitan Nikon and Abbot Pavel.

By the will of the Tsar, Nikon was chosen as Patriarch. The participation of the Borovsk abbot and the other “spiritual men” in the selection was merely symbolic, though it does testify to the high regard in which Pavel was held by his contemporaries.

The Apple Orchard of the Bishop’s Court

The beginning of the new patriarchate held no ill omens for the abbot. In November 1652, Pavel was consecrated bishop of the city of Kolomna near Moscow by Nikon.

The Kolomna diocese was one of the oldest in Rus’. A detailed and vivid description of this diocese, its cathedral of the Dormition, the bishop’s treasury, and the episcopal residence was left by Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo, who visited Russia from 1654 to 1656 in the retinue of his father, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, and who wrote a book about the journey.

The diocese included, besides the major trading city of Kolomna, the towns of Serpukhov, Kashira, and Tula. With significant resources at his disposal, the bishop of Kolomna kept a large retinue of servants and guards.

Paul of Aleppo left a rapturous description of the bishop’s residence in Kolomna. He was especially struck by the bishop’s orchard:

“In which grow wondrous apples, remarkable for their beauty, color, and taste. They are of various kinds: red like carnelian, yellow like gold, white like camphor, all with a very fine skin.”
The historian Gerhard Friedrich Müller, who visited Kolomna in 1778, was likewise impressed by the apples:
“There are many fruitful orchards in Kolomna and its environs, which yield significant income for the inhabitants. The apples of Kolomna are particularly praised, said to surpass others in both size and flavor.”

Yet when the Tsar and Patriarch undertook to reform the Russian Church, neither the orchard with its sweet apples, nor the splendid cathedral with its rich treasury, nor the luxurious residence could restrain the bishop of Kolomna. He took the side of the opponents of the reforms—Archpriests Ioann Neronov and Avvakum.

At the beginning of Great Lent in 1653, Nikon sent a decree to Ioann Neronov forbidding prostrations (full bows to the ground) during the reading of the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life.” The Patriarch wrote:

“According to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not proper in church to make prostrations on one’s knees, but rather bows from the waist; and moreover, you ought to cross yourselves with three fingers.”

This decree made a heavy impression on many clergymen. Avvakum recalled:

“We were troubled, having gathered together. We saw that winter was coming—our hearts froze and our legs trembled.”

Neronov withdrew to the Chudov Monastery, shut himself in a solitary cell, and prayed for a week. During his prayer, he heard a voice from an icon:

“The time of suffering is at hand. You must suffer steadfastly!”

These dreadful words Neronov repeated to Archpriest Avvakum and Bishop Pavel. Avvakum was soon exiled to Siberia. For Pavel, the time of suffering came the following year.

At the Patriarch’s suggestion, the Tsar convened a Church Council in 1654 to review and abolish those Russian liturgical rites which differed from contemporary Greek usage. The exact date of the Council is unknown. Scholars believe it was held in February or March, as in the mid-17th century such Councils were usually convened on the eve of or during the start of Great Lent.

The session began with Nikon’s address. Speaking to the Tsar and the clergy, he declared that all novelties in the Church must be eradicated, and everything handed down by the Holy Fathers should be preserved without corruption, addition, or alteration. After this, the Council was presented with several examples of differences between Russian and Greek rites. Each time these differences were discussed, Nikon proposed they be changed to conform to the Greek model, which he described as more ancient. The Council consistently approved these changes.

The only one who opposed Nikon and the new rites was Pavel. When the Patriarch proposed discussion on abolishing the Lenten prostrations, the bishop of Kolomna dared to object. As Paul of Aleppo recounts, the bishop declared:

“From the time that we became Christians and received the right faith as an inheritance from our pious fathers and grandfathers, we have held to these rites and to this faith, and we will not now accept a new faith!”

Nevertheless, the bishop opposed not only the abolition of prostrations but the church reforms in general. Yet his words were not heeded. The Council, bowing to pressure from the Tsar and the Patriarch, approved the correction of Russian liturgical books according to Greek models. Paul of Aleppo reports that when the clergy were adding their signatures to the conciliar decree, “the bishop of Kolomna, being of a stubborn character, refused to accept or approve the act, nor would he place his hand upon it, let alone affirm it.”

However, the bishop did ultimately sign the conciliar act—but under his signature, he added these words, marking his dissent on the matter of prostrations:

“And as for what I said at the Holy Council regarding the prostrations, and that ustav (order) written on parchment which I laid forth here in justification, and another in writing.”

Simeon Denisov, in The Russian Vineyard, recounts that after the Council, Nikon attempted to win over the bishop of Kolomna through gentle persuasion. At first, he addressed Pavel with “flattering words” and tried to convince him of the necessity of reform, pointing out the “vulgarity” of the old Russian liturgical books. To this, the bishop replied that the Gospel truths and apostolic preaching were also conveyed in the plain speech of the Galilean fishermen.

Then the Patriarch pointed to the inconsistencies between Greek books and the customs of the Russian Church. Pavel countered that while the new Greek customs did not align with Russian ones, the ancient Byzantine rites fully corresponded with the Muscovite church order.

When Nikon saw that the bishop dared to contradict him, he flew into a rage, seized the defiant bishop, tore off his monastic mantle, and—as Denisov writes—personally beat him:

“Calling forth the wondrous Pavel, he, with his own hands (oh, what malice of fury!), struck the sacred face of the sacred man. He was not ashamed of the high priestly rank, nor did he blush at the holiness of the venerable gray hair of that man.”

While we cannot confirm whether Nikon himself struck the bishop, it is certain that, at the Patriarch’s order, Bishop Pavel was beaten, imprisoned, and then exiled.

The Moscow Council of 1666, when reviewing the charges against Nikon, counted this among his offenses:

“Furthermore, Nikon alone deposed a bishop without any local council, at which his faults should have been demonstrated… After deposing Pavel, bishop of Kolomna, he stripped him of his mantle and subjected him to cruel beatings and punishments, and cast him into distant exile. He did not recall the word that no man ought to be punished twice for the same offense. Thus it came about that this bishop lost his mind and perished miserably—whether devoured by beasts or drowned in the water, no one knows.”

Archbishop Lazar (Baranovich) of Chernigov, a participant in the Council, wrote in a private letter that Nikon was judged for “his cruel governance of the clergy, his unilateral deposition of a bishop, which led to the bishop’s untimely death through madness.”

A Fool-for-Christ’s Sake

By Nikon’s decree, the bishop was exiled to the ancient Khutyn Monastery near Novgorod, under the strict watch of Archimandrite Euthymius (Barashko).

The conditions of exile were so harsh that Paul of Aleppo shuddered as he wrote:

“It would have been better for him to die than to live there, because of the severe confinement and miserable life, the constant darkness, hunger, and complete absence of bread; from there, it was impossible to flee and be saved!”
That said, the archdeacon had no sympathy for his Russian namesake, adding:
“That bishop deserved it!”

In the Khutyn Monastery, the disgraced bishop was completely cut off from communication with his fellow Old Believers. The Patriarch forbade anyone to visit him, and those most persistent in their desire to do so were ordered to be arrested and thrown into prison.

At that time, the bishop undertook the ascetic feat of foolishness for Christ’s sake—feigned madness. For in the conditions of growing persecution, it was much easier to preach the old faith under the cover of apparent insanity. Thus, Pavel became an image of a fool-for-Christ bishop, the likes of which neither the Greek nor Russian Churches had known.

The 17th-century Old Believer writer, Deacon Feodor, recounts Pavel’s foolishness for Christ’s sake:

“Pavel, that blessed bishop, began to act the fool for the sake of Christ.”
But outside observers believed that the bishop had truly “lost his mind” due to the torments he had endured.

The abbot and brethren of the Khutyn Monastery, considering the bishop mad, decided not to burden themselves with keeping watch over a “madman” and allowed him to wander the vicinity of the monastery. He used this freedom entirely to preach among the local people.

It soon became known to Nikon that the bishop was preaching the old faith. And he resolved to destroy the defiant bishop once and for all. The decrees of the Council of 1666 refer vaguely to Pavel’s death: he “lost his mind” and perished “without a trace”—whether devoured by wild beasts or drowned, it is not said. However, the council’s decrees threaten Nikon:

“And this, too, shall be counted unto thee as murder.”

Avvakum, who at the time of the bishop’s death was in exile in Siberia, recounts based on available testimony that Nikon “tortured Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and burned him with fire in the Novgorod region.”

The most vivid description of the bishop’s death is given by Deacon Feodor:

“Nikon learned of it and sent his servants to the Novgorod lands, where he (Pavel) was wandering. There they found him in a desolate place, walking alone, and seized him—like wolves a gentle lamb—and they killed him to death, and burned his body with fire by Nikon’s command.”

Unfortunately, historians do not know the truth about the bishop’s death. No documents have yet been found that might shed light on this dark affair—and perhaps they never existed at all.

At the Council of 1666, Nikon was interrogated:

“By what canon did you depose Bishop Pavel of Kolomna without a council, strip him of his episcopal vestments, and exile him to the Khutyn Monastery, where he disappeared without a trace?”

To this, the Patriarch on trial replied:

“By what canon I deposed him, I do not recall, and I do not know what became of him. There is a record about him in the patriarchal court.”

“There is no such record in the patriarchal court, nor has there ever been! Bishop Pavel was excommunicated without a council,” came the response.

And so, from the realm of historical research we pass into the realm of popular tradition. And tradition holds that the martyrdom of Bishop Pavel of Kolomna took place on April 3, 1656, on Great Thursday.

The murdered bishop became one of the most venerated saints among the Old Believers. Yet only the Old Believers held him in such esteem. To others, he always remained an exotic historical figure, a legend from the deep past, a minor character from the forgotten 17th century.

That is why it was so unusual to see Bishop Pavel of Kolomna appear in the television miniseries The Schism (Raskol), completed in 2011. Director Nikolai Dostal and screenwriter Mikhail Kurayev presented modern viewers not only with the Tsar and the Patriarch, Archpriest Avvakum and Lady Morozova, but also with Bishop Pavel. He was superbly portrayed by actor Valery Skorokosov. Thanks to him, the voice restored to the bishop by scholars rang out with vitality and spirit across the vastness of Holy Rus’.

source

from the Periodical “Church”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 solemnly resolved to lift the curses (anathema) imposed in the 17th century on the old rites and on those who adhered to them. The old Russian rites were declared “salvific and equal in honour” to the new ones. In the report read at the Local Council, the Nikon reform was characterised as “a sharp and hasty breaking of Russian church ritual”. The grounds for replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered one were declared more than dubious.

This resolution may seem unexpected only to someone unfamiliar with the issue; in reality, the 1971 Council merely summed up a decades-long discussion of the old rite and, more precisely, confirmed the decisions of the Holy Synod adopted as early as 1929.

This is how it was expressed in the conciliar decree: “Having examined the question… from theological, liturgical, canonical and historical perspectives, we solemnly decree:

1. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on recognising the old Russian rites as salvific, like the new rites, and equal in honour to them.
2. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on rejecting and regarding as non-existent the condemnatory expressions relating to the old rites and especially to the two-fingered sign of the cross, wherever they may appear and by whomsoever they may have been uttered.
3. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on abolishing the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667 imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christian believers who adhered to them, and to regard these oaths as non-existent.”

One may say that the words written in 1912 by the eminent church historian, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy N. F. Kaptev, came true: “The condemnation by the 1667 Council of the Russian old rite was, as a more careful and impartial investigation of this phenomenon shows, a complete misunderstanding, a mistake, and therefore must prompt a new conciliar review of the whole matter and its correction, in order to pacify and end the centuries-old quarrel between Old Believers and New Believers, so that the Russian Church may once again become one, as it was before the patriarchate of Nikon.”

Thus, if the old rites are equal in honour to the new, the first question that arises is: was the Nikon reform necessary at all? The answer was given by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy, Protopresbyter Ioann Belevtsev, in his report to the Second International Church-Scholarly Conference held in Moscow in May 1987: the Nikon reform was “theologically unjustified and completely unnecessary”.

The 17th-century church schism, which without fear of exaggeration may be called a great national catastrophe, was the consequence of a reform that, as has now become clear, was justified neither theologically nor canonically and was simply “unnecessary” for the Church. But if so, then who needed this reform after all, what were its true causes and aims, and who was its real author?

The author of the present article, having studied the problem of the old rite for several years, has reached a conclusion that fully coincides with the above statement by Fr Ioann Belevtsev: the Nikon reform had neither theological nor canonical foundations; it was imposed on the Church artificially. The chief architect of the reform was Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, while Patriarch Nikon was merely the executor. Therefore it would be fairer to call the reform “Aleksey’s”.

A widespread opinion holds that the reform was caused by the need to correct the numerous errors and slips that had crept into the service books over time. However, an unbiased comparison of the texts of pre-reform service books (of the Iosif printing) and post-reform ones leaves no doubt as to the superiority of precisely the old books: there are perhaps fewer misprints in them than in editions contemporary to us. Moreover, this comparison permits exactly the opposite conclusions. The post-reform texts are markedly inferior in quality to the old-printed ones. As a result of the so-called correction, a huge number of errors of various kinds appeared – grammatical, lexical, historical, even dogmatic (a comparison of the texts is given below). So if the aim was to correct errors in the old-printed books, it can hardly be considered achieved.

But there was another aim: to achieve uniformity between Russian and Greek church practice. And the Greeks were taken as the model, as noted in the report of Metropolitan Nikodim read at the 1971 Local Council. This aim was dictated exclusively by political considerations.

The fact is that Aleksey Mikhaylovich was the first Russian tsar seriously to contemplate ascending the ancient Byzantine throne and standing at the head of the entire Orthodox world. “Aleksey Mikhaylovich considered himself the successor of the ancient Greek emperors not only in matters of faith and piety but also the lawful heir of their kingdom; he believed that he or his successors were destined in the future to rule Constantinople itself and all the Orthodox peoples languishing under the Turkish yoke… The tsar was not averse to the idea of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox nationalities from the Turkish yoke and of taking possession, as his inheritance, of Constantinople; and he regarded church unity as the first and necessary step towards future political unity.”

The political naïvety of these designs fully matched the short-sightedness of the tsar himself, who with full justification may be called a calamity not only for Russia but for universal Orthodoxy. For Tsar Aleksey, the reform to achieve church uniformity on the Greek model was the first step in realising his global political designs – the creation of a Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire.

It must be said that the very idea of uniting all Orthodox peoples under the sceptre of the Russian tsar arose long before Aleksey Mikhaylovich. After the fall of Byzantium in 1453 the Russians had no doubt that Russia had become its spiritual heiress. In 1516 the elder Philotheus, in an epistle to Grand Prince Vasily III, wrote the words that later became famous: “All Christian kingdoms have converged in thine own alone; for two Romes have fallen, the third (that is, Moscow – B.K.) stands, and there shall not be a fourth… Thou alone in all the earth art the Christian tsar.”

On this idea of the exclusive vocation of the Russian tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich was raised. Ascending the throne at the age of only sixteen, he resolved with all youthful directness to resurrect in his own person the image of the ancient Byzantine emperors. But what did this mean? To begin a war with the gigantic Ottoman Sultanate that stretched across half the world? Earlier the same had been urged upon Grand Prince Vasily III and Tsar Ivan the Terrible, but those were sufficiently wise and experienced politicians and did not succumb to the provocation. War with the Turks at that time would have been political madness.

A comprehensible interest in this was shown by the enslaved Greeks. But it is also known who else, besides the Greeks, wished to draw the Russians into the struggle with the Turks: “the threat of Turkish invasion alarmed Western Europe right up to the defeat of the Turks before the walls of Vienna in 1683.”

At the already-mentioned Moscow church-scholarly conference Protopresbyter N. Novosad spoke quite definitely on this question: “In that era (16th–17th centuries) the Papacy had a long-standing idea that the popes wished to instil in all Europe: the idea of a crusade to drive the Turks out of Europe. This idea was shared by Stephen Báthory. The plan of struggle with the Turks was equally carefully worked out both in Rome and in Poland. At the same time it was considered that for success it was necessary to draw Moscow in as a tool. Moscow had to be saddled with a Catholic tsar (so thought Stephen Báthory and Possevino) in order to Catholicise Moscow and secure its help.”

The authors of the plan came very close to realising it in the adventure of the pretenders. If they had succeeded in placing a Catholic tsar on the Moscow throne, half the job would have been done. And to draw the Russians into war with the Turks, the most attractive bait for the Muscovites had to be the throne of Constantinople.

The “Vicar of the whole North”, the papal legate Antonio Possevino, arriving in Moscow, presented Tsar Ivan the Terrible with a book about the Union of Florence, “richly adorned with golden initials, and by this gift at once made it clear that all Russia’s woes could easily be remedied if the Russians did not disdain to accept the union and kiss the pope’s slipper.” The legate without circumlocution promised Tsar Ivan the throne of Tsargrad. “If thou unite in faith with the pope and all the sovereigns, then with their assistance thou shalt not only be on thy ancestral patrimony in Kiev but shalt become emperor of Tsargrad and of the whole East.”

And what did Ivan IV reply to this cunning temptation? The reply was as follows: “As for the Eastern Empire, the earth is the Lord’s; to whom God wills, to him He will give it. My own realm is enough for me; I desire no other and greater realms in all the world.”

In this case, Ivan the Terrible displayed statesmanship, wisdom and firmness worthy of a tsar! How far from this Aleksey Mikhaylovich turned out to be. By the proposal to occupy the throne of Tsargrad, Possevino rather clearly expressed the Jesuits’ programme on this question – that is, precisely those who persistently tried to draw the Muscovites into an eastern adventure over the course of several centuries. There had been attempts before. As early as 1518 a legate of Pope Leo X, the Dominican monk Nicholas Schönberg, came to Moscow and urged Grand Prince Vasily III to unite with the other sovereigns of Europe to drive the Turks out of Greece. As the “carrot” there figured again the same throne of Tsargrad: “To influence Vasily Ivanovich they represented to him that he had the right to take Tsargrad from the Turks as his lawful inheritance, being a son of the Greek Church, and that if he united with the Roman Church the pope would crown him with the imperial crown and title, and elevate the Russian metropolitan to the rank of patriarch.”

In 1525 Pope Clement VII sent a letter to Moscow again proposing participation together with the other sovereigns in driving the Turks out of Constantinople. In the 17th century the Jesuit missionary Juraj Križanić and Milescu Spathary, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, urged the Russian government to fight the Turks.

As we see, Catholicism was very interested in drawing Russia into an anti-Turkish coalition, and over a long period western emissaries persistently pushed the Russians towards struggle with the Turks.

The eastern hierarchs constantly exhorted Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich to begin a campaign against the Turks with the aim of taking Tsargrad. These exhortations began immediately after the fall of Byzantium but grew especially strong in the second half of the 17th century. Metropolitan Gabriel of Nazareth even made a Russian translation of the “Tale of the Fall of Tsargrad”, timing it for the “jubilee” year of 1653. Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem, during his visit to Moscow, persuaded Tsar Aleksey to conclude an alliance with Hetman Khmelnytsky and with the voivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia for joint action against the Turks. About the same thing, when sending Arseny Sukhanov in 1649 from Iași to Moscow, Paisius told him to remind the tsar, and in a letter to Aleksey Mikhaylovich he wrote: “The Most Holy Trinity… will graciously enable you to receive the most exalted throne of the great emperor Constantine, your forefather, that you may free the peoples of the pious and Orthodox Christians from impious hands, from savage beasts.”

It may be that this essentially provocative blessing finally confirmed Tsar Aleksey in his intention to take concrete measures to carry out the “Greek project”, the first stage of which was church reform to unify Russian and Greek church-worship practices. Of course, a “prophecy” of this kind, uttered by a patriarch in the name of God Himself, could tempt someone far less inexperienced than Tsar Aleksey.

It was precisely this – the elimination of “a certain isolation” of the Russian Church in its liturgical rites – that Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem proposed to the tsar as the first step.

How much effort did the Jesuits need to expend at that time to intensify the pressure on the Russian tsar from the eastern patriarchs? The venality of many of them is too well known, as is the Vatican’s extreme interest in drawing the Muscovites into the struggle with the Turks by any means.

Skilful mentors instilled in the simple-minded and trusting Tsar Aleksey that the quest for the throne of Tsargrad was a holy matter, even a sacrifice, to which his Christian duty obliged him and to which God Himself called him. No wonder Patriarch Paisius, for weightiness, begins his epistle directly in the name of the Holy Trinity. The goal was achieved: the “Greek project” took possession of all the tsar’s thoughts and those of his immediate circle.

A conversation of the tsar with Greek merchants is known: “Do you want and do you expect me to free you from captivity and ransom you?” They answered: “How could it be otherwise? How could we not desire this?” The tsar said, turning to the boyars: “God will require them of me… I have taken upon myself the obligation… I will offer as sacrifice my army, my treasury and even my blood for their deliverance.” (Tsar Aleksey offered to this idea an incalculable number of lives of Orthodox Christians, his fellow countrymen, executed for resisting the reform which now with full justification may be called criminal; he split the hitherto united Russian Church, yet he never achieved the liberation of the Greeks from Muslim rule – and to this day Tsargrad is called Istanbul.)

After the departure of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch the tsar said to the boyars: “I pray God, before I die, to see him among the four patriarchs serving in Hagia Sophia (that is, in Constantinople – K.B.) and our patriarch the fifth together with them.” But of course, if the Russian tsar had ascended the throne of Constantinople, Nikon would not have been the fifth among the patriarchs but the first, and he understood this perfectly, which was the true reason for his particularly interested attitude towards the “Greek project”.

Before his patriarchate Nikon, like all Russians at that time, regarded contemporary Greeks with great suspicion, considering that true piety had been preserved only among the Russians. He expressed these views openly, without concealment, even after moving to Moscow when he became archimandrite. However, becoming patriarch, Nikon suddenly declares himself a zealous Hellenophile; a sharp about-face occurs – the denouncer of the Greeks becomes their admirer and venerater. And not long ago he used to say: “The Greeks and Little Russians have lost the faith and there is no firmness or good morals among them; peace and honour have seduced them, and they work by their own law, and no constancy has appeared in them, nor any piety.” Having entered the tsar’s closest circle, Nikon was let into the secret of the “Greek project” and drew the appropriate conclusions, with his characteristic lack of principle in an instant transforming himself from a denouncer of the Greeks into their venerater. It was precisely after this that, with the tsar’s active assistance, he was installed as patriarch. Thus was found and prepared the executor of the future reform fateful for Orthodoxy.

Nikon undoubtedly already had in mind in this situation the ecumenical patriarchate, and knowing his boundless ambition one may conclude that this breathtaking prospect was the chief and decisive factor in his “maturing” in the well-known direction and transformation into a zealous Hellenophile. It is telling that after his unworthy and unwise demarche with the demonstrative abandonment of the patriarchal see (“and how will you, tsar, manage without me now?”), when the phantom of the Byzantine throne ceased to trouble Nikon’s imagination, the mask of feigned Hellenophilia also slipped from him, replaced by complete indifference to his own reform, to the book corrections. Moreover, in his monastery he again printed books according to the old models.

The death of Patriarch Joseph untied the hands of the Hellenophile advocates of reform, and they developed stormy activity. Becoming patriarch, Nikon immediately began zealously copying Greek church practice. “It even seems that Nikon set himself the idea of making a second Byzantium out of Moscow.” Indeed, he transferred to Rus’ Greek ambos, the Greek archbishop’s staff, Greek kamilavkia and mantles, Greek church melodies; he invited Greek painters to Moscow, built monasteries on the Greek model, drew various Greeks close to himself, everywhere put Greek authority in the forefront, and so on.

Evaluating in particular this blind copying of the Greek model, Fr Pavel Florensky in the article “The Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Russia” called Patriarch Nikon’s activity “reactionary and in general anti-national”. To speak more precisely, the reformatory activity of Nikon and Tsar Aleksey should first of all be recognised as anti-Orthodox and anti-church. It becomes anti-national, anti-Russian only as a consequence of the organic unity of all Russian life of that time and Orthodoxy.

The anti-national character of the reform manifested itself especially vividly at the 1667 Council, when according to the tsar’s programme a campaign was officially launched to besmirch the age-old Orthodox Russian traditions and rites – in effect, the whole Russian past. Kaptev evaluates this conciliar activity as “a tendentious humiliation by foreign Greeks of Russian church antiquity, its public tendentious abuse”.

Here is where we should seek the origins of our contemporary disease of abusing and forgetting our historical past! No wonder Fr Pavel Florensky in one of his private letters said that “the world atmosphere has been corrupted perhaps since the 17th century”. A thorough investigation of the 17th-century Russian church reform fully confirms this surmise, for the Russian spiritual catastrophe in its consequences has not only a local Russian but a global character.

At the 1667 Council the tsar handed over the conduct of all affairs to two eastern patriarchs – Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch – having first made sure that they would pursue the line he needed. And the patriarchs, sensing the moment, behaved at the council as authoritative supreme judges and peremptory deciders of Russian church affairs.

It is hard to imagine that these two foreign guests, obsequious and compliant collectors of alms, being in the centre of Russia in the tsar’s presence, would have dared to revile and condemn the whole Russian antiquity, even to anathematise the old Russian rite, if there had not been special sanction from the tsar for this. “The most that a Greek hierarch visiting Moscow could venture on his own would be flattering, pompous praise of the Russian tsar, of Russian piety, public recognition of the Russians as the light and support of all Orthodoxy.”

To argue with the tsar at that time was simply impossible for anyone, especially for visiting guests, even if they were patriarchs; all that remained was to “comply”. Under any authoritarian regime even minor state decrees are issued only with the sanction of the highest authority. Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, having the highest conception of his royal power, “recognised himself as the viceroy of God Himself on earth”. With such an opinion of himself on the part of the tsar, who could dare to act independently, apart from the autocrat, in such an important church-state matter as the reform? Finally, Archpriest Avvakum will understand who the true author of the reform is and will denounce the tsar already in his fifth petition, written in 1669: “You are the autocrat; you will raise judgment concerning all these who have given such boldness against us… Who would dare to utter such blasphemous words against the saints if your power had not permitted it to be?.. All the matter is enclosed in you, O tsar, and stands on you alone.”

Pleasing Tsar Aleksey and pursuing the necessary line (the council according to the tsar’s plans was to finally confirm the reform), the eastern patriarchs went far in their activity. The council under their leadership recognised the old Russian rite as heretical and forbade it, and excommunicated from the church and anathematised those who adhered to the old rite. However, as Kaptev writes, “the rite recognised by them as heretical was in reality the creation of the Orthodox Greek ecumenical church, and earlier, for whole centuries, it had existed among the old Orthodox Greeks, and to accuse the Russians of heresy for it in essence meant to accuse the old Greek Orthodox Church of heresy”.

The eastern hierarchs at the council broadly and in detail reviewed the entire Russian church practice in general and the age-old folk customs, in order to condemn and destroy everything that deviated from the then Greek practice. All ancient Russian church things, even clothing, were replaced by contemporary Greek models, “so that there might be unity of mind and agreement in everything”. The tsar approved the conciliar activity of the eastern patriarchs and generously rewarded them.

It is telling that in 1666 the tsar by a special epistle asks to send him from the East the “Sudebnik” and the “Chinovnik of the entire tsar’s order of the former Greek tsars”, which he evidently needed for practical preparation for the expected coronation on the Byzantine throne. Here one may already speak not of political naïvety but of the feeble-mindedness of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, by which all his activity was marked, the consequence of which, among other things, were the “salt” and “copper” riots, and finally one of the first mad “projects of the century” – the all-embracing church reform for the realisation of global political pretensions.

Tsar Aleksey was raised in contempt for everything native and in adoration of everything foreign. He had a directly fantastic idea of the “wonders of western culture”: he was convinced of the almost all-encompassing power of the foreign master. These qualities, especially contempt for native history and culture, would develop and manifest even more in his son, Tsar Peter I.

We have already spoken of the intrigues of Catholicism in connection with the Eastern Question. There exists a curious document published by Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) in his “History of the Russian Church” in the section on the Time of Troubles: “From the Jesuits’ instruction to the Pretender on how to introduce the union in Russia”.

/…/ d) the sovereign himself should speak of the union rarely and cautiously, so that the matter does not begin from him, but let the Russians themselves first propose concerning some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation, and thus pave the way to the union;

e) to issue a law that everything in the Russian church be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers and to entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union: disputes will arise, reach the sovereign, he will appoint a council, and there one may proceed to the union;

f) to hint to the black clergy about privileges, to the white about rewards, to the people about freedom, to all about the slavery of the Greeks;

g) to establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen.”

So here is who long ago cared about the uniformity of Russian and Greek worship! Long before Tsar Aleksey and Nikon the main point of the reform (its essence) had been thought out by the Jesuits, formulated and given to their agents as a working instruction. This Jesuit plan was almost fully realised half a century later in the process of the 17th-century church reform. The course of the reform strikingly coincides with all the points of this instruction.

Concerning “some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation”, Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem spoke in 1649 while in Moscow, and the Greek clergy supported him; the corrector Epifany Slavinetsky proposes reforms as a learned theologian. Epifany, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, was sent from Kiev instead of another person requested.

Regarding the fact that “everything be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers”, it is necessary to recall that after two unions with the Catholics (Lyons in 1274 and Ferrara-Florence in 1439) and two hundred years under Turkish rule, so many changes had occurred in Greek church practice that the Russians questioned the very Orthodoxy of the Greeks. Around 1480 in our country a promise was included in the archiepiscopal oath not to accept Greeks either to the metropolis or to the episcopate as being under the power of an infidel tsar.

Thus, before the reform aimed at achieving uniformity with the Greeks, it was first necessary to raise the authority of the Greeks, significantly compromised in Russian eyes. This is what the Russian government actively engaged in immediately after Aleksey’s accession to the throne, for several years and in various directions. In Moscow several South-Russian books were published in which the full Orthodoxy of the Greeks was persistently preached, the necessity of communicating with them on all church questions and of acting in full accord with them in everything.

For the creators of the reform, besides the rehabilitation of the Greeks, another side of the question was important – namely, the creation of a firm opinion about the corruption of Russian service texts and the extreme necessity of their correction. In preparing public opinion about the supposed uncorrectedness of the old Russian books a special role was played by the extensive preface to the grammar of Meletius Smotritsky (1648). Here the idea is advanced in every way that Russian church books are very uncorrected and therefore need immediate thorough correction, and to correct them one must, of course, use only Greek models.

“To entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union”…

They found “reliable” people: Arseny the Greek, Epifany Slavinetsky, Paisius Ligarides, Simeon of Polotsk and others.

Arseny the Greek – an alumnus of the Jesuit college in Rome, repeatedly passed from Orthodoxy to Latinism and back, for a time accepted Mohammedanism. For heresy he was exiled to Solovki, but Nikon in 1652 frees him, makes him the chief corrector of service books and even settles him in his own cell. Arseny in turn recommends to Nikon Paisius Ligarides, also an alumnus of the Roman Jesuit school.

“Paisius Ligarides is not a branch of the Constantinopolitan throne,” says Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople about him, “I do not call him Orthodox, for I hear from many that he is a papist, a cunning man.” According to contemporary data, Ligarides is a Catholic missionary sent to the east in 1641. In Moscow he plays the role of Orthodox metropolitan of Gaza, acquires enormous influence on Tsar Aleksey and in many ways determines the decisions of the 1667 council. He is the tsar’s chief assistant in carrying out the “Greek project”; according to Kaptev, the tsar himself listened to him “as to a prophet of God”.

Simeon of Polotsk – a graduate of the Polish Jesuit college in Vilna, tutor of the tsar’s children (raised them in the Polish-Latin spirit), a skilful scribbler writing comedies for the tsar’s theatre, an active supporter of Nikon’s reform, who wrote a polemical treatise against the Old Believers by order of the tsar. Undoubtedly he did great harm to Russian literature by introducing into the literature of that time Polish-Ukrainian jargon and Polish syllabic verse alien to Russian culture. Many in Moscow accused Polotsk of unorthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum says directly: “Wolf-like in sheep’s clothing Simeon and Epifany. I know Epifany the Roman to the sea, when he came from Rome… And Semenka the monk came from there, from the Roman pope.”

“To establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen”…

And seminaries were established on the model of western scholastic schools, and learned people were indeed called from abroad. The brothers Likhud, alumni of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padua, confirmed Nikon’s reform while heading the Moscow Theological Academy for 15 years (until 1701).

As we see, the programme given by the Jesuits to the Pretender was basically fulfilled. The Pretender himself suffered defeat probably only because he took the matter too abruptly. Having ascended the Moscow throne, blinded by successes, he evidently decided that it was already possible to dispense with palliatives like the gradual introduction of the union by means of the identification of Russian and Greek worship. He writes to the Roman curia: “And we ourselves by God’s grace have accepted the union (of the churches) and will now firmly endeavour to bring all the Muscovite state into the one Roman faith and to establish Roman churches.” This was too abrupt; the pretence failed, and the Jesuits had to correct the mistakes of their agent by gradual painstaking activity.

Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks thus of the Jesuits’ activity: “From the very moment of their separation from the ecumenical church the Roman pontiffs were constantly occupied with the thought of subjecting to themselves the Orthodox East and, in particular, Orthodox Russia, as witnessed by the uninterrupted series of their attempts presented by history. But never were these attempts so strong, so close to success and dangerous for Orthodoxy as from the 16th century. In Greece they were favoured by the fall of the empire (1453) and the subsequent decline of enlightenment; in Russia by the lack of enlightenment and the annexation of its western part to Poland (1569). The chief instrument both here and there was the newly established (1540) order of Jesuits. They quickly penetrated Poland and western Russia, founded their schools in Polotsk, Vilna and Volhynia to raise the children of the Orthodox in their spirit; everywhere they disseminated writings against the Eastern Church to ensnare in their nets even adults who had been its children from the cradle, and the unhappy union that arose in the western region of Russia at the end of the 16th century was the first fruit of these efforts. Just as quickly the worthy disciples of Loyola penetrated Greece, established their schools in Galata and even in Constantinople, passed themselves off as gratuitous teachers of youth, strove to be confessors of the people and disseminated writings pernicious for Orthodoxy; meanwhile beyond the borders of Greece, in the famous universities and academies of the West, whither Greek youths hastened for lack of their own schools, thirsting for enlightenment, they imperceptibly imbibed the same spirit, were entangled in the same nets, and Pope Gregory XIII in Rome itself founded a Greek college where he gratuitously educated all incoming Greeks and Russians. All this intensified activity of the Vatican is explained by the Lutheran reformation: having lost as a result of it an innumerable multitude of their ancient children, the popes thought to compensate their loss by subjecting to themselves the eastern church and spared no means for this.”

The general Latin orientation of Nikon’s reformatory activity has been noted by many researchers. Some historians directly pointed out that the Nikon reform was the result of Jesuit intrigues. In the words of Yu. F. Samarin, Nikon wanted “to found in Russia a private national papism”. The pope is head of the church and the state: in the unity of spiritual and political power lies the chief nerve of papism. Nikon’s papo-caesarism fully revealed itself during the period of his tenure of power. “On the relations of the tsar’s power to the patriarchal Nikon expressed a view that in no way accorded with the traditions of the eastern church confirmed in Russia by history” (S. M. Solovyov). Imitating the Catholics, he introduces into use the four-ended cross, the carrying of the cross before the patriarch, makes himself a hat in the manner of a cardinal’s, his mitres have the form now of a tiara, now of a western crown. Nikon repeatedly makes use of the device of false oath, displaying knowledge of Jesuit teaching. Moreover, according to the historian Tatishchev, Simeon of Polotsk persuaded the young Tsar Fyodor to recall Nikon from exile to Moscow and make him pope.

The opinions of Nikon’s adherents about his supposed learning and intelligence do not correspond to reality. Here is how Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks of the book that Nikon wrote in his justification: “One must have great patience to read Nikon’s book even in parts… It is unfounded to see in this book extensive reading and learning on Nikon’s part. He had at hand the Bible, the printed Kormchaya, the explanatory Gospel and Apostle and another 2–3 books and drew from them with full hand as much as he wished, and to do this, especially from the Kormchaya with its index, was not at all difficult… But Nikon’s moral image appears in the book in the most unattractive light.”

It would be unfair to conclude about any architectural talents of Nikon in connection with the construction of the Resurrection Monastery, which he called the New Jerusalem. The well-known Arseny Sukhanov, at Nikon’s order, brought him from the East models of the Jerusalem temples; it remained for the builders only to copy. Of Nikon’s extremely negative moral image testify his cell-attendant Jonah, Prince Shaisupov and others (S. M. Solovyov).

With the passage of time many forgeries committed in the process of the Nikon reform by its creators and makers came to light. Perhaps sensational exposé material is adduced by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy N. D. Uspensky in the article “The Collision of Two Theologies in the Correction of Russian Service Books in the 17th Century.”

At the beginning of the reform at the 1654 council it was resolved to correct the service books according to ancient Greek and Slavonic models. Professor Uspensky irrefutably proved that the models for correction were contemporary Greek service books published mainly in Jesuit printing houses of Venice and Paris. To conceal this fact, Nikon’s correctors, falsifying, wrote in the prefaces of some books that the correction was carried out “according to ancient Greek and Slavonic” models (Sluzhebnik ed. 1655).

This is understandable, for the creators of the reform were in fact interested in achieving uniformity precisely with the contemporary Greek model, therefore ancient Greek and Slavonic charters (manuscripts) simply did not interest them. This probably also explains the very strange fact noted by Uspensky that Arseny Sukhanov, among a large number (498) of manuscripts acquired by him in the East, brought to Moscow only 7 that could be used in correcting books. Yet one of the chief aims of Sukhanov’s journey to the East was to bring the necessary sources for correcting the service books. And here he brings a huge number of manuscripts, among which are the works of pagan philosophers, information about earthquakes, about sea animals, but manuscripts that could be used in correcting service books – only 7… This expedition for manuscripts, lasting a year and a half, was dispatched by Nikon, therefore one may suppose that the messenger was given corresponding instructions. As we see, here too a forgery. Yet polemicists with the Old Belief always asserted that the correction of books was supposedly carried out according to ancient manuscripts brought by Sukhanov from the East and that there were a huge number of these manuscripts.

Thus, the solution to the apparent paradox lies in the fact that Tsar Aleksey and Nikon by no means pursued the aim of the actual correction of church books and rites, and the question of who had preserved the purity of Orthodoxy – the Russians or the Greeks – did not concern them at all.

This is confirmed by the following story. Wishing to secure support from the side of Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople, Nikon in 1654, on the eve of the council, sends him a letter with questions of a church-ritual character with a request to examine them at a council and give an answer. Nikon and the tsar evidently counted on Paisius approving their reform, and it would be convenient for them to refer to his authority. However, their hopes were not justified; in his reply epistle Patriarch Paisius expressed a sober and cautious view on the matter of changing liturgical orders and church rites, thereby making it clear that there was no necessity for reform. Despite this, Tsar Aleksey and Nikon continued the undertaking, thereby demonstrating that the theological justification of the reform did not particularly interest them, which is understandable given the political aims of the reform’s creators. There was no lack of forgery in this story with the inquiry to Patriarch Paisius either. Paisius’s reply epistle was received already after the council, yet Nikon at the council declares the receipt of a letter from the Constantinopolitan patriarch supposedly with approval of the reforms.

One more example of the tactical device of the reform’s creator Nikon. As already said, in order to bring public opinion to the consciousness of the necessity of reform, they advocate urgent correction of the various slips, errors and diverse faults supposedly accumulated in the Slavonic translations, admitted by translators and copyists. No one objected to such corrections. However, when it came to the point, Nikon at the 1654 council suddenly comes out with a stunning declaration that Russian piety itself is “doubtful” because the Russians maintain among themselves “incorrect innovations”. He demands, thus, the correction not simply of books but of the Church itself. “Nikon,” writes Kaptev, “speaks at the council not of such book corrections as would mean errors introduced into them by ignorance, slips and similar unimportant and easily correctable faults, but demands the correction of books insofar as they contain, in his opinion, newly introduced orders and rites, demands, so to speak, the correction of the Church itself, and not only of books.” This tactic too is understandable – by any means to obtain agreement to the reform, and then to do one’s own thing, copying the Greek model.

N. D. Uspensky in the aforementioned article describes the tragicomic story of Nikon’s “correction” of the Sluzhebnik. In the six years of Nikon’s patriarchate six editions of the Sluzhebnik were issued, differing from one another. As models, as Uspensky established, Kiev sluzhebniki were used, which shortly before had in their turn been corrected according to Venetian and Parisian editions of Greek sluzhebniki.

Of the six differing editions the first opponents of the book correction already wrote. Thus, in the petition to Aleksey Mikhaylovich by Fr Nikita Dobrynin it is said: “For six issues of his Nikon sluzhebniki have been forcibly sent out into the Russian state: but all those sluzhebniki disagree among themselves and not one agrees with another.”

Centuries later Kaptev states the same: “The more time passed, the greater the number of editions of one and the same book appeared, disagreeing among themselves, and the very number of these disagreements increased with the passage of time. Everyone noticed this, everyone was very troubled and scandalised by this circumstance, the more so as the opponents of Nikon’s book corrections constantly and tirelessly pointed to it as obvious proof to all that Russian church books were in reality not being corrected but only spoiled.” N. D. Uspensky summarises on this account: “When some grandiose undertaking in design leads to results opposite to the intended aims, such a situation may be called tragic.”

What, then, is the position today? As already said, a comparison of contemporary service texts with pre-reform ones permits the conclusion that the new texts are markedly inferior in soundness to the old. And this is the conclusion not only of the author of the present article, who carried out independent work in comparing texts, but of many other researchers. As early as the last century A. I. Nevostruev gave a detailed classification of the errors and inaccuracies of the reformed text: strange expressions, Hellenisms, for example “the radiance of noise”, “to understand with eyes”, “to see with a finger” and the like, confused use of grammatical forms, mixing of cases, turning the predicate into the subject and so on. The scholar adduces examples of troparia of canons with very unclear meaning, lists “sins not only against grammar, philology, logic, but also against history, exegesis, dogmatics”, pointing to a mass of errors in the texts, including the mixing of proper and common nouns and vice versa, discrepancies with biblical texts and the like. Professor M. D. Muretov also adduces numerous examples of incorrect translation and faults in the post-reform text. And the well-known philologist N. I. Ilminsky “on a whole series of examples shows the superiority in the sense of accuracy in many cases of the old translation over that renewed in the 17th century”.

The reason for such evident worsening of the new translation is simple. “Arseny the Greek, as a foreigner, could not grasp all the subtleties of translation into the Russian language, therefore his translations often yielded to the old translations in clarity, juiciness, in the aptness of one expression or another, sometimes seemed ambiguous and scandalous. Epifany Slavinetsky was an extreme adherent of literalism in translation; he sacrificed to literalism the clarity and intelligibility of the speech itself, composed his own words and their combinations very artificial and little-expressive, whence his translations are always clumsy, often obscure and little-intelligible, so that the meaning of some of our church hymns even now is assimilated with difficulty.”

The corruption of the Russian language began precisely in the 17th century in the process of the “correction” of books. Let us adduce only some examples from the Psalter, designating the old text by the letter O and the new by N.

O: “закон положит ему на пути”; N: “законоположит ему на пути”;

O: “обновится яко оpлу юность твоя” (102, 5); N: “обновится яко оpля юность твоя”;

O: “помощник во благо вpемя в печалех” (9, 10); N: “помощник во благовpемениих в скоpбех”;

O: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзе ми” (118, 163); N: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзих”;

O: “ибо благословение даст закон даяй” (83, 6); N: “закопополагаяй”;

O: “избави мя.., от pук сынов чужих” (143, 7); N: “из pуки сынов чуждих”;

O: “се пядию измеpены положил еси дни моя” (38, b); N: “се пяди положил еси дни моя”, – the meaning of the old translation is quite clear (a span is the distance from the end of the thumb to the end of the little finger), but of the new it is not.

O: “повелением им же заповеда” (7, 7); N: “заповедал еси” – phonetic worsening.

O: “яко услыша мя Боже” (16, 7); N: “яко услышал мя еси” – phonetic explosion.

O: “вскую остави мя” (21, 1); N: “вскую оставил мя еси” – weighting of the phrase construction, unnatural for the Slavonic language.

O: “И исцели мя (29, 2); N: “и исцелил мя еси” – the same.

Of course, one may discourse much on verbal forms – “aorist”, “pluperfect” and the like, but as is known, theory is dry, but the tree of life is green.

Errors were admitted that were more serious. The old text of the prayer from the rite of baptism: “The Lord our Jesus Christ, who came into the world and dwelt among men, forbids thee, O devil”. The new text: “The Lord forbids thee, O devil, who came into the world and dwelt among men”. The Old Believers repeatedly pointed to the blasphemous corruption of the text; the question was discussed for more than two centuries, and only in the Trebnik issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1979 was the pre-Nikon variant finally returned to.

The old text from the rite of baptism: “we pray thee, O Lord, let not an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. The new text: “let not, we pray thee, an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. And in this blasphemous corruption the adherents of the old rite constantly accused the new-ritualists, but the latter returned to the pre-Nikon variant also only after centuries. Thus this error worked for the schism: “they pray to an evil spirit”, said the Old Believers.

From the litanies for the sanctification of water on Theophany: S: “that this water may be leading into life eternal”. N: “that this water may be leaping into life eternal”. They returned to the old variant only in the “Festal Menaion” issued in 1970. It should be noted that the print runs of church books issued in Soviet times were very limited, therefore in many churches, especially rural ones, the service is performed according to pre-revolutionary trebniks, that is, with all the indicated errors.

It is hardly likely that such serious errors in the text of the fundamental sacrament were made due to insufficient professionalism of the correctors. A comparison of old and new texts leads to the thought that often a carefully masked conscious corruption of the texts was carried out on the principle “the worse the better”. In those times all secret enemies of Orthodoxy on Rus’ became voluntary supporters of Nikon’s reform, since the reform gave the possibility of mocking the church with impunity. And they mocked… Surikov showed this well in his painting “Boyarynya Morozova”.

Undoubtedly there were enemies of Orthodoxy among the correctors too, and not for nothing after the departure from the scene of his patron Nikon, Arseny the Greek, who headed the correction, was again exiled to Solovki. And what could be expected from a correction if it was headed by people like Arseny the Greek? The words of Archpriest Avvakum are amazingly close to the true state of affairs: “As Nikon said, so he did: ‘Print, Arsen, the books any old way, only not as before’ – and so he did.”

If, for example, in some cases the correctors replaced “smite” with “thou hast smitten”, “commanded” with “thou hast commanded”, then in others they did the opposite: S: “for the Lord hath saved” (19, 6); N: “for the Lord saved”. If in one place they replace an ancient speech form with a more contemporary one, then in another – the opposite. S: “for one of the princes falleth” (81, 7); N: “for one of the princes falleth” – evidently modernised. But in the same psalm: S: “in the midst of the gods he shall judge” (81, 1); N: “in the midst of gods he shall judge” – returned to a more ancient form. And such examples of “correction” on the principle “only not as before” may be adduced in multitude.

There are especially many errors and inaccuracies in the newly corrected texts of the irmoi. Let us compare the texts of the Sunday irmos of the 4th tone, song 1:

O: “Моpя Чеpмнаго пучину, немокpыми стопами, дpевле шествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазно моисеовыма pуками, амаликову силу победил есть”.

N: “Моpя чеpмную пучину невлажными стопами дpевний пешешествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазныма моисеовыма pукама амаликову силу в пустыни победил есть”.

An error is immediately noticeable if, for example, one says “the depth of the Caspian sea”. Therefore there is an evident error in the expression “the depth of the red sea”, since “Red” is a proper name. In the word “to traverse on foot” invented by the correctors a tautology is admitted – one always traverses on foot.

“With cross-shaped arms of Moses” – a gross error. It is known that Moses prefiguratively depicted the cross with his arms, but his arms were normal, not cross-shaped, as the correctors assure.

Through the fault of the correctors the colourful word “omrazishasya” (from the root “abomination”, “filth”) departed from the Church Slavonic language:

O: “pастлеша и омpазишася в беззакониях” (52, 2); N: “омpачишася”.

The conducted comparison of the pre-reform and post-reform Psalter with the involvement of a Greek text of the 10th century also speaks not in favour of the newly corrected text. For example, the Greek equivalent of the word “omrazishasya” has precisely the root “abomination” and not “darkness”.

Thus, it was far from for a single “az” that the zealots of traditional Orthodoxy rose against the reform. At that time people attended church often and many knew the texts by heart; one may imagine their indignation at this “correction” of the texts: it is not surprising that a schism arose.

In the period following Nikon’s abandonment of the patriarchal throne the Russian church found itself in the most grievous state. As Kaptev writes, “everything in our church life of that time from top to bottom was in complete confusion and as it were decomposition; in nothing was there stability, defined order and firmness; everything as it were tottered, everywhere discord, quarrels, struggle… It seemed that a return to the pre-Nikon church orders would then have been the most suitable way out of the tangled situation of church affairs… The matter with Nikon’s reform seemed to hang by a hair.” But after Nikon’s departure the actual manager of the Russian church becomes Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, who turns all his energy to confirming the reform, subordinating to this his activity, serving the reform often in defiance of simple common sense, offering to it in sacrifice both truth and honour and literally everything, when the reform becomes some all-consuming cult of his life, an obsessive idea. And quite justifiably the same Kaptev concludes that “to Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich chiefly the reform owes its beginning, its conduct under Nikon and its completion after Nikon’s removal.”

The phantom of the Byzantine throne hovered over Russia even after the death of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich right up to 1917. The heirs of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich were already firmly “fixated” on the circle of questions of the “Greek project”, passing this baton by inheritance. The very idea of Byzantine throne-inheritance gradually received very wide dissemination in Russian society, and if earlier it was inspired from without, then in the 19th century already many Russian thinkers paid tribute to the utopian project of creating a “Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire” with Constantinople as the chief capital. Of this write Tyutchev, Dostoevsky, I. Aksakov and other Russian public figures. Dostoevsky sees in this “our only way out into the fullness of history”, “sooner or later, but Constantinople must be ours”, he exclaims.

Even earlier Tyutchev wrote: “That which was promised by the fates even in the cradle to her, that which was bequeathed to her by the ages and by the faith of all her tsars… the crown and sceptre of Byzantium ye shall not succeed in depriving us of…”

It is understandable that in this situation the Nikon reform for the unification of Russian and Greek church practice acquired special political significance; church uniformity with the Greeks appeared as the single ideological foundation of the future great empire. The consequence of this was the further strengthening of the reform and the intensification of the struggle with the Old Belief.

It is now understandable why the Nikon reform, with its evident theological unsoundness, was beyond criticism – this was a political “taboo”.

Life dispelled the false prophecies like smoke. To everyone now it is clear that the idea of occupying the Constantinopolitan throne was an obsession, a phantom. The political “taboo” on criticism of the “Nikon-Aleksey” reform has also disappeared.

The 1971 Council lifted the curses on the old rites, but this is not a broad gesture or act of good will towards the Old Believers; this is what in justice should have been done long ago.

In the conciliar decree it is said: “May the Lord lead those separated again into one…” In confirmation of this call it is natural to expect future conciliar resolutions directed towards the liquidation of the schism, in which the first step could be a return to the pre-reform texts as the more sound ones. Besides, spiritual rebirth is unthinkable without the realisation of past errors and repentance for the untruths committed.

Many Russian Orthodox people were destroyed for faithfulness to traditional Orthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum, who headed the resistance to the criminal reform, has now appeared before us as a great Russian man, a national hero, a martyr.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Have you ever noticed how frequently the Holy Gospel speaks of the commandment of forgiveness? In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask that the Lord forgive us as we forgive our debtors. And the parable of the unmerciful servant affirms that only he who forgives shall receive forgiveness (Matthew 18:24 and onward). The commandment concerning prayer states that one must not bring a gift to the altar before first reconciling with one’s neighbor (Luke 11:25).

How many times must I forgive my brother?—asks the Apostle Peter—Is it not seven times?

“Not seven times, but seventy times seven,” replies the Lord (Matthew 18:21 and Luke 17:4).

The same commandment of forgiveness is repeated twice by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13).

Why does Holy Scripture so insistently command forgiveness?

Because Christianity is all about forgiveness, and in forgiveness is expressed both the essence and the power of Christianity.

Where there is no forgiveness, there is no Christ. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And who is pure in heart? He whose heart is free from enmity, hatred, and anger—that is, he who forgives. “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God” (1 John 4:16).

Thus, where there is no love but enmity, there is no place for God. He departs from the soul darkened by hatred and anger and leaves it to the one whose kingdom is darkness. “He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes” (1 John 2:11).

We have said that he who does not forgive his brother and does not reconcile with him, according to the Gospel, cannot even cross the threshold of the temple or offer a prayerful sacrifice to the Lord. But that is not all: if a man, harboring anger in his heart, stands in prayer, not only will his prayer be displeasing to God, having come from an impure heart, but he himself will be unable to offer a fervent and sincere prayer to the Lord. “The serpent of hatred, dwelling in the soul, undermines the roots of prayer,” depriving the soul of the strength to ascend to God.

A certain woman once complained to me that she did not know how to pray—her prayer felt cold and lifeless. She was very religious, loved Christ, loved church services, and loved the poor, yet I was surprised by her lack of the gift of prayer.

“Do you have an enemy whom you are unwilling to forgive?” I asked.

“Yes, I do.”

“Until you reconcile with him, your sources of prayer will remain dry.”

By an effort of will, this woman reconciled with her adversary, and the sweetness of prayer became known to her.

And what has been said about prayer, of course, applies to all manifestations of the soul’s life. The lives of the saints emphasize that a person who harbors unforgiveness in his soul cannot be a confessor of the Lord, will not stand firm in martyrdom, and is incapable of performing good deeds. And this is natural: the power of grace, which sustains a person in goodness, is withdrawn from such a soul, leaving it in its own weakness and impotence.

Enmity and hatred, as a kind of “poison of the soul,” corrupt the soul, extinguish the power of goodness within it, weaken it, and render it unfit for the Kingdom of God.

“He that hateth his brother is a murderer,” says the Apostle John (1 John 3:15). One might say that such a person is, at the same time, a murderer of his own soul. This is why the Lord Jesus and the Church—especially on this Forgiveness Sunday—so insistently call upon us to reconcile and forgive.

“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,” says the Lord.

You may say, “But it is difficult to forgive an offender. Let him come to us and ask for forgiveness, then we will be ready to reconcile with him.”

No, not so. That is how the Gentiles act.

A Christian behaves differently. He either does not notice offenses or blames himself for everything. When the Blessed Kyros, of whom St. John Climacus speaks (Prologue, April 12), was insulted, reviled, and beaten, he only smiled gently. “They are testing me,” he said to St. John. “They are trying my patience, not seeking to harm me.” And he responded to insults with kindness.

Other holy ascetics, when offended, were troubled by their own conscience. “Why did I anger him?” they would ask themselves. “If he became angry, then clearly I must have offended him in some way, wounded him, or provoked his wrath. If not intentionally, then perhaps carelessly—I failed to treat him with enough sensitivity and love.” And so they did not merely “forgive” their offender but sincerely believed that they, not he, were at fault.

This is the true logic of a Christian. Suppose you have been wronged without any fault of your own. Even then, you should pity the offender all the more: clearly, he is deprived of God’s mercy, he is destroying himself through enmity, life and hardship have hardened his heart. You should pity him and, sacrificing your pride, hasten to bring peace to his embittered soul.

It is true—sometimes it is difficult to overcome feelings of offense and hostility. But if a Christian remembers that there is no forgiveness for him who does not forgive up to seventy times seven, he will find the strength to overcome this evil feeling.

Here is the lesson that an elder once gave to a certain brother. The brother told the elder that despite all his efforts, he could not forgive his enemy.

“Very well,” said the elder, “let us pray. Repeat after me: ‘Our Father, who art in heaven…’”

The brother repeated the prayer word for word.

“But do not forgive me my debts, as I do not forgive my debtor.”

“How can I pray like that, Abba?”

“But how else will you pray? Will you lie and ask for forgiveness for yourself while you refuse to forgive your debtors?”

The monk was enlightened.

Reflect on this story. You say you cannot forgive? But that means you are closing off the wellspring of God’s mercy for yourself, condemning yourself to ruin…

by Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

source

By Bishop Mikhail Semyonov

Today we commemorate Saint John of the Ladder. He was a holy ascetic, enlightened with a deeply Christian spirit and great wisdom. He was a man who placed the Lord at the very center of his life in all its aspects—for him, “God is the object and goal of all endeavors, for in all actions and movements the true Christian is filled with the awareness that he stands before God, filled with an inner, life-giving reality in Him…” (from The Ladder).

The Church owes to the prayerful spirit of John a great book—The Ladder—filled with Christian understanding. The Ladder is a book essential for every Christian.

It consists of thirty chapters—steps, degrees of a ladder leading to the Kingdom of Heaven—and is truly a ladder of salvation.

Its descriptions of sins, their weight, their difficult conquerability, and their constant serpent-like cunning—how they deceitfully, slowly attach themselves to the soul through a passing thought (at first), which then grows into sinful desire—are full of wisdom and instruction.

Its descriptions of virtues are a call to ascend with great effort, like a man climbing a mountain, clinging with his hands and his whole body to the rocky ledges so that he does not fall. This call is powerful and convincing: “Go forward, do not look back; if you fall, rise up and continue the path…”

The content of The Ladder is profound; the language is vivid, full of imagery and comparisons, and charged with strength. Some of its brief sayings are worthy of long reflection.

Here is a sketch of a few—brief, incomplete, and imperfect.

Abstinence (Fasting) is the mother of health. It is founded upon the thought of death and the end of earthly life.

Just as a hungry man cannot forget bread, so it is impossible to be saved for him who does not remember his departure from this life. But do not place your hope in the idea that “because you fast, you will not fall;” for one who tasted nothing was still cast down from heaven.

Wretched is the one who falls—but more wretched still is the one who causes another to fall.

The fox pretends to sleep—and the demon pretends to be chaste: the one to deceive a bird, the other to destroy a soul.

As birds grown fat cannot fly toward heaven, neither can the man who serves his flesh.

Just as someone suffering from a long illness cannot be healed in an instant, so it is impossible to crush the passions—or even one of them—all at once.

In every passion, learn to know its measure; have a guide who knows the measure, and you will come to know your progress.

He who has conquered the passion of avarice has put an end to his anxieties, but he who is bound by it will never pray with a pure heart.

Do not say that you are storing up for the poor—by two mites the Kingdom of Heaven was purchased.

A proud soul is a slave to fear—it is self-assured, yet trembles at every rustle, even at shadows. He who has become a servant of the Lord fears only his one true Master. But he who does not fear God is often frightened even by his own shadow.

Among those who are learning letters, it is well known which subjects are appropriate for beginners, which for intermediates, and which for teachers. Let us be wise in our understanding, lest after long years of study we find ourselves still lingering over the first lessons. To see an old man attending a primary school—this everyone would regard as shameful.

Just as one who carries perfumes is revealed by their fragrance, even against his will, so too the one who possesses the Spirit of the Lord is known by his words and by his humility.

These teachings of John were not merely words, but the fruit of his own way of life. He was truly steadfast in his journey toward heaven and in the practice of virtue.

“Move slowly,” he would say—and in his own life, he walked with an unwavering, steady, and resolute step.

He who rushes to hasten his progress often stumbles and grows faint—sometimes just steps from the goal. And he sees his companion, who set out alongside him, pass him by, full of hope and strength. The same is true in the life of the soul.

He who trains his spirit in the realm of virtue, rising step by step and strengthening himself with faith, hope, and love for God—he will attain the uppermost step of moral perfection. But he who attempts to leap at once to the highest rung of perfection will soon feel his own powerlessness.

In the keeping of the fast, one must practice reasonable moderation and gradual growth, since the earthly life of a Christian is filled with labor, and the fruitfulness of that labor depends upon the condition of the body.

Victory over faults and sins comes when there is a gradual ascent—from lesser to greater, from what seems insignificant to what is significant. In the fulfillment of duties, there must be maintained composure, steadiness, and a consistent effort from beginning to end.

He who considers the reward before beginning the work, who weighs the final result without starting the task—he shall not enter into the joy known to those who labor.

And does not he stumble who, while walking, keeps his gaze fixed only on the far distance and never looks at the ground beneath his feet?

These teachings, of course, do not advise us to linger, to delay our movement intentionally—no, for he who tarries too long will arrive late and find the door shut by the Bridegroom.

Magnificent are the words of the Ladder’s author when he speaks of prayer—of its persistence and boldness, which lead the soul into ecstasy, and allow it to perceive the light of the divine.

He speaks beautifully of humility of spirit before prayer, and of the mystery of tears of repentance—tears he himself had known through personal experience:

Those who possess within themselves the fountain of these holy tears, within the sanctuary of their heart, come to hate even their own life as the source of their spiritual afflictions. Their body becomes repulsive to them, as an enemy. They rule over the body as over a slave. And just as outward fire consumes and devours straw, so too the spiritual fire of these pure tears burns up and destroys in them all visible and invisible impurity.

He also speaks of another effect of these holy tears:

Those who have received this gift spend every day of their life in spiritual festivity, and their sorrow contains within it an incomprehensible consolation and joy, just as wax holds within itself the honey.

Still more vivid are John’s words about the final stages of self-perfection.

After the long path—of forgiving humility, of chastity, of the labor of restraining the unruly tongue, of fasting and prayer—a person ascends the heights of love.

And love, gentle and peaceful, meets the ascetic; love which is greater than faith and hope.

It is a wondrous, poetic vision. Again we say: The Ladder should be our constant companion, our bedside book.

Brethren! We now stand before the ladder that leads to heaven. And the fast is itself a ladder. All of life is a ladder. And see how various are the attitudes of Christians toward this “ladder.”

Here are some who look up at the ladder and say, “It is too high—we shall never reach it,” and they quietly remain in the dust of the earth. They do not begin the fast, nor do they begin the struggle of Christian life…

Then there are others: they begin to ascend the ladder, but are so burdened with the heavy load of worldly cares, of love for the world, of the pursuit of wealth, of honor, and so forth, that they are unable to go on. The heavy burden pulls them down to the earth, and they fall off one of the lower steps.

Then there is a third group: these have reached halfway and stopped… “Enough… We are not saints; we cannot go to the top. What we have done is sufficient.”

These are the spiritually dead. Whoever stops on the path and no longer moves forward is a son of perdition: he is neither cold nor hot, and the Lord shall spew him out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16).

There are also those who climb high but fall from the steps nearest the top.

These are they who walk with great zeal for God, but without the gentle spirit of humility. At such heights, their heads grow dizzy. They are not bound to the Lord Christ with the humble cord of love, as mountain travelers bind themselves to their guide with a rope in the snow-covered peaks. They climb the ladder on the legs of pride and self-exaltation—

—and fall into the dark abyss.

Oh, if only we would make the Ladder of Saint John our path! Then we would reach the end. And we would enter the bridal chamber of the Lord, into the glory of the Resurrection through Him.

1916

source

(Printing House of the I. D. Sytin Partnership, Pyatnitskaya Street, own house. Moscow, 1907)

I. The First Stage

The title of the article may seem pretentious. It recalls Herr’s pamphlet How I Became a Social Democrat. We confess: we deliberately repeated the title of the German Christian socialist who became a social democrat, believing that we have more right to it than Herr himself. Herr did not “become” a social democrat; he simply joined the party, disillusioned with Christian (German) socialism. A Russian priest truly “becomes” one—that is, through a complex evolution, a kind of via dolorosa of doubts and torments, destroying old gods, sometimes deeply fused with the heart, he arrives at a new social ideal. And my path is not mine alone, but generally that of a priest—the path any Russian priest follows, raised on the Gospel, Dostoevsky, and life.

I will begin with a tiny memory from distant childhood.

A noisy, large cloth factory… So much fire. Unbearably loud: huge wheels clatter. The terrifying steel arms of machines flash by. It’s eerie. And amid this noise wander pitiful gray, dust-covered little figures of child sweepers. Weary, exhausted, and above all, pathetically small.

This was long ago, 25 years back, but the impression is vivid and bright. What struck me was precisely this: the insignificance of man, his powerlessness before the machine—terrifying, enormous, mercilessly strong.

I do not wish to regale readers with anecdotes on the theme of “how I became virtuous.” I simply point to a vivid fact that left the first unease in my soul, from which it could not free itself for whole decades afterward. I had accidentally glimpsed the kingdom of Moloch, and it immediately crushed me with its blasphemous might and triumphant power, yet somewhere it left the seed of a painful thought: still, this should not be… It can be otherwise. There is no need to confess what life did with this chance childhood unease. The evolution, growth, and decline of a “private” soul—mine or anyone else’s—are of no interest to anyone: only the evolution of a priest as a priest can hold attention.

Thus, I pass over an entire twenty years… Life thrust me into the very center of diverse currents, hurled me into Petersburg. I was called here, among other things, to fight neo-Christianity—that is, Merezhkovsky, Rozanov, and others. I was to defend the Church, its truth (not the living, earthly truth, which even I forgot at the time, but the dogmatic, philosophical one). And I did so sincerely and without falsehood, because the center of my faith, my sole lifeline, was (and is) the image of Christ, crucified for the world’s God… I spoke and wrote hurriedly and avidly, hastening to cry out: “Wait before condemning our truth—you do not know it. Come closer…”

Perhaps at times I succeeded in defending my truth: I gave it both brain and soul. But I myself always remained inwardly defeated by my audience, even when it was silent. A passing accusation would be flung, and one could not shake it off for days and weeks.

“You are lying,” they write from Saratov on behalf of an entire party in a lithographed leaflet, “it is not Christ you defend, but the order of things. One cannot live in your Church with your Christianity. So much slavish falsehood: the Church’s persecution of sectarians and of freedom of faith in general, the Church’s approval of war, even more—of executions, the approval of every existing ‘fact,’ even serfdom, because it is a fact; of the existing popular and social morality—again because it exists, because it is a fact… We see that the Church is a tool in the service of the ‘existing,’ whereas its task is to judge from the height of ‘eternity,’ from the height of the Gospel… And we cannot accept it… you… your Christ. Is it not for this that your repainted, renewed dogmatic truth is thrust forward—to lull us, to make us forget the living untruth and the fact that you are silent about it and dare not speak of it? You want to hypnotize us with dogma…”

“Leave off,” writes the naive, semi-literate but clever and plain-spoken merchant S-v from Samara (known for his open letter to Metropolitan Antony), “you are exactly like a shop clerk… Extolling your Church like goods you are selling off. And who knows, perhaps you really do not see that the goods are water-damaged, and above all, you do not see the mark of the Antichrist upon them… Faith is faith, and you speak well of it, but look— this faith is needed so that God may be set as a watchman over the property of the rich. You have given everything of God’s to Caesar for service, turned God into a watchman, remade the Gospel so that it, too, like the Code of Punishments, threatens only slaves who do not obey their masters, and comforts the robbed: endure, “there” you will receive tenfold.”

I felt that there was a terrifying amount of truth here. How could I deny it, when Iriney Orlovsky in a sermon proved that the poor are needed precisely so that the picture of life may be aesthetically richer? Not all flowers in the meadow are red and red; blue and purple are needed too. Not everyone can be sated and rich—it would be ugly and meager, and would pall (evidently, on the sated).

And this frank cynicism was no rarity. How many efforts, indeed, do we make in praising “poverty” for the sake of the rich’s peace of mind. Understandably, alongside such sermons, the letters from Saratov and Samara burned like coals. The necessity was felt to first free the truth of the Gospel from its slavish servile role. It was felt that there would be no faith in us or in Christ as long as our word and thought remained in service—yes, and above all, as long as that very thought was inwardly, by its very psychology, rotten, depraved, slavish.

The words of Samarin came to mind—a kind of pillar of Orthodox consciousness: “When the existing order of things, for example, even serfdom, is placed entirely under the direct protection of faith; when it is, so to speak, imposed upon her to approve, bless, and sanctify everything that exists at the present moment but did not exist yesterday and may not exist tomorrow, then naturally all the most reasonable needs unsatisfied by the present, all the most peaceful hopes for the better, finally, faith itself in the people’s future—all this becomes accustomed to viewing Christianity as a barrier that must sooner or later be stepped over, and little by little inclines toward falling away from Christ and the Church.”

They came to mind—oh, how they came to mind. The circumstances were already different from two or three years ago. Back then, I myself quoted these “words of Samarin” as self-justification: the state, they say, uses the Church for its own purposes and discredits it; we do not want this; we ourselves are burdened by the alliance as by a curse… Therefore, distrust toward us is unlawful and unfounded.

Thus could speak a priest with a “troubled” conscience a year ago. Thus spoke I. Now the priests of God Most High have shown that the alliance—their slavish service to one Caesar instead of God—does not seem a “curse” to them. An entire army of Moloch’s slaves, mistakenly standing near Christ’s altar, displayed such zeal in their blasphemous struggle against truth that it became frightening for the very integrity of Christianity. Fear was born that (as in Rozanov’s Anxious Night) the last slaves would leave the dishonored temple crying: “Out of this filth, meek in appearance, bloody within. Here the mystery of iniquity has begun to work.”

And Samarin’s thought arose before consciousness in a new, sharply accusatory form—visions of Lamennais. Seven purple-robed figures in a hall hung with black. The fifth, rising, approached the throne of bones with a wavering gait and placed his foot on the fallen crucifix. He took a skull filled with blood, drank from it, and said to his comrades: “You have thought much and well to destroy freedom. Your means are effective and energetic, but they are insufficient. Turn people into animals—that is good; strike them with fear of inexorable justice, cruel executions; otherwise, sooner or later they will tear you to pieces. The executioner must be the first minister to a good prince.”

And beside him, this “fifth,” the seventh, having drunk like the others from a human skull, spoke thus while standing on the crucifix: “There is no more Christ; it is war not for life but for death, eternal war between Him and us. But how to distract the peoples from Him? Listen! We must buy Christ’s priests with wealth, honors, power. And they will command the people, in Christ’s name, to submit to us in everything, whatever we do, whatever we order. And the people will believe them, entrust them with their conscience, and our power will be stronger than ever before.”

And they did it, and they bribed… A heavy and tormenting darkness descended… Precisely a heavy and tormenting darkness.

Is it surprising that I took fright at this threatening gloom and wanted to cry out to my comrades: “Save yourselves! Your proximity to the pagan and evil principle of slave-owning power is ruinous, especially now…” And as a result of this call, a break had to appear—not hidden or masked—with former forms of state views.

It is often said that for a priest, apparently, the forms of power and so on should be indifferent. Perhaps so. Very possibly. In any case, this is not important for us now. The fact is that the connection with past power corrupted, and it had to be severed as decisively and clearly as possible. This is a stage that every priest who does not wish to trade in Christ for the sake of power must necessarily pass through and will inevitably pass through. And thus the break with power became my first stage.

However, this did not resolve the question. In what form, then, should Christianity, liberated from slavery, reveal itself in its constructions of this “earthly, social life”? Finding a living earthly program was very difficult. From the past remained hard-to-erase stains of slavery. Consciousness turned out to be infected with the “leprosy of the ages.” And on bad soil, at first only false, compromise forms could take root. The “spirit of compromise,” the satan of our age (in Ibsen’s expression), triumphed in the person of Dostoevsky and the German socialists. The half-truth of my brochure Cursed Questions and Christianity was born.

II. In the Slavery of Compromise

Dostoevsky was, is, and probably will long remain the “evil genius” of Christian thought. In his work, alongside the seeds of “revelation,” are laid elements of a powerful narcotic poison, energetically decomposing above all the idea of Christian social order.

At the crossroads, in search of an answer to how to understand the world and reconcile with its untruth, my thought could not fail to encounter Dostoevsky on its path.

He had traveled the same road—first of sorrowful bewilderment, then of mortal horror before life, before “Baal reigning in our world of usurers”—the same road that our entire generation of “sick Christians” experiences, and I naturally met him at one crossroads.

Read two or three pages of Summer Impressions of Winter Impressions. One chapter is even called “Baal,” and it is filled with the impression of sorrowful horror at the desecration of man in the “kingdom of machines” laboring not for the worker but for the usurer. A city boundless as the sea— the screech and howl of machines. The poisoned Thames. The glittering crystal palace of the exhibition. Something apocalyptically triumphant, great, beautiful. This is a temple… Yes, of Baal. Wealth, luxury, mirrors, and gold. And against this background—a crushed and pitiful man.

The witches’ sabbath of runaway negroes—workers who, in drunkenness and debauchery, dull, joyless, heavy, and silent, give away on Saturday what they earned through a week of toil and cursing. Women and even girls selling themselves in Haymarket… All the pus of the shameful sediment of life’s order. Mothers who bring out their daughters for sale. All these are sacrifices to Baal. This drunkenness, debauchery, loss of consciousness, in which there is “something systematic, ostentatious, encouraged,” for Dostoevsky are “souls laid at the foundation of the accursed tower of Baal.” “Baal reigns and does not even demand obedience, because he is convinced of it. The poverty, suffering, murmuring, and stupefaction of the masses do not trouble him in the least.” “And for the pariahs of his kingdom, the prophecy will not come true for a long time. They will not be given palm branches and white robes for a long time, and for a long time yet they will cry out to the throne of the Most High: ‘How long, O Lord?’”

And alongside the pictures of adult slavery—especially for me—sickening and comprehensible pictures of children’s suffering. “I remember once, in the crowd,” Dostoevsky relates, “I saw a little girl, no more than six years old, all in rags, dirty, barefoot, emaciated, and beaten: her body, showing through the rags, was covered in bruises. She walked as if not remembering herself, not hurrying anywhere, God knows why staggering in the crowd; perhaps she was hungry… But what struck me most was that she walked with such grief on her face, such hopeless despair, that to see this tiny creature already bearing so much curse and despair was somehow unnatural and terribly painful. She kept shaking her disheveled little head from side to side, as if reasoning about something, spreading her tiny hands apart, gesticulating with them, and then suddenly clapping them together and pressing them to her bare little breast.” And this again was a morning sacrifice to the same god of evil capital.

Such pictures, such a view of the world, were too comprehensible to me for me not to accept it. Dostoevsky’s conclusion was also comprehensible: “Baal must be destroyed.”

Yes… yes… But how?

As is known, Dostoevsky answered this question with a sharp critique of socialism, in place of which he proposed his own “Russian socialism”—the socialism of Vlas, collecting alms for churches.

Dostoevsky’s Russian socialism was a slavish, compromise, beggarly product of a soul corrupted and crushed to dust by hard labor, but Dostoevsky’s language, the narcotic and hypnotic effect of his images illuminated by beautiful pain—his “dissolute heroes” (Zosima, Alyosha)—masked the slavish motives and sources of the system.

“Russian socialism” is a system that should elevate everyone to the moral level of the Church as a spiritual brotherhood, while preserving the external inequality of social positions; it “demands the spiritualization of the entire state and social order through the embodiment in it of the truth and life of Christ.”

“Not in institutions, not in ‘phalansteries’ and all sorts of social anthills, but in active love, in the loving compassion of Zosima, Alyosha—there is salvation. In the resolve to do everything for the sake of active love.”

Our life is bad because we ourselves are bad. “By becoming better ourselves, we will correct the environment and make it better. After all, this is the only way to correct it.”

Forget about your “rights,” forget that the world can be remade at once by “reforms.” Heal souls…

All these thoughts, set forth here concisely and drably, in the brilliant setting of Dostoevsky’s hysterical pictures and images steeped in suffering, seemed bright and convincing. Only one question arose: but must we really forget about all those girls selling themselves in Haymarket, about the horrors of their situation? Is nothing to be done with the very “fact” of sale? Can the witches’ sabbath of “runaway negroes” not be ended and a holiday obtained for them?

To agree entirely with the solution that we must wait, that now we can and should save only that one girl, those separate units encountered on the road, was unwilling… Against this rebelled the remnants of social conscience, which the Antichrist’s preaching of pity only for one’s neighbor could not obscure.

And here the Christian socialists helped Dostoevsky—those who approached him so closely in the basic idea of preaching active love. They “want to bring Christ into the kingdom of machines,” as Naumann declares—that is, they want precisely what I wanted.

“To drive poverty out of the world is our task. To fulfill this task, God has given us the machine. He has given billions of iron slaves, the ability to produce countless products. He said: ‘In it (the machine), My children, I give you the means to destroy want. Take the machine and illuminate the earth with it, take it and build a new age with it!’ God gave cloth factories so that no one would lack clothing, and transport ships so that no one would go hungry…”

And I wanted the same—to make the machine work for the toilers. Precisely. Nothing more need be desired: this was what I needed. A practical supplement to Dostoevsky.

And alongside this, their program—so broad, democratic: workers’ insurance, the fight to shorten the working day, prohibition of child labor, regulation of women’s labor…

I found myself captivated: I decided that the best expression of Christian consciousness would be precisely the union of Dostoevsky with Naumann’s Christian socialism, that of the Americans. And I became a proselyte and, perhaps, an apostle of compromise.

At one of the meetings at Fr. Grigory Petrov’s, S. N. Bulgakov defended his paper “Christian Politics,” in which he proposed, in the name of Christianity, to organize “unions of Christian politics” to fight against a social order hostile to freedom and, consequently, to the spiritual personality. Sergei Nikolaevich proposed an organization of a sort of political party, like the Western Christian socialist ones, only on the basis of genuine socialism, not the card-sharper’s socialism of Stöcker.

I spoke out as a strong opponent of the proposed Christian political organization. In my story In the City, in its first part, there is this dialogue:

“Fr. Peter (to the intellectual):

— If we speak of the Church’s role in life, then its ‘politics’ generally coincides with the politics of those who are for truth… for the rights of the lesser… We can join hands with those who fight for the rights of the offended, for the unification of the weak against the untruth of the strong.

Fr. Nikolai: — Rights?.. No…

Pale, trembling as if in hysterics. Face suffering, sick…

— Rights… No… no… There will be none. God forbid. This is Judas’s betrayal. This is the second temptation. Turn stones into bread… In your program there is no, no Christ, crucified Christ, God; if ever I come to the thought that there was no Christ, that His cause is impossible here, then I will accept this ‘Christian politics.’ Perhaps in a week, in two, but only then, when Christ dies. The Church cannot be in alliance with a group that says to the offended: ‘Take your right,’ because there are no rights in the Church, though it will say: ‘A curse on the oppressors.’ The Church can stand only for struggle, as the conscience of humanity—its judge. We can call only to such deeds as we can preach with the Chalice of the Lord’s Blood in our hands, to arrange such unions and organizations where there are no rights and there is only self-sacrifice, though we think that this will arrange life richer than socialism.”

Fr. Nikolai of these lines is me in my objections at that time to Fr. Petrov and S. Bulgakov.

Naturally, on the basis of this view, I considered possible only all sorts of church “factories of happiness,” like parish brotherhoods, Christian pastoral mediation between labor and capital, church organization of apartments for the poor, and so on and so forth. The most I would agree to were Naumann’s half-measures, stipulating, like hypocrites, that Christ attached no value to external forms, placing the essence of all world history in the development of individual souls.

I did not know then that in a week or two, precisely for the sake of faith in Christ, I would have to renounce my false point of view.

III. Quarrel with Dostoevsky and the German Christian Socialists

It took only a small push for the nightmarish influence of the “cruel talent” and the compliant Christians (Naumann, Stöcker, and others) to collapse.

This push came from a chance passage in Dostoevsky. If you remember, objecting to Gradovsky against his thought that institutions must be improved, not only personalities, that the Christian perfection of Korobochka would not abolish serfdom, Dostoevsky answered with positively wild, terrible words: “One must understand Christianity,” he writes to Gradovsky: “if Korobochka were a Christian, there would be no serfdom at all on her estate, despite the fact that all the serf documents remained in her chest. And what business is it of Christian Korobochka whether her peasants are serfs or not. She is their mother… etc.”

This was an illustration of the words about spiritual brotherhood while preserving social inequality. For me, these lines were a revelation. What? The fact that “the serf documents are in the chest” is indifferent? Korobochka is a mother…

No, such a mother is not needed. Precisely, one must understand Christianity, and that means understanding that in life’s relations, the most terrible and sinful thing is not that, using the documents and deeds, a person is hunted down with dogs, but the very “documents” on souls. And if the documents lie in the chest, the whole shame remains intact and untouched.

That is the essence of Christianity, as we have partly already said in Stolichnaya Pochta, that it demands condemnation not only of the facts of sin and violence, but above all demands the condemnation and negation of violence and evil in those forms where evil has become fixed, frozen, crystallized, where the leprosy and syphilis of the soul have embodied themselves in the form of general sin—that is, to condemn, as one’s own sin, every prison window and every light in a house of shame…

Christ above all condemned the old morality and the old social order as the quintessence of former slavery, and only by condemning the social order, serf deeds, usury, and property could He “firmly hope to eradicate evil” in every individual soul.

Korobochka a mother? God forbid—first of all, one must renounce the mother-Korobochka.

But then the question arose: how to regard the entire system built on such an anti-Christian foundation? Only negatively. I understood that the whole preaching of Zosima’s pity or Korobochka’s “motherhood” was not a mistake but a deception. Pity of Zosima’s type, so hostile to Christ’s type of loving hatred toward the world’s evil, was invented by self-interested people.

There is nothing more profitable for human insignificance than pity. It is profitable for the individual because, as I have already said in more detail elsewhere (Stolichnaya Pochta), a person hides in it from the torment of seeing the suffering and degradation of the whole world. But it is also profitable for egoistic bourgeois self-preservation: pity demands only concessions, charity, and thus simultaneously gives the bourgeois the “sweet joy of helping one’s neighbor” and saves him from greater sacrifices. Finally, charity, pity, and the like demand, by their very nature, gratitude and patience as light.

Clearly, the preaching of Korobochka’s motherhood is a criminal involvement in a bad bargain and nothing more. Hence, I decided, Christianity must above all fight against ideas that decompose Christianity, against falsifications—that is, against ideas of charitable pity, which Christ condemns as a kind of counterfeit.

In the play Two Ideas (preparing for publication), a slave girl of a German feudal lord tears down a crucifix in the square and, in a mad ecstasy, hurls this accusation at Christians:

“I tore it down… Yes, I tore it down… You don’t need Him… I don’t want you to dishonor His wounds with your lips. Blasphemers, crucifiers!.. He wanted you, like Him, to suffer the shame and evil of the world. But with your own hands you multiply His wounds and those of His world, to find your happiness in them. And you have remade His torments into sweet wine for voluptuaries. You have covered the whole world with wounds, killing both bodies and souls, only to obtain and give others the joy of ‘enduring for the Lord.’ You don’t need Him…

I understood… I was there when He was dying, and I saw… And I wanted to throw myself at His feet, to kiss them, and suddenly I saw that He shuddered and drew back. And I understood: He was afraid. He feared that I, drunk with the happiness of kissing Him, pitying, would not see the torments of the poisoned world, onto which He had poured new rivers of pure blood to frighten the world with them.

Yes, yes. He shed it to wash away the leprosy from the world. You, in His name, multiply and grow this leprosy. And on holidays you approach Christ’s cross to take intoxication in voluptuous pity, and on weekdays you offer the same cross for your slaves to kiss, so that around His sufferings they may find consolation in patience, not rebel, and gratefully kiss your hands that beat them. You saved yourselves, your dinners, and made Him the advocate of your slave-owning, and on holidays you replace dancers and harlots with Him for variety…

A watchman-God, a God for rest and new ‘drunken’ sensations—is not needed…”

These lines were written on the day when, by chance, Dostoevsky’s article about the mother-Korobochka and the words of Ivan Karamazov about the saint who warmed lepers with his breath came to hand at the same time. And I liquidated Dostoevsky, recognizing his preaching of pity, of drunken compassion-self-sacrifice, as simply a bourgeois counterfeit of Christianity, in which Christ exists to give the rich the joy of “charity” and to restrain rebellion with the preaching that “suffering is great happiness.”

But once the revision began, it was easier to deal with his continuers.

The program of the Christian socialists could please only at first glance. Care for workers, their families, the promise to think only of the hungry—this was good, but it was a lie. Look closer at such humanitarian constructions of all bourgeois groups, and you will notice the falsification.

“On property,” writes Naumann, “we will look as Christ looked on it. Jesus, for ethical reasons, was a radical opponent of the accumulation of capital: ‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.’ The heart that desires to acquire eternal bliss must not be attached to property. Money must not be the measure of people. Jesus is not a communist; He has no intention of excommunicating Galilean fishermen from their boats and houses. He only denies the excess of property. The Christian concept of property must of itself replace the Roman one. Jesus wants to reduce want, grief, crime. This is the constant earthly goal of Christianity. There must be no helpless poverty, no unemployment, but we must go forward while adhering to the existing: Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. He gives to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

What do all these speeches represent if not deception?

Does it not turn out that the Christian socialists want to use Christianity as a shield of faith before the face of the whole world and, under the shadow of this shield, prepare a place for resisting reaction; does it not turn out that they think only of fundamentally discrediting socialism and, in place of its bright slogans, putting forward their own proposals, which in the end arrange only the affairs of reactionary forces?

The Christianity of Christ cannot be so half-hearted. It will always be direct and bold.

Mammon has conquered the earth. Not only the hearts and thoughts of people, but also their relations. All inventions, discoveries in the field of technology—he, and he alone, has appropriated to himself. What should have freed humanity from the cruel power of physical laws and made it master of nature, in Mammon’s hands has turned into a terrible instrument of torture, become a scourge under whose blows the defenseless masses writhe like fish. The higher culture rises, the deeper the majority of people fall into the abyss. The more glorious the progress, the more majestic the development, the more terrible the fate of those by whose labor progress and development are realized. The closer a person considers himself to the goal of his aspirations, the more terribly he is deceived. In our days, the poor in big cities are coarser, more embittered, more unhappy than the savages of the forests.

To crush Mammon, one must attack him in the sphere of his powerful relations of modernity. Whoever wants to disarm an enemy must deprive him of food. For Mammon to fall, the principle of private property must be rejected as falsehood and usury.

I had to become a socialist.

As strange as it may seem, I declared my socialist confession a year ago, in an article in Tserkovnye Vedomosti, written at the request of the editorial board of the official Synodal organ.

The last year—1906—I worked on the question of child labor, women’s labor, the situation of the poor in the capital. Obviously, such a year was bound to sharpen my enmity toward the “predatory-usurious.”

At a glass factory in Simbirsk Governorate, I saw how children of 12–13 years old rush about all winter night amid a “beautiful hell,” near unbearable heat, and every quarter hour are “cooled”—a technical term—in an ice hole.

I saw women at a white lead factory with corpse-like, dark-green faces, destroyed gums, trembling limbs. I saw their children, born only to die horribly the next day, the next month after birth, in convulsions of lead poisoning. Their fathers, who cannot drink like people because of constant convulsions and lap like dogs.

Life placed me face to face with the horrors of the life of St. Petersburg’s poor, there where “seven-year-olds are depraved and thieves.”

Clearly, there could be no hesitation in choosing, from a Christian point of view, between two worldviews—socialist and bourgeois. And so, in the name of Christ, I had to become a socialist, but why did I become precisely a people’s socialist?

IV. Why a People’s Socialist, and Not a Social Democrat or a Socialist-Revolutionary?

Why precisely a people’s socialist, and not a social democrat or a socialist-revolutionary? The reasons are clear. My worldview was born on the soil of expanding the concept of personality, but not on the soil of its negation.

I rejected the old concept of personality and its duties. In Korolenko, under whose enchanting influence I had been since childhood, there is a legend about the angel of ignorance. This angel, by God’s will, lived on earth, sowing smiles, joy, and happiness. But one day, blood fell upon his bright garments—the blood of a man to whom he, in ignorance, had himself led the murderers… And then the joy in the angel’s eyes dimmed, and instead of “joyful ignorance,” his soul accepted the torment of “sorrowful knowledge.”

For me, Korolenko’s angel has always been a symbol of humanity, in which “social conscience” has awakened in place of personal conscience, revealing the awareness that it is not enough to pour oil and wine on the wounds of one crushed by the wheel of life without trying to stop the “evil course” of the wheel itself.

This thought, I say, was always with me: now it has clothed itself in definite and vivid forms.

I understand personality as an indivisible part of society, fused with it inseparably, “chemically.” The development of personality outside of, separately from, the improvement of the entire complex into which it enters as a part is impossible.

Personality cannot distinguish between its own “wounds” and social wounds. Nevsky Prospect, prison, slavery—all this is the shame of every personality; it lies as a stain on each not only dishonoring but also decomposing, and one can never become personally free as long as the very concept of unfreedom exists, as long as there is prison, violence, “deeds of sale on a person.”

The phrase of the slave Epictetus—“a slave even in the quarries can be free”—is a depraved slavish phrase, because the unfreedom of others and even the “slave-owning of masters,” their shame, equally destroy my freedom and personality.

Human personality is part of the street, part of the entire social order. A girl on Nevsky sells her body… Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane betrays his Lord… My personality, its freedom, is not only morally interested in both facts, but is entirely “there,” on Nevsky, in Gethsemane. Accursed kisses on the girl’s cheeks. The accursed kiss on the Lord’s cheeks.

I must feel all the falsehood and vileness of the accursed kiss on my own lips (I kiss) and on my own cheeks (I am betrayed), and if so, the conclusion: I will become free and pure only when Nevsky itself with its selling souls ceases to exist, when Pilate’s judgment itself becomes impossible. In short, the liberation of man is possible only with the liberation of the entire life of all, and evil can and must be hated above all not in man, but in its “crystallizations” (regime, prison, deeds of sale, and serf documents).

To realize oneself as a human being means to realize oneself as a god… on Golgotha.

Are you human? You are god. The whole world is yours, your creation, your thing, your thought, the blood or ichor of your spirit. The design on your teapot is yours, the red lanterns on evil streets are yours… Prison windows are yours. All the souls around you, leprous and crippled, are yours… And you must experience the vileness of all this “yours.” Tear from yourself—and thus from the world—all the pus-stained garments. With the soul’s cry, its terrible pain, shake off from it and from the world the blood, shame, sin…

Every soul must bear the entire world, the evil world, like an entirely leprous body.

This is terrible, but this is Christ’s social order—the one that will destroy streets of slaves, slavery, violence, poverty. Here is the apotheosis of “sociality.”

But obviously, such a view, while advancing the principle of sociality, at the same time represents a kind of cult of personality. The negation of personality seemed to me and always will seem criminal. The social structure itself, it seems, can be based only on the “cult of personality.”

Man is divine, his future boundless. And this future will be built by personalities.

Understandably, under these conditions, I could not accept social democracy with its teaching that negates man as a personality. I fully agreed that personality is the “foam” of existing social conditions, the result of the environment. This did not oblige me to accept the dogma of the insignificance of personality. For me, personality is the synthesis of separate forces scattered as sparks in the mass, but the synthesis itself is a “new fact” and a new historical factor.

In the process of uniting scattered sparks into the “foam” of personality, a miracle occurs: from the elements emerges more than what seems given in them.

And I could not abandon the thought that personality, created by the synthesis of the moment’s mood, cannot thrust itself into history as a “biblical stone” destroying kingdoms. After all, personality is divine, and only its cult, its growth, can promise a rich, colorful, strong social order.

If you will, in the name of sociality and social good, I returned to the idea of personal perfection. The expansion of personality seemed to me a necessary condition for social arrangement on principles broader than simple satiety.

—“Do you believe in God and the soul, Nina?” asks the leader of the free in our as-yet-unwritten play Masters and Slaves.

—“No.”

—“Nor do I. But it seems we still need to love God… Yes, it’s all the same, Nina… All the same, I don’t believe. It is necessary to love… Not that god invented by people to stand watch over their samovars, fur coats, and wives. No, the real God. The One Who is in us. We need to love ourselves… You know what our misfortune is… We don’t love ourselves and therefore cannot be free and bring freedom into life… We didn’t understand Christ. Love your neighbor as yourself… As yourself. But Christians—and we with them… We with you?.. We decided that we need to and can love our neighbor more than ourselves. But that’s a lie, Nina, a lie… Whoever doesn’t love himself, hasn’t found himself—cannot love his neighbor, will bring him not what he needs. Better to say: not all that he needs. How can he bring “full” genuine, human freedom?

Are we free, do we acutely feel every desecration of freedom as a desecration of our own freedom? A thousand people died of hunger—that’s terrible. But a girl wanders Nevsky—that’s less terrible? So is that the thought of a free person, for whom the enslavement of the soul, the slavery of body and spirit, is the most terrible of all? People are shot by the hundreds—that’s shameful, terrible, but the fact that people don’t feel nervous convulsions when a lackey is given, tossed “a tip.” That’s not terrible?

No, a person must see himself, love himself and hate himself and say: man—that sounds shameful… Vile. But man is god. He can and must someday put Jupiter in Uranus’s place and Uranus in Jupiter’s. And we need to resurrect the great dead man, so that into the future triumph does not pass the man-louse.

We will fight for the liberation of the body, for the destruction of all slavery—but in the name of “man,” his spirit… In the name of the colors of the future spirit. In the name of future great souls…

In this monologue, excluding its, admittedly, dubious atheism, was and is my “credo.” But where in the socialist parties could I find an echo? Only among the people’s socialists. With the same Korolenko and his Mikeshin, peering inquisitively into the starry sky. Around him and his angel of sorrowful knowledge with a broad and aching social conscience, and his “murderer” with a tormentingly anxious conscience that punishes him even for killing a robber, could I find “my peace.”

On the party’s banner, alongside the old “Freedom for each. Land and machine—to the worker,” is placed one more word: “In the name of man.” Man is my “credo.”

And, of course, becoming a people’s socialist, I do not cease to be a Christian and a Christian socialist, only not in the image of Stöcker or Naumann.

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

“O Lord and Master of my life, drive away from me the spirit of despondency, negligence, avarice, and idle talk…”

There is hardly a prayer (after the Lord’s Prayer) that moves the soul more than the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim.

But how strange, it seems, are its petitions. To ask deliverance from the spirit of despondency and idle talk — are these really the gravest and most dangerous of the passions? What about hatred, greed, and the like?

Yes, St. Ephraim in his prayer pointed out — or rather, gathered together — precisely those things that pose the greatest danger to the soul and to its salvation.

St. Ephraim begins his prayer by asking to be delivered from the spirit of despondency. For despondency is the very first cause that can prevent one from beginning the Lord’s work. Some do not labor for the Lord because they are distracted by the vanity of the world; others — because the demon has instilled in them a spirit of despair, of despondency. Their hands fall limp at the work of the Lord. It seems to them that they are powerless, incapable. Evil and sin — both outside of them and within — appear to them as insurmountable.

A foreign writer who passed away just recently wrote a short story called The Head of Medusa. It offers a good description of those who, through a careless fascination with the world, become idle, and of those possessed by a spirit of despondency.

In ancient times (according to Greek legend), there lived the Gorgon Medusa. Upon her head were not hair, but snakes — and anyone who looked upon her was turned to stone by her dreadful gaze. Only Perseus was able to defeat the Gorgon, for he looked not directly at her, but at her reflection in the bright surface of his shield…

At times, a person finds the terrible eyes of Medusa fixed upon him. Medusa is a symbol of all the evil that fills the world, and of the sin that enslaves the soul.

People respond to this vision of evil — in which, according to the Apostle, the world lies — in different ways. Some try to shield themselves from the face of the Gorgon with the vanities of the world, by chasing after its goods and glittering honors.

They give no thought to the work of God, to the struggle with external evil and the sin within the soul — they do not see the face of the Gorgon. Others do see it, but lacking hope in God, the Conqueror of all evil, they become frightened by both their own sin and the evil of the world — and they too let their hands fall.

Remember those who sit weeping at the foot of the ladder, never even attempting to climb the first step.

It is from this destructive spirit of despondent inaction that we pray to be delivered in the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian. We pray that God may instill in us hope in His almighty help — so that evil and sin may appear to us, as in the shield of Perseus, dreadful, yes, but conquerable — calling us to do battle with them.

Yet here also is a prayer for deliverance from the spirit of idle talk. But idle talk — is that really such a grave sin, that it should be placed at the beginning of our prayer?

No, not quite.

There is a story told about a certain holy elder — Abba Pambo of Nitria. This servant of God was illiterate and would go to one of the brethren to be taught. They were reading the Psalter. And soon after beginning his “education,” something happened. The two elders opened the holy book and began to read… They opened to Psalm 38 (39 in the Hebrew):

“I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.”

Pambo interrupted the reading and silently returned to his cell. Six months later, his teacher met him and asked, “Why have you not come to me for so long?” — Pambo replied, “I have not yet learned (meaning, of course, in practice) the words of David: I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.” And for a full nineteen years, he “studied” those words — in which he saw the beginning of wisdom.

And indeed — is idle talk really such a trifle?

In mountainous regions, when travelers are ascending to high peaks, guides forbid them to speak even a word. The reason is that a single word can trigger a terrible disturbance in the air, which may in turn cause entire avalanches of snow to collapse upon the travelers. Idle words endanger life.

But does not idle talk in the “valleys” pose the same danger — not to the body, but to the soul? A single word can cause great and irreversible harm. Idle gossip has often poisoned a human soul with its venom — even leading to murder.

How many times has an idle word surrounded an innocent person with the dark fog of false accusations, shattered his life, and utterly destroyed the peace and happiness of a family? And so on, and so forth.

That is why, at the dreadful Judgment of Christ, we shall have to answer for every idle word.

But beyond this — even if your idle talk harms no one else — it does irreparable harm to your own self. It keeps you from gathering your thoughts, from collecting your soul. Idle chatter robs you of those precious moments when you might have been alone with your soul and with God — and grown fearful of the false and sinful paths upon which you walk.

II.

“But the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love bestow upon me, Thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother…”

We have already spoken of the spirit of patience in our conversation about the ladder to heaven. I said: I will watch my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. Let us not repeat ourselves here.

Patience is, above all, perseverance — steadfastness in the ways of righteousness… I slip, I fall — I, a sinner. I get up, I go on… I fall again, and again I rise. Having fallen, I do not remain in the mud forever. I do not make peace with sin.

This is the essence of patience…

Patience cultivates the gift of chastity, and at the same time is cultivated by it. Chastity — in Greek, sōphrosynē — is not chastity in our narrow, modern sense. It is not merely the bodily purity preserved from defilement by fornication. Chastity is the health of the spirit in the broadest sense. It is the safeguarding of the soul, its wholeness, from the rust of sin — through a special watchfulness, a special care of the conscience.

Have you ever noticed how a child protects a new garment on the first day of wearing it? The child, in his innocence, is completely on guard… Every little spot causes pain, feels like a misfortune.

In the same way should the soul relate to sin. A sensitive soul should respond to every stain with acute pain, should recoil at the touch of sin — like the eyelid, which instinctively shuts when a flame is brought near the eye. This vigilance of the soul, this highly developed power of resistance to sin — this is chastity.

But it is clear that one cannot attain chastity without humility. The spirit of humility — this is the same as poverty of spirit. A person who is satisfied with himself, who does not consider himself spiritually naked, “poor,” cannot seek the healing of his soul.

The healthy man — or rather, the one who mistakenly believes himself to be healthy — will not go to the doctor, will not place himself on a regimen (and the regimen of the soul is the spirit of chastity). Only the one who sincerely says within himself, “I am naked. I am poor. O Lord, give me raiment. Help me. Clothe me with Thy grace,” — only he will do these things.

That is why we are so in need of the spirit of humility. And a person who has recognized his sinfulness, who vigilantly guards the wholeness of his soul, may pray also for the spirit of love — and may even attain to this, the highest of Christian virtues.

A man who sees himself as a sinner does not judge others, he has compassion on every “one who has slipped.” He will know how to understand, to justify in his conscience, and to forgive every enemy and offender — and thus, to love all in a truly Christian manner.

We said that the spirit of humility is the awareness of one’s sinfulness — and this awareness gives birth to the spirit of forgiveness. The importance of “poverty of spirit” and “forgiveness” for the beginning of the Christian spiritual life is so great that St. Ephraim prays once more for the same thing: “Grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother.”

“One memory,” says a preacher, “I have kept from my childhood.

In the backyard, there lay a stone slab. Sometimes we would go over and lift it. And underneath — there were woodlice, spiders, all sorts of creeping things. And we would quickly close the slab again in fright, so as not to see them.”

We do exactly the same thing all the time. Sometimes, the thought arises to lift the “slab” of our conscience and to look into the depths of our soul. But we rarely dare to remain alone for long with our exposed conscience and its wounds. Fearing the abyss of our sin, we hurry to shut the slab again, to justify ourselves before ourselves, to “explain away the guilt of our sins.”

Of course, under such conditions, true repentance is impossible… In order to heal wounds, they must be exposed — not hidden. Yet we hide the wounds of the soul not only from others, but even from ourselves. And naturally, our wounds do not diminish, but only grow.

Even when a person reveals his wounds before a spiritual father, he often inwardly tries to justify himself, to cast a veil over the sin — not for the confessor’s sake, but for his own — and thus, covering the depths of his soul with a slab, he is not horrified by his spiritual state, does not approach the analogion in fear before the darkness of his sin, but in hypocritical self-justification — and leaves uncleansed.

This is why the Church so fervently prays — both in the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian and in other prayers: “O Lord, grant us to see our transgressions, grant us the strength not to conceal them from ourselves, not to invent excuses for sin.”

1909

source

On the 2nd day of November. A brief account of the valor, courage, elegant testimony, and patient suffering of the newly-revealed great martyr, the noblewoman Feodosiya Prokopievna, who in monasticism was named Feodora, and by her earthly fame called Morozova; together with her only sister and fellow-sufferer, the pious princess Evdokia, and their third companion in bonds, Maria.

This blessed and ever-memorable woman was born to noble and devout parents. Her father was Prokopiy, a senator of the reigning city of Moscow, from the family of Sokovnin; her mother was Anisiya. Both were faithful Christians who feared God. When she reached the age of seventeen, her parents married her to the boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov. She became a mother and gave birth to a son, who was named Ivan after a vision of the great wonder-worker Sergius.

Gleb’s brother, Boris Ivanovich Morozov, loved his sister-in-law Feodosiya with a deep spiritual love. Whenever she visited his house, he himself would come out to greet her warmly and say: “Come in, my spiritual friend! Come in, joy of my soul!” They would sit together for many hours, speaking only of spiritual matters. When she left, he would escort her and say: “Today I have tasted something sweeter than honey from your soul-strengthening words.”

After living only a few years in marriage, she was widowed and left with her young orphan son Ivan. She was instructed in the virtuous life and the true doctrines by the holy martyr and archpriest Avvakum. As soon as she learned the truth about Orthodoxy, she burned with zeal for it and turned away completely from everything corrupted.

By order of the Tsar, emissaries were sent to her: Joachim, archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, and Peter the key-keeper. She stood firm in her testimony and thoroughly shamed them. Because of her public exposure, the old form of the cross on the communion bread was abolished throughout all Russia, and half her estates were taken from her. Yet no matter how much she suffered, she refused under any circumstances to abandon her piety; she was ready to die for the truth. Thanks to the intercession of Tsaritsa Maria, who was very kind to her and loved her for her virtue, she received a brief reprieve after this trial.

Afterward she gave away huge amounts in charity: she distributed much of her wealth to the poor, redeemed many people from debt-collectors, gave generous support to monasteries, supplied churches with everything they needed, provided for desert hermits, and even cared for lepers in her own home.

Later, through the confessor Father Trifiliy, she heard about a reverent nun named Melania. She summoned her, listened to her words, loved her deeply, and chose her as her spiritual mother. In humility for Christ’s sake, Feodosiya placed herself completely under Melania’s guidance and cut off her own will to the end. She remained an obedient disciple until her dying day, never once disobeying her elder’s commands. Guided by Melania, she finally learned to understand and fulfill every deed pleasing to God. Together they walked on foot to prisons carrying alms, and very early in the morning—like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James hastening to the Lord’s tomb—they went together as a pair of doves to the Cathedral, to Chudov Monastery, and to the Lord’s Robe. There they placed the sacred robe upon themselves as worthy servants, kissed it with warm tears, and reverently kissed the relics of the wonder-workers with faithful hearts.

Feodosiya strove to fulfill God’s will in every action. She forced her body into ascetic labors, fed on fasting, flourished in prayer, trembled at the thought of death, and overflowed with tears of joy. Burned and kindled by the fire of divine love, she blazed without being consumed, for the Holy Spirit refreshed her. I do not know which virtue she neglected; above all, like a firm foundation, she held fast to the Orthodox faith, knowing full well that without faith it is impossible to please God. I boldly declare that this blessed woman could rightly cry out with the prophet of Tishbe and with the fiery-charioted Elijah: “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty! For they have abandoned the catholic faith, fallen in love with Roman-Latin doctrines, killed God’s servants, and are trying to destroy the Church of God to the end.” Anyone among her relatives who clung to the Nikonians she fearlessly rebuked.

Mikhail Alekseevich Rtishchev and his daughter Anna, ardent followers of Nikon, often visited her house. They would praise Nikon and bless his reforms, testing her and hoping to shake her and bring her over to their way of thinking. They said: “Patriarch Nikon was a great and wise teacher; the faith he handed down is perfectly orderly, and it is good and beautiful to serve according to the new books.” After listening in silence, Feodosiya would open her mouth and answer: “Truly, uncle, you have been deceived. You praise God’s enemy and apostate, and you call his books—sown with Roman and all kinds of heresies—blessed. An Orthodox Christian must turn away from his books, detest all his godless innovations, and curse him in every way as an enemy of Christ’s Church.”

The gray-haired elder pressed her further: “Oh, child Feodosiya! What are you doing? Why have you separated yourself from us? Don’t you see this vineyard—the children planted here? We were supposed to look at them like young olive shoots, rejoice and celebrate together with you, eating and drinking in shared love. But now one single division has come between us! I beg you: stop this quarrel, cross yourself with three fingers, and don’t oppose the great sovereign or any of the bishops in anything else! I know perfectly well who ruined you and deceived you—that worst of enemies, the archpriest whose very name I loathe to speak because of my great hatred. You yourself know who I mean—the one for whose teaching you are ready to die. Yet I will say it: Avvakum, cursed by our bishops!”

Feodosiya, seeing the old man raging like a madman, smiled gently and answered in a quiet voice: “No, uncle, no—that’s not right. Your answer is upside-down: you call the sweet bitter and the bitter sweet. Father Avvakum is a true disciple of Christ because he suffers for the law of his Master. Anyone who truly wants to please God need only listen to his teaching.”

She said many more things like this and always fought them with unstoppable courage, and by Christ’s help she put them to shame every time.

One day Anna Mikhailovna started in again: “Dear little sister, those Belëv crones have devoured you! They swallowed your soul like a baby bird and tore you away from us! You’ve not only scorned us—you don’t even care about your only son. You have just one child, and you won’t even look at him. And what a child! Who wouldn’t marvel at his beauty? You should be watching over him while he sleeps, lighting candles of the purest wax, burning a lamp above that lovely face, gazing at his handsome features and rejoicing that God gave you such a precious boy. The Tsar himself and the Tsaritsa have often marveled at his beauty, yet you treat him as nothing and refuse to obey the great sovereign. What if, because of your defiance, the Tsar’s fiery wrath falls on you and your house? What if he orders your home plundered? Then you’ll suffer greatly and make your own son a beggar through your hard-heartedness.”

Feodosiya opened her holy lips and replied: “You’re the one speaking falsehood! I was not deceived by those Belëv nuns, as you claim. By the grace of my Savior I worship God the Father with my whole mind. I love Ivan; I pray for him without ceasing and care for everything that is good for his soul and body. But if you think that for Ivan’s sake I would wound my own soul or, out of pity for my son, abandon piety—” She crossed herself with the two-fingered sign and continued, “May the Son of God preserve me from such unworthy tenderness! I will not—I will not ruin myself to spare my son. Even though he is my only child, I love Christ more than my son! Know this clearly: if you think you can use my son to block me from Christ’s path, you will never succeed. I tell you boldly: if you want, take my son Ivan out to the Lobnoye Mesto and throw him to the dogs to frighten me into abandoning the faith—I still will not do it. Even if I saw his beautiful body torn apart by dogs, I would not dream of betraying piety. Be certain of this: if I remain steadfast in Christ’s faith to the end and am found worthy to taste death for it, no one will ever snatch him from my hand.”

When Anna heard these words she recoiled as if struck by thunder, utterly astonished at Feodosiya’s iron courage and unshakable resolve.

Feodosiya prayed often that God would grant her sister, Princess Evdokia, the same burning love for Christ and the same care for her soul. She instructed her with great tenderness and urged her to place herself under Mother Melania’s obedience. Evdokia joyfully and eagerly begged the elder to take charge of her salvation. Melania refused for a long time, but the princess won her over with many tears and became an excellent disciple. Not only in obedience but in every virtue she emulated her elder sister Feodosiya—fasting, prayer, visiting prisoners—until one could say: two bodies, one soul.

Feodosiya now reached higher in her thoughts, longing intensely for the angelic habit. She fell at her mother’s feet, kissed her hands, bowed to the ground, and begged to be clothed in the monastic schema. Melania put it off for many reasons:

First, such a thing could not be hidden in her own house; if the Tsar found out, countless people would suffer interrogations to discover who had tonsured her.

Second, doing it secretly outside the house brought another danger.

Third, even if it stayed hidden, the time was coming for her son to marry, which would require much fuss, wedding preparations, and arrangements—things unseemly for a nun.

Fourth, once tonsured she would have to hide completely, stop even the little pretense she still kept, cease going to church altogether, and stand firm like a man to the end.

Yet Feodosiya burned with insatiable divine love and yearned for the monastic life. Seeing her immense faith, zeal, and unchangeable resolve, Melania finally consented. She asked Father Dosifei to bestow the angelic habit. He tonsured her, named her Feodora, and gave the Gospel portion to Mother Melania.

The blessed Feodora, now granted this great gift of God and seeing the longed-for angelic habit upon herself, plunged into even greater ascetic labors: stricter fasting, longer prayer, deeper silence. She withdrew completely from household affairs, claiming illness, and entrusted all legal matters to trusted servants.

When the Tsar’s wedding arrived and he took Tsaritsa Natalia, Feodora refused to attend with the other boyar ladies. Tsar Alexis took heavy offense, for she should have stood in the front rank and pronounced the ceremonial titles. He summoned her repeatedly; she refused to the end, saying, “My legs hurt terribly; I can neither walk nor stand.” The Tsar replied, “I know she has grown proud.” The real reason she stayed away was that she would have had to call the Tsar “most Orthodox,” kiss his hand, and receive the bishops’ blessing—things she could not avoid. She chose suffering over communion with them, knowing the Tsar would not let the matter drop. And so it was: all that summer he raged against her and began looking for any pretext to exile her without cause.

Toward autumn he first sent boyar Troekurov, then a month later Prince Pyotr Urusov, with stern warnings: submit, accept all the new rites, or face terrible consequences. Feodora, bold in the Lord’s name, answered the boyars: “I have done the Tsar no wrong and am amazed why his wrath falls on my lowliness. If he wants to tear me from the true faith, let him not be angry with me. Let him know plainly: until now the Son of God has protected me with His right hand; never once have I even thought of abandoning the fathers’ faith to accept Nikon’s decrees. I have chosen this: in the Christian faith into which I was born and baptized according to apostolic tradition, in that faith I wish to die. Let the sovereign stop troubling his poor servant; it is utterly impossible for me ever to renounce our Orthodox faith, confirmed by the seven ecumenical councils—as I have told him many times before.”

The envoys returned and reported her fearless words. The Tsar’s anger blazed hotter; he wanted to crush her and said to those around him: “It will be hard for her to fight me—one of us will surely prevail!”

He held council after council with his boyars about what to do with her. In the Upper Chambers they sat more than once, plotting how to break her. All the boyars saw the unjust fury and the evil conspiracy against innocent blood; they refused to join the counsel but, fearing for their lives, kept silent. The bishops, the “Jewish elders,” and the Jesuit-trained hieromonks egged the Tsar on most of all. They hated the blessed woman with a deadly hatred and longed to devour her alive, because wherever she was—at home with guests or visiting others—she fearlessly exposed their errors and publicly denounced their heretical wanderings in front of crowds. Everything reached their ears, and for this they loathed her.

While these plots were brewing, five exiled nuns were living in Feodora’s house. They begged to leave before they too were seized. She could not get enough of their company; she rejoiced to stand with them at the night rule before Christ and to eat with them at table. So she kept them about five weeks after the first warning. When they grew afraid, she comforted them: “No, my doves, do not fear! No one will come for me yet.” Princess Evdokia stayed with her and the nuns the whole time, inseparable, consoling her beloved sister in her trials; she only went home to the prince for brief visits.

On November 14 Feodora said to the nuns: “My mothers, my time has come. Each of you go wherever the Lord will keep you safe. Bless me for God’s work and pray that, through your prayers, the Lord will strengthen me to suffer without wavering for His name.” She kissed them tenderly and sent them away in peace.

On the eve of Meatfare Sunday the princess went home. While dining with her husband, he told her what was happening in the Upper Chambers: “Great sorrows are coming upon your sister; the Tsar is seized with uncontrollable rage and has decided to drive her from her house at once.” Another voice at table added: “Princess, listen carefully to what I am about to say. Christ said in the Gospel: ‘They will hand you over to synagogues and flog you in their assemblies; you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them… But I tell you, my friends: Do not fear those who kill the body and after that can do nothing more.’ Do you hear, princess? Christ Himself speaks—remember it well.” Evdokia rejoiced greatly at these words.

The next morning, as the prince was leaving for the palace, she begged him to let her visit Feodora. He said: “Go and say goodbye, but do not linger—I think today they will come for her.”

She arrived and stayed until nightfall; they were expecting guests.

Suddenly, at the second hour of the night, the great gates burst open. Feodora started a little, understood that the tormentors had come, and lay down on a bench. But the faithful princess, illumined by the Holy Spirit, strengthened her: “Dear mother-sister, take courage! Christ is with us—fear nothing! Rise, let us begin.” When they had finished the seven entrance bows, they blessed each other to bear witness to the truth. Feodora lay down on her featherbed near the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer of Theodorov, while the princess went into the little closet that Feodora had built in the same bedchamber for her spiritual mother Melania, and lay down on a mattress there.

Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov Monastery strode in with great arrogance, entered the bedchamber boldly, saw her lying down, announced that he had been sent by the Tsar, and ordered her to rise—at least to sit—so she could answer the Tsar’s words he was commanded to deliver. She refused to obey.

Then the archimandrite interrogated her: “How do you cross yourself? How do you pray?” She folded her fingers in the ancient two-fingered sign handed down by the holy fathers, opened her sacred lips, and chanted: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us! Thus I cross myself; thus I pray.”

The archimandrite pressed a second question: “The nun Melania—you gave her the name Alexandra in your house—where is she now? Tell us quickly; we need her.”

Blessed Feodora answered: “By God’s mercy and our parents’ prayers, as far as our poor house could, its doors were always open to receive Christ’s wandering servants. When the time came, we had Sidors, Karps, Melanias, Alexandras; now there is none of them.”

The duma secretary Hilarion Ivanovich stepped into the closet where it was dark, saw a person lying on the bed, and asked: “Who are you?” The princess replied: “I am the wife of Prince Pyotr Urusov.” He jumped back as if burned by fire. The archimandrite, seeing this, asked: “Who is in there?” Hilarion answered: “Princess Evdokia Prokopievna Urusova.” Joachim said: “Ask her how she crosses herself.” Hilarion, unwilling, replied: “We were sent only to boyarynya Feodosiya Prokopievna.” Joachim insisted: “Obey me—question her.”

Hilarion approached, asked, and she confessed. Lying on the bed, propped on her left elbow, she made the sign with her right hand—thumb joined to the two little fingers, the index and middle fingers extended—and showed it to him, proclaiming with her lips while glorifying the Lord Jesus as Son of God: “Thus I believe!” Hilarion went out and reported to the archimandrite. Joachim, no longer able to contain his fury at seeing his false faith trampled by faithful women, said to Hilarion: “Stay here. I will go tell the Tsar.”

He rushed off and found the Tsar sitting among the boyars in the Faceted Palace. He drew close and whispered in his ear that not only had the boyarynya stood firm like a man, but her sister Princess Evdokia, who happened to be in the house, was zealously resisting the Tsar’s command even more fiercely. The Tsar said: “Impossible! I heard that princess is gentle and does not scorn our services; it’s that madwoman who is the trouble.” But the archimandrite, filled with man-hating malice, pressed: “She has become exactly like her elder sister in everything—and mocks us even worse.” The Tsar replied: “If that is so, take her too.” Prince Pyotr, standing nearby, heard this, was deeply grieved, but could do nothing.

The archimandrite returned to the martyr’s house and began interrogating everyone present, especially her maidservants, to see who shared their mistress’s faith. The black deacon Iosaf, standing outside the door, said to him: “Question Ksenia Ivanova; interrogate Anna Soboleva.” He did. Both women stood firm, confessed, showed the two-fingered sign, prayed, and placed their hope in the Son of God. They were set apart on one side. All the rest, terrified, bowed to the new way and were placed on the left.

Then the archimandrite said to the boyarynya: “Since you refused to live in submission and hardened yourself in rebellion, the Tsar’s decree has overtaken you: you are to be driven from your house. Enough living in high places—come down! Rise and leave this place!” The blessed woman refused even this. He ordered the servants to carry her out. They brought an armchair, sat her in it by Joachim’s command, and carried her downstairs. Her son, the pious Ivan Glebovich, accompanied her as far as the middle porch, bowed to her from behind (she did not see him), then turned back.

They put horse-irons on the feet of Feodora and Evdokia, locked them in the servants’ quarters in the cellar, posted guards with strict orders to watch them, and left.

Two days later the duma secretary Hilarion returned, removed the irons from their feet, and ordered them to go wherever they were told. Blessed Feodora refused to walk; she commanded her servants to carry her. They spread out cloth, sat her on it, and carried her by Hilarion’s order all the way to Chudov Monastery; Princess Evdokia was led alongside.

They brought Feodora into one of the patriarchal chambers. As usual she bowed to the icon of God, but gave the authorities only a slight and reluctant bow. Present were Paul, Metropolitan of Krutitsa, Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov again, the duma secretary, and others. Blessed Feodora refused to stand while speaking with them; she answered sitting down. They pressed her hard to stand; she would not.

Then Metropolitan Paul began speaking softly, reminding her of her rank and lineage: “This is what those elders and nuns did to you—they bewitched you with their sweet talk, you spent time with them, listened to their teaching, and they brought you to this dishonor: your noble self dragged before a tribunal.” Then with many gentle words they tried to soothe her and persuade her to submit to the Tsar. They kept bringing up her son’s beauty, begging her to have pity on him and not let her defiance destroy his house.

Against every argument she gave wise answers. “I was not bewitched by elders and nuns, as you claim,” she said. “I learned the true path of Christ and piety from genuine servants of God. Stop talking to me about my son. I have promised myself to Christ my Light; I will not break that promise until my last breath. I live for Christ, not for my son.”

Seeing her unyielding courage and unable to silence her, they decided at least to frighten her. They put one final question bluntly: “Since you stubbornly resist our words, we ask you plainly and briefly: will you receive communion from the service-books by which the Tsar himself takes communion, and the pious Tsaritsa, the princes, and the princesses?” With a man’s heart she answered: “I will not receive!” “I know the Tsar communes from Nikon’s corrupted service-books; that is why I refuse!”

The metropolitan pressed further: “Then what do you think of all of us—are we all heretics?” She replied again: “Since that enemy of God Nikon vomited out his heresies like filth, and you now lick up his defilement, it is clear you are just like him.”

Then Paul of Krutitsa shouted loudly: “What are we to do? She calls every one of us a heretic!” Joachim shouted too: “Why, Archbishop Paul, did you ever call her a mother, and a righteous one at that? She is no such thing! She is no longer Prokopiy’s daughter; she deserves to be called the devil’s daughter!”

The blessed woman answered Joachim: “I curse the devil by the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ. Though unworthy, I am His daughter.” The dispute with them lasted from the second hour of the night until the tenth.

Then they brought in the pious princess and questioned her. She showed the same courage in everything.

Again they ordered Feodora carried on the cloth back to her house and placed in the same cellar where they had sat for two days, together with the princess once more. The irons were put back on their feet. Then blessed Feodora said to the princess: “If they separate us and send us into exile, I beg you—remember poor Feodora in your prayers.” Holy Evdokia was astonished; they had always been together and she had never heard such a thing.

The next morning, after their interrogation by the authorities, the duma secretary came. Chains with wooden stocks were brought in. The irons were removed from their feet and the chains fastened around their necks. Blessed Feodora crossed her face, kissed the collar of the chain, and said: “Glory to You, Lord, for making me worthy to put on Paul’s fetters!”

By the secretary’s order the servants lifted her onto a wood-sled and told a groom to drive. She sat down and placed the stock close beside her. As she was driven past Chudov under the Tsar’s covered walkway, great Feodora stretched out her right hand, clearly formed the two-fingered sign of the cross, raised it high, crossed herself repeatedly, and rattled her chain just as often. The saint believed the Tsar was watching her victory from the walkway, so she showed not only that she was not ashamed of their mockery but that she greatly rejoiced in Christ’s love and exulted in her bonds.

Princess Evdokia was likewise loaded with iron chains and taken to the Alexeevsky Convent, where she was ordered kept under strict guard and brought to church. Yet she displayed such courage that the whole royal city marveled at her bravery and how valiantly she resisted the tyrants’ will. Not only did she never walk to their services on her own feet, no matter how much they forced her; even when they dragged her on a mat (as they were ordered to do), she refused to lie on the mat by herself. Though perfectly healthy, at that moment she would make herself like a paralytic, unable to move hand or foot. When the nuns came to lift her, she sometimes made things difficult for them, even to the point of shamelessly slapping her holy, angelic face and saying: “Woe to us! What can we do with you? We ourselves saw you perfectly well and cheerfully talking with your friends just now, but the moment we arrive to call you to prayer you suddenly turn into a corpse and give us endless trouble, lying there like the dead and immovable.” The spotless lamb answered them: “Poor nuns, why do you exhaust yourselves for nothing? Did I force you to do this work? You are the ones running around in senseless frenzy. I weep even for you who are perishing—how could I ever think of going to your gathering? There you sing not to praise God but to blaspheme Him, your Savior, trampling His laws.” So they would lift the saint onto the mat like a dead body and drag her to the service.

Whenever the blessed woman caught sight of any of the faithful she knew standing in the monastery watching her ordeal, she would groan: “Alas, I am worn out—stop a moment!” The nuns would set the mat down. The great one would say: “Nuns! Why are you dragging me like this? Do I want to pray with you? Never! It is not right for us Christians to pray together with those who have abandoned Christ’s law. But let me tell you something: where your singing is heard, that is the proper place to go relieve oneself of excess belly-matter—that is how I regard your sacrifice.”

Feodora was taken to the metochion of the Pechersky Monastery and placed under heavy guard: two streltsy captains, relieving each other, watched her with ten soldiers.

Elena and the other sisters hid for fear; for a whole week they could learn nothing about holy Feodora, and they grieved deeply, weeping like babies torn from their mother. But on November 27, the feast of the Sign of the Most Holy God-bearer, Elena found her by God’s wonderful favor. Great Feodora had come out onto the back porch (the place used for necessary relief), and Elena happened to be walking along that street. By God’s guidance they recognized each other; the spot on the street served the same bodily need for passers-by. Elena drew near and spoke with Feodora, who stood above on the porch.

The blessed woman said: “O my beloved Elena! Nothing in these days has grieved me like being separated from you—not exile from my house, not the Tsar’s anger, not interrogation by the authorities, not chains, not guards. All these are dear to me for Christ’s sake; but it weighs heavily on me that for more than a week I have known nothing about you. For the Lord’s sake, do not abandon me, do not leave Moscow—stay here, do not be afraid! I trust in Christ: He will cover you. I do not sorrow this much even for blood relatives; I weep for you without ceasing. Through Christ who strengthens me all things are possible, but this one thing I cannot bear to the end.”

Maria, the third companion in their struggle, tried to flee while the Tsar’s wrath burned against blessed Feodora. Someone informed on her; a posse was sent, she was seized in the Podonsk region, brought back to Moscow, interrogated in the same way, and followed the example of the blessed sisters Feodora and Evdokia in everything. She fiercely resisted, publicly praised the ancient piety before everyone, and utterly rejected the new doctrines. They imprisoned her in chains under the Streltsy Office.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Ryazan often came to Feodora. She argued with him so courageously that he was repeatedly put to shame and left speechless.

Seeing herself loaded with heavy irons and tormented by the discomfort of the wooden stock, Feodora rejoiced. Yet one thing grieved her, and she wrote in her own hand to her spiritual mother Melania: “Alas, my mother! I have done no monastic deed at all! How can I now make full prostrations? Woe to me, a sinner! The day of death draws near, and I, wretched, remain in sloth! You, my joy, instead of earthly prostrations bless me to bear Paul’s chains for Christ’s sake and endure reproach. And if you will, bless me to abstain from beef fat, milk, cheese, and eggs, so that my monastic life may not be idle and the day of death not snatch me unprepared. Only command me to eat fasting oil.” The mother gave her blessing for suffering: “Stand bravely, you who suffer for the Lord’s name; may the Lord bless you to carry His chains. Go like a candle from us to God as an offering. As for food—eat whatever is provided.”

For many days after Feodora’s arrest the Tsar sat with his boyars plotting what to do with her for her fearless denunciations. He summoned her brother Feodor, interrogated him harshly about many things, and demanded: “Tell me—where is Melania? You know all your sister’s secrets!” He pressed Feodor with fierce anger.

He ordered Ivan Glebovich kept under guard. The boy fell ill from overwhelming grief. The Tsar sent his own physicians; they “cured” him so well that in a few days they sent him to his grave. When Ivan died, a Nikonians priest was sent to tell Feodora of her son’s death. The malicious man insulted the saint, quoting Psalm 108 about Judas and applying the godless, mitreless cleric’s words to the blessed woman: because she had turned from their faith, God’s punishment had come upon her—her house would be desolate and none would live in it. But the wise woman paid no attention to their madness. When she saw her beloved son dead, she was deeply wounded. She fell to the ground before the icon of God and wept with tender voice, sobbing: “Alas, my child—they have destroyed you, those apostates!” For many hours she did not rise from the floor, pouring out dirges over her son until others who heard her wept from pity.

The Tsar rejoiced at Ivan’s death, thinking he could now torment the mother more freely without her son. Not content with that, he sent her two brothers—Feodor to Chuguev, Alexei to Rybnoe—supposedly as military governors, but really into exile. Feodor grew so rich in his post that he spent a thousand of his own rubles. The Tsar did all this out of great malice toward the blessed woman, hoping no helping hand from anywhere would ever reach them in their great afflictions. Yet God was with them.

After Ivan’s death all the property was scattered: estates, herds, horses given away to boyars; every valuable thing—gold, silver, pearls, precious stones—was ordered sold. While demolishing the palace they found a huge amount of gold bricked into the wall. One of Feodora’s servants, Ivan, by his mistress’s command hid some precious items with a man thought to be trustworthy. Through the wife’s instigation he was betrayed, cruelly tortured—burned with fire and questioned by six men—and endured everything bravely. Like a good and faithful servant he sincerely followed his mistress’s example and was finally burned in Borovsk together with the other martyrs.

Later, as if the Tsar had softened, he allowed Feodora two of her maidservants to serve her in her chains. Anna Ammosova and Stefanida (called Gneva) ran to her with great joy and waited on her. Though righteous Princess Evdokia did not draw a servant by lot, God raised up a nobler one than any slave—the daughter of a lord—to serve her lady: the maiden Akilina, a boyar’s daughter, constantly came and went, serving her. Later Akilina herself took the veil and was named Anisia.

Maria, sitting there, suffered worse than either of the sisters. The shameless soldiers constantly tormented her with their crude behavior. Nikonians priests kept coming to her, troubling her spirit and cursing her as a schismatic. Once a priest and a deacon came in like devil paired with devil and forced her to cross herself with three fingers. She refused. They lost all shame, lunged at her like dogs, seized her fingers, and tried to twist them into the pinch. She pulled away in disgust and cried: “This is not the sign of the cross—it is the seal of Antichrist!” They shot back: “No! Those two fingers you use to make your cross are what mothers use to scrape filth off babies when they soil themselves.” That is how the godless knew how to curse!

So the three of them sat in separate places, enduring for the name of the Lord.

That same year God granted great Feodora, though in chains and under heavy guard, to receive communion from the hand of the holy father Job of Lgov (mentioned earlier). It happened miraculously. One of the captains on duty was very kind to her. The saint begged him: “When I still lived in my house, a certain elderly priest served in one of our villages; we were good to him. Now I hear he is here. I feel sorry for him because of his age. If you have any mercy for my lowliness, let me call him.” He allowed it. The holy elder came to the holy martyr like Barlaam to Josaphat, to give her the priceless pearl in the guise of a poor man. As he passed through the entryway, the captain himself stood up and bowed to him. After giving the martyr the Body and Blood of Christ, the elder left. The blessed old man was so moved at the sight of the great lady’s immense suffering that afterward he could never speak of her without tears.

Another wonder occurred. The two blood sisters—great Feodora and faithful Evdokia—longed to see each other face to face in this life and talk. They prayed to almighty God to comfort them. Finally Evdokia said to the noblewoman in whose cell she was kept: “Lady, you know the ache of leaving little children. I abandoned mine for Christ’s sake! If I have found favor with you, let me go home just long enough to kiss them and comfort them—and be comforted myself—and I will return before evening. No one will ever know except you and me. It can happen if you will only take pity on me. It is already midday; the abbess is visiting guests, the nuns have scattered, few people are about the monastery. If I cover myself with a veil I will pass unnoticed.” That lady, beyond all human expectation, let the martyr-princess go, asking her to leave the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer: “I know how you love the image of our Lady. Leave it here and go in peace; I am sure the Helper will bring you back.”

The blessed woman set out. On the way the devil stirred up some evil men who said to each other: “Grab her—she’s an escapee!” She boldly answered them back. On the road she met Elena, and together they reached the Pechersky metochion. The gatekeeper told Feodora of their arrival. The blessed woman sent her maid Anna away and Princess Evdokia went up instead; she passed the guard on the porch—he thought it was still Anna. The martyr and the confessor talked with great love.

The devil grew jealous, raised a storm, and the matter was discovered. All ten soldiers started a riot. Feodora begged the captain; he quieted the soldiers, and the uproar died down. For the martyrs it turned out for the better: the captain ordered the visitor to spend the night. “I will let her go secretly at night,” he said. The saints spent the whole night rejoicing in conversation. At dawn Evdokia left; Elena escorted her. She returned to the monastery and everything stayed hidden and calm. Elena stayed with them, serving, providing what they needed—food, clothing—sometimes carrying it herself, sometimes sending others.

Mikhail Alekseevich came to Evdokia more than once. Standing at the window he said with tears: “Your suffering amazes me, but one thing troubles me—I do not know whether you suffer for the truth.”

Crowds of noblewomen came to watch, and common people ran to see the princess dragged on the mat. The great ladies especially marveled with deep affection and grieved as if for a relative. When the abbess saw this she was torn two ways: pity bent her heart at the princess’s suffering and her high rank, yet she was also disturbed that the dragging only brought her more glory—crowds gathered to witness her patience. With these thoughts she went to Patriarch Pitirim (who was then in office) and told him everything: what was happening in their monastery, who the princess was, and why she was there—he had not known, for they had been imprisoned before his appointment. As he questioned the abbess more closely, it was natural for her to mention Feodora too. Finally the patriarch said: “Go. I will speak to the Tsar about this.”

He hurried to the Tsar and reminded him of great Feodora and the blessed princess. “I advise you, Sovereign,” he said, “to give the boyarynya-widow Morozova her house back and grant her a hundred peasant households for her support; give the princess back to her prince too. That would be more fitting. It is women’s business—how much do they really understand?”

The Tsar answered: “Most holy lord, I would have done it long ago, but you do not know that woman’s ferocity. How can I even tell you how she has mocked me—and still mocks me! No one has ever done me such evil as she has. She has caused me endless trouble and great inconvenience. If you do not believe my words, test it yourself: summon her, question her, and you will learn her stubbornness. When you start interrogating her you will taste her sharpness. Then do whatever your holiness commands—I will not disobey a single word.”

At the second hour of the night they took Feodora in her chains, put her on a wood-sled, and ordered the captain to go with her. They brought her to Chudov and led her into the Patriarchal Chamber. Patriarch Pitirim was there, Metropolitan Paul, other authorities, and many city officials. The great woman stood before the assembly wearing iron chains around her neck. First the patriarch said: “I am amazed that you have come to love this chain so much you will not part with it.” The saint, her face radiant and her heart rejoicing, answered: “Truly I love it—not just love it, I have not yet had my fill of gazing at these longed-for chains! How could I not love them? Though I am such a sinner, by God’s grace I have been found worthy to see and bear Paul’s chains on my body—and for love of God’s only-begotten Son!”

The patriarch: “How long will you stay in this madness? Stop clinging to that devilish behavior! How long will you refuse to pity yourself and keep troubling the Tsar’s soul with your defiance? Abandon all these absurd ideas and follow my counsel, which I offer out of mercy and pity: join the cathedral Church and the Russian assembly—confess and receive communion.” The blessed woman answered: “There is no one to confess to, no one to commune me.” The patriarch again: “There are plenty of priests in Moscow!” The saint: “Plenty of priests, but not one true one.” The patriarch once more: “Because I care deeply for you, I myself will take the trouble in my old age to hear your confession and serve—I will commune you myself.” The wise woman replied: “What do you mean ‘myself’? I do not understand! Are you any different from them? Do you not do their will? When you were Metropolitan of Krutitsa and kept the Christian customs handed down by the fathers of our Russian land, when you wore the old-shaped kuluk—then we loved you a little. But now you have chosen to do the will of an earthly tsar and despised the Heavenly King and your Creator; you have put the horned klobuk of the Roman pope on your head. That is why we turn away. So stop comforting me with ‘I myself’—I have no need of your service.”

Then the patriarch said to his bishops: “Vest me now in the sacred robes so I may anoint her forehead with holy oil—perhaps she will come to her senses; as we see, she has lost her mind.”

They vested him, brought the oil, and he took the brush dipped in it and started toward the saint. Until then she had never stood on her own feet; the captain and another man had held her up, and she had spoken leaning on their arms. But when she saw him coming, she stood on her own feet and readied herself like a wrestler. Metropolitan Paul of Krutitsa stretched out one hand to steady the patriarch and with the other tried to lift the fur hat from the blessed woman’s head so the patriarch could anoint her easily. The great woman pushed his hand away and said: “Get back!” She shoved both his hand and the brush: “How dare you presume to touch our face so clumsily? You should know our rank!”

The patriarch dipped the brush again and stretched out his hand to sign her forehead. The most blessed woman, like a brave warrior fully armed against the adversary, thrust out her own hand, knocked his aside together with the brush, and cried: “Do not destroy me, a sinner, with your apostate oil!” Rattling her chains she continued: “Why have I, a sinner, worn these chains a whole year? Precisely because I refuse to join your worthless faith. Yet with one moment you want to ruin all my unworthy labor! Back off—away! I will never need your holiness!”

Hearing this, the patriarch could not bear the great shame. He flew into a rage and from bitter grief roared: “O offspring of vipers! Devil’s daughter, troublemaker!” He turned back from her growling like a bear, shouting: “Throw her down, drag her without mercy! Drag her out by the chain around her neck like a dog! She is the devil’s daughter, a troublemaker—no more life for her! Tomorrow the troublemaker goes to the stake!”

The blessed woman answered quietly: “I am a sinner, yet not the devil’s daughter. Do not curse me with that name, Patriarch. By the grace of my Savior God I am Christ’s daughter, not the devil’s. Do not curse me with that, Patriarch!”

By the patriarch’s command they hurled her to the floor so hard she thought her skull would split. They dragged her across the chamber so brutally that she expected the iron collar to tear her neck in two and rip her head from her shoulders. As they hauled her down the stairs she counted every step with her head. They brought her back to the Pechersky metochion on the same sled at the ninth hour of the night.

That same night, at the same hour, the patriarch had Princess Evdokia and Maria brought before him, thinking perhaps one of them would yield. It did not happen. Strengthened by God’s grace they testified boldly and showed themselves ready to die for the Lord’s name rather than fall from His love. The patriarch tried to anoint the faithful princess as well. But the most holy sufferer did something even more astonishing. Just as the Samaritan woman Photini under Emperor Nero once tore the skin from her own head with her hands and threw it in the tyrant’s face, so our thrice-valiant fighter, when she saw the patriarch coming with the oily brush to anoint her, instantly snatched off her head-covering, bared her hair, and shouted: “Shameless madmen! What are you doing? Do you not know I am a woman?” They were covered with double shame and stood helpless; thus the saint escaped their anointing. When the questioning ended they were taken back to their places.

Unable to endure his humiliation, the patriarch told the Tsar everything, complaining especially about great Feodora. The Tsar answered: “Did I not tell you beforehand how fierce that woman is? I have experienced it and know her hardness. You saw her behavior only once; I have endured it for years and do not know what to do with her.” Speaking thus they agreed together to torture them, and if they still did not submit, to decide afterward what they deserved.

Again the next night, at the second hour, all three martyrs were taken to the Yam Coach Yard. A huge crowd had been gathered there. They put the martyrs in a hut so packed with people there was hardly room to move. The saints sat in dark corners among the throng, each thinking she was alone. They did not expect torture; they hoped after one last interrogation they would be sent into exile somewhere. Later Feodora realized they had been brought not for exile but for torment. She learned the other two martyrs were there too. Unable to speak with them or encourage them, she rattled her chains and said in her mind: “My beloved fellow-sufferers, I am here with you! Endure, my lights, like men, and pray for me!” She reached out through the press of bodies, grasped Princess Evdokia’s hand, squeezed it hard, and said: “Endure, my mother, endure!”

Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, Prince Yakov Odoevsky, and Vasily Volynsky were appointed to oversee the tortures.

Maria was led to the fire first. Stripped to the waist, hands tied behind her back, she was hoisted on the rack, then thrown to the ground when taken down.

Then they led the princess to the fire. The tormentors saw the colored cover on her hat and said: “Why do you do this—you are in the Tsar’s disgrace yet wear bright colors!” She answered: “I have not sinned against the Tsar.” They tore off the cover and threw her a plain one. Stripped to the waist like the first, hands tied behind, she was hoisted on the rack and thrown down beside Maria.

Last they brought great Feodora to the fire. Prince Vorotynsky spoke many words to her: “Look what you have done! From glory you have come to disgrace! Who are you, from what family! This happened to you because you received into your house the fools for Christ Kipriyan and Feodor and others like them, followed their teaching, and angered the Tsar.” The valiant woman answered: “Our great nobility of the flesh and human glory on earth are nothing. All you mentioned is worthless because it is perishable and passing. Stop your speeches and listen to what I will say. Think about Christ—who He is, whose Son, what He did! If you are puzzled, I will tell you: He is our Lord, Son of God and God Himself. For our salvation He left heaven, took flesh, lived in complete poverty, and finally was crucified by the Jews—just as we are now tortured by you all. Is this not astonishing? Our suffering is nothing.”

Seeing her boldness, the authorities ordered her seized. They tied the sleeves of her shirt around her breasts, bound her hands behind her back, and hung her on the rack. Even there the victorious woman did not stay silent but rebuked their wicked apostasy. For this they kept her on the rack a long time—half an hour—until the straps cut her wrists to the bone. When they took her down they laid her as the third beside the other two. Thus inhumanly mocking them, they left them lying naked-backed on the snow with arms wrenched backward. They lay there three hours.

They tried other torments: placed a frozen block on their chests, brought them close to the fire as if to burn them—but did not burn them. When all their tricks were finished and the martyrs stood up, they covered the bodies of two; the third, Maria, was laid at the feet of Feodora and Evdokia and beaten mercilessly with five whips in two rounds—first across the back, then across the belly. The duma secretary Hilarion said to the other two martyrs: “If you do not submit, the same will happen to you!” Feodora, seeing the inhumanity, the many wounds on holy Maria, and the flowing blood, wept and said to Hilarion: “Is this Christianity—to torture a human being like this?” Afterward they were taken back to their places at the tenth hour of the night.

The next morning the Tsar held council to decide their fate. A stake had been set up on the Boloto. The patriarch strongly urged Feodora’s burning, but the boyars would not agree; Dolgoruky cut the matter short with few words but great effect. For three days Feodora ate no bread and drank no water, trying to die.

Mother Melania had stood at the stake on the Boloto and, returning that same day to holy Feodora, kissed the wounds on her hands and said: “Your house is already prepared for you—very fine and orderly, lined with whole sheaves of straw! You are about to depart to your longed-for Christ, leaving us orphans behind!”

Feodora lovingly received her mother’s blessing to set out on the eternal path. They embraced and kissed; the mother went weeping to Evdokia and brought her the same glad tidings. Standing at the window, gazing at the princess and bathed in tears, she said: “You are our beloved guests. Today or tomorrow you go to the Master. Walk this path without any doubt! When you stand before the throne of the Almighty, do not forget us in our sorrows!”

Everyone expected this to happen, but God willed otherwise: He desired the martyrs to suffer yet longer.

After the beating stopped, Maria passed a towel along her back; it came away soaked with blood, and she sent it to her spiritual father Ioakinf. On the third day great scabs fell from her back like scales. The tormentors demanded them; out of humility she did not want to give them, but finally, forced, she handed them over along with the rest.

Three days after the torture the Tsar sent a streltsy captain to Feodora with these words: “Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna! You are a second martyr Catherine. I myself beg you—follow my advice. I want to raise you back to your former honor. For the sake of appearances before the people, so it does not seem I seized you for nothing, do not cross yourself with three fingers, but simply raise your hand and pass it over those three fingers! Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna, second Catherine! Obey—I will send my royal carriage for you with my own argamaks; many boyars will come and carry you on their heads. Obey, righteous mother—I, the Tsar, bow my head to you—do this!”

Hearing and seeing this, Feodora said to the messenger: “What are you doing, man? Why do you bow to me so much? Stop—listen to what I will say. That the sovereign speaks such words about me is far above my worth. I am a sinner and unworthy of the rank of the great martyr Catherine. As for merely passing my hand over the three-fingered sign—no, may the Son of God preserve me from ever even thinking such a thing about the seal of Antichrist! Know this clearly: by Christ’s help I will never do it! Even if I refuse and he orders me carried home in honor on the boyars’ heads, I will cry out that I cross myself according to the ancient tradition of the holy fathers! As for honoring me with his carriage and argamaks—truly, that means nothing to me. I have ridden in carriages and coaches, on argamaks and Turkomans; all that has passed away. This I count as great—truly wondrous—if God grants me to be burned with fire for His name in the stake you have prepared for me on the Boloto. That is glorious to me, for I have never tasted such honor and I long to receive such a gift from Christ.” Having spoken thus, the saint fell silent, and the captain said no more.

Soon afterward God’s judgment overtook Patriarch Pitirim; he perished by a cruel death.

The Tsar ordered Feodora moved from the Pechersky metochion to the Novodevichy Convent so that no one could bring her anything there. He commanded her kept under strict guard and dragged to services. Yet she showed great courage and rejected all their orders to the end.

God glorified His servant: so many noblewomen came that the whole monastery was blocked with their carriages and coaches. They did not come to plead but to behold her holy, angelic face and witness her steadfast endurance. Her loved ones and those who supplied her needs visited her there too, covered by God, just as they had at the Pechersky metochion, and comforted her suffering heart.

Unable to bear seeing crowds of nobles come to marvel at her suffering, the Tsar ordered her brought back to Moscow, to the Khamovniki quarter. In her old age she was taken to a courtyard; she rejoiced greatly. Her spiritual mother Melania came to visit her there, and Elena, servant of her chains. They rejoiced together with many tears.

Then the Tsar’s elder sister Irina said to him: “Brother, why do you act improperly and drag that poor widow from place to place? It is not good, brother! You should remember the service of Boris and his brother Gleb.” He roared with great anger and answered: “Very well, dear sister, very well! Since you chirp so much about her, I have a place ready for her at once!”

Immediately he sent her to Borovsk, to cruel imprisonment in the stockade built there and its earthen dungeon. Feodora entered the prison rejoicing and found a nun named Iustina already sitting there, confined for the same faith.

When the blessed princess heard that her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer had been taken far away, she wept bitterly like a child for its mother. The same with the passion-bearer Maria. But the all-seeing eye of God beheld their groaning and did not despise it; He desired to grant what they asked and join them inseparably to the great sufferer.

It happened thus: Tsar Alexis ordered the princess sent there too. As she drew near the prison, the doors were opened; she rejoiced greatly and began the prayer. When Feodora saw her beloved one, she seized both her hands and cried in a radiant voice: “All creation rejoices in you, O full of grace!”

A little later they brought Maria too, and their joy was complete.

Merciful God did not leave them without comfort even there, but consoled them like nestlings. Ioakinf, before the captains were sent to Borovsk, took them into his house in Moscow and fed them so they would not be savage. In Borovsk he sent his nephew Irodion, who visited the prison many times, along with many others. Their spiritual mother Melania visited them there more than once, and Elena many times.

But the evil one envied this and stirred up the authorities. They sent an order to investigate who was visiting them and how they got in. A certain Borovsk citizen Pamfil was tortured; they questioned Irodion. He endured great torment but betrayed no one. At that moment Irodion was hiding under the floor in Pamfil’s house. Since he did not confess, they let him go home. Lying there with blood flowing from his wounds, he said to his wife: “Agripina, now it is safe and free—quickly carry a basket of baked onions by daylight.” Later Pamfil and his wife were exiled to Smolensk, where they still suffer to this day.

While they sat in prison they often begged their spiritual mother Melania to visit them, but it was impossible. Then Feodora somehow learned that their departure was near, so she wrote in her own hand: “Take pity—visit us one last time,” and so it happened. She asked her to bring her elder brother too. God sped them on their way, for we heard that in those very days the Tsar planned to send someone to interrogate them strictly and, if they did not submit, to carry out the sentence. But God preserved us.

On Sunday, at the third hour of the night, we reached the prison. Our joy together with them was beyond words. Great Feodora—I do not know what to call her—named her prison a most radiant dungeon and called her spiritual mother Melania equal-to-the-apostles and an apostle of the Lord. “Why, my light,” she said, “have you left us, your fledglings, unvisited for so long? Without your guidance we cannot order our lives rightly.” They kissed both her hands again and again. Maria, the third with them, did the same. We talked the whole night. It was January 11. At dawn Irodion and I left. Mother Melania and Elena, at the martyrs’ pleading and out of their great love, dared to stay the whole day with them and were fully comforted.

After us, as I said, the next evening the captain still had not come to take us. We grieved, our souls torn in two.

But the Lord had mercy; we came to the prison again at midnight. The mother wanted to leave quickly. While all stood together, the mother instructed and admonished them. I do not fully know the reason for her admonition, but I relate what I heard. The teacher said: “I know my unworthiness, but since you yourselves press me hard and lay a heavy burden on my neck to show you God’s path—lest I forget—now, seeing your patience, I fear even to draw near you, lest fire come forth from you and burn me in my feebleness. Yet since you have bound me with the love of our Lord, listen to my unworthy words: strive to amend yourselves. I see that you are bound with the chains of demonic warfare; if you do not free yourselves from those chains, even these iron chains you wear for Christ will not help you.”

As the mother spoke these words to them, Feodora held her left hand with her right, and Evdokia her right hand. When blessed Feodora heard such words from her mother, fountains of tears poured down that holy face, and she never stopped kissing her mother’s hand with love. Whenever the mother paused, the most holy one, weeping, would say: “Did I not tell you before, my joy, that without your shepherding we can do no good at all? That is how we all are, lady—without you we follow our own will. Look what you saw in this short hour! Woe to us! We strayed from your guidance and lost the gift of obedience! From where did the Lord give you to us? You are Christ’s apostle to us! O our light! Do not leave us without guidance!”

Seeing and hearing this, I was utterly amazed at the understanding, endurance, and love of blessed Feodora—how, when lovingly corrected, she humbled herself though guilty of nothing.

When that winter had passed, the devil kind a great storm, raging with malice against the martyrs because he was defeated by their patience. It happened thus.

During Thomas week a Moscow clerk named Pavel suddenly burst into the prison with great ferocity. He seized all their necessities and even the scanty food—everything. He took whatever spare clothing they had, leaving them only the shirts on their backs. Not content with that, he took their little books and, in the ultimate satanic wickedness, even the holy icons the martyrs kept—small painted panels. Those foul vessels feared nothing and, worse than the Persian idolaters, stripped them of everything. Feodora had an icon of the most pure God-bearer, the wonder-working Hodegetria. When they carried it out of the prison, tearing it from her hands, she cried aloud with a mighty voice and wept bitterly over the icon. Blessed Evdokia comforted her: “Do not weep—the Helper has not only not abandoned us; Christ Himself is with us and will be!”

There was great uproar among the soldiers; the captains were interrogated about who brought them supplies and who let visitors in. Some confessed they had brought things themselves and allowed others to enter. The captains suffered terrible punishment. The captain under whom we had visited, Alexandr Sezonov son of Medvedevsky, was judged guiltier than the rest; he was flogged, reduced to common soldier, and exiled to Belgorod.

On St. Peter’s day the clerk Kuzmishchev was sent to Borovsk to investigate and interrogated the holy martyrs about visitors and supplies. He burned the venerable martyr Iustina in a log hut because she refused to cross herself with three fingers.

For the sake of those who remained they demolished the prison and made a worse one—dug very deep into the ground—and placed there the two blessed sisters, wise Feodora and glorious Evdokia. Maria they put in the jail where thieves were kept. They were forbidden food or drink. Anyone who dared to give them anything against the order, if later discovered, was to be executed.

The time that followed was utterly cruel. Everyone was now terrified to let anyone in or to offer the slightest comfort themselves.

Who can recount the fullness of their endurance in that deep dungeon—tormented by hunger in impenetrable darkness, choking from the foul air, for the earth’s vapors gathered and caused them great nausea? They could neither change nor wash their shirts. They constantly wore even their thin outer garments for warmth, and from this came countless lice—beyond telling. It was like an unceasing worm: by day it gnawed, by night it gave no sleep.

Yet though the earthly tsar strictly forbade giving them any food at all, the Heavenly King commanded that food be given to the teacher of wisdom—very little and poor: sometimes five or six crusts of bread, but then no water to drink; when water was given, do not ask for food. Sometimes they received one or two apples, sometimes nothing, sometimes a small piece of cucumber. This was done by soldiers who happened to be there and were kind-hearted; seeing the immense suffering of such great people, their hearts melted and, moved to tears, they showed a little mercy—lowering it secretly on a rope so their comrades would not know.

In such extreme need holy Evdokia endured patiently, thanking God, for two and a half months, and departed on September 11. Her passing was tearful. When she grew too weak from great hunger to stand for prayer, to bear her chains, or to move the stool, she lay down and sometimes prayed sitting, moving only her lips. They had no ladder—that is, no prayer rope—for the tormentors had taken that too. The martyrs tied fifty knots in rags and, like climbing the ladder to heaven, took turns sending prayers to God by those knots. When Evdokia saw she was clearly failing, she said to great Feodora: “Lady mother and sister! I am spent and think death is near. Release me to my Master, for whose love I embraced this hardship. I beg you, lady—according to Christian law, that we not remain outside church tradition—sing the departure canon for me. Say what you know, lady, and what I know I will say myself.” Thus both served the departure service. Martyr sang over martyr in the dark dungeon; prisoner wept over prisoner—one lying in chains and groaning, the other standing in chains and sobbing. So the faithful princess Evdokia gave her spirit into the Lord’s hands on September 11.

Feodora called one of the soldiers and ordered him to inform the city commander. He commanded the soldier to go into the prison and pull out her body. The soldier came. Feodora herself bound the body of her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer Evdokia with three threads in the name of the one-essence Trinity and tied it with a rope. When the soldier went out holding the end of the rope, Feodora helped him. The holy preacher poured warm tears upon the holy body of her sister confessor, saying softly: “Go, most beloved flower, and stand before your fair and longed-for Bridegroom Christ!” Having said this, she handed the body to the soldiers; they pulled it out and laid it simply on the ground, uncovered and unburied.

The commander sent a report to Moscow for instructions. The Tsar ordered the body taken outside and buried in the forest. But the duma secretary Hilarion said: “If that happens, the kapitonys and schismatics will find it, take it with great honor as a holy martyr’s relics, begin saying many miracles occur, and the last trouble will be worse than the first.” The Tsar agreed. He ordered the body kept under guard as if still alive and buried inside the stockade. They wrapped it in matting and did so. This was wondrous: until the order came from Moscow the holy body lay five days on the bare ground inside the stockade, yet not only did it not darken—it grew brighter and whiter every day. The soldiers who saw it marveled greatly and said: “Truly these are holy sufferers! This body shows no trace of death’s appearance; rather, as if alive and rejoicing, it blooms and grows more radiant before our eyes.” And they glorified God.

After the martyr Evdokia’s death, the Tsar imagined that great Feodora, worn down by terrible hunger, might soften a little, show some small yielding, and offer even slight submission. With this in mind he sent an elder monk of the Nikonians to persuade her.

The monk came to her prison and began the prayer, omitting the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He went on like this for a long time; there was no voice, no response. At last he pronounced the name of our Lord Jesus Christ as Son of God, and instantly the blessed woman answered: “Amen.” He entered the prison and said: “Why did you not say ‘Amen’ earlier while I stood outside praying so long?” The blessed woman replied: “When I heard a hostile voice I kept silent; when I sensed it was not hostile I answered.”

The monk spoke to her as he had been commanded, urging her to submit at least a little. But the valiant diamond, hearing such words, shook her head, sighed deeply, and said like a man: “Oh, what profound ignorance, what great darkness! How long will you be blinded by malice? How long will you refuse to rise to the light of piety? Do you not understand this? Even when I lived in my house in complete comfort, I did not want to join your falsehood and impiety. Clinging firmly to Orthodoxy, I spared neither property nor fear of suffering for the Lord’s name. Again, at the beginning of my struggle, when they bound me with these chains for Christ’s sake and showed me every torment, I turned away. And now, after I have tasted abundantly the sweet labors for the sweetest Jesus, do they think to separate me from my good and beautiful Master? For four years I have worn these irons, rejoicing greatly, never ceasing to kiss this chain in memory of Paul’s bonds—especially now that I have sent ahead my beloved blood-sister, my companion and fellow-sufferer, to the Master, and soon, with God’s strong help, I myself most eagerly strive to go there. So put aside all hope of separating me from Christ and trouble me no more about it! I am ready to die for the Lord’s name.”

Hearing this, the elder was moved, wept, and said to the great one: “Most honored lady! Truly blessed is your work! For the Lord’s sake I beg you—hasten to crown the beginning with the end. If you finish bravely to the last, who can recount your praises? You will receive great and unspeakable honor from Christ God.” Having said this, the monk left.

After the repose of the holy martyr Evdokia, blessed Maria was brought to great Feodora, and the two endured together in the same struggle. Who can describe their inexpressible patience—what they suffered from hunger and thirst, from suffocating air, from lice!

Later the most blessed Feodora grew utterly weak. She called one of the soldiers and said: “Servant of Christ! Do you still have father and mother alive, or have they reposed? If they live, let us pray for them and for you; if they have died, let us commemorate them. Take pity, servant of Christ! I am utterly spent from hunger and crave bread. Have mercy—give me a little roll.” He answered: “No, lady, I am afraid.” The martyr said: “Then at least a piece of bread.” He replied: “I dare not.” Again the martyr: “Then just a few crusts.” He said: “I dare not.” Feodora continued: “If you dare not, then bring at least an apple or a cucumber.” He answered: “I dare not.” The blessed woman said: “Very well, child. Blessed be our God who has willed it so! Since, as you say, it is impossible, I beg you—do one last kindness: cover my poor body with matting and lay it inseparably beside my beloved sister and fellow-sufferer.”

Later, when she was completely spent, she called another soldier and said: “Servant of Christ! Did you have a mother? I know you were born of a woman; therefore I beg you—arm yourself with the fear of God. I am a woman and, pressed by great need, must wash my shirt. As you yourself see, I cannot go and serve myself—I am in chains and have no maid to help me. Run to the river and wash this shirt for me. The Lord is about to take me from this life, and it is not fitting for this body to lie in unclean clothing in the bosom of its mother earth.”

Saying this, she gave him her headscarf. Hiding it under his coat, he went and washed it in the river. While washing that small cloth with water, he washed his own face with tears, thinking of her former greatness and her present need—how she endured for Christ’s sake and would not join the impious, and therefore was dying. For everyone knew that if she had agreed to even a little communion with them, she would have been honored more than before. But she utterly refused; she chose to die ten thousand times rather than fall from the love of Christ.

After this the blessed and great Feodora reposed in peace in the deep dungeon, from the first to the second day of November, in the hour of the night, on the commemoration of the holy martyrs Akindynos and Pegasios.

At that time her mother Melania was in the wilderness and that night saw in a dream great Feodora clothed in the schema and a most wondrous kukol. Her face was radiant and joyful; she rejoiced in her kukol, looked around everywhere, passed her hands over her garments, marveled at the beauty of her robes, and ceaselessly kissed the image of the Savior that was near her, and also the crosses on the schema. She went on doing this for a long time until the mother awoke from the vision. Rising, she wondered greatly. We came and she told us. Later we learned this too: the night Feodora the venerable departed to the Lord in the Borovsk prison was the same night the mother saw the vision in the wilderness. And we glorified God.

After her holy repose, her holy and much-suffering body was wrapped in matting, as the blessed woman herself had commanded, and buried there in the stockade beside her blood-sister, the faithful martyr princess Evdokia. When Tsar Alexis learned of it, he ordered that no one—no boyar or anyone else—be told. For three weeks it was kept secret in the Upper Chambers, but afterward it became known everywhere.

Blessed Maria outlived Feodora by only one month and reposed to the Lord on the ___ day of December (the manuscript leaves a blank for the number). Thus the third ascended to the two to rejoice eternally in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom belong all glory, honor, worship, and majesty, with His beginningless Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

When the Lord was about to lead great Feodora and her companions on the path of witness, that year, as they fasted, Father Dosifei communed them in the upper room of Ivan’s house in blessed Feodora’s home. As they drew near to receive the most pure Body and Blood of Christ, all three were bathed in warm tears. The holy father saw a wondrous thing: suddenly the three—glorious Feodora, faithful princess Evdokia, and blessed Maria—had their faces illumined and became marvelous to behold, exactly like angels of God. They remained in such radiance until they had received communion. Later the elder secretly told some people: “This is no ordinary thing; I think this year they will suffer for Christ”—and so it came to pass.

Once Mother Melania fell gravely ill and was dying. Feodora, then at the Pechersky metochion, wept bitterly, unable to bear separation from her mother, and said: “Lord, do not make us orphans! Who will guide us to You and lead us unfailingly on Your path?”

One night the mother grew so weak that she no longer recognized the sisters standing by her and weeping bitterly. Her breath came rarely; the sisters fully expected her to die. Suddenly the mother came to herself and the next day was well. She told the sisters: “I did not expect to live when you were weeping over me that night. My spirit was gathering in my breast; I felt something living drawing from my whole body toward my heart, as if about to leave through my throat. It was terribly hard for me. My legs and arms felt dead; it was so hard I thought my heart would burst. I clearly understood that all the gathered spirit swelling in my breast was about to leave my body at once. Then suddenly I felt that surge of spirit retreat from my breast; like water it flowed through my whole body. I felt my hands and feet come alive; I grew easier, immediately opened my eyes, and saw you weeping.”

The mother sent Feodora a maternal blessing. The maiden Maria came and saw Feodora not only black-faced but with lips cracked apart. She quickly asked: “Is our mother better?” Maria answered: “By your prayers she is well. But tell me—why are you so grieved?” The blessed woman, tears still in her eyes, said: “O Maria! I wept inconsolably over my orphanhood and begged Christ to leave us our mother. Yet I also said to the Master that He should give her something better. I was torn both ways—asking for the better yet desiring with all my heart that she live longer with us, send us to Christ, and herself become a martyr. So I spent the whole night weeping. Now blessed be the Lord our God who has left us our guide to restrain our lack of self-control and comfort us in sorrows!”

Maria went and told the mother everything the blessed woman had said. Everyone understood in their hearts that just as God, because of the tears and pity of the fathers, commanded the soul of Abbot Kozma to return, so here, because of the weeping of His servant Feodora, He granted life to her spiritual mother Melania.

While blessed Maria sat in chains under guard, Feodora sent her this message: “Unless you place yourself under obedience to our mother, you cannot be saved. If you beg her and she takes pity and accepts you as her disciple, you will do all good things and be able to endure to the end.” As soon as Maria heard this, without any delay she begged the mother to come to her. The way was extremely difficult, yet because of her earnest pleading the mother could not refuse. When they met, Maria began to entreat her. The mother refused, saying she was unworthy. The blessed woman fell to the ground, wept bitterly, and never stopped kissing the mother’s hands with her lips and washing them with tears. “Why will you not have mercy on me as you did on those two blessed sisters? I know I am not worthy to be called your daughter like those great ladies—great boyarynya Feodora and faithful princess Evdokia Prokopievna, your excellent and beloved disciples. But count me not even to your little finger—count me to one of your fingernails, only call me yours so that I may be your disciple! For the Lord’s sake take pity—do not separate me from my beloved ones, from Feodora and Evdokia, my lights!” Though the mother strongly refused, she finally said: “You are Christ’s and mine.” Maria rejoiced greatly. Thus all three rivaled one another in obedience.

When the mother and Elena were in the prison that day, the mother told Iustina to leave the prison in her place and go free while she herself remained. Iustina went to ask her elder, who had been her husband by law when they lived in the world; he was confined in another prison in the same stockade. He confirmed her resolve to endure to the end and not lose her crown. “See,” he said, “how they love Christ and willingly accept chains and death for His sake. You have endured much—do not now destroy everything.” She obeyed, strengthened herself to endure unto death. Returning from that prison to the martyrs, while between the two prisons she cried aloud, lifted her voice, wept bitterly, and poured out many words in her sobbing as was her custom. Mother Melania and Elena listened to her weeping, and the martyrs with them; they marveled and glorified God.

Iustina had this habit of weeping: whenever sorrowful thoughts came upon her, she could neither restrain herself nor hide it but wept bitterly for all to hear.

This was the beginning of her lament: “O my light, most holy God-bearer, Queen of heaven! O my light, Helper and Protectress Hodegetria! I have neither kin nor tribe—you are my helper in all things, my kin, my tribe, my protectress, Hodegetria! O my light, Christ Son of God! When You come to judge all on the last day and render to each according to his deeds, I beg You, O Son of God—have mercy on me and make me worthy to stand at Your right hand and hear Your sweet voice saying to the righteous: ‘Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ Deliver me from that fearful and most cruel voice You will say to the sinners on Your left: ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ And do not say to me, O sweetest Jesus: ‘Depart from me, you cursed!’” When Iustina reached this word…

source

May 10. Presided over by I. I. Zykov.

Chairman. Honorable and devout assembly! In this session, the question of the mystery of Holy Communion will be discussed. Given the importance of the subject, I most humbly request that the public conduct itself as peacefully as possible and follow the discussion with all humility, silence, and meekness—not only outwardly, but also in the heart. I ask that there be no repetitions of the applause and whistling that occurred yesterday and the day before. The first speech belongs to the esteemed defenders and advocates of the Austrian priesthood. I now declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. According to the established program, today the precise question to be discussed is this: Will the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord remain in Christ’s Church until His second coming? If it is proven that the sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, then it is clear that no powers of hell, nor the Antichrist, can destroy what Christ established in His Church. Then it will also be clear that yesterday’s proofs by our interlocutor—that the Antichrist is already reigning—do not change this question. Even if we were to agree that the Antichrist is reigning, the priesthood and sacrifice must still exist.

So I proceed to the question at hand. Christ the Savior, before His sufferings, desired to partake of the Passover with His disciples for the last time. This Passover was prepared in one of the upper rooms in Jerusalem, where Christ Himself and the holy apostles were present. Judas was there too. When they

“were reclining at table,” as the Gospel says, “Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19–20).

Thus Christ took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying:

“This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you and for many.”

From these few words of Christ the Savior, it is clear that He instituted the mystery of Holy Communion at the Mystical Supper and commanded that it be done in remembrance of His saving Passion. Did Christ command everyone to do what He Himself did at the Mystical Supper? No. He commanded the apostles to do it—that is, to bless and break in the same way He did, as stated on page 358 of the Great Catechism:

“For if in the Old Covenant no one dared to perform the mystery without being consecrated, how much less should it be permitted among us. Therefore, the Lord at the Mystical Supper made His apostles priests.”

Thus, this sacrifice must be performed not by ordinary people, not by laity, but by specially appointed persons, as the Catechism says: “those who bear the priesthood upon themselves.” Was this established by Christ the Savior only temporarily? Perhaps it was instituted only until the coming of the last Antichrist; when the Antichrist comes, will he destroy all this in the Church? No, the answer to this is given by the holy Apostle Paul, whose mouth—according to one of the Paschal matins teachings—is “the mouth of Christ”:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,” writes the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (Reading 149).

What he received from the Lord, he passes on to them. What is it?

“That the Lord Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread” (1 Cor. 10:16, Matt. 26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’”

Thus I, says the apostle, received this from the Lord and pass it on to you:

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’”

All this Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of the Lord’s saving Passion, which He endured for the sins of the whole world. Then the Apostle Paul continues:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

Consequently, until Christ comes a second time to earth to judge the living and the dead, this eating and drinking must remain in Christ’s Church. On these words of the Apostle Paul, the great teacher of the universal Church, John Chrysostom—whose mouth, according to the same teaching, is the mouth of Paul and of Christ—testifies in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (p. 871) as follows:

“‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.’ Interpretation: Just as Christ said concerning the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with other things, is sufficient for us to show reverence—when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical—so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death.’ And this is that very Supper. Then, showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes.’”

We read the same in the Great Catechism, on page 384:

“These are the words of the Lord: ‘Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins. And drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. And do this in remembrance of Me.’ That is, offer and bring with thanksgiving, and consecrate with blessing. Concerning this, Paul writes to the Corinthians: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (Reading 145). Then Matthew in the 108th reading of his Gospel shows the same. Luke also says the same. All these things pertain to the performance of the sacrifice and this mystery. But these words are the most efficacious for that mystery: ‘This is My body, this is My blood.’ Concerning this, Saint John Chrysostom, in the third [book, that is, the second volume], on Judas’s betrayal, says thus: Just as that word which the Lord God spoke, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth, so this word of the Lord, spoken once, gives power to the sacrifice on all altars even to this day and until His coming.”

Just as God once commanded “be fruitful and multiply,” and this is always fulfilled by His command with no possibility of stopping the power of those words, so the Lord’s words about the sacrifice were spoken once, but the power of the sacrifice will remain on all altars even until His coming. If we were to admit that the Antichrist reigns and has destroyed everything in the Church, then the words of the Apostle Paul “till He comes”—that is, until the second coming—and the words of Saint John Chrysostom would be rendered empty; but even to think this is dreadful. In the Book of Cyril, on the reverse of page 78, it is written as follows:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

These are the words of Christ at the Mystical Supper. This, it says, is sufficient for our assurance, because it is strong and invincible. On the same page it is written that the sacrifice and the priesthood have equal power, equal significance, and equal promise. This is evident from the words in the Book of Cyril, on the same page:

“The priesthood and the sacrifice are one and the same; one cannot exist without the other.”

They are together, inseparable, and one cannot be without the other. For example, could someone decide to say that there is priesthood but no sacrifice, or that there is sacrifice but no priesthood? One cannot say this in either case; rather, priesthood and sacrifice are together. The same is testified in the Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 545:

“Therefore, if there was a daily sacrifice there [in the Old Testament], then in the new there is one far better and more honorable. For the holy Paul says: when the priesthood of the old law is changed, so is the law. And if the priesthood, then also the sacrifice. For these two go together; one cannot exist without the other.”

The same regarding the eternity of the sacrifice is said in the same Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 544:

“But what the Lord Himself did and commanded His disciples and those after them to do until His coming. For if this sign of Melchizedek the priest after the Lord’s Supper had not been fulfilled, then it would have no place anywhere else. For the Prophet says God to the Jews: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering. For My name is great among the nations, says the Lord.’ That is, He no longer desires sacrifice from the hands of the Jews, and He names another sacrifice dear to Himself, written in three ways: it shall be among the nations, and in every place, and a pure sacrifice. And this is that sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world. And until the end of the age it will offer the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in remembrance of His death. And this prophecy is sufficient for assurance, since it is firm and unconquerable.”

From these clear testimonies, I believe it is understandable to everyone that Christ established priesthood and sacrifice in His Church until His second coming. This is also stated in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, and that it remains until the end is proven by the words: “till He comes,” as said by the Apostle Paul.

In this discussion, we will not examine the question of priesthood: which priesthood is good, which priesthood might be good—we will not debate this, because the question is not about that. The main question is: Will priesthood and sacrifice remain in Christ’s Church until Christ’s second coming? If it pleases our interlocutors to consider our priesthood unlawful, our sacrifice unlawful, we are not speaking about that in this discussion, but about something else—about the Lord’s sacrifice established in His Church. If such a sacrifice is acceptable among the Old Believer Pomortsy, then on the basis of what I have read, they must acknowledge that it will exist until the second coming, and then the question will be: where is this true sacrifice? But since they deny this and say that at present there is no such sacrifice, they are directly contradicting the teaching of the Apostle Paul, Saint John Chrysostom, and other holy fathers and teachers of the Church—they go against all the teachers of the Church. I say this only if they claim that it cannot be obtained anywhere now, or if they point out that they too have priesthood and sacrifice in the form Christ established at the Mystical Supper—then the question will depend on where the true sacrifice is and where it is not. But I know the view of our interlocutor: he considers the Antichrist to be the heretics. We cannot agree with this, because even in the ancient Church and before Patriarch Nikon there were many heretics, but they were not recognized as the final Antichrist, nor was it considered at that time that priesthood and sacrifice had been destroyed in Christ’s Church. I think that the testimonies I have read are sufficient to pose the question, and I consider it unnecessary to repeat or explain them, because they are so clear that explaining them would only obscure them.

Concluding my speech for the first time, I turn to my interlocutor Lev Feoktistovich with the following question: Show me in Holy Scripture where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming. I have pointed out that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the world, until the second coming. But where is it written that they will not remain? This will depend on your proofs. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, be so kind as to read for us and all the respected listeners a place in Holy Scripture where it is said that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in His Church will not remain until the second coming. This is my question. If you resolve this in your first speech, then it will not need to be repeated and will be considered exhausted by your arguments. But if in your first speech you do not give a substantive answer, I will remind you that I will repeat this question in each subsequent speech. We need clear testimonies, just as clear as those I have presented in proof that the sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming—we need equally clear proofs from your side that the sacrifice and priesthood will not remain.

Concluding my speech, I address my interlocutor with the following reminder, simply as a brother, not in offense or reproach: one should not evade the question; that is not how to conduct a discussion. Instead, point directly to where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming.

And we should not touch upon the question of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, as you call it. Just in case there is any attempt on your part to address this question, I invite you once again to discuss it specifically. If one discussion on the hierarchy is not enough for you, I invite you to two discussions.

Please, Lev Feoktistovich, answer the posed question: where is it written that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. Dear and highly respected assembly! The mystery of Communion was undoubtedly given by Christ the Savior to the holy apostles in the upper room on Zion, but I must make an important qualification on this matter. The Holy Church received from Christ an inheritance: priesthood and the grace-filled mysteries dependent on priesthood. Everything that took place in the upper room on Zion was done by the Master Christ Himself; and everything that was received by the holy apostles—His disciples and His divine preachers—and everything that the divine preacher-apostles passed on to their successors in faith, all this, in truth, was given only to Orthodox Christians. But from the time when this sacred mystery was entrusted by Christ the Savior, Christians divided into various sects and heretical societies. In heretical societies there could be no grace of Christ, and therefore there was none, nor is there among them the sacred mystery of the Eucharist, nor the other mysteries. Christ’s Church followed the path appointed by the Master Christ and the proclamation of the holy prophets and apostles. From the proclamation of the holy apostles, it is evident that heretics undermined the authority of the Church. Everything that my interlocutor read from Holy Scripture I accept unconditionally, but I ask him to pay special attention to the fact that this was said in its time and for the times of continuing piety. At the same time, we must not forget in what period of time we live, for the almighty Master God indicated to us through the prophet Daniel four periods of kingdoms in the world, which, according to the indication of Scripture, we have actually lived through. Now we are living through a period of time whose end is hidden solely in the counsel of God; and this end is the second coming of Christ to earth. Since in the last period of time the Roman kingdom was divided into 10 parts, after the division of the Roman kingdom into 10 parts, according to the prediction of the prophets, only the day of God’s Judgment remains. About this period of time, the divine prophets, holy apostles, and apostolic men said that in this time false prophets and false christs will nest and deceive many. Christ the Savior said:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Gospel of Matthew, Reading 22).

It is in such an unfortunate period of time that we live. Having said this preliminarily for your information, dear listeners, I proceed to analyze the testimonies that my interlocutor has put forward against me as accusations. First of all, I must answer: “Is the priesthood and sacrifice eternal?” I pay special attention to this question. I answer: Christ the Savior said about the Church in the Gospel of Matthew, Reading 67:

“I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

About the Church Christ said: “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” but about priesthood He did not make such a promise: “I will build My priesthood, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”—such words are nowhere said in the holy Gospel. On the contrary, about priesthood Christ the Savior made a qualification in the following words. Christ said about priesthood in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, Reading 10, at the end:

“You are the salt of the earth.” “But if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?”

That is, you are the salt of the earth. Just as salt seasons the body and prevents it from decomposing, so the priesthood in the person of the apostles must season with the living word of divine teaching the body of the Church. The Church is the assembly of the faithful people in one spirit according to faith and in united dogmas, constituting one body, and the sacred persons are members of the Church. Christ says to them: “You are the light of the world and the salt of the earth,” but “if the salt loses its flavor.” You are the salt of the earth, you season with the life-giving word of your grace-filled teaching the body of the Church, but if you lose flavor—that is, deviate into teaching alien to grace or fall away from what I have entrusted to you—then you are no longer priests, but “flavorless, stinking salt, fit for nothing.” What should the Church—that is, the body—do with this salt? Throw it out. But how will the body of the Church remain without salt—that is, without priesthood? In answer to this question, I will read the words of Christ the Savior, Reading 42 in the Gospel of Mark:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire,”

that is, every believing Christian, when the priesthood loses its flavor, will be seasoned—that is, governed—by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is here called fire. But “salt is good,” that is, priesthood.

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Here stands a question mark. Christ Himself answered:

“It is thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matthew, Reading 10).

Not only must such salt be thrown out of the Church, but even “trampled underfoot by men”—that is, despised by all. The Evangelist Mark, from the words of Jesus Christ, says:

“And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble—it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”

Thus, for this stumbling block it is better to hang a stone around the neck and throw oneself into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble in faith. And how to cause stumbling? To destroy with false teaching in faith. Further comes the parable:

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Dear listeners, do not think that this speaks of the right and left hand. No! You will hear that hand here mysteriously means a sacred person. It is better for you, says Christ, to go without a hand into the kingdom of God—that is, without a flavorless priest—than with a sacred person who causes you to stumble, to go into the fiery hell.

“And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off.”

The foot means church servants:

“It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Further comes speech about the eye.

“And if your eye causes you to stumble,”

in this case do not go to a doctor or a knowledgeable person to remove this bad eye. But you yourself, the body of the Church, if you see that a bishop causes you to stumble, cast him aside. The eye means bishop and priest, the right hand—deacon, the foot—church servants. Consequently, all three ranks can lose flavor; and the question is, how will the sacred body of the Church live without members? How will it be seasoned?

I, as one of the mortals, am not able to answer this, but I see the resolution of the Master Christ Himself to this question:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire.”

So do not think, Christian, that you cannot be saved without a priest and bishop, for you will be seasoned with fire.

What does this fire mean? In the first discussion I showed that this fire is the Holy Spirit; consequently, according to the words of Jesus Christ, in need one can be seasoned by the grace of the Holy Spirit:

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Answer:

“Have salt in yourselves.”

Have the teaching of the holy Gospel in yourselves; have the teaching of the holy apostles in yourselves; finally, have the teaching of all the divine men of the Church in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves (Mark 9). And so, dear listeners, I have said briefly and clearly regarding priesthood that it will lose flavor and not remain until the end, but to the body—that is, the Church—the Savior promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Now I will present the interpretation of what hand, foot, and eye mean. The Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 7, page 48, interpretation of Athanasius of Alexandria: “Those walking the undeceived and life-giving path should cast out the eye—not the sensory one, but the noetic one. That is, if a bishop or presbyter, who are the eyes of the church, live improperly and cause people to stumble, it is fitting to cast them out; it is better to gather in a house of prayer without them than to be cast with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas, into the fiery hell. Likewise the hand, which is the deacon, if he does something unworthy, let him be removed from the altar. The foot, which is the servant, if he runs badly into falsehood, let him also be made alien to service, as a wicked and senseless man, so that the Church gathered may be preserved without stumbling.” Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, tells all truly believing Christians to beware of the eye: the bishop and priest. If they are Orthodox, they are bright eyes and bear the image of Christ Himself; but if they are heretics, by that damage they are already servants of hell. It is better for you, he says, to gather in a house of prayer without them—that is, better for simple, believing people to gather in a house of prayer without heretical bishops and priests than with them. What benefit was there to the Jews who remained with the Christ-killing high priests Annas and Caiaphas? So there will be no benefit to those who are governed by false priesthood. It is better to be in poverty according to faith than to perish from heretics. The apostles were simple poor fishermen; they themselves said of themselves:

“We are poor, yet making many rich.”

With Christ, these humble fishermen entered the dwelling that the Heavenly Father promised for all believers, while the unbelievers with the high priests went to the depths of hell. And now let those who wish to be saved walk the narrow evangelical path, not the broad splendid road that blinds the world; for a person attempting faith walks not the narrow evangelical path but the broad and destructive one, looking at appearances.

I openly say and answer the question that the priesthood at the present time has completely lost its flavor. And my most honorable interlocutor took priesthood from this flavorless, rotten root and supposes that it can bring him life-giving fruits—that is, the mystery of Communion. The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Reading 106, writes:

“If the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.”

But the firstfruit of your root is not holy, but heretical. You yourselves called this root “the harlot Babylon; the dwelling place of demons and a hold of every unclean spirit” and, finally, “the heretical church”; and a heretical root is the root of Sodom and Gomorrah. From Sodom and Gomorrah you took a dry vine, lifeless—that is, graceless—and therefore this dry vine does not bring you the fruits of Communion. Only the living grapevine brings life-giving fruits. Christ the Savior in the Gospel of John, Reading 50, said:

“Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. Whoever does not abide in Me is thrown away. Like a branch, it withers, and they gather it and throw it into the fire, and it burns.”

The branches are the apostles and their successors—the bishops, builders of Christ’s mysteries. Christ said to them:

“Without Me you can do nothing.”

Then how can a Sodomite branch without Christ produce the fruits of Christ’s mysteries? A cut-off vine no longer bears fruit; it withers, according to the word of God. They gather it, throw it into the fire, and burn it.

Then, you read Christ’s words spoken regarding the mystery of Communion at the Mystical Supper. With all my soul I confess that this is true; as a believing person, I accept that it was all unconditionally so, but to my regret, I must say, according to Scripture, that this highest mystery is now emptied, corrupted by heretics. As for the words of the Apostle Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians, Reading 149, which my interlocutor read without discernment, I will read them again to restore the truth. The Apostle says:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

I will read the words of Christ the Savior spoken in the upper room on Zion to His disciples:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to them and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.”

The Apostle adds:

“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (Reading 149).

The meaning of these words is this: If anyone receives the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, he pronounces judgment on himself, because he partakes unworthily. Consequently, even in the sacred mystery of Communion there are distinctions: not everyone can always partake unconditionally, but only, according to the proclamation of the Divine Church, “the holy things to the holy.” A Christian must prepare for receiving this sacred mystery and necessarily from the hand of an Orthodox builder. Thus the Apostle Paul said about this:

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.”

Already the Apostle Paul mentions two cups: one the Lord’s, the other demonic. At the present time the Lord’s cup is not visible, and to partake of the demonic cup is terrifying. And the demonic cup is the pretended communion arranged by false priests, like demons disguised as angels of light. For at the present time, in the period of the misfortune that has befallen us since 1666, there is no servant of this mystery in the true spirit, and all that exist are either artificial or derived from heretics.

Here I must tell you, beloved assembly, that it is precisely these mysteries—artificial and lifeless, heretical—that we shun. But we believe that, according to our warmest desire and faith, in these last Antichrist times, for the need of salvation, the Lord will grant us the mystery of “the Holy of Holies” if we walk the Lord’s path. Finally, my interlocutor posed the question: “Point out where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the end of the age?” I will answer this question with the words of Christ the Savior, that

“On the holy place: the abomination of desolation will stand.”

The priesthood, the builders of this mystery, will lose flavor, and once the builders have lost flavor, consequently there is no longer the true mystery.

To prove that instead of true Communion such a high mystery will have the abomination of desolation, I must take the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior says in the Evangelist Matthew, Reading 99:

“When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

First testimony. Then the second, from Mark, Reading 60:

“But when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

Here, brethren, Christ the Savior said that there will be a time when, instead of the true sacrifice, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. Before finishing reading the words of the Gospel, I must explain what the holy place is that Christ speaks of. About this testifies the Book of Cyril, page 54:

“The holy place understand as Jerusalem chosen throughout the whole world, as Matthew writes, the holy city. And Cyril of Jerusalem says the supreme Apostolic Church. Understand also that in every place where there are Christian churches, on the altars the throne is the holy place, on which the priests offer sacrifice to God, consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.”

Thus, in the supreme Apostolic Church the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place—not only simply in the Church, but on the very altars the abomination of desolation will finally stand. If according to the word of Christ the Savior the abomination of desolation will stand on the altars even in the initial Jerusalem church and in all churches, then it is precisely this abomination of desolation that we now shun, and along with it we shun the builders of this improper mystery. I read the words of Christ the Savior:

“And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.”

When the last week of Daniel comes—and this, according to Scripture, is our time—in that time, it is said, when you see the abomination of desolation, they will say to you: here is an Orthodox bishop, and others will say: here is a more Orthodox bishop, others will say that a bishop is hiding in the desert (the bishop signifies the person of Christ), then

“Do not be deceived, for many will come in My name, even to deceive the elect.”

So it is said in the interpretation. But do not believe, do not enter into union with them; if you believe and enter into union with them, you will perish—said our Master Christ. The word false christ in a figurative sense means false anointed, for the true anointed is Jesus Christ, and the false anointed is a heretical bishop, just as the Antichrist is a false christ. Such a false anointed will give, supposedly in the name of Christ, such false christs as himself, and false prophets, and will show signs and wonders, and many in delusion will recognize him as Christ, for he will create an appearance similar to Christ’s Church, priesthood similar to Christ’s priesthood, and similar to everything that the Apostolic Church instituted. In this temptation, if one does not sober up, even the most elect person cannot discern; not to mention a person who cares little about this. But take heed—you poor, humble, trampled-upon apostles—and not the proud Jewish high priests, take heed. (Testimony from the Evangelist Matthew). Christ the Savior here by parable indicates: “Who stands in faith on a false foundation and who on a firm one,” Gospel of Matthew, Reading 24.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.”

By this Christ means a person’s firm faith in Christ, for the rock is Christ. If someone is established in truly Christ-like faith, no temptations in faith will shake him, for Christ says: “Whoever hears these sayings of Mine—sayings of teaching, counsel, and prohibition—and does them,” “I will liken him to a wise man”—that is, a person able to distinguish truth from deception and harmful from useful. And this high understanding, with God’s help, is precisely applied now. Christ seems to say: “You see false christs, false prophets, deceiving many in My name, and the abomination of desolation standing in the churches, and temptations attacking you from these false priests—take heed, stand firm in faith, do not fear, I am with you; if people destroy you in faith and shake your mind like a storm, hold fast, for the root of your faith is in Me. If you strengthen yourself thus in faith, neither the rain of afflictions nor the rivers of heretical teachings will undermine the house of your faith. For it is not people who will exalt you, not people who will set you on the rock—that is, false christs—but I will help you in your trouble. I will liken you to a wise man, and this wisdom the whole world will not be able to resist, for he built his house on the rock.” A wise person builds his house in faith on the rock, and no storms of afflictions or whirlwinds of lies will scatter it; he will never be shaken, because he stands on the firm rock of confession. But if someone bases his hope in faith on sand—that is, on human invention—then his spiritual house will fall; for it is founded not on Christ but on false teaching, and this person is no longer wise but foolish, as Christ says:

“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”

My brethren in faith, though they do not accept the modern priesthood, are founded on the rock of sound faith and are likened in faith in Christ to a wise man. But the faith of my honorable interlocutors is founded on sand, for by their own invention they established a priesthood that began only in 1846. What is the abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation is false teaching, false mystery of the Eucharist, and all Antichrist activity. And this is now—witness to this is blessed Jerome, part 16, p. 250: “Under the abomination of desolation can be understood any perverted teaching. When we see it standing in the holy place—that is, in the Church—and showing itself as God, we must flee from Judea to the mountains—that is, leaving the killing letter and Jewish corruption, draw near to the eternal mountains in which God wonderfully shines.”

When we see false teaching dominating in the Church, we do not seek salvation in the letter but on the mountains—that is, in the high prophetic writings.

Thus, I have proven that the priesthood has lost its flavor. Christ the Savior said that the sacrifice will also be subject to the abomination of desolation. Now let my interlocutor answer this.

D. S. Varakin. You have heard, most respected listeners, the first speech of our interlocutor and have probably become convinced that Mr. Pichugin not only did not answer the question posed to him but did not even approach an answer to the question. I asked, on the basis of the whole series of testimonies I read, to point out: where is it written in Holy Scripture that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming? For now the question remains with him. Then Mr. Pichugin throughout his speech tried again to attack our priesthood. It seems to me there can be no clearer sign of the weakness of our interlocutors’ convictions. When a person speaks off-topic, it means he has nothing to say. If he had proofs from Holy Scripture for his conviction, he would have read a whole mountain of them, but since he read not one, it means there are none, and if there are none, it means their conviction, as he himself read, is founded like a house on sand. This is not new. After all, the two previous discussions (the third was specifically on the question of priesthood) were also directed against our priesthood, which did not relate to the question. So my interlocutor tries to proceed in this discussion as well. I challenged him: if you wish to discuss our priesthood further, I ask you, Lev Feoktistovich, to appoint—not just one—two special discussions, and I am at your service; but he said not a word to me whether he agrees or not to discuss priesthood. After all, we had conditions even before the discussions with you: when speaking about one side, not to mention the other, and you said: “yes, yes.” I wanted you to sign the condition, you said: “why, don’t you believe me if I say it.” It turns out you cannot be trusted. I should have asked you to sign the condition so that everything would be documented and everyone convinced that you are going against the promise you gave, which you signed, and evading the question. But God be your judge. I will not touch upon the question of our priesthood; I said I will go the straight path: will priesthood and sacrifice remain until the second coming, and I will prove that they will remain, but you did not read that they will not. Appoint further discussions about our priesthood; I agree to discuss with you as much as you like, but not now.

He also began with the Gospel, that in Christ the Savior’s Gospel it is said: “You are the salt of the earth” and “The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place.” No one is forcing you to accept the heretical; point out what you have if you have Christ’s Church; and do not point out that there and there is heretical. But since it is said that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, it means you must have it, but you do not. Therefore your Church is not Christ’s. Regarding the abomination of desolation, the honorable interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril:

“The abomination of desolation is the corpse of a dead man, which is a body of desolation without soul and without blood, dead and emptied, doing nothing. And when Vespasian and Titus the Roman emperors came, they captured Jerusalem, laid it waste, and set up their idol in the altar in the holy place. The Jews called the idol a human corpse, abomination, as they were defiled by hypocrisy, envy, and evil deeds” (Page 31 reverse).

This is the place my interlocutor read. Where is this abomination of desolation? It means where there is no true sacrifice, where there is no true piety. I agree with this. But on page 32 of the same book we see this:

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

But you do not have this. Here is where the abomination of desolation is. Note what abomination means. It is that heretics have no sacrifice. But it is known that in some Pomortsy prayer houses there are altars. But are there thrones and altars? No. There is neither throne nor altar. Instead of throne and altar, they have arranged a sideboard. This, I think, is known even to those Old Believer Pomortsy brethren present here. Did not the Antichrist drag it there? No, they arranged it themselves. The Antichrist has nothing to do with it. When rebuilding the temple, they drew up a plan and made a place for the altar, and said: here, instead of the altar, put a sideboard.

“And they do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice” (Cyril, p. 32).

This, it says, heretics themselves stripped from their altars. For example, take a Pomortsy temple. There is no Antichrist there. They themselves arrange everything without the Antichrist and decided that an altar is not needed. And instead of the altar here we will drink tea, snack, as in inns, and blame everything on the Antichrist: supposedly the Antichrist destroyed priesthood and sacrifice before the second coming. What else happens in this abomination of desolation?

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse” (Ibid., p. 32).

This is what all heretics do who have no sacrifice. This is what happens in their altars. This was not done by the Antichrist or his forerunner, but by those who call themselves pious Old Believer Pomortsy; so they vainly shift all the blame onto the Antichrist.

To make this even clearer to you, respected assembly, I will read what the Apostle Paul and Saint John Chrysostom—whose mouths are the mouths of Christ—say:

“Just as Christ said about the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing to us the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with others, is sufficient for us to show reverence (for when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical), so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death,’ and this is that Supper. Then showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes’” (Homilies on the Acts, p. 871).

Here, not until some time, not until 1666, not until 1846. No. Till Christ comes a second time. And Christ has not yet come a second time, but for 250 years you have had nothing.

We were read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where it is said that pastors are called “evil eye.” Yes, I agree with this. One must beware of an evil bishop, priest, or deacon preaching false teaching. But if they repent, they should be accepted, because we see that in ancient times pastors deviated into error, but they repented and again became Orthodox pastors, and with them were all Orthodox Christians. I fully agree with this. But having read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain about the “evil eye,” you did not read in it the most important thing that precisely concerns your society. You should have finished reading it; but since you did not, I will do it myself. Here is what is said in Word 53, page 445 reverse:

“‘This is My body,’ He said. This word presents what is set before us, just as that voice saying ‘increase and fill the earth’… so this voice, spoken once, on every table in the churches from then until this day, and until His coming, makes the sacrifice perfect.”

This he did not read, but it is in the same book. To what my respected interlocutor said, I directly declare that he spoke off-topic, that he said not a word on the question; I do not even find anything to examine in his speech. Heretics should not be accepted—I agree with this; heretical pastors, he says, should not be accepted—I agree with this too. But I do not agree that when a pastor repents, he should not be accepted either; when he repents, he will be an Orthodox pastor just as before. And all this does not change our question. The question remains with him. Point out where it is written that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

We should dwell a little on the expression quoted by my interlocutor: “he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.” Is it possible that for 250 years among them in all Russia and the universe not one worthy person was found? According to my interlocutor’s conclusion, this is true. It turns out that for 250 years not one worthy person was found among them to receive the body and blood of Christ. An extremely sad and lamentable situation.

About the fact that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, testifies in another place the great teacher of the Church Saint John Chrysostom (part 7, p. 820): “As the old covenant had rams and bulls, so the new has the blood of the Lord. By this Christ shows that He will suffer death; therefore He mentions the covenant and recalls the first, since that covenant was also renewed with blood. Further, He again speaks of the reason for His death: which is shed for many for the remission of sins, and adds: do this in remembrance of Me. Do you see how Christ turns them away from Jewish customs? As you celebrated the Passover in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so celebrate this mystery in My remembrance. The blood of the old covenant was shed for the salvation of the firstborn, but this blood is shed for the remission of the sins of the whole world: this is My blood, He says, shed for the remission of sins. He said this also to show that the suffering and the cross are a mystery, and by this again consoles the disciples. And as Moses said: this shall be an eternal memorial for you (Ex. III, 15), so Christ says: in My remembrance, until that time when I come.”

Until what time? Until the coming of the Antichrist, perhaps? No, “until that time when I come.” And the Antichrist will come before Christ’s coming, and according to you he has already come, but Christ is not yet here. “Until that time when I come.” Are these words of Christ the Savior, transmitted through the mouth of John Chrysostom, false? Are they powerless? Is the Antichrist, such as you preach—even if he were the most terrible—stronger than Christ? The same Saint Chrysostom in another book, in Homilies on Various Occasions (vol. 2, p. 91), writes the following: “But it is already time to approach this fearful table. Let us all approach with due philosophy and attention, and let no one be a Judas, let nothing be evil, let no one hide poison in himself, bearing one thing on the lips and another in the mind. Christ is present; He who instituted that table also now arranges this one. For it is not a man who transforms what is set before us into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands bearing His image and pronounces the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. These words transform what is set before us, and just as that saying: ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28), spoken once, but throughout all time actually gives our nature the power of childbearing; so that saying, spoken once, from that time until now and until His coming, makes the perfect sacrifice on every table in the Churches.”

Can one in any way establish that the human race cease to multiply? Can this be done? Even the priestless celibates cannot do this, not to mention other priestless who accept marriages. This cannot be done because it is fulfilled by God’s command; likewise the sacrifice about which Christ spoke will remain until He comes—“until His second coming.” In the Book on Faith, on page 51, the following is written about those who do not have such a great gift—holy Communion:

“Drink of it, all of you, and confirming that no one should despise His command, He teaches with these words: Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

Here, those who do not receive the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, because they say there is none now, truly these people are like dead corpses:

“Terrible is the answer of Christ’s words, for His words are true; with this He concludes: heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

This is not said in vain. No.

“Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord, except the one who wishes to destroy eternal life?”

Who does not partake? Who? Except “the one who wishes to destroy his life.” This is where you are leading your people. Only the one who does not spare his life and wants to destroy it will not obey this voice.

Also on the words of the Apostle Paul writes the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (part 7, p. 248): “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” Why only until the second coming, why not further? The blessed Theodoret answers: “For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body.” And why? Answer: “because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said, till He comes.” Why will we not need at the second coming what we now perform—the offering of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine? Why? Because Christ Himself will come—the Body itself will appear—then its likeness will not be needed. This is why it is indicated to exist until Christ’s second coming.

About this, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming, I will also read a testimony from the Explanatory Apostle (page 536 reverse):

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Interpretation of Chrysostom: For when you understand that for your sake your Lord endured, you will be wise. This is what it means when it says: as often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death. And that it will remain even until His second coming, it indicates: till He comes.”

I do not know what further proofs from Holy Scripture are needed to show that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming. This promise is strong and invincible, and just as it is impossible to stop the continuation of the human race, so it is impossible to stop the offering of this sacrifice. I will repeat the passage I read from the Book of Cyril, because my interlocutor did not even approach the proofs I read; he only spoke of “heretical communion,” “heretical priesthood”… No one is forcing you to accept the heretical. If you say it is heretical with us, then show where it is not heretical with you, because it is said: sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the end of the age, and if you do not have it, it means you do not have Christ’s Church. It means Christ did not say this about you. The Book of Cyril (page 78 reverse) says:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

How are we to recall His divine redemption of the human race from sin? Only by partaking of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, as it was at the Mystical Supper. In those societies where this is not performed, they have forgotten that Christ suffered; moreover, they do not want to remember. Here is the sorrow, here is the famine of the soul!

I consider the passages cited sufficient to prove the continuance of priesthood and sacrifice until Christ’s second coming. Concluding my speech, I again remind my honorable interlocutor: there is no need to speak of heretics—this or that—it does not pertain to the question. I ask only one thing from you, I ask little from you. You give much more, but not to the point. Please point out to me: where in Holy Scripture is it said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming? If you do not show this and do not have it yourselves, then you do not have Christ’s Church. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, show me: where is it written in Holy Scripture that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention! You have heard the refutation of my speech by my interlocutor. But to my regret, my interlocutor keeps speaking about that mystery and that priesthood which once existed. We believe in the ancient priesthood and the mystery of Communion, and we pray that the Lord may grant us to partake of this great gift spiritually, in view of the present need. We also believe and pray to those holy hierarchs who were Orthodox and by whose holy hands the holy church mysteries were performed. But that time has passed. Enter into yourself, my most honorable interlocutor, and ask your conscience: in what time do we live? That priesthood about which you speak and testify has ceased. That priesthood was truly Christ’s; it flowed successively from the apostles and, as a precious gift of Jesus Christ, flowed like a grace-filled river from the years of the Gospel’s preaching until the year 1666, which you yourselves confirmed—that the true succession of grace-filled ordination was broken at that date. This is factually confirmed also by the fact that you had no sacred ordination for about 200 years. By this you yourselves proved that Christ’s ordination ceased in 1666, and therefore the priesthood as well—for one cannot exist without the other. Meanwhile you forget what you should remember: that Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, was a suffering bishop and confessor; he could have restored the priesthood in the manner of Eusebius of Samosata, who, disguised in military clothing, during the Arian heresy went through cities and ordained bishops alone as needed. Therefore, if Paul of Kolomna did not ordain a bishop to continue the priesthood, it was not because he was unable to ordain, but because it was God’s will; consequently, the time had come when impiety had to fully manifest itself in the world. God permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the whole world. But you keep speaking about that priesthood which we know better than you and believe in better than you, because it was lawful. We also believe that ordination was successive from the apostles. So it is not about that time and priesthood that you need to reason—about which there can be no dispute between us—but you need to speak about the time in which we live, about the priesthood that we see.

You said here that the Pomortsy in the temple built here arranged a sideboard instead of an altar. I do not understand what the man is talking about. Allow me to note, my dear brethren in faith, whose zeal has exceeded all expectations, built us such a magnificent temple for offering prayers to the Lord God. If they had no living faith, there would be no such temple; if they had no hope in God for salvation, there would be no such zeal. But I assure you, my brethren in faith had no thought of making an altar. They knew there was no priesthood, and instead of an altar they made a consultation room for spiritual persons and the council, where at the end of conciliar sessions, for lack of space, some of the brethren reverently partook of food. Tell me, did they not spend the night in churches in ancient times? Did they not dine in churches in ancient times? There were cases where even cattle were brought into the church, but the church was not harmed by this. No one laughed or mocked it, but my interlocutor spoke out of place about some sideboard, which has no place here. My dear brethren in faith did nothing unlawful in arranging a consultation room behind the iconostasis, claiming no altar; but you, inflamed with the bile of envy, spread to the public such words that the Pomortsy have a sideboard behind the iconostasis, but the public will evaluate this and understand that all your reproaches are worth nothing. You also referred to page 445 of the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where Saint Chrysostom speaks:

“Christ is present now, He who adorned that table; He adorns this one now. For it is not a man who makes what is set before us to be the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands fulfilling the image, pronouncing the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. This word transforms what is set before us.”

I well understand that all this was in former times, but at the present time Christ no longer stands at your modern priesthood. I am not leading you into delusion regarding priesthood; you yourselves prove that any priesthood besides yours is deprived of grace. If you say that until Christ’s second coming the sacrifice will be offered in the church, you must indicate—in which church. Is the holy sacrifice offered in the Greek and dominant church in Russia? You yourselves factually confirm that it is not, for you call them heretical. Is it offered in the Armenian church? No, because the Armenians are heretics. Is it offered in the Western Catholic church? You also confirm that the pope fell away from the truth and that with him all Western countries fell into heresy. Why do you proceed so covertly and silently say that only with you is the truth, with you is priesthood and sacrifice, and nowhere else? Why lead yourselves and such a chosen people into delusion—people who for 4 days have reverently listened to our contestations? Speak openly about your church, about your sacrifice. So I will tell you that your sacrifice and church are not living—Christ’s—but artificial, human. It is proven in deed that you received priesthood from where, as you yourselves said, nothing good and holy can come. (Voices: “Off-topic.”)

No, on topic. My interlocutor cited the apostle’s words: “He who eats and drinks unworthily” directly against us. I am not offended that my interlocutor said the apostle supposedly speaks this about the Pomortsy: “Are the Pomortsy unworthy, that none of them has partaken for 250 years?” said my interlocutor. I will say to this: if the Pomortsy have not partaken for 250 years, it is only because they do not want to partake from heretics, but not out of caprice, not out of hostility to the holy, but out of extreme necessity, because all priesthood has fallen into heresy. I will read here a passage from the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior in a prefiguration said the following parable for this time—Gospel of Luke, Reading 87:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away.”

In that day, in that time when there will be temptation in faith and life, when false prophets appear, when false christs arise, then he who is on the housetop—that is, at the height of virtues and true faith—let him not take anything belonging to him below, not even a vessel:

“In that day of the Antichrist’s coming, he who is on the housetop, which is the height of virtues, let him not descend nor weaken for any pretext of worldly life: for all worldly things are called vessels to man. Thus he who stands at the height of virtue descends for worldly reasons and falls from his height, but let him stand against evil and not be silent.”

This is what these words mean. Further Christ says:

“Remember Lot’s wife.”

Tell me, my honorable interlocutor, why did Christ the Savior here mention not Lot, but only Lot’s wife? I am obliged to explain this: the holy Lot lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, whose inhabitants so angered God that God decided to destroy them for their impiety. Sending angels, God said to Lot:

“Go out, lest you also perish in the iniquity of the city. And it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, ‘Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain.’”

Lot, leaving the city, following God’s commandments, did not look back, but what did Lot’s wife do? She felt sorry for what she had in Sodom and Gomorrah; she looked back and turned into a “pillar of salt.”

I have cited this parable not of a mere mortal man; this is the parable of Christ the Savior Himself. Before Christ’s words we must revere, listen to His words with contrition of heart and tenderness, for it pertains to the present time:

“By this parable God indicates Lot’s wife, who, turning back, became a pillar of salt. This means: not departing from evil, but remaining in its sweetness, becoming evil to the end.”

This event was a prefiguration of what happened in the days when our ancestors received the blow, when faith in the Church was shaken. Tell me, which of our ancestors, like Lot, fled without looking back at impiety, and which, like Lot’s wife, looked back at impiety? The Pomortsy, our ancestors, the sufferers of the Solovetsky Monastery, in the person of Paul of Kolomna, seeing the shaking of faith, went the path of personal salvation and, passing through temptations, never once looked back, but your ancestors, like Lot’s wife, looked back, pitying the priests, and became petrified, saying: “But how will we go to salvation without priests?” They forgot Lot’s exodus and, losing hope in God, looked back at heretical priesthood and became salted. In such petrification all the priestly ones remain to this day. This is what this parable means.

Further, in my interlocutor’s speech it was said: “is the Antichrist stronger than God?” What, what, my dear interlocutor. I did not think you would take such a direction—to make the Antichrist stronger than God! No, no! It is not the Antichrist who is stronger than God, but God is stronger than the Antichrist. God, because of our weakness, permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the world. He set in the parable that the bridegroom will come at midnight. Whoever waits for him in faith to the end will enter with the bridegroom into the bridal chamber, but whoever weakens will be outside the chamber. So the Antichrist will deceive people not by his own power, but by people’s unbelief—those who, not enduring need and not believing the truth, act falsely. So, to distinguish truth from falsehood, God permitted the Antichrist to tempt the whole world. The elect, as those who endured, will go to eternal life, said Christ, but those who are tempted will go to eternal fire:

“He who endures to the end will be saved.”

Such are God’s words spoken regarding the Antichrist and his deception.

Then, you read words from the Book on Faith, page 51:

“Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.—Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord. Except the one who wishes to destroy his life.”

These words are in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

“I am the living bread… Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh… The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’”

To whom were these words addressed—to the faithful or the unfaithful? Christ the Savior always spoke according to the occasion: in parables, edifyingly, and with rebukes. So in this case, when the Jews saw that Christ performed a miracle, feeding 5000 people with five loaves and two fish, and wanted to make Him king so as always to live idly, but the Savior got into a boat and sailed to the other side. The Jews went after Him, and to their question He said:

“Rabbi, when did You come here? Amen, amen I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.”

Speaking these words: “You seek Me not to believe in Me, but to live idly; you follow Me only for food and do not believe My miracles, but if you want to be Mine, believe in that bread which My Heavenly Father sent you.”

“I am the living bread. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst… This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

You see, here the speech is about faith; one must believe in Christ. By faith Christ promises eternal life.

As for the Book on Faith, undoubtedly it speaks of true Communion, for the holy Church itself added this mystery to the mystery of faith and visible Communion.

Then, finally, from chapter 6 of the interpretations of the holy men, Saint John Chrysostom and Theophylact, Bishop of Bulgaria, it is evident that there is also Communion by faith. The Gospel of John, Reading 24, chapter 6:

“Everywhere He mentions life and often brings this name, since nothing is so dear to men as this thing. And you can not only eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Master by the secret Communion, but in another way, for one eats flesh when he undergoes active work, for the flesh of the worker is necessary, just as work is difficult. But he drinks blood like wine that gladdens the heart, I mean vision, for vision without labor is more than labor rest. For drinking without labor is more than food.”

Here it speaks of mysterious spiritual Communion, by which a person can partake separately, besides a priest, and especially in need.

Thus, the holy Church did not understand as you do that Communion must be only under one form, but as it pleased God, commanded that one can partake also mysteriously—that is, spiritually—by faith and desire.

Finally, you ask me: will the sacrifice of Communion be offered until Christ’s coming? I answer, listen: according to the teaching of the holy men—it will not be. I will confirm my answer to you with Scripture, that the Antichrist will disturb the sacrifice of Communion, that the Antichrist will darken the sacrifice, that the Antichrist will defile the altar and the sacrifice. Book of Cyril, page 55:

“For about this Saint Chrysostom says that the Antichrist, before his coming, will do what is everywhere on the altars, and will destroy the true sacrifice, and set up his idol in the holy place. For already such abominable desolation the false prophets sent by him begin. And from this we know that the day of the Lord is near. For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s Church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s Temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

The Antichrist, as it is said, will everywhere destroy the true altars and the true sacrifice—that is, true Communion. How to understand “destroy”? He will corrupt with false teaching not simply the sacrifice, but the “true” sacrifice, and along with it the holy place—that is, the altar. And what will replace it? As it is said, he will set up his idol in the holy place. And the idol is false teaching, heresies, evil teaching, which, as the abomination of desolation, will stand in the holy place. So may God save and preserve us from partaking of the Antichrist’s abomination of desolation! And if you say that this time has not yet come, the answer has already been read: “it was fulfilled and accomplished, and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed.” And then: “so it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice.” A clear answer! There will be no sacrifice: and not only in some particular place, not in Solomon’s temple, but throughout the whole world, as Scripture says, which I will read:

“And not only everywhere and in all places, but even in the initial Apostolic Church in Jerusalem he will bring the true sacrifice into desolation.”

This Scripture sorrowfully and truly speaks not simply of the sacrifice, but with emphasis: “He will bring the true sacrifice into desolation” and “everywhere and in all places”—that is, in all parts of the world; which has already been accomplished. The last words of the testimony say:

“And he will set his evil abomination in the holy place, as it is written: When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

I have laid as the foundation of my speech the prophetic and Gospel teaching on the mystery of Communion together with the Old Testament sacrifice and proved how the Jewish sacrifice was destroyed. And the Antichrist has emptied the holy sacrifice. And what is done in heretical temples, Holy Scripture relates that this is not a holy sacrifice, but the abomination of desolation. The Great Catechism speaks on this question, page 25:

“The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

In general, it turns out that we shun not the holy great mystery of Communion, but the abomination of desolation. I read again the interrupted place in the Catechism:

“This abomination is interpreted according to the writing of John Chrysostom as the army of the Antichrist destroying the Church of God (below). This is the third reason. Because of which they will depart from the faith and approach heresy by desire. Which will have in itself Judaism and every impiety will be found in it.”

And what does this word “Judaism” mean? It means, on the one hand, to revile heretics, and on the other hand, to have communion with them either in dogmas of faith or in anything else—this is Judaism. And among the priestly ones it is evident.

Then blessed Jerome explains what the mountains are to which one must flee from the abomination of desolation. His Works, part 3, p. 182: “But we, hearing the words of the Lord Savior: let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let us lift our eyes to those mountains of which it is written: ‘I will lift up my eyes to the mountains, from where my help will come’ (Ps. 120:1). And in another place: ‘Its foundations are on the holy mountains’ (Ps. 86:1). Again: ‘The mountains surround it, and the Lord surrounds His people’ (Ps. 124:2), and ‘A city set on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matt. 5:14). Casting off from our feet the skin of the letter and entering with Moses barefoot onto the mountain, let us say: ‘I will pass by and see this great vision’ (Ex. 3:3).”

Here, my most honorable interlocutor, you must first cast off from your tongue the skin of the letter, since you judge everything by the letter; ascend with reason higher and look into the core of the word, look at the mystery of the spirit of Scripture, revering it, and give it a just evaluation. But you go by the letter, eating the skin, and it pricks your jaws. And what would this mean? Blessed Jerome says here: “When he sees the abomination of desolation standing in the Church, and Satan transforming himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). That is, when you see heresies in the church and Satan—that is, a false bishop—pretending to be an angel of light—that is, showing himself Orthodox—flee from this church and this deceiver, for “the apostle spoke of this abomination of heretical and impious teaching, that the man of sin and the opponent will exalt himself above every so-called God or object of worship, so as to sit in the Church of God, showing himself as God” (2 Thess. 2:4). So said blessed Jerome. If a false heretical bishop is Satan, how will I allow myself to be given alive to him as food? God save and preserve! My dear brethren in faith, though they live outwardly in poverty—that is, without priesthood—their wealth is in the inner state of right faith. They shun only the abomination of desolation. I ask you to pay attention to the following testimony. Works of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, interpretation on the prophet Daniel, p. 147: “And then the sacrifice and libation, which are now offered to God in every place and by all nations, will be taken away.” Do you see how Holy Scripture teaches us about the great mystery of Communion: it, says the great man of the Church, will be taken away, and taken away, understandably, from the Church. When will this be? The holy father says: in the last week of Daniel; and it is in this that we live.

Thus, you prove that Communion is eternal, but I have proved that the mystery of Communion will be emptied—that is, corrupted by heretics. There will be no this mystery, and if there is, it will only be the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

This has already factually been accomplished, which you yourselves prove by not communing in the sacrifice with Christians of the whole universe, but disputing about universal Communion. Why then deceive the public in this? If universal Communion is eternal, why do you shun all nationalities in the Christian name, and go only your own narrow path, not even communing with the priestly anti-Okružhniki? Do you not clearly prove your weakness by this? You speak of Communion, but do not point out where it is. Speak with the tongue of a truthful, honest man, but do not point to what was in the ancient Church regarding priesthood.

If we remain without priesthood, it is not by our own will, but because priesthood has fallen into heresies. To this accusation of yours I will answer with the words of the patriarch of blessed memory Jeremiah of Constantinople (Historical Acts of Southwestern Russia, vol. 5, p. 241): “What does he do (Jeremiah)? He gathers the verbal flock, the sheep of Christ, be they tanners, saddlers, shoemakers of every estate, rank, and age, Orthodox Christians. Having gathered them, he says to them with these words: Save yourselves, my brethren, yourselves, for you cannot be saved by pastors! Why? Because they think not only of your salvation but not even of their own; already the pastors pilgrimage according to the light of this world, already the pastors have enlisted in the service of the prince of this world. Already the pastors care nothing for eternal life, yours or their own. Already the present pastors intend to live out the age in luxury, to glorify themselves, to play, to enrich themselves, to become wise. Save yourselves, my beloved brethren, faithful flock of Christ, chosen race, holy tongue, royal priesthood, people of renewal, pious Russian people—yourselves; save yourselves by faith, save yourselves by the Gospel commandments; save yourselves by the paternal law; save yourselves by honest and chaste life.”

Do you see what the pastor of Christ’s Church says: brethren, simple folk, craftsmen, laborers of every kind and position, save yourselves if you want to be saved yourselves; you, simple folk, save yourselves! For the time has come when your pastors have departed from the truth, think not of God’s Judgment, but care only for themselves—to grow rich, live luxuriously, glorify themselves with clothing and wealth, but not with faith, not according to God’s Law, and not with a meek and humble life. Therefore know, children, says blessed Jeremiah, that the church pastors have given themselves to the service not of God but of the prince of this world—that is, the devil. Your pastors, bishops and priests, have betrayed God in faith; they are distinguished not by truth, seek not eternal life, but splendor of clothing and work only for gluttony. These are not pastors but wolves! But what should simple people do without pastors? How to be saved? And this is the main thing. To these questions the true pastor and man of wisdom says: “Save yourselves by yourselves.” The great teacher as if climbs a high tower and makes a call, tearfully pleading, says: “Save yourselves, brethren, by yourselves, do not abandon the covenants of our fathers, walk the Gospel path, perform virtues and God’s commandments, live abstinently and chastely, hold to right faith, and faith will save you. Believe that you can be saved even without priesthood.”

My time is coming to an end; I must say in my defense a few more words from the Scripture of the holy father of the Church and teacher, the venerable Ephrem the Syrian, who, grieving over the present times, says (Word 105):

“Then the earth and the sea will weep”…

And tell me, can the earth weep, can the soulless and voiceless sea weep, if only understood literally? “Then the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

This is as if people will be without singing and without voice.

“Then all Christ’s Churches will weep with great weeping.”

I explain: Christ’s Churches are believing people; they will not simply weep, but weep with great weeping.

“Because there will be no holy service in the altars nor offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ.”

This is what they will weep over: that there will be no service in the altars—not simply no service, but no holy service in the altars; not only no holy service, but no offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ. Over this the pious people will weep: that there will be nowhere to receive this great mystery. This Scripture has been fulfilled. The time has come; the pious people weep over the altars and the mystery of offering. And who is this pious people? These are my dear brethren in faith, whom I have the happiness to defend.

BREAK

Chairman. Honorable assembly! I declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. We have heard another speech from my interlocutor, Mr. Pichugin. In this speech he gave an answer: “I am asked, he says, where in Holy Scripture it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. I answer: they will not remain.” We will approach this answer and see how much foundation it has. But first let us pay attention to some of his words. It seems it has become a little offensive to my interlocutor when I pointed out that it is not the Antichrist who is to blame for the priestless having no sacrifice, but that they themselves build temples and allocate places for altars, but do not place altars in them. He says: “well, our benefactors and trustees built these temples and wished to arrange a council room behind the iconostasis.” They did this. It is clear that they did it, not the Antichrist. They made a council room instead of an altar, but testify against the Antichrist: the Antichrist destroyed everything. But they had nothing there that could be destroyed. So here you vainly accuse the Antichrist: this is the work of your hands. You yourselves did not set up an altar but set up something else, not what should have been. (The speaker is interrupted, saying this does not pertain to the matter.) It pertains: since our discussion is about the sacrifice, and they have none, it pertains.

Now let us pay attention to what my interlocutor said regarding Lot’s wife. He says: “look at Lot’s wife.” Before developing this subject, I will ask my interlocutor: where in Scripture is it said that Lot’s wife supposedly means accepting the second and third ranks of priesthood from heretics? Where is such an example? First, this does not exist; this is Mr. Pichugin’s own interpretation; but such has no value for us. And second, Lot’s wife means the holy Church. About this writes blessed Irenaeus of Lyons (p. 403): “His wife remained in the land of Sodom no longer with corruptible flesh, but as a pillar of salt, always abiding, which through natural functions shows what is usual in man, just as the Church, which is the salt of the earth, remained within the bounds of the earth and is subject to human things; and while whole members are taken from her, she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends forth sons to their Father.” Here is what Lot’s wife means: the Church, which is the salt of the earth. Lot’s wife turned back and became a pillar of salt. What comparison is here? Did not the Church turn back to return the erring? Throughout the entire history of Christ’s Church do we not see tens, hundreds of thousands of examples that the holy Church, like Lot’s wife, turned back and waited for the conversion and repentance of those who fell into heresy and error? This is the salt of the earth and the support of humanity. As whole members are taken from her and she remains a pillar of salt, so from the Church members are taken who deviate into error, and she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends sons to their fathers. The very foundation of faith in the Church is unshakable; but you have none. Among the foundations of faith Christ established until His second coming the sacrifice. This is a foundation of faith; but you have none, so there is no foundation of faith.

Then you said that in the Gospel of John Christ said: “I am the living bread…” and that to believe the teaching means also to partake. But is not the teaching about the sacrifice contained in Christ’s teaching? Is there not in this teaching the indispensable question of the sacrifice, without which the Church cannot be? In this teaching there is the sacrifice arranged by the Lord Himself, and it will remain until the second coming, as the holy Apostle Paul and John Chrysostom say. The interlocutor says that under the living bread is meant teaching. This is a great error of my interlocutor. To correct this error, it is worth turning to the holy Gospel and learning what is meant here by living bread.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (Gospel of John, ch. 6, v. 51).

Further it says:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (Ibid., v. 53).

This is what this bread means in the Gospel to which you referred. Then my interlocutor read in defense of his conviction from the Great Catechism, page 24 reverse:

“The prophet Daniel said, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

What is this abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation in the holy place is heretical teaching. What kind of teaching is this? That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. Here with you instead of the sacrifice this impious teaching is set up. Then, reading this place, you omitted another place in this same Catechism, which testifies that this sacrifice and this very teaching about it will remain until the end of the age:

“That which the Lord God said, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth. So this word of the Lord was spoken once. Which on all altar thrones even to this day, and until His coming, gives power to the sacrifice” (Great Catechism, p. 384).

To this place, when I read it to the interlocutor, he paid no attention. But I repeat and continue further:

“Do you see, heretic, that this mystery is not accomplished by the mere reading of the epistle of the holy Apostle Paul or by preaching. Nor by simple prayers. But by blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? We bless the cup—that is, we consecrate the wine in the cup and say Christ’s words: this is My blood. Not by preaching, nor by reading do they act, but by blessing. Just as Christ blessed the bread, so we bless on the divine table. By this also the other heretical deception is driven away, which thinks that the mystery is accomplished not in consecration but in the very use.”

About the teaching, he read from the Apostle Paul that supposedly the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. He speaks in vain. It is not the preaching itself or the reading of the apostle’s epistle, or our simple prayers, but blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says. Here it is—not teaching, but the actions of the priest, even blessing. This is what teaching means. This is what living bread means.

Then my interlocutor read from Ephrem the Syrian, Word 105:

“Then all Christ’s churches will weep with great weeping, because there will be no holy service in the altars, no offering.”

And it seems he almost wept himself. This is Word 105, page 304 reverse. But it is a pity that the interlocutor did not read everything. And why? Because if everything is read, it only exposes them. I will take just two and a half lines higher, starting with a capital letter. But you began with a small one.

“Then the earth and the sea will weep, for suddenly the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

But did you hear what they sang yesterday? I was with them during the service; they sang then too.

“All Christ’s Church will weep with great weeping, because there will be no sacrifice in the altar.”

There are not even any offerings in the altar, but they sing and do not cease. Well, what kind of teaching is this? The Antichrist came and destroyed everything, destroyed the sacrifices and arranged something else, but could not eliminate singing. So according to you, simple singing is stronger than Christ’s sacrifice. Dear interlocutor, I should read this passage against you. After all, all holy services are performed in the altar: the liturgy and the all-night vigil. I am very grateful to you for acknowledging that you have nothing holy—only you say the liturgy alone is holy, but nothing else is holy. So, does that mean you have no holy service? Then why do you pray, why do you sing?

When Ephrem the Syrian says that singing from human lips will cease, he writes about visible churches. Where in the last kingdom of the last Antichrist they accept his teaching, there the churches will weep and there will be no service. The interlocutor will say: in Christ’s Church there will be no holy service. Who will destroy it? He says—the Antichrist. You say there is no Christ’s Church with us, no in the dominant church, no with the Armenians, no with the Catholics. Where is it then? With you, you will say? Yes! That means the Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice with you. That means you have the Antichrist. I congratulate you on the Antichrist.

But that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, that this sacrifice will not cease, and that the Antichrist will not be able to destroy it in Christ’s Church (the Antichrist is able to destroy the sacrifice only with you, but he is unable to destroy it in Christ’s Church), the same Ephrem the Syrian on page 320 of his book writes the following:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man (1 Cor., Reading 149), for the word of God is living and active. And all this, as much as God desired, He created. And if there is the word: let there be light, and there was light. Let there be a firmament, and there was (Genesis, ch. 2). And if by the Lord’s words the heavens were established. So if heaven and earth, water and fire, air and all creation were accomplished by God’s words, and the word-speaking man, and if the God-Word of all things desired to become man, then can He not make this prosphora His flesh, and wine and water His blood? In the beginning He commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and even until this hour, when rain comes, it immediately brings forth its growths by God’s command and as if coming from the earth, having first received the power of the Lord’s words. For God said: this is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance (Matt. 108, Mark 64, Luke 108), so by His almighty command it happens until He comes (1 Cor., Reading 149), for so He spoke: until I come. And just as rain coming upon the earth immediately grows grass, so this holy rain—I mean the Holy Spirit—called by the priest’s prayer, visiting by His power, immediately makes this bread flesh and wine blood. Just as God created from the beginning by the action of that Holy Spirit.”

Once God said: “let the earth bring forth grass,” no one can forbid this creation of God from growing. It always grows throughout the entire history of the world. So it is impossible to stop this command of God: “this is My body, this is My blood, do this in My remembrance, so the proclaimed command happens until He comes.” So God spoke: until I come. This is what Ephrem the Syrian writes. Where will the sacrifice cease? There where they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, because there where they accept it, there is the abomination of desolation. And since you have neither throne nor altar, but the abomination of desolation, it means you have accepted the Antichrist. From the soul I wish you to be delivered from this enemy, the Antichrist. Our interlocutor read to us that the Antichrist will everywhere destroy the altar and the sacrifice, but I read to him that it is not the Antichrist who will destroy it, but He who instituted it will abolish it. The same holy Ephrem the Syrian, from whom my interlocutor read, in part 6, on p. 75 writes: “And He will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King—Christ—will confirm a covenant with many with His blood. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” And who instituted? Christ. He will abolish. Blessed Theodoret says that there will be no need for the sacrifice at Christ’s coming, because the Body itself will appear. Christ Himself will come then. But if, according to you, the Antichrist abolished it, does that mean he instituted it? This is horror what you say. Then my honorable interlocutor, answering that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming, read to us a passage from the Book of Cyril, page 32.

“For the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the altars and the sacrifice everywhere.”

Pay attention, here it says before his coming, meaning before the Antichrist came. He is not yet here, he has not come, but before coming he destroyed the sacrifice. How is it that he has not come but destroyed? Here in the Book of Cyril there is a scribal error or misprint. This in the Book of Cyril is taken from the Explanatory Apostle, where it says “before Christ’s coming,” not his own. Here is the scribe’s error who copied this book. These words are placed in the Book of Cyril and instead of “Christ’s” it says before “his own” coming. That is the matter. Second, the Antichrist will destroy it. And where? There where

“Heretics have no sacrifice, note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar” (Book of Cyril, p. 32).

Saint Chrysostom writes about the same, that heretics, once they stopped offering sacrifices, destroyed the altars, made something improper in the altars for themselves, meaning here is the abomination of desolation. Further my interlocutor read:

“For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

Here, he says, nothing will be, but what will be after this he does not say. He did not finish reading:

“Then this age will also end.”

But he left this out. When everywhere on earth they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, the faithful will be persecuted and oppressed and there will be no possibility to offer bloodless sacrifices, then the age will end. But when did your age end? After Nikon we have lived another 250 years and cannot convince you that you are in error. That indeed, during the time of the Antichrist the priesthood will remain, there are also proofs for this. Even if we accept that the last Antichrist reigns, even then the priesthood will remain. Here is what Saint Andrew of Caesarea writes in the interpretation of the Apocalypse:

Present. “And every mountain and hill will be moved from their places. Interpretation: When the powerful of this life or those of church rank, called mountains, and the fathers of the faithful churches according to Isaiah, flee from their places, changing place for place because of the Antichrist.”

This is what is said. As a result of such unprecedented persecution in the times of the last Antichrist, the leaders of church order and the faithful churches will not cease, but will flee from the Antichrist, changing places one for another. Why then do they (the Pomortsy) not flee anywhere? Who persecutes them? Is it not known to everyone that they freely build temples, freely gather for celebrations and prayers, perform processions. Who persecutes them? They themselves simply did not want to arrange altars.

Then, honorable listeners, my interlocutor read so plaintively from the Historical Acts the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. But here too there is a distortion. To give more authority to these words, which were written by the monk John of Vyshensky, he read these words in the name of the patriarch, for this monk is not a very authoritative person. What is the speech about there? Why, dear interlocutor, did you not point out to the people what the speech is about there? There the speech is about the Little Russian Christians who remained alone with pious priests as a result of the bishops’ retreat to the pope. “Save yourselves… do not retreat from the pious faith.” Here the speech is specifically about the Little Russian Christians. And after this, a hundred years later there was Paul, Bishop of Kolomna. After all, the Little Russian Christians did not begin to save themselves as you do—they did not place a council room instead of altars in their places. So here too you have untruth. We were told here that Paul of Kolomna could have appointed a successor for himself. Why was this said? I suppose that if my interlocutor—of course, God forbid this, I only say as an example—if he had to sit locked in a casemate for something, guards were assigned, icons were not hung and they said: why do you not bow to the icon, he would say there is no icon. So too Paul of Kolomna: since he was kept in exile, deprived of all communication with the world, he was deprived of the opportunity not only to ordain but even to serve the liturgy. What to demand from him. But that there be teaching from Paul of Kolomna that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming—this does not exist. On the contrary, our ancestors wrote this: Protopope Avvakum writes:

“Do not move the boundaries which the fathers set, and hold the tradition unchanged. One must be baptized as we received, believe as we were baptized. But ring this in your ears, adversary: you abolish the priesthood, and the mystery in a Lutheran and Calvinist way. You have wandered, friend, into the depth of evils; arise; for neither the devil himself can abolish the holy mysteries, nor the Antichrist with his offspring. The Master said to His disciples: I am with you until the end of the age, amen. Our head is Christ, King and High Priest. When He allows the order (of holiness) to be abolished, do not be tempted, child: even if the priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. And those people who do not partake, they do not do well; with their own invention they say: grace has been taken away. And after the Antichrist, after the last devil, grace will not abandon His faithful” (Book of Borozdin “Protopope Avvakum”, p. 15 in the appendix).

This is what our ancestors wrote. So you stop your ears. Thus the asps stop their ears, the psalmist writes: “like a deaf asp stopping its ears.”

“And those who separate themselves from Communion, when it is possible to receive the holy sacrament, pure holy service, I do not praise that. For the Lord Himself said: he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. How boldly they say that the holy mysteries cannot be found. Only we are supposedly the holy people, and everyone else has perished! Dear fathers, good is zeal for God, but know its measure. Do not beware, the sacrifice will not be abolished to the end even by the Antichrist himself. For the Master said: I am with you until the end of the age” (Ibid., appendix p. 15).

This is what Protopope Avvakum says regarding the eternity of the priesthood. Here are how many proofs from our ancestors and the strongest from Holy Scripture that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. But with them there is none, none, and none. It is said: “the sacrifice will cease and singing will stop,” but they sing, but there is no sacrifice. You read this to your own head. Saint John of Damascus also writes. See, brethren, how many proofs in defense of the eternal abiding in Christ’s Church of priesthood and sacrifice:

“Then breaking the bread, He gave it to them saying: take and eat, this is My body, broken for you for the remission of sins. Likewise taking the cup of wine and water, He gave it to them saying: drink of it all of you, this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for you for the remission of sins. Do this in My remembrance. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man and confess His resurrection until He comes. If then the word of God is living and active, and the Lord did whatever He desired. If He said: let there be light, and there was: let there be a firmament, and there was. If by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. If heaven and earth, water and fire and air, and all their beauty were accomplished by the Lord’s word, and this most glorious living creature man. If God the Word Himself desiring became man, and from the holy ever-Virgin, pure and undefiled blood seedlessly formed flesh, can He not make bread His body, and wine and water blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and until now when rain comes, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: This is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance. And by His almighty command, until He comes, it happens. For so He said: until He comes” (Book “The Heavens” of Damascus, p. 77).

I have finished the proofs, and my time is ending. Concluding my speech, I turn again to my interlocutor. That it is bad with heretics, I do not need to speak: I myself know that it is bad with heretics. There is no need to speak about our hierarchy either. If you wish to continue discussions about this, I agree to discuss for another two days specifically about our hierarchy, but now I ask you not to deviate one inch from the question. So you see that the holy fathers wrote that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Please answer the question?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! You have heard the second and third speech of my interlocutor and his refutations regarding my testimonial data from Holy Scripture and heard his interpretation. Everything that my interlocutor said only confirms my words; he only repeated once again the same truth that I told you from a pure heart. My interlocutor spoke about the eternity of the sacrifice, that the sacrifice will continue until the end of the age, and showed himself in his actions that he has nothing in common with Scripture and with those holy men who wrote about this. About the New Testament sacrifice wrote holy men, church teachers, Orthodox and having direct succession of ordination from Christ. So these are not your men, with whom Christ’s men and the teachers of the truly Christ’s Church have nothing in common. But your priesthood and sacrifice do not depict the eternity of Christ’s sacrifice and ordination, but only a crude heretical counterfeit of soulless priesthood, as you yourselves testified that you received priesthood from a heretic. Therefore the full obligation lies on you to defend only your priesthood and your sacrifice, but you, as everyone now sees, try to bypass this question in silence and fear it like red-hot iron, fearing exposure; you hide your hands in your pockets and do not touch it. For this deceptive sacrifice of yours is performed only since 1846, it is a little over 60 years old, younger than a human age, remade from new to old style.

Now I will follow in your footsteps. Tell me, why did you say nothing to me about the words of the Gospel of Christ the Savior “about the salt of lost-flavor priesthood”? And why do you think, listeners? Because this lost-flavor priesthood is precisely with them; it is thrown outside the church fence by law and trampled by reasonable people.

My interlocutor also read about altars and thrones from the Book of Cyril. Before I speak about altars, I will repeat the words of my interlocutor. He said that we without priests constitute nothing. On the contrary, even without visible priesthood we constitute a single whole, first of all by the inner power of hope, the beauty of expectation, and we are built on the granite of faith, not communing with false priesthood. Our holy faith is not darkened by either heretical baptism or heretical priesthood. This is the only beauty shining everywhere. But your faith is darkened by your superstition in soulless priesthood, your mysteries are darkened by false priests and bishops. So you have nothing in common with us. You throw mud at a crystal, but no matter how much you throw, your mud remains mud for you, and the crystal will not dim. And that without priesthood, in need, one can be saved, here is what the venerable John of Vyshensky tells us, book of Zachariah Kopystensky On the One Truth, page 224: “For your speech about the purification of the church has begun, and we will continue to do so. Let them ascend to the priestly degree according to the rules of the holy fathers, and not according to their own carnal desires, for the sake of property and papacy seizing the rank. And every such one who jumps in himself, do not accept, and even given by the king without your election, expel and curse. For you were not baptized into the pope, nor into the king’s power, that he give you wolves, villains, robbers and Antichrist’s mystagogues. It is better for you without bishops and without priests set by the devil to go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not called by God to be in the church and mock it and trample Orthodoxy. It is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your Orthodox faith, keeping God’s commandments, that wants to save us.”

Heretics, false bishops and priests do not do good, but evil, they make money by evil, live for contentment, deceive people; they are not pastors but robbers in the spiritual sense. False teachers, false priests who by deception destroy the souls trusting them—these are all your priests who entered not by the lawful door but over the fence of the law. These words of Christ the Savior are repeated by the holy man. Then—Antichrist’s mystagogues. By these words it is made known that false bishops are not Christ’s servants but Antichrist’s accomplices, for they originated not from Christ but from the Antichrist. I have proved to you on the basis of part 13 of blessed Jerome that as many false teachings as there are, so many Antichrists. Where there is only false teaching, there is the Antichrist, and false teaching regarding heretical priesthood is with you. That place where you took your bishop, you call Babylon, the dwelling of demons and a nest of every unclean spirit, as testifies the book of your bishop Ivan Grigorievich Usov. By this you convicted yourselves: you bought one demon, and from him by evil spirit you perform mysteries. As for the bishop, he can be recreated only by a grace-filled hand; like an unfired clay vessel, he must be tempered by fire—that is, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but there was no one with you to do this, therefore I can compare your modern priesthood only with raw clay pots. Then it is said: “it is better for you to be without priests and without bishops set by the devil.” So who sets priests and bishops among heretics—not Christ, but the devil. Do not count it rudeness, beloved listeners, I am forced to testify this and object to the remarks of my interlocutor. (Noise, cries: “To the point.”) I ask for your attention, do not betray your weakness by noise. I ask for attention! I was silent on everything my interlocutor said; I did not say a word when he applied the abomination of desolation to us. And my brethren in faith did not say a word to all the reproaches of my opponent. The behavior of my brethren in the discussions is instructive for you. By your protest you only declare once again your weakness. I am reading a book. (Cries: “Speak to the substance!”) I know better than you how to speak to the substance.

Chairman. Gentlemen, for God’s sake do not interfere.

Pichugin. I read: “It would be better for you to be without bishops and without priests set by the devil.” Perhaps this reading offends you, especially those of you who consider yourselves bishop or priest. But do not be offended at me. I am the same mortal as you, and only serve as an instrument of Scripture. My lips speak, but it is not I who speak; the church teachers speak.

Thus, heretical priests and bishops, as false, are not set by Christ, but by the devil. And you, gentlemen, not fearing God’s Judgment, not heeding the duty of conscience, carry this devilish priesthood around Russia. It would be better for you to be without devilish priesthood and go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not come to you from God to mock the church and trample its sacred laws!

To us pertain the words of the venerable man: “it is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your faith and good deeds,” and this teaching is precisely applicable to our time. Here is our justification by faith, hope for the future, and foundation in our present life. Following the teaching of Christ’s Church, we firmly hold to it. It is not I who built our position by faith, dear listeners, but the Spirit of God through the lips of holy men. If I do not tell the truth, what kind of defender of my conviction by faith will I be? Likewise your defender, if he does not say what needs to be said, what kind of interlocutor will he be? After all, you heard, dear listeners, what my interlocutor said: “with you, priestless Pomortsy, is the Antichrist.” I endured this reproach, and my brethren in faith also endured it. Here, he said, “they build temples, made a council room instead of an altar, here is the abomination of desolation.” We listened, did not protest. So, gentlemen, learn patience from us.

The abomination of desolation has indeed stood, but let us see where: with us or with you? Christ the Savior said to one cunning servant:

“Cunning servant, by your own mouth I will judge you.”

So I will pronounce judgment, pronounced by the lips of your own bishops. Your bishop of Zadunai Anastasius writes: “Peace and God’s blessing to my children in the Lord! Know, children, that certain shameless ones thinking themselves Christians announced that finding in a cave the relics of the holy martyrs Dada, Gaveddai, and Kozdoi, but as doctors examined these bones, it turned out that these are corpses of Circassians, a dog, and a hare, and the accursed priest Stefan consecrated altars on these bones” p. 11. Further he writes: “Under the temple a cave is dug, on the floor of the cave lie two corpses, there lie corpses of a dog and a hare.” “By this abomination he (the priest) defiled many churches.” So here is where the abomination of desolation is.

My brethren in faith with flaming zeal and prayer built a temple to the Lord God and a section for spiritual affairs and council, but on what do you build your churches and altars? Your bishop Anastasius directly says: on the corpses of a dog and a hare—here is the abomination of desolation! Unknown corpses lay in the crypt without any Christian signs, and suddenly, out of nowhere, your council recognized them as relics of Persian martyrs.

It is not in the council room of my brethren in faith that the abomination of desolation is, but in your churches. And who writes about this? Your Anastasius, bishop of the city of Izmail. I think this is enough. You spoke out of place, my interlocutor, to offend my beloved brethren for building the temple. To such inappropriate statements and claims, as not pertaining to the matter, I gave you a rebuff.

You also said: “Where is it said that under Lot’s wife one can understand that we accept heretical bishops and priests?” But I did not say that under Lot’s wife one should understand that you accept bishops and priests. I said: your ancestors saw the need for priests and looked back. Meanwhile they said: “It is bad to live with heretical priests, but worse without them.” So too Lot’s wife: it is bad to live without house and property, but worse to live with beasts and suffer hunger; she looked back, through unbelief, to the perishing place and became salted. Thus you too did not believe God’s command to flee without looking back from the fall, looked back at heretical priests and became petrified.

I draw attention to the following words of my interlocutor: “What is the abomination of desolation? It is with you, he says, Pomortsy, because you teach that the sacrifice will cease.” To this I can object to my interlocutor: it is not we who teach that instead of the mystery of Communion the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place, but God Himself, through the lips of the prophet Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere on the altars and destroy the sacrifice.” But what did my interlocutor say to this passage from the Book of Cyril? He resorted to an improper device and with mockery said: “This is an error in the Book of Cyril, simply a misprint.” But allow me to ask you, Mr. interlocutor, on what basis do you say this is a misprint? Where did you find in Scripture such a remark to diminish the Book of Cyril by this? I will point you to the title page of the Book of Cyril, where it says:

“Truly this most excellent book is like a great ship laden with great wealth, for it is richly furnished with divine Scripture as a shield and barrier against evil heretics.”

Here is a worthy review of this holy book.

Then you also noted: “Then singing in churches will cease, but you, he says, sing, and sang yesterday.” First of all, I could say that my interlocutor speaks this off-topic. We sang yesterday in the temple, yes! But Saint Ephrem the Syrian does not speak of this ordinary singing, but of sacrificial singing, the Cherubic Hymn, and praise over the sacrifice. This is the singing in question.

For this singing occurs not in a common assembly, but where a true bishop in concelebration with presbyters and deacons offers the sacred sacrifice to the Lord God.

I will go further following the words of my interlocutor. He said another impropriety: “You have the Antichrist, congratulations.” But what signs do we have that the Antichrist is with us? For the Antichrist, like a wolf, will clothe himself in the robe of a true pastor, will be a pretended bishop. And that this is so, I will confirm by the thirteenth chapter of the book of the Apocalypse. There it says:

“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb.”

Like a lamb, it is said. What lamb? The true Lamb Jesus Christ, standing on Mount Zion. So the false christ appears for the deception of the deluded in the form of Christ. So does anyone among the Pomortsy dress in sacred robes and call himself by the name of Christ—a bishop? How out of place! This does not mean a simpleton in modest clothing, but a hidden wolf, according to the interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, a false bishop, for

“The Antichrist desires to imitate the Son of God in everything.”

Who, one asks, pretends to be in the image of Christ? False bishops and false priests. But we have none, and the insult inflicted on us falls with all its weight on your head. This happens with you, not with us.

Then, you cited page 75 of part 6 of the Works of Ephrem the Syrian, with the words that “He who instituted the sacrifices will abolish them.” Most honorable interlocutor, from the passage you read and your personal explanation it is evident that you are as ignorant in prophetic Scripture as you are intemperate in words and tongue. Reading the prophet’s words in Ephrem the Syrian, you should have thought and asked yourself what and about whom this is spoken. For this is spoken about Old Testament sacrifices, not about the mystery of Communion. I will read this passage and you will see that it will be as I say: “For this migration will not be like the Egyptian or Babylonian migration. From Egypt the Jews returned after four hundred years, and from Babylon they will return after seventy.” One asks: about whom is the speech? About the Jews who returned from Egypt after four hundred years, and from Babylon after seventy. Is this not clear? Further the holy father says: “But this desolation appointed by God will not cease, and forever it will be given to desolation.” Is it not evident here that this speaks of the last desolation of the Jews by the Romans? Finally, Saint Ephrem cites the words of the prophet Daniel: “And he will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King Christ with His blood will confirm a covenant with many. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice and offering will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” It turns out my interlocutor did not understand the most important thing. “Them”—that is, lawful sacrifices, and if this were spoken about the mystery of Communion, it would say: “He who instituted it will abolish it.” This is what my interlocutor lacks. And this is clear as God’s day that here it speaks of the institution of Old Testament sacrifices. God instituted them in the Sinai desert through Moses and Aaron the high priest, and on the cross abolished them. This is the sacrifice spoken of here. One needs to read a little more diligently and tell the public only what is truth. Then, what does my interlocutor say: “Here we have been struggling with the Pomortsy after Nikon.” But I have seen you only for the third time, Dmitry Sergeevich. We are comparatively so young, but after Nikon 250 years have passed, and no mortal could achieve such longevity.

But here is what you said well: “that from the years of Nikon to the present time we cannot prove to you.” Here is honor to you. This is the truth you said, that you cannot prove the correctness of your priesthood.

Then you say: “They will flee from the Antichrist, but where will the priestless flee?” And in this case you are gravely mistaken. The priestless do not commune with those close to the Antichrist; in this respect they flee. And how do they flee? By removing themselves from those fallen into heresies, from the teaching of the erring, from the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

Then you said that I supposedly read incorrectly from the book of Southwestern Acts, that it is not Patriarch Jeremiah who writes, but the monk John. Untruth. You must read books too dully. Here look: “What does he do?”

One must read more attentively. Look at the words: “What does he do?” Jeremiah gathers the flock. For if John were writing, he would say what I do, what I perform, what I gather the flock. The monk John would have no right to say that he gathers the flock, because he is a simple monk, and this is proper only to bishops. Tell me, how dull this is.

Then you stopped again on Avvakum. Tell me, dear interlocutor, it seems all your hope is only on Avvakum. But Avvakum did not write such words, and you should not have spoken them in a public discussion. What kind of words are these: “You have wandered, my friend.” Tell me, are these the words of a sufferer, the words of a martyr? No, these are the words of a merry company, words of a freethinker, words of an unbeliever. For you wrote this in the person of your ancestors; this was concocted by your Iona Kur-nosy. So this is false history!

Having examined your arguments, I will now present new testimonies that in need we can partake by faith, spiritually. The venerable Ephrem the Syrian in his book, Word 83, writes:

“Let there be churches of God, and the Most High God will dwell in you. For the soul having God in itself will be called a holy and pure Church, and divine mysteries are served in it.”

And how is this highest mystery of Communion accomplished in a person? Let us listen to reasonable Scripture: Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 63, page 568:

“The body of a person is the church of God, and the heart of a person is the altar of the Holy Spirit.”

On this altar—a pure heart—God comes and performs the mystery, by faith. Allow me to present to you also the interpretation of the holy blessed Ephrem the Syrian, his Works, part 4, p. 349:

“As long as the heart abides in good, so long God abides in it, so long it serves as a source of life. The heart is God’s dwelling, therefore it needs guarding so that evil does not enter it and God does not depart from it.”

“Wonderful this is, my brethren: most marvelous, my beloved; incomprehensible to the heavenly, and inexpressible to the earthly. Inaccessible to every mind enters the heart and dwells in it. Hidden from the fiery-eyed is found in the heart. The earth does not bear His footsteps, but a pure heart bears Him in itself. Heaven is small for His span, but the heart is His dwelling. Heaven He encompasses with His handful, and one span of space is His habitation. If He spreads out—all creation will not contain Him within its bounds, but if He seeks the heart, even a small heart contains Him. A small place He chooses in man for His dwelling, and man becomes a temple of God in which God dwells. The soul is His temple, and the heart is the Holy altar on which praise, glorification, and sacrifices are offered; and the priest is the Spirit who stands and officiates there.”

This is the kind of Communion true Christians, my brethren in faith, have.

Then, dear listeners, I also cite the testimony of Saint John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria. Cheti-Minei, month of November, 11th day, article 46:

“And this the blessed one taught and testified, that in no way ever should one partake of heretical communion, especially defilement. Even if your whole life, said the blessed one, and from some need or misfortune you remain without Communion, not finding a conciliar church (below). How then, having yoked oneself with right faith to the conciliar church, as the apostle said: betrothing a pure virgin to one husband, to present to God. If we defile the Orthodox and holy faith by heretical communion, will we not be partakers of the torment awaiting heretics in the age to come (below). Therefore do not, O children, touch such praying ones for the sake of bread.”

Now I have sufficiently proved, beloved listeners, all that was required of me.

A person, a true Christian, can and must hope for that Communion which the Heavenly King Himself gives by faith.

D. S. Varakin. The question was posed whether priesthood and sacrifice will remain in the Church until Christ’s second coming. Did my interlocutor say anything about this question in this speech? No, he did not. I am sure that more than half of you will agree that on the question he said nothing in this speech. He dragged in something about dogs and hares. But is our question today about dogs and hares? If you are interested in dogs and hares, take a rifle after Peter’s day and go hunting in the forest. Did you not hear that today our question is about Christ’s holy sacrifice: will it remain until the second coming? I simply do not understand your reasoning: the question is posed about the sacrifice, and he tells about dogs and hares. I think there is a difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs and hares, or have you become so coarsened that you no longer have a concept of the difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs? One must have no shame, my dearest interlocutor, to speak such baseness.

Then, again there was in his speech the question of our hierarchy. I told you, gentlemen, and addressed the dear interlocutor: appoint another two days for a discussion on our hierarchy and we will speak specifically about the hierarchy. Why do you not accept my challenge, if you wish, to speak another two days about our hierarchy? Why do you remain silent on this direct challenge? For the fourth speech I ask him to appoint a discussion specifically on the question of the hierarchy, but he seems not to hear. He needs to abuse, because he cannot answer the question, because in Scripture there is no such heretical teaching. So he must abuse. If it pleases my dear interlocutor even to discuss the bodies found there in the Caucasus, a special discussion must be appointed for this too; I agree to discuss the question of the martyrs’ bodies. However, where there is no true sacrifice, where instead of an altar they arrange something else that should not be in the church, there dogs and hares are most likely to appear. In good conscience I say that I would wish to speak on the question of relics and specifically on the question of the hierarchy for another two days. Let him accept the challenge and appoint the discussion; I am ready, but now I will not speak on this question because it does not pertain to the matter.

You read the last proof from the Cheti-Minei of John the Merciful, not to accept heretical teaching. I agree with this. But it was proved that until the second coming Christ’s sacrifice will remain in Christ’s Church. You say it is not suitable in the dominant church. But do you have it yourselves? It is not suitable there and not here, and I have none; but it will remain until the second coming. So where is it? This is why you needed dogs with hares.

Then, honorable listeners, I pointed out that my interlocutor read from the Historical Acts the words of the monk John of Vyshensky and intertwined them with the name of the patriarch. He says, here is where I read this, here is where I took this book. We see that indeed, instead of John of Vyshensky, he slipped in Patriarch Jeremiah (page 227 of the epistle of the Athonite monk John of Vyshensky). And he reads this epistle, passing off the words of John of Vyshensky as the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. “Here I,” says Vyshensky, “will now speak with you about the patriarch’s arrival as follows.” Can a patriarch speak about his own arrival where he has not yet been? What are you doing, interlocutor. This is a clear deception, to say no more. Is such defense fitting for truly Orthodox Christians? Is it fitting to lead the public into delusion? There he hides it. (Pichugin: “Please, whoever wants, if you wish, I will give it now.”) Calm down, brethren, calm down. So, honorable assembly, this is the epistle of the monk Vyshensky, but to give more weight to these words, my interlocutor needed the mask of Patriarch Jeremiah.

Then, supposedly I said that we have had disputes about faith for 250 years and cannot prove to you. And here you wished to rephrase. I said we cannot convince you; this does not mean we cannot prove. That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming you did not read in Scripture. Then, I read the words of Protopope Avvakum, where it is said that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the age, that even if priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. Our interlocutor does not believe this. But did not the Apostle Paul write the same? Protopope Avvakum said until the end of the age, Chrysostom says: until He comes, John of Damascus that it will remain until Christ’s coming, Ephrem the Syrian that it will remain until Christ’s coming. All exactly as one. Then he said: the bishop will be the Antichrist. This means that our Pichugin, uncompelled by anyone, confessed that the Antichrist is not yet here; he will be and come as a hierarch in a mitre. It is not I who needs to come to senses, but you, dear interlocutor. When my interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril that the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the sacrifice, I say these words are taken from the Explanatory Apostle, in whose interpretation it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” I say this is a scribal error or misprint. Pichugin objects: what right does he (i.e., I) have to say this? Here is what I will tell you. In the Gospel it is said:

“It will be fulfilled as spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: and they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s field.”

It turns out that Jeremiah does not have this, but Zechariah does. What is this? Who could have done this? We see that Zechariah has it. This is a scribal error. But for this error no one blames anyone. Here (Explanatory Apostle) it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” but here (in Cyril): “before his own coming,” i.e., the Antichrist’s. Where is my injustice here? I told the pure truth. So here it is said as I interpreted.

Then I read Ephrem the Syrian on page 75, part 6; here it speaks of the New Testament sacrifice. “The slain kingdom Christ with His blood will confirm covenants with many.” About the Old Testament sacrifice, says Pichugin, the speech is, Christ confirmed it with His blood. What do you think, Lev Feoktistovich, did Christ suffer in the Old Testament? “Christ with His blood confirmed covenants with many.” And why, for example, did you not pay attention to the words of Ephrem the Syrian where it is said that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s coming. Why do you not pay attention to these words. For if you say: it is not so with us, others have none, you must have it. Just as one cannot say that the human race will cease to be born, so one cannot say that the sacrifice will cease. In your society children are born; you cannot in any way make them not be born, because God said, increase and multiply; so too the sacrifice: once said, but until the second coming it has power. When the human race ceases to be born, then only can one say that the sacrifice has ceased, but as long as this exists, so long will the sacrifice exist. And this will exist until the second coming. That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, this is written in yet a third place by the same venerable Ephrem the Syrian. One I read, the other read by him does not serve him in justification. From the third place I read (part VII, pp. 250–51): “But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God the Father, who loved us and gave us eternal consolation, that is, instead of temporary sacrifices given to the former (ancient generations) and passed away. But consolation instead of sacrifices He will give us in eternal service: for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifices, however our sacrifice, which is our consolation itself, will not cease even in the second coming itself, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. He also gave us good hope, that our hearts may be consoled by it in sorrow from persecutors.” And what is eternal will not cease—that is, instead of the temporary sacrifice given to former generations, an eternal one will be given to us, for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifice, but this “will not cease until the second coming.” This is how Saint Ephrem the Syrian writes about the sacrifice, that even in the second coming the sacrifice which Christ established in the Church will not cease, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. Now we partake of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, but then, when Christ Himself comes, then, as Saint Theodoret writes, there will be no need for bread and wine, because “the Body itself will appear.”

That indeed in the kingdom of the Antichrist the priesthood will not cease, we read this from another testimony, of Saint Andrew of Caesarea, chapter 12, verse 17:

Present. “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Interpretation: And he went to make war with the rest.—But when the best and chosen church teachers and those who despised the earth withdraw because of distresses into the desert, then the Antichrist, though deceived in them, will raise war against those warring for Christ in the world.”

Here, even in the time of the Antichrist’s kingdom the chosen church teachers will overcome the Antichrist and not follow him. So priesthood will be. One can see many proofs that indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will not cease. About this also writes Saint Gregory the Dialogist: “The good Shepherd laid down His soul for His sheep so that in our mystery His body and blood might be inexhaustible, and that the sheep He redeemed might be satisfied with the nourishment of His flesh” (Homilies on the Gospel by Gregory the Dialogist, book one, p. 124).

Christ established: “do this in My remembrance,” the apostle says: “until the second coming.” But for 250 years you have neither body nor blood. Why do you live not as the holy apostles and Chrysostom write, but simply as you please. That indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will remain until the second coming, testifies also Saint John of Damascus: “The word of God is living and active and the Lord did whatever He desired; if He said: let there be light: and there was; let there be a firmament: and there was; if by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host; if heaven and earth, and water, and fire, and air, and all their adornment were accomplished by the Lord’s word, likewise this most glorious living creature: man; if God the Word Himself desiring became man and from the pure and undefiled blood of the holy Ever-Virgin seedlessly formed flesh for Himself; then can He not make bread His body and wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and even until now, whenever rain occurs, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: this is My body; and: this is My blood; and: do this in My remembrance; and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes; for so (Scripture) said: until He comes” (Exact Exposition, ch. XIII, pp. 220–221). God said: “this is My body and this is My blood and do this in My remembrance” and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes. So instead of resorting to hares in the discussion, which pertain to nothing here, you should read where the holy fathers wrote that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. No, you did not even think to answer; we knew in advance that we would not receive this answer from you. So how can one call that society which does not follow Scripture? Can one call it Christ’s Church? No, simply a crowd of people led by blind guides, like my interlocutor.

The same about the eternity of the sacrifice writes blessed Simeon of Thessalonica (in the Russian translation of his works, p. 182): “Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the age; for He said this not as if after this He would not always be with us, as when praying to the Father He says: Father, those You gave Me, I desire that where I am they also may be with Me, that they may see My glory, and before the prayer: and the glory You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one as We are one, and I in them and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, but until the end of the age He will be through His mysteries, and He said this also because He is not now seen, having ascended bodily, until He comes.” This is how Christ will be with us until the end of the age—through His mysteries. If you have none of this, Christ is not with you, and if He is not with you, you are not Christians, and if you are not Christians, you are anti-Christians. This is the conclusion—sound, logical conclusion—because Christ has communion with us in the mysteries. Saint Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent writes the following about those who do not partake (Book “Chrysostom”, fifth week of Lent, p. 129 reverse):

“If anyone lives purely in repentance but does not receive Christ’s mysteries, he cannot be saved.”

One must think about this. By my duties and by my work, which I do by calling, I have had to be in the Pomor lands, among the priestless. When I asked them: tell me please, when you read the above words of Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent, what do you think at that time? They told me: “We do not read them.” And why? “So as not to tempt the people. For the people will hear and revolt. We take and skip this place.” Here is an example of this. In the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle writes: “The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” So these words for those being saved, who believe all Scripture, are the power of God. And for those who do not believe this Scripture and do not live so, it is foolishness for them. Therefore they skip these words. This is the judgment lying on those who do not partake of Christ’s Body and Blood. This Scripture about the eternity of the sacrifice serves them only as poverty, reproach, and foolishness, but for the saved it serves as the power of God, on which alone we can rely, on which we hope. By works we cannot be justified, but can only hope to repent of our sins and by receiving the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood obtain eternal life.

That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, further testimonies are given from the Great Collection (page 559):

“Just as that voice saying ‘increase and multiply and fill the earth’ was spoken once, but every year the deed occurs, giving power to our nature for procreation. So this voice was spoken once, but always (ever) on the tables in the churches from that day and until His coming makes the perfect sacrifice.”

See, honorable listeners, how many proofs, almost letter for letter identical. All Scripture says one and the same. There are no disagreements about the sacrifice. Disagreements are only in the own language of my interlocutor. If you have no sacrifice, it means either Christ has come, or since this is not so, it means you are deceived. The same is written in the Book of Cyril (page 351):

“But at every time, and every hour, every year, even until the end of the world, He left His most pure body and life-giving divine blood, shed for the world for the remission of sins, for His faithful to eat, uniting and joining them to His divine and incorruptible nature. As Chrysostom also recalling this writes thus: for just as after the creation of all things the Lord’s word abounds, as He said: increase and multiply and fill the earth. Which spoken once occurs in deed every year, helping our nature to childbearing; so the word of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, proclaiming all creation from corruption to resurrection. Especially man possessing all these, spoken once: take and eat and drink of it all, never fails, helping His faithful to union and joining to the divine nature and inheritance of the heavenly kingdom.”

Here more than 20 testimonies have been read by me in proof that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, because priesthood and sacrifice are together; one cannot be without the other. So, my interlocutor, take at least one of these proofs in hand. Where is the truth here? Where is the sincerely expressed desire by him to defend his supposed brethren as truly Orthodox Christians? Where is this desire? This desire, these tears of yours, are mere pretense, only pretense. Here is such a cloud of witnesses in defense of Christ’s saving sacrifice, established by Him at the Mystical Supper in the presence of His disciples.

Concluding my speech with this, I turn again to my dear interlocutor: let him go the straight path, let him read in Holy Scripture where it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. If he mentions our priesthood once more, or another priesthood, or generally touches questions that do not pertain to this discussion, I will again remind him of the challenge. I wish to conduct with him a two-day discussion on the question of our hierarchy and on the question of relics. I ask you to accept my challenge and answer the question on the basis of Holy Scripture: where is it written that the sacrifice will not remain until Christ’s second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! My interlocutor has fallen into irritation. He himself spoke nonsense and is offended himself. I presented such a cloud of testimonies that my interlocutor cannot fly above this cloud. This cloud soaring in the air is the testimonies of holy men. I advise you, gentlemen priestly ones, to look around, enter into yourselves and ask: where now is this sacrifice actually offered in the Orthodox spirit? In Rome you do not recognize, in the East and Arabia you do not recognize, in Uniates what is done you reject, in Gregorian Armenians you do not recognize, in the Armenian common-heretical church also you do not recognize, finally you do not recognize in the Greco-Russian church. Where is the true sacrifice? For you factually sum it up yourselves that only with you is the sacrifice, but about your sacrifice, gentlemen, you must speak cautiously, because it is foreign with you, not your own, not Christ’s, but heretical and Antichrist’s, bought for money, assembled by human inventions, not by the living word of the Gospel. You ask, let Lev Feoktistovich show me where in Scripture it is written about the final desolation or cessation of the sacrifice? To this I can say to my interlocutor with the words of the Gospel. “Tell us, blind man, ask the proud Pharisees, who healed you? Who opened your eyes?” The healed one answers: “I have told you several times that Jesus healed me, or do you not hear?” These sacred words are precisely applicable to my interlocutor. I have testified to you several times from the Book of Cyril that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere to destroy the true sacrifice and set the abomination of desolation in the holy place,” that is, impious heresies.

Then, I brought you a series of other testimonies and, finally, here is the following conclusion of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, in the Great Collection, Meatfare week, third word: “The sun and moon will weep at that time,” he says.

But the sun naturally cannot weep, nor can the moon shed tears. This must be understood spiritually.

“Then the wild animals with the birds will weep, the mountains and hills will weep, and the field trees, for the sake of the human race, because all have turned away from God and believed the deceiver.”

And it is said that this will be in the days of the Antichrist. So if understood literally, as you do, one must literally account for how birds and beasts will weep? How will mountains, hills, and trees weep? For in essence this cannot be. Well, so here it speaks not of birds and beasts, but of people similar to them.

Then: “Having received the mark of the foul God-fighter instead of the life-giving Cross of the Savior.”

Who among us has received this number 666?

“Then God’s churches will also weep with great weeping, because neither offering nor incense is performed, nor is there God-pleasing service. For the sacred churches will be like vegetable storehouses, and the honorable body and blood of Christ will not appear in those days.”

So, brethren, understand that in these days there will be no body and blood of Christ, for they will be destroyed by the Antichrist, the enemy of the human race—the devil.

But my interlocutor as if intentionally pointed out to me that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be helpers of the Church: pastors and excellent church teachers. This he read from chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, and adding his own words said: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be priests and bishops.” But is this really so? Let us see: Apocalypse, chapter 12, says thus:

“And the dragon persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child.”

The woman is Christ’s Church, desiring to give birth through holy baptism by faith of the baptized. The dragon is the devil:

“He spews water like a river after the woman.”

This is heretical teaching, by which he wanted to drown the child of the woman—that is, destroy it in the muddy water of heretical teaching.

“And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon spewed from his mouth. And the dragon went to make war with the rest; Excellent and chosen church teachers, it says.”

Thus it is written in the explanatory Apocalypse that in the time of the Antichrist there will truly be the best church teachers. And therefore my interlocutor says: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be bishops and priests.” In this place my interlocutor is gravely mistaken: these excellent church teachers were, but will not be. This I say on the basis of the Great Collection, page 877 reverse and in the margin. Apocalypse, chapter 12, where it is written:

“This war I think John the Theologian shows in the revelation, that the dragon persecuted the woman desiring to give birth to lawful children, that is, the church of the new covenant, against which the dragon spewed water, that is, those heretics. Which God seeing not a little shaken and afflicted by him, raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors.”

“He raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors, of whom I say the first and most wise and great Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, and Irenaeus, and the divine Hippolytus, and the wonderful and excellent among philosophers Cyprian. And the strong and invincible warrior for the Holy Trinity Athanasius the Great. The firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, who truly helped the church, swallowing heretical teaching like the earth water with right teachings, which even now are set before the faithful to drive away such abomination.”

See, dear listeners, my words are confirmed by Scripture. The dragon persecuted the woman—that is, the Antichrist the holy Church. He spewed water after the woman—that is, the teaching of heretics. “He raised up for her strong fighters”—already, not will raise in the future. He raised Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin the Philosopher, Irenaeus the most holy, Hippolytus, the divine Cyprian, Athanasius the Great, the firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom. These are the true helpers of the holy Church. And since they are no longer in life, they reign with Christ, but we still suffer in this life and see with our eyes the flood-like false teaching, so how can we repel the foul wiles of the deceiver Antichrist?

Whoever reads impartially and reasons soundly Scripture will be a champion of truth and follower of those great pillars. This is the meaning of the said Scripture. So, my dearest interlocutor, you should read the original books of the holy fathers, not those little books and small brochures, but take the holy books and read them diligently. Then you noted to me: “one must have shame to speak such baseness about hares and dogs.” Forgive me, for I did not speak this in my own words; I read the letter of your lord Anastasius. You yourself call this shame and reproach, and do not call me a blind guide and my brethren in faith.

I will answer this too not in my own words, but in the words of one holy man. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (part 2, p. 235) says this to people who attribute their absurdities to others: “Be ashamed, second Babylon and new Sodomite mixture. How long will you mix tongues? How long will you dare against those whom you harm not at all? You seek to do violence to angelic powers, casting out words of truth from the church and saying to holy Lot: bring out the men (Gen. 19:5). But what you undertake, you undertake against yourself. For you will not cast out words of truth, but strike yourself with blindness (Gen. 19:11). And you walk in dark night, groping for the door and not finding it, until the sun rises, and you see the day of judgment, when fire (Gen. 19:23, 24) will overtake you for lying words.”

“Be ashamed,” says the holy father, “second Babylon.” So, to whom does this rebuke apply if not to you? Babylon means mixture.

Where is the first Babylon? I will answer in your words. There where you took your priesthood. And who is the second Babylon? It is you.

I will now speak about that Communion you mentioned. Saint Theodore the Studite on this occasion says, his letter, part 1, p. 325: “For Communion from a heretic or one openly condemned by life separates from God and delivers to the devil.” So we avoid this devilish Communion.

Part two of the same book of the venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 81:

“Communion with heretics is not common bread, but poison, damaging not the body but blackening and darkening the soul.” Consequently, whoever partakes with heretics and false priests has his soul poisoned with spiritual poison.

Further I read, part two, p. 219: “For a temple defiled by heretics is not a holy and God’s temple, but an ordinary house, as Basil the Great says, since the angel formerly present in each church has departed from it for impiety. Therefore the sacrifice performed in it is not accepted by God. Listen how he himself says: the sinner sacrificing a calf to Me is like one killing a dog” (Isa. 66:3).

This is what heretical Communion is like. We avoid and abhor such Communion. But Christ’s Communion in the present last time there is none, for false priests cannot arrange it.

Further I read, part two of the same venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 339: “What is this forced participation, under threat of bodily unpleasantness in case of refusal, to participate in heterodox bread. The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—O most Christian thought!—is a voluntary sacrifice.”

Thus, let those who forcibly draw us to communion with them against our will know that they act in a pagan way. “Offering not Christ’s body voluntarily sacrificed, but on the contrary some kind of idol-sacrificed, similar to involuntarily offered sacrifices to demons.”

Then I will also cite a testimony. Works of blessed Jerome, part 6, p. 78: “The church of heretics, which calls to itself the senseless in mind, so that deceived by it he accepts thievish breads.” What is this thievish bread? Heretics, stealing the Orthodox form of performance, perform mysteries with this form and deceive the senseless in mind—that is, simpletons. These are not my words, but the words of holy men. And not only did they accept thievish bread, but thievish water. And what does thievish water mean? False heretical baptism, as it is said: “Thievish water—that is, false mystery and foul baptism.” This is what we avoid.

Further I testify. In part 6 of the Works of blessed Jerome, on p. 254, it is written: “He commands then to the Jewish people and now to us, seemingly in the church, not to rely on the splendor of buildings, on gilded ceilings and marble-clad walls, and not to say: temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord. For the temple of the Lord is that in which true faith dwells, holy life, and the assembly of all virtues.”

Here only temples can be temples of the Lord, but Christ the Savior about such said in the Gospel of Luke, Reading 72:

“Then you will begin to say: we ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.”

This will be said at Christ’s Judgment by those who partook of false mysteries. And Christ answers them:

“I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.”

This is what bitter answer of the Savior to you. And after this He said:

“There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Thus, temples are recognized not by Communion, but by faith pure from heresies and virtuous life.

And if many people like you say that they partook, ate the body and drank the blood of Christ, Christ will say to such: “Depart from Me, I do not know you.”

Then another testimony. Work of blessed Jerome, part II, p. 159: “Thus all deceived by heretics serve as food for demons.” Whoever partakes with heretics becomes not a temple of God, but food for demons. P. 165: “For heretics also imitate church meekness, but their offering appears not as service to God, but as food to demons.”

So, although false priests and bishops perform similar rites in the service of the sacrifice, their offering—that is, Communion—appears not as service to God, but as food to demons. Strict words, dear listeners, but not my words, but the words of holy men. This is where heretics’ Communion leads—to food for demons, but Orthodox Communion nowhere now exists. Works of blessed Jerome, part 12, p. 88: “For all that was done afterward in the temple was not sacrifice to God, but service to the devil.”

Further I read on p. 238: “No one doubts that the hearts of heretics are kindled by the devil’s fire,” so that breads—that is, Communion—are baked in them for the Antichrist. I will make a comparison. The heart of a true Christian is God’s altar, but the heart of a heretic is an oven in which breads are baked for the Antichrist.

Further testimony of the same part of blessed Jerome, p. 265: “The sacrifices of heretics are bread of sorrow and tears, because all that they do will turn to weeping (below). By bread of sorrow we can call those pernicious words in which they express impiety against the Lord. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the assemblies of heretics are called not God’s house, but dens of robbers.” And everyone who eats partakes with these people and is defiled. These are blind guides, false teachers who lead the blind into the pit. The Master Christ said: “Woe to you, blind guides, you yourselves do not enter the Kingdom of God and do not allow those wishing to enter. You, He says, are like whitewashed tombs.” And who are these beautiful outward tombs? These are false bishops. Beautiful in appearance, but dead inside, they appear like children’s dolls. And what does the content of the tombs mean, dear listeners? Graceless priests. All that they do is done for pleasure, to deceive the people, to devour widows’ houses, to make more money. By bread of sorrow, says blessed Jerome, we can call those pernicious words in which impiety against the Lord is expressed. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the church of heretics is called not God’s house, but a den of robbers.

You say, interlocutor, we have no church. Untruth, with us precisely only the undefiled faith and right Church is preserved: we have neither heretical priesthood nor heretical baptism. On the contrary, look at yourselves. The holy father says that the assembly of heretics is not Christ’s Church, but “a den of robbers,” and this is factually true.

Further the same blessed Jerome says, in part 13, p. 154: “All this we can refer also to heretics: their altar is broken, and all dedications and sacrilegious mysteries are shaken: they had covetousness in their heads and are like a partridge which by cry gathers those it did not hatch, and acquires riches by unrighteousness (Jer. ch. 17).”

They had covetousness—that is, they arranged their priesthood for money, and most of all they had covetousness in their heads.

So this is not a mother Church, but a stepmother of demonic origin, which did not bear children by the Holy Spirit in baptism, but by the voice of a native mother gathers the inattentive for deception and boasts of them. You say we have flock and pastors. But by the words of the holy father you are convicted “that you acquire riches by unrighteousness.” Now judge for yourselves who you are.

Further I read, p. 191 of the same part: “For as you rejoiced at their slaughter and arranged feasts and on My holy mountain”—that is, in your madness, when you were carried away by the pleasures of the spiritual wealth you acquired—that is, priesthood—and arranged feasts—that is, offered sacrifices on the holy mountain in the church—“you drank not My cup, but the devil’s cup.” When you rejoiced at your find, you did not drink Christ’s cup when you partook, but partook of the devil’s cup. Thus said the holy father. Here is what bitter lesson to these people who do not heed God’s words and blaspheme them. Christ the Savior said:

“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will weep and wail and there will be none to comfort them.”

Finally, dear listeners, from whom, do you think, did the church of the priestly ones originate? Their church originated not from Christ successively, but from the heretic Ambrose, and they themselves called it Belokrinitsa, not apostolic or Christ’s. Having received beginning from a mortal man and heretic, what kind of church is it? Blessed Jerome about such in his Work, part 4, p. 92, said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from someone else (below), know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” For one must firmly hold to that Church which was founded by the apostles, not the new Belokrinitsa one.

Thus, now the totals are summed up. I will read to you another testimony from the book of Baronius, epistle of the sacred martyr Cyprian, page 165 reverse, about Communion: “You have, he says, beloved brethren, no vanity in reverence and faith, that there in this time God’s priests cannot perform offerings and sacrifices: offer as sacrifice a broken spirit, a contrite and humble heart, God will not despise. This sacrifice offer to God continually, day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice, as the apostle says, in your bodies.”

If you do not have priests and cannot perform the sacrifice, do not grieve over this.

Here, finally, is the holy teaching of the Church: where there are no priests, where there is no service, there you can yourselves offer, by faith, the sacrifice of your spirit and heart. Here is what Zachariah Kopystensky says about this (his book On the One Truth, page 152 reverse): “I know the three youths spoke. And there is in that hour neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader, nor whole burnt offering, nor sacrifice, nor offering, nor incense, nor place to offer (altar) before You, and find mercy, but with a contrite soul and humble spirit may we be accepted. As You see Yourself in that hour to have both prophet and place, and would offer to God; or wherever it could not be, a contrite soul hoping in God’s mercy, and a humble spirit offered (partook). And believing in this way they would be accepted by God as the foremost offering. Likewise the right-believing, and in the hour (of need) mentioned, then they will understand about their acceptance by God: and prophet—that is, priest; place—that is, Church. Sacrifice—that is, most holy mysteries (Communion), where there is none, as those three youths offered to God a contrite soul, a humble spirit. Do not be troubled, it is better and safer (for you) to fall thus into God’s hands, as the reigning prophet David says: then I will fall into the Lord’s hands, for I know His mercies are many and swift, but into human hands then I will not fall (below). To die with right faith, yes. So I know we fall into God’s hands and mercy and goodness, rather than into human hands—that is, impious and unOrthodox. Through this perdition and loss of salvation, not being faithful to the end. Be (be) carefree in the final step of your life, preserve yourself, remember that thief on the cross, remember the first-martyr Stephen and innumerable other martyrs, exiles and those exiled in deserts, who ended their life without Communion, preserving faith in their heads above all. For remembering I know: be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life; and be (be) more confident about baptism and confession and Communion—Eucharist, as it is written, for I know that you will do this not out of contempt or disdain, but because of persecution and through harms from visible tormentors, and striving to preserve and keep the right faith unbroken, I say again do not lament (do not grieve), but firmly assure this.”

D. S. Varakin. I ask for your attention. Only for half an hour I ask your precious attention. Here we have heard the last speech with the proofs of our interlocutor. In this speech he seems to have brought everything he had at hand to somehow defile that priesthood which has its succession from Christ through pious patriarchs, bishops, and priests and finally through Metropolitan Ambrose. Arming himself with Scripture against heretics, he does not inflict any defeat on us, because is it not known to anyone that we, truly Orthodox Christians, have no heresy and what was accepted in the holy universal Church from heretics, we accepted too. If we did this badly, let him first pour this poison on the holy Church. Then only will this poison be appropriately poured by him if he dares to pour it on the ecumenical councils. No matter how bold my interlocutor is, he will not do this. So let him stop pouring the poison of malice on what was also done by the holy Church. With his last proof he wanted to prove that the liturgy is not needed, that one can partake without sacrifice, with contrition of spirit, and sacrifice is prayer, and referred that this was said by Saint Cyprian. Reading the Chronicle of Baronius, he says: these are Cyprian’s words. If it were known to you, dear interlocutor, that this is in Cyprian’s book, you would have read it in Cyprian’s book. You have it at hand. And why did you not read it in it? Because Cyprian does not have this. And here too you told untruth. You did not finish reading the place that clarifies the main thought. And this is always his practice: he reads and does not finish. Like some epidemic, he cannot break the habit of reading and not finishing, necessarily cutting off. In Baronius he read a clear self-rebuke. Further is written what he left out.

“This sacrifice offer to God continually day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice (as the apostle says) in your bodies. Here he clearly distinguishes the external sacrifice, which they could not perform in prison—that is, the liturgy—from the internal, which they could offer with one heart. Lest the heretic say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice, which is contrary to truth and all antiquity” (Baronius, p. 165 reverse).

Well, if in prison, he says, a person is not given freedom, can he partake of Christ’s body and blood when neither priest is allowed nor holy gifts are brought? No, he says, he cannot. Then, he says, by force of this necessity, let him partake by prayer. For he is not released from this prison. What further?

“Lest heretics say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice.”

It is not Saint Cyprian who says that the Church of Christ now has no sacrifice, but lest heretics say this. This is contrary to all antiquity. He did not finish this. Well, what kind of interlocutor is this. This place strikes him, but he reads it against us. Here the heretic said that Christ’s Church has no external sacrifice, and he says this. This is what you have come to, L. F. Your head is simply spinning. You no longer know what you are reading.

It was read from Jerome parts 6 and 2, 13 and 17. And what is read here, that one must not have communion with heretics, must not have mixture, must turn away from heretics. But who disputes this with you? If you wish, I will read you not 5 proofs, but 205, that one must not have communion with heretics. But was the discussion about this? The discussion was about the following: will Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming? The question was posed by me. So know this, dearest interlocutor, and you, Pomortsy, remember that your interlocutor did not answer the question from Scripture and leaves without an answer, meaning he has nothing to justify himself with. But was our question about whether to have communion with heretics? There is no discussion about this at all.

Here he read from the fourth part of Jerome: “whoever,” he says, “is not from Christ, that,” he says, “is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” But this place, one can say, has two ends. According to him, we originated from the time of Metropolitan Ambrose. Let us stop at this for now. But as history says, they have their origin from Pomorye. So he says: “we Old Believers-Pomortsy earlier than them.” But they appeared from the time of the Denisov brothers. Consequently, you are not from the time of Christ, but from the time of the Denisov brothers; so you too are the synagogue of the Antichrist? This is also proved by the fact that in your temples instead of altars and thrones sideboards are set. Also, gentlemen, I draw your attention to this: the interlocutor condemned those persons in our society who have successive ordination descending from pious patriarchs and called our bishops, priests, and deacons by various shameful names. What cunning Mr. Pichugin has reached in abuse; it seems he has achieved virtuosity in this. But we will draw your attention to what he did at the council recently, how they appointed their mentors. Our bishops and priests received ordination. But with them they were only establishing conciliarly: how to count our fathers—spiritual persons or the same simple as we? It turned out that for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were? Does, they say, our mentor have succession? Yes, for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were. Here is this brochure—“List of subjects of conciliar discussion”—and it poses this question. Of course, we could read it in the big book, but since it is not written in the big book, by necessity one has to read from the small one. Thus, one must recognize their pastors not as simple laymen. But who are they? I do not know—who. Not priests, not deacons, not bishops, yet not laymen. Something in between. John the Theologian said about such: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot; I will spit you out.”

Then were read the words of Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “God’s Church will weep… there will be neither incense nor sacrifice.” I was recently in their temple. They have a large censer. But in the time of the Antichrist there is no incense. Where did you get it from? He, according to Hippolytus, destroyed even incense. So where did you get this censer? The Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice, but not the censer. Then they perform services: molebens, vespers, matins, panikhidas, hours, sing, read Scripture. Gentlemen, pay attention: in the 20th century, in Moscow, in a large auditorium, we read such a heap of Scriptures, but in the times of the Antichrist Scripture will not be heard, it will be impossible to read. Well, who can agree with such an absurd conclusion of my interlocutor that now is the kingdom of the last Antichrist. Then he said that “temples will be like vegetable storehouses.” But in their temples there are neither cucumbers nor potatoes, but in the place of the altar a council room, but no vegetables there. So be consistent in what you read: if you want to compare present life with Scripture, compare from beginning to end. But you say about the sacrifice that there is none, but singing, reading, and censer you have. So here is something else. This is not Christ’s Church, but what blessed Jerome said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from someone else, as for example about Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists or Campites, know that it is not Christ’s Church but the synagogue of the Antichrist” (part 4, p. 92). In the Russian translation of the same Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, it says: “Public worship will cease, psalm singing will fall silent, the reading of Scriptures will not resound” (Works of Hippolytus, issue II, p. 78). Even psalms will not be allowed to be sung. However, they read kathismas and read psalms. Here they even read, but there is no sacrifice. Can one recognize such a conclusion as correct that at present the last Antichrist reigns? I will say one can, but conditionally, that the kingdom of the Antichrist is with them, because the sacrifice with them is destroyed, the Antichrist destroyed it, destroyed everything, but could not manage to destroy the censer. In conclusion of the speech I will read to you that proof which I read from the Book of Cyril, since I have no right to bring new proofs.

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

“They do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice.”

Those temples which had altars, they chopped up and arranged something improper.

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse.”

This, he says, heretics do, but they have none, so they are heretics; in the altar, in the holy place, the abomination of desolation like a corpse is set. This they did. So say: the abomination of desolation is with you. Then, when I read Andrew of Caesarea the following: “those in charge of the Church and church pastors even in the time of the coming of the last Antichrist will overcome him,” my interlocutor takes the Collection and says they overcame, not will overcome. Athanasius the Great and other saints—they overcame. Does my interlocutor not know that Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century, 750 years after Athanasius the Great, but he says as if this is spoken about Athanasius the Great, but Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century and speaks of future time. See how many inconsistencies, misinterpretations, how much confusion he has in Scripture and interpretations. For when the apostles asked the Lord about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, He predicted the future. Where is the truth here? Here is only your sophism; you simply mix proofs, confuse. I will repeat another proof of blessed Theodoret: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Interp. For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body, because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said until He comes.” When Christ Himself comes, then, he says, we will have no need for this, but the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Then I will repeat another proof of Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 78 reverse of the Book of Cyril), where it is said that this sacrifice will be in the Christian Church:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church chosen from the nations offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death, and this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible” (78 reverse).

Thus, I had to repeat the proof only because I have no right to bring new proofs. You see, brethren, that sacrifice and priesthood, according to Scripture, will remain until the second coming. Therefore my interlocutor was obliged to point it out with himself, because he recognizes only himself as Christ’s Church, but he has no sacrifice—meaning he has no Christ’s church. Since Christ did not establish and did not indicate a church without mysteries, this church is not Christ’s, but, as blessed Jerome says, the synagogue of the Antichrist. About our hierarchy he touched many times. But this does not pertain to the question. I already challenged and said that if desired, I agree to discuss this question too. Thus, concluding my speech, I bring to all of you my deep gratitude, both to our brethren of the same faith and to the Old Believer Pomortsy brethren, and I ask you to imprint on the tablets of your hearts Holy Scripture, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming.

L. F. Pichugin. Most honorable listeners! Our discussion is ending. In this short speech I will make a brief review of all that was said.

The first discussion with us was about the Belokrinitsa priesthood. The Belokrinitsa priesthood turned out to be non-successive priesthood from the living source of the Savior Christ and the holy apostles, but it originated, in the words of the priestly ones themselves, from the harlot Babylon, where demons live and unclean spirits dwell, and was born into God’s world only in 1846.

The second discussion was about the baptism of heretics coming to the Church. I proved with full clarity that the holy Church never and nowhere accepted heretics with their baptism, but either chrismated or baptized anew, counting heretics’ baptism as nothing.

In the third discussion I also proved with clarity that, according to the prescribed prophetic, Gospel, apostolic, and holy fatherly Scripture, the Antichrist has come and reigns.

Finally, in this present fourth last discussion about the New Testament sacrifice of the Communion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I also proved that by God’s permission and according to the high-proclaiming writing of the prophet Daniel and the word of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ—this great mystery—alas, worthy of tears—has been corrupted by the Antichrist and his servants the heretics and false priests.

I pointed to the writing of the prophet Daniel and the words of Jesus Christ saying:

“Then in the holy place the abomination of desolation will stand.”

When the Roman kingdom falls and is divided into 10 parts. But the Roman kingdom was divided long ago into 10 monarchies, and the false lamb, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, has already appeared on earth under the name of Christ, bearing false symbols, two horns like the true Lamb, and deceived the sacred world.

The false lamb is a false bishop pretending to be the true Lamb.

The final enthronement of the Antichrist, the last appearance, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, and his actions are the number 666. This number, as a fateful event of the times, found its indicated place (Book on Faith, ch. 30): the year 1666. The fact has occurred.

There is no longer holy Communion; if it exists anywhere, it is false—because it is performed by false builders.

Thus, by force of compelled circumstances, we Old Believers priestless Pomortsy with great sorrow remain without priesthood and visible Communion for a very valid reason, for the pastors have retreated from Christ’s faith and gone astray, offering false instead of true sacrifice.

I am happy and consider it a high honor that at the present time I defend my brethren in faith and bring special thanks to the Lord God that He granted me strength to fight for the holy faith in this field these four days.

Forgive me, brethren, if I offended anyone; but to offend intentionally, believe me, I wished no one. In struggle there are extremes.

I bring thanksgiving and praise to the Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen!

The Chairman declares the session closed.

To the beloved children of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church, abiding everywhere and in all places, who preserve and keep the sacred dogmas of the right faith and the traditions of the holy Apostles and the holy and God-bearing fathers, pastors, and teachers of the ecumene.

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy and worshipful Spirit be with you all. Amen.

We must have every diligence and striving, beloved ones, to follow the teaching of the divine Scriptures and to preserve the sacred canons and traditions of the holy Apostles and holy fathers, who gathered at various times in the seven ecumenical and nine local councils for the eradication of God-abhorrent heresies and for the confirmation of right decrees. Concerning these, the Divine Apostle cries out, saying: Remember your leaders, who spoke to you the word of God; considering the outcome of their way of life, imitate their faith; and: Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings [Hebrews, ch. 13].

Heeding this, we must beware of all heresies and schisms, both manifest and hidden; and hold fast to and preserve the dogmas of the faith and the church traditions whole and unaltered, according to the saying: Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set [Proverbs, ch. 22]. For this reason, let us diligently search the Scriptures and the traditions of the fathers, and from these let us be zealous: and as we have found the Church from Christ’s descent, so let us preserve it, and so let us hand it down, and not separate ourselves from our fathers, reading some things one way and understanding them another [Sobornik Bol., fol. 337, verso].

Bearing these things in mind, it is fitting for us to walk the middle royal path, deviating neither to the right nor to the left, and to turn away from all blasphemies, shunning crooked teachings and falsely named knowledge. For many false prophets (false teachers) have gone out into the world [1 John, ch. 4], who set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth [Ps. 72]. Of these, some openly war against the ancient statutes and ordinances of the holy fathers, while others, following ancient church traditions but not thinking rightly, are stolen from the right and, as if out of zeal for ancient church piety—but truly speaking, according to their own false reasoning—compose scrolls of God-opposing wisdom and notebooks of lying teachings, and giving them plausible titles under the names of saints, they corrupt the right teaching of the holy Church, and with the poison of their wisdom they water the hearts of the guileless and draw them to death. To enumerate all these is not the task of the present time; however, it is necessarily needful and highly beneficial to mention some in brief.

There are circulating certain falsely composed notebooks, not only disagreeing with Holy Scripture and contrary to sound reason, but overflowing with blasphemous wisdom, which we here set forth in the midst:

1. The first place is occupied by a notebook under this title: The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse.
2. A notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian.
3. A notebook containing the false interpretation of Amphilochius on the second song of Moses.
4. A notebook under the title: A Word from the Elder, the Monk Zachariah, to His Disciple Stephen.
5. A falsely composed interpretation of the ten fingers and the ten horns of the beast.
6. A notebook: On the Drunkard.
7. A notebook: On the Creation of Wine.
8. A notebook: On the Potato, Supposedly from Pandok and Other Books.
9. A notebook containing strange reasoning about the spiritual Antichrist.
10. Prophetic notebooks in which the time and day of the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are appointed.

All these are false and fabulous compositions, in which is preached the cessation of the Christ-delivered priesthood, the ending of the new-grace law, the reign of the last Antichrist, who supposedly sits on the thrones of the altars of the Church now dominating in Russia, which as if believes in and worships another god, confessing under the name of Jesus—not Christ the Savior, but His adversary, the Antichrist.

Such baseless and absurd reasonings have been sown maliciously by the priestless ones who have darkened their conscience and imperceptibly creep into the Christ-named people, who breathe simplicity and guilelessness and cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

Guarding the flock of Christ’s verbal sheep from soul-destroying teaching and to avert such absurd reasonings and all-defiling tares sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith, we offer this epistle and beseech all the Christ-named heritage, together with the God-wise philosopher, the Venerable Maxim the Greek, saying: “Do not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, but with much caution and sober reason test the spirits, that is, the books written by certain ones, whether they are truly from God, according to the Divine Apostle and Evangelist John—that is, whether they agree in all things with the prophetic and apostolic and evangelical sacred and right words written by the Holy Spirit, and with the unerring theological dogmas of the God-inspired hierarchs and teachers who shone forth everywhere in the ecumene after them. But if the books written by certain ones do not agree in all things, nor conform with the God-inspired Scriptures, it is fitting to reject and abhor them as blasphemous and defiled and separating us from God… Let us attend to ourselves for the Lord’s sake, and not believe every spirit of teaching without testing, but let us diligently test the Scriptures, whether they agree in all things with the apostolic and prophetic traditions and teaching. For if they differ in any way, let us not receive them, but reject them from ourselves as the evil one’s tares, sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith for the deception and destruction of our souls” [Maxim the Greek, Word 10].

Following the teaching of the venerable man, let us return to the aforementioned compositions and examine with an impartial eye the false reasonings lying within them. Let us begin thus:

1. The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse, in which it is inscribed as if printed by the command of the pious sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and as if it has four hundred and one chapters, and not twenty-two, as contained in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, and as if John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue. In this God-abhorrent notebook, so many harmful reasonings are written that it is dreadful not only to speak of them but even to think of them. There (and in other false compositions), the four-ended cross is blasphemed (oh, the audacity!) as the image of the foul God-opposing Antichrist, an idol, the abomination of desolation, a graven image standing in the holy place, and other absurd reproaches are hurled against it: the name Jesus is attributed to the name of the last Antichrist himself; the Eucharist, performed under that name and with the four-ended cross, is called the serpent’s vomit and the lamb of the Antichrist; and finally, the destruction of sacred ordination throughout the entire universe is preached.

Such God-fighting teaching is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, cross-blasphemous, heretical, soul-destroying, and utterly false. False, because it is signed as if printed by the command of the sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich; but there was not only no printed edition of the book, but not even a single sheet of such content anywhere, and there absolutely is none. False, because it declares 401 chapters; but according to its content, it circulates everywhere among its lovers in a small notebook. Moreover, in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, not 401 but 22 chapters are set forth: whence, then, were 379 chapters added? False, because it fabulously claims that John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue; but John the Evangelist preached Christ in Asia, and there he wrote the Gospel and the Apocalypse by divine revelation; he was not among the Slavs and did not interpret in the Slavic tongue. To the Slavs, Andrew the First-Called proclaimed the saving preaching; but even he did not blaspheme the four-ended cross, concerning which see in his life [Book On Faith, fol. 70, and the Cheti-Menaion, November 30]. From this, it is also clearly seen that this pseudo-named Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse was composed not by John the Theologian but by some utterly audacious fabulist, and it is a falsely woven invention released by the priestless ones for the destruction of Christian souls. Concerning the blasphemies circulated in it, more will be said hereafter in its place.

2. The notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian—or truly speaking, of a marketplace babbler—in which it is preached that the Antichrist will kill three great kings: faith, love, and hope, and that the remaining seven, the seven church sacraments, have their origin (oh, dark delusion!) from the beast of the sea (which Daniel [ch. 7] saw having ten horns), from which the Antichrist himself will also come forth, and for this reason they will be near and akin to the Antichrist, as sprouting from the same root and perishing by the same offspring. And what could be more baseless than this vain and mad notion!
3. The notebook containing the false “Interpretation of Amphilochius on the Second Song of Moses” is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox Church.
4. The notebook under the title “A Word from the Elder”. In it, as if the monk Zachariah conversed with his disciple Stephen about the Antichrist and announced to him that the priestly and monastic orders will be utterly destroyed to the end, and other false fabrications are seen there, which are nothing else but fables repulsive to the hearing of the reasonable.
5. The notebook, the falsely composed “Interpretation of the Ten Toes of the Body Shown to Nebuchadnezzar and the Ten Horns of the Fourth Beast Seen by Daniel”, applied to the tsars of the God-preserved Russian state, is inconsistent with the book of the holy prophet Daniel and the interpretation of the holy fathers, full of untruth and false prediction, in which nothing is true, but all is vain and false; for the ten toes and ten horns signify the division of the Roman monarchy into ten parts, and not ten tsars of the Russian power succeeding one another.
6. The notebook “On the Drunkard”, falsely signed as if from the Gospel conversations, in which it is fabulously told how a drunkard caroused on earth, and after death, standing at the gates of holy paradise, reproached the holy King David and Solomon, together with the Apostle Peter and John the Theologian, and thus entered paradise. Likely composed by some blasphemer and serving as a stumbling block to a corrupt life.
7. The notebook “On the Creation of Wine”, as if the devil taught a man to brew intoxicating drink, and that man earned honor from the tsar for it, falsely signed as if from the Stoglav of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. But this is not in the Stoglav. Moreover, the blessed kyr Zinovii the monk, disciple of the Venerable Maxim the Greek, refutes such reasoning in the 45th word of his book, saying: “Hops are not from the devil, for the devil cannot create anything, he can only create illusions: hops are God’s creation, of Him who said: let the earth bring forth grass; it is manifest, then, that hops also sprouted then by that command of God.” (Further) “And concerning monks not drinking with hops, this is not a law, nor do I think it worthy of much condemnation, for to devise to keep what is not commanded to monks, to pretend not to drink, and for this reason to bring about such a rule” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, Word 45]. From this, it is evident that if hops are not from the devil, then neither did the devil teach to make that drink, but men themselves invented it. We say this to refute false fables, and not to open the door to drunkenness. For we know the Apostle crying out: Food (and drink) will not commend us to God [1 Cor., ch. 8]. And again: Do not get drunk with wine, in which is debauchery [Eph., ch. 5]. And the wise Solomon saying: Wine is not to blame, but drunkenness is cursed [Prov., ch. 2], from which every Christian must flee and avoid: for drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God [1 Cor., ch. 6].
8. The notebook “On the Bulb or Potato”, as if from Pandok and other books, and hiding secretly forged extracts of the dove, imposing heavy prohibition on those who use it, which is neither in the Kormchaia nor in the Nomokanon. And this reasoning is heretical, since it calls unclean a God-created herb given for food to men and used according to nature, and falsely refers to books in which there is not even a trace of this: but every lie is from the devil, for he is the father of lies and does not stand in the truth.
9. The notebook “On the Spiritual Antichrist”, a God-opposing composition intolerable to pious hearing, and the blasphemies circulated in it are not fit even to commit to writing.
10. The notebook composed by a false-prophetic spirit, appointing the time and day of the end of the world and the second and fearful coming of Christ, is truly filled with God-fighting teaching, as produced by the audacious contrary to the most pure words of Christ God Himself [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1].

These aforementioned and other similar compositions, compiled by brazen ignoramuses, are false and alien to the Church. Having set them forth and exposed the false teaching contained within them, which we reject and cast aside, and for the guidance of sound reasoning, we briefly propose here to all followers of ancient church piety:

First The holy orthodox-catholic Church and the priesthood, together with the offering of the bloodless sacrifice, will endure until the end of the age and until the day of judgment, according to the unfailing promise of the Lord, as He Himself said with His most pure lips: On this rock (of Peter’s right confession) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [Matt., ch. 16]. And: “As Christ does not die, so His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek will not cease forever” [Kirillova fol. 77].

Second The Church now dominating in Russia, as well as the Greek one, believes not in another God, but in the one with us: “Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” [Symbol of Faith]. I speak of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial and undivided: the Father without beginning, the Son co-beginningless, and the Holy Spirit co-enthroned. It confesses also the fleshly dispensation of Christ, accomplished for the redemption of the human race. It honors the honorable dominical feasts together with us (according to the ancient calendar) not in appearance but in deed: the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation, Theophany, the Crucifixion, the Burial, the three-day Resurrection, and the most glorious Ascension into the heavens, and others; likewise those of the Most Pure Theotokos and of God’s holy saints. It bows down to the holy icons of ancient depiction, with the inscription of Christ’s name: IC XC. It kisses the honorable nail and tunic of Christ, the holy and wonderworking icons, the relics of God’s holy saints. And by all these it is clearly proven that it believes in one and the same God, confesses one and the same Christ with us. And for the sake of such faith of hers, the baptism performed by her in three immersions—in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—and the ordination, on the basis of the sacred rules and holy-fatherly precedents, are accepted without repetition.

The reasons, however, for our not following the pastors of that church are weighty and well-founded. For by God’s permission, through Nikon the former patriarch, the ancient church traditions were altered. And subsequently, by a council (with the presence of the Greek patriarchs) in the year 1667, the most terrible curse and anathema were pronounced upon those who hold to the ancient holy-church traditions, and strict persecution and hunting were raised up with torment. And after this, polemical books were issued by the pastors contending for the newly set forth dogmas and traditions, in which the most holy and worshipful name of our Savior Christ (Jesus) was blasphemously reviled, as if it does not signify the Savior and Healer of our souls, but some other Jesus of equal ears [Rozysk, part I, ch. 15, fol. 18]. Moreover (oh, the audacity!), they called it monstrous and signifying nothing [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 87, edition 1854]. The two-fingered folding for depicting the sign of the cross was likewise reviled: Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, wicked division, Armenianism, Armenian heresy, Armenian fig, Arian abyss, gates of hell, magical sign, demon-slaying, and devilish tradition! [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 336]. But even in their three-fingered folding, their teaching is inconsistent with itself. For in the Skrizhal, in the Prashchitsa, and in the prefaces to the Psaltyrs, it is commanded in the three fingers to confess both mysteries: the mystery of the Trinity together with the dispensation; but the last two fingers to hold empty [Skrizhal, 805; Prashchitsa: answer 54; fol. 116; Psaltyrs of various editions]. In other books—in the three fingers the mystery of the Trinity, in the last two the mystery of the dispensation [Ob licheniye: fol. 24. Uveshchaniye of Metropolitan Platon, fol. 45; and Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 121]. To these are added other changes and adaptations, subtractions and additions, which it is not convenient to enumerate here. Let him who wishes read in the Answers of Hierodeacon Alexander, in the 50th answer of the Pomorskiye Otvety, and in the composition of the monk Nikodim, in the six articles and thirty indications.

For these reasons, our conscience does not allow us to be in submission to the pastors of that church, who, to the extreme regret of the sound-minded, do not pay due attention to the correction of their polemical books and do not abolish the indicated harsh-verbal reproaches—reproaches that are repulsive, intolerable to pious hearing, and utterly improper for Christian pastors.

But if someday, illuminated by the grace of God, they lay aside the aforementioned reproaches and conciliarly abandon their new dogmatizations, and “love and accept the holy antiquity and command those entrusted to them to preserve it” [Book On Faith, ch. 25, fol. 195 verso], and begin to follow all the ancient church traditions unchangingly, and the Church is arranged in such exactness of dogmas and traditions as it was from the years of the equal-to-the-apostles Prince Vladimir and until the years of Nikon the former patriarch: “then the whole rampart of that boundary will turn into a level plain, and hearts will come together one with another” [Book On Faith, fol. 185 verso; words of St. Maxim the Confessor: Cheti-Menaion, Jan. 21]. And we, without any human persuasion, will go to communion with her. But as long as the scandals and stumbling blocks remain that disturb our conscience, we cannot, contrary to the conviction of our conscience, follow the newly set forth dogmas and traditions.

And for this reason, we are not schismatics and dividers, but children of the one holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church.

Having declared, therefore, our confession and sacred desire, witnessed before the all-knowing God—that as we distance ourselves from those who revile the ancient church traditions, so we do not ally ourselves with the priestless blasphemies circulated in the aforementioned notebooks, against which we now make refutation. And we pray the One who dwells on high, the one beginningless King of glory, that this may serve as an example to the learned pastors of the Church now dominating in Russia, so that they too may turn due attention to the aforementioned harsh-verbal reproaches composed by their predecessors and published to the world. But we turn away from all blasphemy and reason thus:

Third Concerning the most holy and worshipful name of Christ, Jesus.

The most holy, most sweet, most beloved, and most desired name of our Savior Christ we write and pronounce in reading and singing thus: Jesus (Isus), as it was translated from the beginning into our Slavic language by the ancient holy translators. And thus it was written and pronounced until the years of Nikon the former patriarch, as is clearly seen in the Slavonic-Russian handwritten and ancient printed books and on countless holy and wonderworking icons. Therefore, henceforth it is fitting to hold to this ancient spelling and pronunciation unchangingly, unalterably, and inviolably, accepting no innovations or syllogistic suggestions, and to preserve it without addition or diminution. For this, according to the testimony of the holy fathers, signifies: Savior, Deliverer, Physician, and Healer of our souls and bodies. Thus confessing, we say with the Apostle: this is the most holy name besides which there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved [Acts, ch. 4]. And this is the worshipful name at which every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Phil., ch. 2].

Nevertheless, the name written and pronounced by the present-day Greeks and Russians thus: Iisus, we dare not blaspheme or call the name of another Jesus or the name of Christ’s adversary, as certain priestless ones wickedly reason. For the Church now dominating in Russia, together with the Greek one, under this name confesses the same Christ the Savior, according to the flesh the descendant of David, the son of Abraham, born of the tribe of Judah, from the Most Pure Virgin Mary without seed, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, who received circumcision on the eighth day, was then taken into the arms of Simeon the God-receiver, went into Egypt and returned from there, was raised in Nazareth, was baptized in the Jordan by the Forerunner, thereafter gathered the company of apostles, preached the Gospel of the kingdom of God, was betrayed by a disciple, crucified, buried, rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens on the fortieth, and sits at the right hand of the Father. We believe also that He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. From all the above-mentioned, it is most clearly shown that it confesses the same Christ the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and there is here no possibility of understanding another god or another “Jesus” in any way.

Moreover, it is seen in certain ancient books printed thus; as, for example, at the end of the Ostrozh Bible of the printing of the year 7089, on the last leaf arranged in two columns, where in the Slavic dialect it is printed IC (Jesus), but in Greek Iisus (Ιησοΰς).

It is further fitting to know: the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, in the year 1646 issued a small Katekhizis, into which he newly introduced the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the name of Christ the Savior, instead of IC (Jesus), printed Iisus. This Katekhizis the most holy Joseph, Patriarch of Moscow, in the year 7157 issued a second time and excluded from it the opinions inconsistent with church tradition, such as the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the newly introduced name Iisus; but he did not at all pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god or another Jesus. Likewise, the entire consecrated All-Russian Council, gathered in the reigning city of Moscow in the tsar’s chambers [Sluzhebnik in the 10th year of Patriarch Joseph, in the preface, fol. 7 verso], referring for the correction of church singing to the Apostolic Discourses issued in Kiev by Zakhariy Kopystensky in the year 7131, in which in many places the name of Christ is printed Iisus, saw this and did not accept it into church use, yet not only did they not pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god, but they did not even speak of this. But if the fathers of the All-Russian Council had understood Iisus to be another god, then certainly, for the sake of precaution before future generations, they would have declared this: for this matter is great and utterly unworthy of silence. But since they did not declare it, it is evident that the name Iisus is not the name of another god and is not the name of Christ’s adversary. And the entire error consists only in the addition to the name IC (Jesus) of one vowel letter I, which having added, they print and pronounce Iisus.

And since the most holy Moscow patriarchs—Job, Ermogen, Filaret, Ioasaf, and Joseph—did not introduce this name into use, neither do we introduce it, and just as they did not lay blasphemy and reproach upon it, neither do we lay such: moreover, we annul and reject the priestless blasphemy, not wrought by the Spirit of God, as well as the God-opposing mockery of the most holy and worshipful name IC (Jesus) circulated in the Rozysk, Prashchitsa, and other books, and serving as the greatest scandal and stone of stumbling; we repel and refute it, and hand over all blasphemers of the name of Christ to the judgment of that same almighty Jesus, who, when He comes in His glory, will render to each according to his deeds and to each according to the intent of his heart.

Fourth Concerning the honorable and life-giving cross.

We believe and confess that the honorable and life-giving cross of Christ, from three woods—cypress, pine, and cedar—was made for the three-day death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Isaiya the God-seer foretold of this from the Lord’s person, saying: and the glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the pine, and the cedar together, to glorify My holy place, and I will glorify the place of My feet [Isaiya, ch. 60]. For according to the testimony of the church teachers, the upright beam of the cross was of cypress, the crossbeam of pine, on which the hands of Christ were nailed, and the footrest of cedar, as the Church also sings [Oktoikh: on Wednesday and Friday at matins, tone 3], crying out: “on cypress and pine and cedar You were lifted up, Lamb of God.” On it also the titulus (according to the testimony of certain ones [Grigoriy of Omirot, discourse with Ervan, third day]) was made from olive wood, which Pilate commanded to be placed above the head of Christ the Savior, as the divine Evangelists proclaim [John, ch. 19]. This three-composite cross of Christ is of this form [an eight-pointed cross is depicted].

But after the voluntary crucifixion of Christ, whether from three woods, or from one, or from gold or silver, or copper and other metals, the holy Church makes the cross of Christ with the depiction of His flesh, and it is equally accepted and honored; or if only a single cross is depicted without the flesh of Christ, as on antiminses, on prosphora, on all-night breads, on artos, on the panagiarny bread, and on other various church objects, the image of that same cross of Christ is confessed; and thus it is also placed on the very domes of sacred temples. Not only this, but even the abbreviated form made in the image of that same cross of Christ is accepted: as, for example, the planted cross which is placed under the throne, having this appearance: [depicted are a seven-pointed cross: the titulus placed atop the vertical beam; a six-pointed cross without titulus; and a four-pointed cross].

Likewise, the four-pointed cross is not a shadow of the old shadowy covenant and is not abolished by the new-grace law of Christ. Moreover, it is not the image of the God-opposing Antichrist, nor an idol, nor the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, as it is blasphemed in the aforementioned notebooks; but it is the image of the cross of Christ, accepted by the orthodox-catholic Church from apostolic days until now, and formed “by shadow and depiction” [Lenten Triod, on Monday of the 4th week of Lent: 2nd canon of the second creator, last sticheron]. By shadow: when the sign of the cross is depicted by the overshadowing of the hand, with candles, with blowing, and by fencing oneself with the hand. By depiction: when the cross is drawn with oil, myrrh, wax, and any material formation. And thus it is accepted in the church mysteries and seals them: as in the anointing with oil, in the anointing with myrrh, in the cutting of hair, in the priest’s blowing over the water, and in overshadowing with the hand and candles, and in our fencing when we sign our faces. Likewise, it is placed on the sacred vestments of deacons, priests, and hierarchs, which, when one of the sacred order vests, he first overshadows the garment—not consecrating the cross, but blessing the garment—and then kisses the cross and vests [Ustav Bol., fol. 10].

And that the cross is not consecrated by the overshadowing of the hand, but its depiction consecrates, is witnessed by the holy Patriarch Kallistrat, saying: “wherever the cross is depicted, it blesses, and sanctifies, and enlightens, and gives all salvation” [Didactic Gospel on the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross, fol. 402].

Such a depiction of the cross is also placed on the sacred veils with which are covered the divine Lamb on the diskos and the life-giving blood in the chalice. Therefore, wherever with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering for us it is depicted or drawn, it is and is called the image of the cross of Christ, as the holy and God-bearing fathers teach concerning this, whom the Church following confesses that by the shadow and depiction of the cross all opposing powers are crushed, as is evident in the prayer at the baptism of a person over the water, which the priest, overshadowing crosswise with candles, with blowing and with the hand, says: “let all opposing powers be crushed under the sign of the depiction of Your cross” and so forth [P Trebnik Bol., fol. 102].

Not only is the sign of the cross depicted with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering not rejected, but it is accepted and honored with reverence; but wherever by chance the simple form of the cross is drawn or composed: +: even such, though not honored in a saintly manner, is nevertheless not defiled or dishonored, as proclaims the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: “The cross drawn on the ground shall be erased. That is: if the image of the cross is drawn or composed on the ground by someone, let it be trampled or scattered, lest it be trodden by unknowing people or animals and our victorious weapon be mocked” [Kormchaia, fol. 200]. But also in the rules of Iliya, Archbishop of Novgorod, it is enjoined: “and if it is not possible to sleep: it is blessed, as it is not to walk over them and not to trample them with feet. For the holy Church calls the Latins cross-tramplers, and moreover curses them, saying: ‘I curse the Latin hypocrisy concerning the depiction of the honorable cross, which the Latins do: entering the church and drawing the cross on the ground with two fingers, and having kissed it, they rise and again trample it with their feet, and thus appear as cross-tramplers'” [Ancient handwritten manuscript, written in the year 7078]. In accordance with this, the wise kyr Zinovii the Monk also writes, saying: “Henceforth we command to curse those who make the image of the cross on the ground” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, ch. 56].

Under this church curse inevitably fall the cross-mockers among the priestless, who with dreadful blasphemies defile the four-pointed cross, calling it the abomination of desolation and naming it the seal of the Antichrist (oh, the audacity!).

But we, as those redeemed by the honorable and God-flowing blood poured out on the cross for the salvation of the whole world, think in unison with the holy theologians concerning the honorable cross of Christ, keeping and preserving the eternal boundaries set by the fathers inviolably, sacredly, and unbroken. And the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ we depict on the three-composite cross unchangingly; but elsewhere, wherever any form of the cross is placed by the Church, we preserve it unalterably, and accept and honor it as the image of the cross of Christ, crying out with the Apostle: But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ [Gal., ch. 6]. “Therefore we too hold fast to the cross of the Lord, the boast of all: for this tree is our salvation, the weapon of peace, the unconquerable victory” [Ikos to the Cross]. But wherever by chance the form of the cross (+) is drawn or composed, even that we do not dishonor or blaspheme, for the sake of the original cross of Christ; but, according to the injunction of the holy fathers, we strive to preserve it from every mockery, as far as strength allows. All cross-blasphemy and cross-mockery we refute, cast aside, and annul.

To these we also forbid and prohibit making the cross (+) in improper places, where not honor but mockery may come to its depiction [Matfey Rule-compiler, comp. 200, ch. 3]: as on the ground, on soles, on carpets, on playful objects, and wherever by the smoke of incense or some stench it is dishonored, and other similar things. But if anywhere such is found, we command it to be covered, or erased, or scattered, according to the power of the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of the holy and God-bearing fathers.

Fifth The priestless ones, who do not confess the offering of the bloodless sacrifice upon the face of the universe, bring audacious mockery upon the Eucharist now performed in the Greek and Russian Churches. But to such audacious ones the eastern teachers stop their mouths: the most sacred Ioann of Kitros, the Venerable Matfey the Rule-compiler, and the all-honorable Sevast of Armenopol, who writing concerning the Roman unleavened breads do not command to partake of them, but bless them and do not count them as ordinary, for the sake of the Lord’s invocation and the sacred chants of Saint Iakov the Brother of God performed over them [most sacred Ioann of Kitros (Kormchaia ancient handwritten, ch. 4 [57?]); Matfey the Rule-compiler, comp. 800, ch. 12; Sevast of Armenopol, book 5, answer 3 of Archbishop Dimitriy Khomatin]. But if concerning the unleavened breads of the Roman Church there is such a conclusion by the interpreters of the sacred rules, and it is not condemned by the holy Church: then the priestless reasoning about the Eucharist of the Greek and Russian Churches is harmful. The mockery brought by them upon the mysteries performed according to ancient church tradition in our orthodox-catholic Church is exceedingly blasphemous and destructive.

For these reasons, we enjoin Orthodox Christians not to listen to the harmful teaching of the priestless, and all their compositions, the above-named and others, directed toward the destruction of the church mysteries and the mockery of holiness, inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, we command to be given to burning by fire, as tares sown by the enemy for the deception of the souls of the Christian race, as the sacred rules proclaim and the Venerable Maxim the Greek advises [Rules of the holy apostles 60; of the Sixth Ecum. Council 63; of the Seventh Ecum. Council 9; Maxim the Greek, word 3 (10?)].

Sixth To this we enjoin and beseech, together with the supreme Apostle Paul, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all men [1 Tim., ch. 2]; especially for the health, and salvation, and tsar’s victory of him who is set by the most high and all-ruling right hand of God, and crowned with glory and honor, our most autocratic, God-preserved Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince Alexander Nikolaevich, and all His Most August House, and all his palace and armies [Sobornik Bol., fol. 360 verso], for whom also at the holy proskomedia of the divine liturgy, among the great seven, the fifth prosphora is offered, and will be offered, as for him, so for his future successors to the throne and scepter, from generation to generation and forever, that the Lord God may preserve him healthy, peaceful, and long-lived, may grant him victory over enemies, may surround his dominion with peace, and may subdue under his feet every enemy and adversary, and may place in his heart good and useful things concerning the holy Church, that we too may live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and honesty under their tranquility [Stoglav, ch. 9; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Job; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Filaret; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Ioasaf; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Joseph; Potrebnik Bol., fol. 709; Nomokanon rule 210; Apostolic Discourses, fol. 2421].

Seventh Again for the second time we enjoin and beseech to flee crooked teachings, and not to accept at all falsely composed writings inconsistent with the narration and interpretation of the holy fathers, but to cast them aside, and to think in unison with the holy Church, with one voice and one mind, as the holy fathers handed down and taught.

Eighth And concerning the coming of the holy prophets Iliya and Enokh, to believe as the holy Church teaches, that before the end of this world they will be sent by God to expose the deception of the Antichrist, in their own true flesh, sensibly, visibly, and in their own form, and will be seen by fleshly mortal men, and will preach the good faith to the human race, and will work wonders and signs, and will suffer nothing from anyone until the end of their reproof, and then they will fulfill their martyrdom, and, having been killed by the Antichrist, will depart, and already not only as prophets but as martyrs will be crowned with victorious crowns by God the Giver of crowns [St. Ippolit; St. Ioann Zlatoust; Efrem word 105; St. Feofilakt; St. Simeon Metafrast, July 20; Ven. Ioann Damaskin; St. Andrey Kesariysky; Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday; Prolog, July 20; Svyattsy Iosifskiya, July 20, and others].

Ninth Likewise concerning the Antichrist, it is fitting to think in unison with the holy Church. For though there are many antichrists, according to Saint Ioann the Theologian [1 John, ch. 2], yet particularly and specially the Antichrist is spoken of, who will come at the end of the age, sensibly, visibly, and in his own form [Ancient handwritten book of Ioann Damaskin, word on the Antichrist], whose coming is according to the working of Satan, by God’s permission [2 Thess., ch. 2]. He will be born of the Jewish tribe, of the tribe of Dan, the seventh son of Iakov the Old Testament patriarch, from an unclean woman, a supposed virgin, but utterly defiled in every way. “He will be born of fornication, as we said, and will be nourished in secret and suddenly rise up, and oppose and reign.” He will raise great persecution and torment against all who abide in the faith of Christ. He will reign for three years and a half, as Holy Scripture teaches and the God-bearing fathers relate [St. Ippolit, Mirror of the Soul, Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday, Book On Faith ch. 30 fol. 270, Ioann Damaskin book 4 ch. 27, Church teachers. Daniel ch. 7, St. Ioann Zlatoust, Ven. Efrem Sirin, Kirill Ierusalimsky, and others]. Him our Lord Jesus Christ will slay with the breath of His mouth and abolish with the appearance of His coming [2 Thess., ch. 2]. For he will be seized together with his false prophet, and both will be cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone, as Christ’s bosom friend and Evangelist Ioann says in his Revelation, and Saint Andrey Kesariysky explains [St. Andrey Kesariysky in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, ch. 19].

Tenth But concerning the day and hour of the end of the world and the second coming of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but He alone [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1]. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone born of earth to know this, and it is not fitting to speculate at all, according to the saying: seek not things too high for you, and search not things too strong for you [Sirach ch. 3], and so forth.

In conclusion of this epistle, we announce to all Orthodox Christians that, with God’s help, an Ustav, or brief exposition of the dogmas and traditions of the ancient-orthodox-catholic confession of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, will be composed, which will be given for guidance and steering to all Orthodox, sacred and lay, that they may rightly and surely know concerning the dogmas of faith and the traditions, concerning the seven church mysteries and other necessary and theological matters.

Finally, again we enjoin and beseech those who kiss the ancient church traditions to keep all the commandments of God and the church traditions unchangingly, sacredly, and unbroken, and to distance themselves from all heresies and schisms and foreign customs, and to have among themselves agreement and unity of mind in all things, peace and love, which is the bond of perfection, and not to do to others what is not pleasing to themselves [Col., ch. 3; Acts, ch. 15; 1 Cor., ch. 4; Ps. 76].

But the God of peace and Father of mercies, the God of all consolation, who gathers the scattered and settles the like-minded in His house, may He gather the scattered sheep into the fold of His pasture and grant unanimity and unity of mind to all Orthodox Christians by His grace and love for mankind: that there may be one flock and one shepherd [John, ch. 10]. Amen.

This Encyclical Epistle was issued [written] in the reigning city of Moscow, in the year 1862 [7370], on the 24th day of the month of February.

The original was signed by: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Deacon Kirill of Archbishop Antoniy. Monk Olimpiy of the Belokrinitsa Monastery. Clerk Simeon Simeonov. [According to another list: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Hieromonk Evfrosin. Hieromonk Iliya. Hierodeacon Pakhomiy. Hierodeacon Ippolit. Hierodeacon Mitrofan. Monk Alimpiy].

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

In secular art, following a tradition that nonetheless has its roots in ancient Christian iconography, the Holy Virgin or the angel in depictions of the Annunciation is often shown with lilies.

The lily is a beautiful symbol of the chaste purity of the Holy Virgin—a fragrant, snow-white flower, joyfully opening itself to the sun. Was not the Most Pure Lily of Israel herself such a fragrant bloom? When we ask ourselves what quality of the Holy Virgin made her the Mother of the Most High, we will scarcely find it difficult to answer.

Was it her humility, her obedience, with which she received the angel’s message? But who would not bow in humble awe before the revelation of a heavenly messenger? Her graciousness? But that was revealed only later, when the Holy Virgin entered upon her life’s path. Her humility is great, the graciousness of her soul extraordinary, but above all these shines the purity of a soul that lives in love for the Lord, her Son. Her heart is filled with Christ, lives in Him. His image dwells and reigns within her soul and makes it a temple of grace.

“But what image?”—you may ask—“She is the Mother of the Lord and saw Him upon her bosom. Not an image, but He Himself was with her.” True—but the Holy Virgin was with Christ even before the Lord came down to earth through her. Consider the account which tells of the circumstances of the Annunciation. According to this account, the Holy Virgin was reading the Holy Scriptures. And she came to the familiar words of the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

“How I wish I could be even the lowest handmaiden of the Mother who bears this Son,” thought the Holy Virgin. And at that very moment, the angel-messenger appeared. This account reveals what filled the life of the Virgin: she lived with the thought of the Coming Savior, of the Lord who would come and redeem mankind. She thought of Him while living in the temple. She awaited Him, desired Him, and wished only one thing for herself—to serve Him, even as the humblest servant in His Kingdom. And she became His Mother, because her soul was already His Pure Bride, arrayed in the golden garments of love’s purity: “Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours.” And having become His Mother, she loves in her Son not only a Son, but the One whom she had long awaited: the Redeemer and Savior—her Lord. Thus, the purity of her soul, where even before Christ His image was enthroned, became a temple of Divinity.

We are not capable of receiving the likeness of the Lord into our souls to the same degree as St. Mary. We cannot, as she did, be so united in love with the Redeemer. But the path is shown to us nonetheless, by which we may draw near to the Most High and become worthy of the glad tidings. That path is to live after the example of the Pure One. She was raised in the air of the temple, breathed prayer, was nourished by the Word of God—and so received the image of Christ into her soul. And then she walked where the thought of Christ led her—His image, His word, His will—and with that guiding light, without stumbling, she walked the way of the Cross to eternal glory in the likeness of her Son.

This is the path of the Christian: to receive, in the air of the Church of God, by prayer and instruction in the Word, the image of Christ into oneself, and to follow Him wherever He leads. But how can we, sinners, walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, who knew no sin? In the footsteps of the One who is the very embodiment of Goodness and Truth? In the footsteps of God.

Indeed, her Son was man—but He was also God, and His Name fills us with awe. But she was a human being, born of righteous parents, yet not untouched by sin. She was not without human tenderness toward her Son, nor without human fear for Him. If the image of her Son dazzles like the noonday sun, her countenance is peaceful, like the gentle radiance of the morning dawn. Let us follow Him—learning from her humility, obedience, meek endurance of suffering, and devotion to the work of her Son. And she will cover us with her omophorion, and, like a mother leading her blind child, she will guide us to the Kingdom of God.

There is a story told of a Western ascetic, Anthony of Padua (whom we do not recognize as a saint, but the story remains edifying nonetheless): that once, the Holy Virgin cast to him her lilies, and all his life he perceived their fragrance. Let us ask the Holy Mother of God that she may grant us to breathe the fragrance of her lilies—the holy scent of her virtues—so that this aroma may never leave us, not for a moment, and may give us strength to imitate, even in part, the Inimitable.

Queen of Heaven, help us to love thy Son. Grant us the grace to hear with soul and heart His holy Good News—the Gospel. Before thy icon I stand, O All-Praised One:

“O Queen of Heaven! In my utter helplessness, in my complete unworthiness, in my condemnation and wretchedness, the gaze of this sinner rests upon thee. Thou dost not reject the despised and outcast. Thou art able to raise even from the depths of hell one who is perishing. Save me, O Sovereign Lady, by thy motherly intercession, even me, the wretched one! As the Mother of thy Son and my Judge, incline Him to mercy toward me! As my gracious Mother, incline thyself to come to my aid and to grant me mercy! O my Lady, O Theotokos! How much I need thee! How dear thou art to my sinful heart! How comforting it is to think of thee, to pray to thee, to imagine thee, to behold thy radiant, pure, virginally beautiful face, full of divine tenderness toward us—tenderness which in thy womanly gentleness and motherly care shines forth yet more beautifully, more majestically, more touchingly. O the Lord created and gave thee to us as the most perfect reflection of His ineffable goodness—as the clearest and most accessible embodiment of His love for mankind and mercy.”

May even a faint reflection of thy radiant light shine upon our soul.

“Thou seest all things, knowest all things—look thou into my soul and grant it what it needs. Thou who hast endured all things and conquered all things—thou wilt understand all things. Thou who didst wrap the Infant in swaddling clothes in the manger and didst receive Him in thine own hands from the Cross—thou alone knowest the full height of joy and the full weight of sorrow. Thou who hast received all mankind as thy children—look also upon me with motherly care. Lead me out of the snares of sin to thy Son. I see a tear that has moistened thy countenance. It is for me that thou hast shed it—may it wash away the traces of my transgressions.”

-Church, 1914, No. 12

source

Dimitry Urushev

Bishop Pavel of Kolomna is one of the most significant figures in Russian spiritual history of the 17th century. Alas, he was not fortunate. His name failed to attract the attention of scholars. He remained in the shadow of his more famous contemporaries—Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, and Archpriest Avvakum.

Pavel and Nikon

Bishop Pavel was remembered only by Old Believer scribes. It is no accident that the renowned 18th-century Old Believer writer Simeon Denisov began his book The Russian Vineyard—a collection of legends about martyrs for the old faith—with the story of Pavel. He began most solemnly:

“The leader of that goodly host was not of common folk, nor from the peasant estate, but a shepherd of Christ’s flock, a vigilant guardian of church virtue, a trumpet of gold-forged piety.”

Secular scholars took notice of Pavel of Kolomna only in the 19th century. The first to do so was the historian Mikhail Pogodin. In 1854, in one of the issues of the journal Moskvityanin, he published an article titled A Remark on the Homeland of Patriarch Nikon and His Opponents. In it, Pogodin urged young scholars:

“How much of importance and benefit for scholarship remains to be done, if one would become acquainted with the written literature and diligently gather information about our historical figures. What is known in general circulation about someone like… Bishop Pavel?”

Half a century passed. The only scholar to respond to that call was historian Sergei Belokurov. In 1905, he compiled and published two volumes titled Tales of Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna. However, Belokurov did not publish authentic historical documents, but rather hagiographical tales, far removed from historical reality.

Another 33 years passed. And in 1938, the French scholar Pierre Pascal released his book Archpriest Avvakum and the Beginning of the Schism. For the first time, Pavel of Kolomna was presented not as a figure of pious legend but as a living man of flesh and blood. The French historian helped the Russian bishop find his voice. And if we were to hear it, Pavel would begin his account as follows:

“My birth was in the lands of Nizhny Novgorod.”

This is how Archpriest Avvakum famously begins his Life. And Bishop Pavel might have said the same. According to Pascal, he was born “in the hills”—on the right bank of the Volga, in the village of Kolychevo, which stood on the Sundovik River.

We do not know the exact date of the bishop’s birth. But it can be assumed he was a contemporary of Nikon—that is, born in 1605. Pascal also tells us the name of the future bishop’s father—“a good priest named Ivan.”

According to Pascal, Priest Ivan taught literacy to Nikita Minin, the son of a Mordvin peasant from the neighboring village of Veldemanovo—who would later become Patriarch Nikon. In his Life, it is written that he was “given over to the study of the Divine Scriptures,” and, having left “the house of his father,” lived for a time with his teacher. If Nikita indeed studied with the priest from Kolychevo and lived in his house, one may suppose that the future hierarchs were friends from childhood. Who would have imagined that they would one day become bitter adversaries?

From Kolychevo, Priest Ivan moved with his family downstream along the Sundovik to the village of Kirikovo, where he continued his priestly ministry. Kirikovo was located not far from the large trading village of Lyskovo, situated on the Volga.

It was here that Pavel spent his adolescence and youth. From “the hills,” the future bishop crossed to the left bank of the Volga—“into the forests.” We encounter Pavel in the Makaryev Monastery on the Yellow Waters. The ancient Zheltovodsky Monastery, founded by Saint Macarius in the 15th century, had been destroyed by the Tatars and only revived in 1620. The monastery soon became one of the foremost centers of spiritual and cultural life in the Volga region. Among its brotherhood, we find many key figures of 17th-century ecclesiastical history.

It was to the Makaryev Monastery that the young Nikita Minin fled from his cruel stepmother. After making a small monetary contribution, he lived there for a time but was later brought back home by his father. Among those tonsured in the Zheltovodsky Monastery were Metropolitan Korniliy of Kazan, Archbishops Ilarion of Ryazan and Simeon of Siberia.

Undoubtedly, the Makaryev Monastery played a major role in the life of the future bishop of Kolomna. It was here that the priest’s son took monastic vows and was given the name Pavel. It is also most likely that he was ordained a priest here.

In the summer of 1651, Pavel was summoned to Moscow and appointed by Patriarch Joseph as abbot of the ancient Pafnutiev Monastery in Borovsk. His assignment to lead the renowned monastery was made upon the recommendation of Nikon, who by then was Metropolitan of Novgorod and a confidant of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Joseph died on April 15, 1652. The highest clergy of the Russian Church gathered in the capital for a Council and selected twelve “spiritual men” deemed worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne. Among those mentioned were Metropolitan Nikon and Abbot Pavel.

By the will of the Tsar, Nikon was chosen as Patriarch. The participation of the Borovsk abbot and the other “spiritual men” in the selection was merely symbolic, though it does testify to the high regard in which Pavel was held by his contemporaries.

The Apple Orchard of the Bishop’s Court

The beginning of the new patriarchate held no ill omens for the abbot. In November 1652, Pavel was consecrated bishop of the city of Kolomna near Moscow by Nikon.

The Kolomna diocese was one of the oldest in Rus’. A detailed and vivid description of this diocese, its cathedral of the Dormition, the bishop’s treasury, and the episcopal residence was left by Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo, who visited Russia from 1654 to 1656 in the retinue of his father, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, and who wrote a book about the journey.

The diocese included, besides the major trading city of Kolomna, the towns of Serpukhov, Kashira, and Tula. With significant resources at his disposal, the bishop of Kolomna kept a large retinue of servants and guards.

Paul of Aleppo left a rapturous description of the bishop’s residence in Kolomna. He was especially struck by the bishop’s orchard:

“In which grow wondrous apples, remarkable for their beauty, color, and taste. They are of various kinds: red like carnelian, yellow like gold, white like camphor, all with a very fine skin.”
The historian Gerhard Friedrich Müller, who visited Kolomna in 1778, was likewise impressed by the apples:
“There are many fruitful orchards in Kolomna and its environs, which yield significant income for the inhabitants. The apples of Kolomna are particularly praised, said to surpass others in both size and flavor.”

Yet when the Tsar and Patriarch undertook to reform the Russian Church, neither the orchard with its sweet apples, nor the splendid cathedral with its rich treasury, nor the luxurious residence could restrain the bishop of Kolomna. He took the side of the opponents of the reforms—Archpriests Ioann Neronov and Avvakum.

At the beginning of Great Lent in 1653, Nikon sent a decree to Ioann Neronov forbidding prostrations (full bows to the ground) during the reading of the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life.” The Patriarch wrote:

“According to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not proper in church to make prostrations on one’s knees, but rather bows from the waist; and moreover, you ought to cross yourselves with three fingers.”

This decree made a heavy impression on many clergymen. Avvakum recalled:

“We were troubled, having gathered together. We saw that winter was coming—our hearts froze and our legs trembled.”

Neronov withdrew to the Chudov Monastery, shut himself in a solitary cell, and prayed for a week. During his prayer, he heard a voice from an icon:

“The time of suffering is at hand. You must suffer steadfastly!”

These dreadful words Neronov repeated to Archpriest Avvakum and Bishop Pavel. Avvakum was soon exiled to Siberia. For Pavel, the time of suffering came the following year.

At the Patriarch’s suggestion, the Tsar convened a Church Council in 1654 to review and abolish those Russian liturgical rites which differed from contemporary Greek usage. The exact date of the Council is unknown. Scholars believe it was held in February or March, as in the mid-17th century such Councils were usually convened on the eve of or during the start of Great Lent.

The session began with Nikon’s address. Speaking to the Tsar and the clergy, he declared that all novelties in the Church must be eradicated, and everything handed down by the Holy Fathers should be preserved without corruption, addition, or alteration. After this, the Council was presented with several examples of differences between Russian and Greek rites. Each time these differences were discussed, Nikon proposed they be changed to conform to the Greek model, which he described as more ancient. The Council consistently approved these changes.

The only one who opposed Nikon and the new rites was Pavel. When the Patriarch proposed discussion on abolishing the Lenten prostrations, the bishop of Kolomna dared to object. As Paul of Aleppo recounts, the bishop declared:

“From the time that we became Christians and received the right faith as an inheritance from our pious fathers and grandfathers, we have held to these rites and to this faith, and we will not now accept a new faith!”

Nevertheless, the bishop opposed not only the abolition of prostrations but the church reforms in general. Yet his words were not heeded. The Council, bowing to pressure from the Tsar and the Patriarch, approved the correction of Russian liturgical books according to Greek models. Paul of Aleppo reports that when the clergy were adding their signatures to the conciliar decree, “the bishop of Kolomna, being of a stubborn character, refused to accept or approve the act, nor would he place his hand upon it, let alone affirm it.”

However, the bishop did ultimately sign the conciliar act—but under his signature, he added these words, marking his dissent on the matter of prostrations:

“And as for what I said at the Holy Council regarding the prostrations, and that ustav (order) written on parchment which I laid forth here in justification, and another in writing.”

Simeon Denisov, in The Russian Vineyard, recounts that after the Council, Nikon attempted to win over the bishop of Kolomna through gentle persuasion. At first, he addressed Pavel with “flattering words” and tried to convince him of the necessity of reform, pointing out the “vulgarity” of the old Russian liturgical books. To this, the bishop replied that the Gospel truths and apostolic preaching were also conveyed in the plain speech of the Galilean fishermen.

Then the Patriarch pointed to the inconsistencies between Greek books and the customs of the Russian Church. Pavel countered that while the new Greek customs did not align with Russian ones, the ancient Byzantine rites fully corresponded with the Muscovite church order.

When Nikon saw that the bishop dared to contradict him, he flew into a rage, seized the defiant bishop, tore off his monastic mantle, and—as Denisov writes—personally beat him:

“Calling forth the wondrous Pavel, he, with his own hands (oh, what malice of fury!), struck the sacred face of the sacred man. He was not ashamed of the high priestly rank, nor did he blush at the holiness of the venerable gray hair of that man.”

While we cannot confirm whether Nikon himself struck the bishop, it is certain that, at the Patriarch’s order, Bishop Pavel was beaten, imprisoned, and then exiled.

The Moscow Council of 1666, when reviewing the charges against Nikon, counted this among his offenses:

“Furthermore, Nikon alone deposed a bishop without any local council, at which his faults should have been demonstrated… After deposing Pavel, bishop of Kolomna, he stripped him of his mantle and subjected him to cruel beatings and punishments, and cast him into distant exile. He did not recall the word that no man ought to be punished twice for the same offense. Thus it came about that this bishop lost his mind and perished miserably—whether devoured by beasts or drowned in the water, no one knows.”

Archbishop Lazar (Baranovich) of Chernigov, a participant in the Council, wrote in a private letter that Nikon was judged for “his cruel governance of the clergy, his unilateral deposition of a bishop, which led to the bishop’s untimely death through madness.”

A Fool-for-Christ’s Sake

By Nikon’s decree, the bishop was exiled to the ancient Khutyn Monastery near Novgorod, under the strict watch of Archimandrite Euthymius (Barashko).

The conditions of exile were so harsh that Paul of Aleppo shuddered as he wrote:

“It would have been better for him to die than to live there, because of the severe confinement and miserable life, the constant darkness, hunger, and complete absence of bread; from there, it was impossible to flee and be saved!”
That said, the archdeacon had no sympathy for his Russian namesake, adding:
“That bishop deserved it!”

In the Khutyn Monastery, the disgraced bishop was completely cut off from communication with his fellow Old Believers. The Patriarch forbade anyone to visit him, and those most persistent in their desire to do so were ordered to be arrested and thrown into prison.

At that time, the bishop undertook the ascetic feat of foolishness for Christ’s sake—feigned madness. For in the conditions of growing persecution, it was much easier to preach the old faith under the cover of apparent insanity. Thus, Pavel became an image of a fool-for-Christ bishop, the likes of which neither the Greek nor Russian Churches had known.

The 17th-century Old Believer writer, Deacon Feodor, recounts Pavel’s foolishness for Christ’s sake:

“Pavel, that blessed bishop, began to act the fool for the sake of Christ.”
But outside observers believed that the bishop had truly “lost his mind” due to the torments he had endured.

The abbot and brethren of the Khutyn Monastery, considering the bishop mad, decided not to burden themselves with keeping watch over a “madman” and allowed him to wander the vicinity of the monastery. He used this freedom entirely to preach among the local people.

It soon became known to Nikon that the bishop was preaching the old faith. And he resolved to destroy the defiant bishop once and for all. The decrees of the Council of 1666 refer vaguely to Pavel’s death: he “lost his mind” and perished “without a trace”—whether devoured by wild beasts or drowned, it is not said. However, the council’s decrees threaten Nikon:

“And this, too, shall be counted unto thee as murder.”

Avvakum, who at the time of the bishop’s death was in exile in Siberia, recounts based on available testimony that Nikon “tortured Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and burned him with fire in the Novgorod region.”

The most vivid description of the bishop’s death is given by Deacon Feodor:

“Nikon learned of it and sent his servants to the Novgorod lands, where he (Pavel) was wandering. There they found him in a desolate place, walking alone, and seized him—like wolves a gentle lamb—and they killed him to death, and burned his body with fire by Nikon’s command.”

Unfortunately, historians do not know the truth about the bishop’s death. No documents have yet been found that might shed light on this dark affair—and perhaps they never existed at all.

At the Council of 1666, Nikon was interrogated:

“By what canon did you depose Bishop Pavel of Kolomna without a council, strip him of his episcopal vestments, and exile him to the Khutyn Monastery, where he disappeared without a trace?”

To this, the Patriarch on trial replied:

“By what canon I deposed him, I do not recall, and I do not know what became of him. There is a record about him in the patriarchal court.”

“There is no such record in the patriarchal court, nor has there ever been! Bishop Pavel was excommunicated without a council,” came the response.

And so, from the realm of historical research we pass into the realm of popular tradition. And tradition holds that the martyrdom of Bishop Pavel of Kolomna took place on April 3, 1656, on Great Thursday.

The murdered bishop became one of the most venerated saints among the Old Believers. Yet only the Old Believers held him in such esteem. To others, he always remained an exotic historical figure, a legend from the deep past, a minor character from the forgotten 17th century.

That is why it was so unusual to see Bishop Pavel of Kolomna appear in the television miniseries The Schism (Raskol), completed in 2011. Director Nikolai Dostal and screenwriter Mikhail Kurayev presented modern viewers not only with the Tsar and the Patriarch, Archpriest Avvakum and Lady Morozova, but also with Bishop Pavel. He was superbly portrayed by actor Valery Skorokosov. Thanks to him, the voice restored to the bishop by scholars rang out with vitality and spirit across the vastness of Holy Rus’.

source

from the Periodical “Church”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 solemnly resolved to lift the curses (anathema) imposed in the 17th century on the old rites and on those who adhered to them. The old Russian rites were declared “salvific and equal in honour” to the new ones. In the report read at the Local Council, the Nikon reform was characterised as “a sharp and hasty breaking of Russian church ritual”. The grounds for replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered one were declared more than dubious.

This resolution may seem unexpected only to someone unfamiliar with the issue; in reality, the 1971 Council merely summed up a decades-long discussion of the old rite and, more precisely, confirmed the decisions of the Holy Synod adopted as early as 1929.

This is how it was expressed in the conciliar decree: “Having examined the question… from theological, liturgical, canonical and historical perspectives, we solemnly decree:

1. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on recognising the old Russian rites as salvific, like the new rites, and equal in honour to them.
2. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on rejecting and regarding as non-existent the condemnatory expressions relating to the old rites and especially to the two-fingered sign of the cross, wherever they may appear and by whomsoever they may have been uttered.
3. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on abolishing the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667 imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christian believers who adhered to them, and to regard these oaths as non-existent.”

One may say that the words written in 1912 by the eminent church historian, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy N. F. Kaptev, came true: “The condemnation by the 1667 Council of the Russian old rite was, as a more careful and impartial investigation of this phenomenon shows, a complete misunderstanding, a mistake, and therefore must prompt a new conciliar review of the whole matter and its correction, in order to pacify and end the centuries-old quarrel between Old Believers and New Believers, so that the Russian Church may once again become one, as it was before the patriarchate of Nikon.”

Thus, if the old rites are equal in honour to the new, the first question that arises is: was the Nikon reform necessary at all? The answer was given by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy, Protopresbyter Ioann Belevtsev, in his report to the Second International Church-Scholarly Conference held in Moscow in May 1987: the Nikon reform was “theologically unjustified and completely unnecessary”.

The 17th-century church schism, which without fear of exaggeration may be called a great national catastrophe, was the consequence of a reform that, as has now become clear, was justified neither theologically nor canonically and was simply “unnecessary” for the Church. But if so, then who needed this reform after all, what were its true causes and aims, and who was its real author?

The author of the present article, having studied the problem of the old rite for several years, has reached a conclusion that fully coincides with the above statement by Fr Ioann Belevtsev: the Nikon reform had neither theological nor canonical foundations; it was imposed on the Church artificially. The chief architect of the reform was Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, while Patriarch Nikon was merely the executor. Therefore it would be fairer to call the reform “Aleksey’s”.

A widespread opinion holds that the reform was caused by the need to correct the numerous errors and slips that had crept into the service books over time. However, an unbiased comparison of the texts of pre-reform service books (of the Iosif printing) and post-reform ones leaves no doubt as to the superiority of precisely the old books: there are perhaps fewer misprints in them than in editions contemporary to us. Moreover, this comparison permits exactly the opposite conclusions. The post-reform texts are markedly inferior in quality to the old-printed ones. As a result of the so-called correction, a huge number of errors of various kinds appeared – grammatical, lexical, historical, even dogmatic (a comparison of the texts is given below). So if the aim was to correct errors in the old-printed books, it can hardly be considered achieved.

But there was another aim: to achieve uniformity between Russian and Greek church practice. And the Greeks were taken as the model, as noted in the report of Metropolitan Nikodim read at the 1971 Local Council. This aim was dictated exclusively by political considerations.

The fact is that Aleksey Mikhaylovich was the first Russian tsar seriously to contemplate ascending the ancient Byzantine throne and standing at the head of the entire Orthodox world. “Aleksey Mikhaylovich considered himself the successor of the ancient Greek emperors not only in matters of faith and piety but also the lawful heir of their kingdom; he believed that he or his successors were destined in the future to rule Constantinople itself and all the Orthodox peoples languishing under the Turkish yoke… The tsar was not averse to the idea of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox nationalities from the Turkish yoke and of taking possession, as his inheritance, of Constantinople; and he regarded church unity as the first and necessary step towards future political unity.”

The political naïvety of these designs fully matched the short-sightedness of the tsar himself, who with full justification may be called a calamity not only for Russia but for universal Orthodoxy. For Tsar Aleksey, the reform to achieve church uniformity on the Greek model was the first step in realising his global political designs – the creation of a Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire.

It must be said that the very idea of uniting all Orthodox peoples under the sceptre of the Russian tsar arose long before Aleksey Mikhaylovich. After the fall of Byzantium in 1453 the Russians had no doubt that Russia had become its spiritual heiress. In 1516 the elder Philotheus, in an epistle to Grand Prince Vasily III, wrote the words that later became famous: “All Christian kingdoms have converged in thine own alone; for two Romes have fallen, the third (that is, Moscow – B.K.) stands, and there shall not be a fourth… Thou alone in all the earth art the Christian tsar.”

On this idea of the exclusive vocation of the Russian tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich was raised. Ascending the throne at the age of only sixteen, he resolved with all youthful directness to resurrect in his own person the image of the ancient Byzantine emperors. But what did this mean? To begin a war with the gigantic Ottoman Sultanate that stretched across half the world? Earlier the same had been urged upon Grand Prince Vasily III and Tsar Ivan the Terrible, but those were sufficiently wise and experienced politicians and did not succumb to the provocation. War with the Turks at that time would have been political madness.

A comprehensible interest in this was shown by the enslaved Greeks. But it is also known who else, besides the Greeks, wished to draw the Russians into the struggle with the Turks: “the threat of Turkish invasion alarmed Western Europe right up to the defeat of the Turks before the walls of Vienna in 1683.”

At the already-mentioned Moscow church-scholarly conference Protopresbyter N. Novosad spoke quite definitely on this question: “In that era (16th–17th centuries) the Papacy had a long-standing idea that the popes wished to instil in all Europe: the idea of a crusade to drive the Turks out of Europe. This idea was shared by Stephen Báthory. The plan of struggle with the Turks was equally carefully worked out both in Rome and in Poland. At the same time it was considered that for success it was necessary to draw Moscow in as a tool. Moscow had to be saddled with a Catholic tsar (so thought Stephen Báthory and Possevino) in order to Catholicise Moscow and secure its help.”

The authors of the plan came very close to realising it in the adventure of the pretenders. If they had succeeded in placing a Catholic tsar on the Moscow throne, half the job would have been done. And to draw the Russians into war with the Turks, the most attractive bait for the Muscovites had to be the throne of Constantinople.

The “Vicar of the whole North”, the papal legate Antonio Possevino, arriving in Moscow, presented Tsar Ivan the Terrible with a book about the Union of Florence, “richly adorned with golden initials, and by this gift at once made it clear that all Russia’s woes could easily be remedied if the Russians did not disdain to accept the union and kiss the pope’s slipper.” The legate without circumlocution promised Tsar Ivan the throne of Tsargrad. “If thou unite in faith with the pope and all the sovereigns, then with their assistance thou shalt not only be on thy ancestral patrimony in Kiev but shalt become emperor of Tsargrad and of the whole East.”

And what did Ivan IV reply to this cunning temptation? The reply was as follows: “As for the Eastern Empire, the earth is the Lord’s; to whom God wills, to him He will give it. My own realm is enough for me; I desire no other and greater realms in all the world.”

In this case, Ivan the Terrible displayed statesmanship, wisdom and firmness worthy of a tsar! How far from this Aleksey Mikhaylovich turned out to be. By the proposal to occupy the throne of Tsargrad, Possevino rather clearly expressed the Jesuits’ programme on this question – that is, precisely those who persistently tried to draw the Muscovites into an eastern adventure over the course of several centuries. There had been attempts before. As early as 1518 a legate of Pope Leo X, the Dominican monk Nicholas Schönberg, came to Moscow and urged Grand Prince Vasily III to unite with the other sovereigns of Europe to drive the Turks out of Greece. As the “carrot” there figured again the same throne of Tsargrad: “To influence Vasily Ivanovich they represented to him that he had the right to take Tsargrad from the Turks as his lawful inheritance, being a son of the Greek Church, and that if he united with the Roman Church the pope would crown him with the imperial crown and title, and elevate the Russian metropolitan to the rank of patriarch.”

In 1525 Pope Clement VII sent a letter to Moscow again proposing participation together with the other sovereigns in driving the Turks out of Constantinople. In the 17th century the Jesuit missionary Juraj Križanić and Milescu Spathary, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, urged the Russian government to fight the Turks.

As we see, Catholicism was very interested in drawing Russia into an anti-Turkish coalition, and over a long period western emissaries persistently pushed the Russians towards struggle with the Turks.

The eastern hierarchs constantly exhorted Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich to begin a campaign against the Turks with the aim of taking Tsargrad. These exhortations began immediately after the fall of Byzantium but grew especially strong in the second half of the 17th century. Metropolitan Gabriel of Nazareth even made a Russian translation of the “Tale of the Fall of Tsargrad”, timing it for the “jubilee” year of 1653. Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem, during his visit to Moscow, persuaded Tsar Aleksey to conclude an alliance with Hetman Khmelnytsky and with the voivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia for joint action against the Turks. About the same thing, when sending Arseny Sukhanov in 1649 from Iași to Moscow, Paisius told him to remind the tsar, and in a letter to Aleksey Mikhaylovich he wrote: “The Most Holy Trinity… will graciously enable you to receive the most exalted throne of the great emperor Constantine, your forefather, that you may free the peoples of the pious and Orthodox Christians from impious hands, from savage beasts.”

It may be that this essentially provocative blessing finally confirmed Tsar Aleksey in his intention to take concrete measures to carry out the “Greek project”, the first stage of which was church reform to unify Russian and Greek church-worship practices. Of course, a “prophecy” of this kind, uttered by a patriarch in the name of God Himself, could tempt someone far less inexperienced than Tsar Aleksey.

It was precisely this – the elimination of “a certain isolation” of the Russian Church in its liturgical rites – that Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem proposed to the tsar as the first step.

How much effort did the Jesuits need to expend at that time to intensify the pressure on the Russian tsar from the eastern patriarchs? The venality of many of them is too well known, as is the Vatican’s extreme interest in drawing the Muscovites into the struggle with the Turks by any means.

Skilful mentors instilled in the simple-minded and trusting Tsar Aleksey that the quest for the throne of Tsargrad was a holy matter, even a sacrifice, to which his Christian duty obliged him and to which God Himself called him. No wonder Patriarch Paisius, for weightiness, begins his epistle directly in the name of the Holy Trinity. The goal was achieved: the “Greek project” took possession of all the tsar’s thoughts and those of his immediate circle.

A conversation of the tsar with Greek merchants is known: “Do you want and do you expect me to free you from captivity and ransom you?” They answered: “How could it be otherwise? How could we not desire this?” The tsar said, turning to the boyars: “God will require them of me… I have taken upon myself the obligation… I will offer as sacrifice my army, my treasury and even my blood for their deliverance.” (Tsar Aleksey offered to this idea an incalculable number of lives of Orthodox Christians, his fellow countrymen, executed for resisting the reform which now with full justification may be called criminal; he split the hitherto united Russian Church, yet he never achieved the liberation of the Greeks from Muslim rule – and to this day Tsargrad is called Istanbul.)

After the departure of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch the tsar said to the boyars: “I pray God, before I die, to see him among the four patriarchs serving in Hagia Sophia (that is, in Constantinople – K.B.) and our patriarch the fifth together with them.” But of course, if the Russian tsar had ascended the throne of Constantinople, Nikon would not have been the fifth among the patriarchs but the first, and he understood this perfectly, which was the true reason for his particularly interested attitude towards the “Greek project”.

Before his patriarchate Nikon, like all Russians at that time, regarded contemporary Greeks with great suspicion, considering that true piety had been preserved only among the Russians. He expressed these views openly, without concealment, even after moving to Moscow when he became archimandrite. However, becoming patriarch, Nikon suddenly declares himself a zealous Hellenophile; a sharp about-face occurs – the denouncer of the Greeks becomes their admirer and venerater. And not long ago he used to say: “The Greeks and Little Russians have lost the faith and there is no firmness or good morals among them; peace and honour have seduced them, and they work by their own law, and no constancy has appeared in them, nor any piety.” Having entered the tsar’s closest circle, Nikon was let into the secret of the “Greek project” and drew the appropriate conclusions, with his characteristic lack of principle in an instant transforming himself from a denouncer of the Greeks into their venerater. It was precisely after this that, with the tsar’s active assistance, he was installed as patriarch. Thus was found and prepared the executor of the future reform fateful for Orthodoxy.

Nikon undoubtedly already had in mind in this situation the ecumenical patriarchate, and knowing his boundless ambition one may conclude that this breathtaking prospect was the chief and decisive factor in his “maturing” in the well-known direction and transformation into a zealous Hellenophile. It is telling that after his unworthy and unwise demarche with the demonstrative abandonment of the patriarchal see (“and how will you, tsar, manage without me now?”), when the phantom of the Byzantine throne ceased to trouble Nikon’s imagination, the mask of feigned Hellenophilia also slipped from him, replaced by complete indifference to his own reform, to the book corrections. Moreover, in his monastery he again printed books according to the old models.

The death of Patriarch Joseph untied the hands of the Hellenophile advocates of reform, and they developed stormy activity. Becoming patriarch, Nikon immediately began zealously copying Greek church practice. “It even seems that Nikon set himself the idea of making a second Byzantium out of Moscow.” Indeed, he transferred to Rus’ Greek ambos, the Greek archbishop’s staff, Greek kamilavkia and mantles, Greek church melodies; he invited Greek painters to Moscow, built monasteries on the Greek model, drew various Greeks close to himself, everywhere put Greek authority in the forefront, and so on.

Evaluating in particular this blind copying of the Greek model, Fr Pavel Florensky in the article “The Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Russia” called Patriarch Nikon’s activity “reactionary and in general anti-national”. To speak more precisely, the reformatory activity of Nikon and Tsar Aleksey should first of all be recognised as anti-Orthodox and anti-church. It becomes anti-national, anti-Russian only as a consequence of the organic unity of all Russian life of that time and Orthodoxy.

The anti-national character of the reform manifested itself especially vividly at the 1667 Council, when according to the tsar’s programme a campaign was officially launched to besmirch the age-old Orthodox Russian traditions and rites – in effect, the whole Russian past. Kaptev evaluates this conciliar activity as “a tendentious humiliation by foreign Greeks of Russian church antiquity, its public tendentious abuse”.

Here is where we should seek the origins of our contemporary disease of abusing and forgetting our historical past! No wonder Fr Pavel Florensky in one of his private letters said that “the world atmosphere has been corrupted perhaps since the 17th century”. A thorough investigation of the 17th-century Russian church reform fully confirms this surmise, for the Russian spiritual catastrophe in its consequences has not only a local Russian but a global character.

At the 1667 Council the tsar handed over the conduct of all affairs to two eastern patriarchs – Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch – having first made sure that they would pursue the line he needed. And the patriarchs, sensing the moment, behaved at the council as authoritative supreme judges and peremptory deciders of Russian church affairs.

It is hard to imagine that these two foreign guests, obsequious and compliant collectors of alms, being in the centre of Russia in the tsar’s presence, would have dared to revile and condemn the whole Russian antiquity, even to anathematise the old Russian rite, if there had not been special sanction from the tsar for this. “The most that a Greek hierarch visiting Moscow could venture on his own would be flattering, pompous praise of the Russian tsar, of Russian piety, public recognition of the Russians as the light and support of all Orthodoxy.”

To argue with the tsar at that time was simply impossible for anyone, especially for visiting guests, even if they were patriarchs; all that remained was to “comply”. Under any authoritarian regime even minor state decrees are issued only with the sanction of the highest authority. Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, having the highest conception of his royal power, “recognised himself as the viceroy of God Himself on earth”. With such an opinion of himself on the part of the tsar, who could dare to act independently, apart from the autocrat, in such an important church-state matter as the reform? Finally, Archpriest Avvakum will understand who the true author of the reform is and will denounce the tsar already in his fifth petition, written in 1669: “You are the autocrat; you will raise judgment concerning all these who have given such boldness against us… Who would dare to utter such blasphemous words against the saints if your power had not permitted it to be?.. All the matter is enclosed in you, O tsar, and stands on you alone.”

Pleasing Tsar Aleksey and pursuing the necessary line (the council according to the tsar’s plans was to finally confirm the reform), the eastern patriarchs went far in their activity. The council under their leadership recognised the old Russian rite as heretical and forbade it, and excommunicated from the church and anathematised those who adhered to the old rite. However, as Kaptev writes, “the rite recognised by them as heretical was in reality the creation of the Orthodox Greek ecumenical church, and earlier, for whole centuries, it had existed among the old Orthodox Greeks, and to accuse the Russians of heresy for it in essence meant to accuse the old Greek Orthodox Church of heresy”.

The eastern hierarchs at the council broadly and in detail reviewed the entire Russian church practice in general and the age-old folk customs, in order to condemn and destroy everything that deviated from the then Greek practice. All ancient Russian church things, even clothing, were replaced by contemporary Greek models, “so that there might be unity of mind and agreement in everything”. The tsar approved the conciliar activity of the eastern patriarchs and generously rewarded them.

It is telling that in 1666 the tsar by a special epistle asks to send him from the East the “Sudebnik” and the “Chinovnik of the entire tsar’s order of the former Greek tsars”, which he evidently needed for practical preparation for the expected coronation on the Byzantine throne. Here one may already speak not of political naïvety but of the feeble-mindedness of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, by which all his activity was marked, the consequence of which, among other things, were the “salt” and “copper” riots, and finally one of the first mad “projects of the century” – the all-embracing church reform for the realisation of global political pretensions.

Tsar Aleksey was raised in contempt for everything native and in adoration of everything foreign. He had a directly fantastic idea of the “wonders of western culture”: he was convinced of the almost all-encompassing power of the foreign master. These qualities, especially contempt for native history and culture, would develop and manifest even more in his son, Tsar Peter I.

We have already spoken of the intrigues of Catholicism in connection with the Eastern Question. There exists a curious document published by Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) in his “History of the Russian Church” in the section on the Time of Troubles: “From the Jesuits’ instruction to the Pretender on how to introduce the union in Russia”.

/…/ d) the sovereign himself should speak of the union rarely and cautiously, so that the matter does not begin from him, but let the Russians themselves first propose concerning some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation, and thus pave the way to the union;

e) to issue a law that everything in the Russian church be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers and to entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union: disputes will arise, reach the sovereign, he will appoint a council, and there one may proceed to the union;

f) to hint to the black clergy about privileges, to the white about rewards, to the people about freedom, to all about the slavery of the Greeks;

g) to establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen.”

So here is who long ago cared about the uniformity of Russian and Greek worship! Long before Tsar Aleksey and Nikon the main point of the reform (its essence) had been thought out by the Jesuits, formulated and given to their agents as a working instruction. This Jesuit plan was almost fully realised half a century later in the process of the 17th-century church reform. The course of the reform strikingly coincides with all the points of this instruction.

Concerning “some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation”, Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem spoke in 1649 while in Moscow, and the Greek clergy supported him; the corrector Epifany Slavinetsky proposes reforms as a learned theologian. Epifany, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, was sent from Kiev instead of another person requested.

Regarding the fact that “everything be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers”, it is necessary to recall that after two unions with the Catholics (Lyons in 1274 and Ferrara-Florence in 1439) and two hundred years under Turkish rule, so many changes had occurred in Greek church practice that the Russians questioned the very Orthodoxy of the Greeks. Around 1480 in our country a promise was included in the archiepiscopal oath not to accept Greeks either to the metropolis or to the episcopate as being under the power of an infidel tsar.

Thus, before the reform aimed at achieving uniformity with the Greeks, it was first necessary to raise the authority of the Greeks, significantly compromised in Russian eyes. This is what the Russian government actively engaged in immediately after Aleksey’s accession to the throne, for several years and in various directions. In Moscow several South-Russian books were published in which the full Orthodoxy of the Greeks was persistently preached, the necessity of communicating with them on all church questions and of acting in full accord with them in everything.

For the creators of the reform, besides the rehabilitation of the Greeks, another side of the question was important – namely, the creation of a firm opinion about the corruption of Russian service texts and the extreme necessity of their correction. In preparing public opinion about the supposed uncorrectedness of the old Russian books a special role was played by the extensive preface to the grammar of Meletius Smotritsky (1648). Here the idea is advanced in every way that Russian church books are very uncorrected and therefore need immediate thorough correction, and to correct them one must, of course, use only Greek models.

“To entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union”…

They found “reliable” people: Arseny the Greek, Epifany Slavinetsky, Paisius Ligarides, Simeon of Polotsk and others.

Arseny the Greek – an alumnus of the Jesuit college in Rome, repeatedly passed from Orthodoxy to Latinism and back, for a time accepted Mohammedanism. For heresy he was exiled to Solovki, but Nikon in 1652 frees him, makes him the chief corrector of service books and even settles him in his own cell. Arseny in turn recommends to Nikon Paisius Ligarides, also an alumnus of the Roman Jesuit school.

“Paisius Ligarides is not a branch of the Constantinopolitan throne,” says Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople about him, “I do not call him Orthodox, for I hear from many that he is a papist, a cunning man.” According to contemporary data, Ligarides is a Catholic missionary sent to the east in 1641. In Moscow he plays the role of Orthodox metropolitan of Gaza, acquires enormous influence on Tsar Aleksey and in many ways determines the decisions of the 1667 council. He is the tsar’s chief assistant in carrying out the “Greek project”; according to Kaptev, the tsar himself listened to him “as to a prophet of God”.

Simeon of Polotsk – a graduate of the Polish Jesuit college in Vilna, tutor of the tsar’s children (raised them in the Polish-Latin spirit), a skilful scribbler writing comedies for the tsar’s theatre, an active supporter of Nikon’s reform, who wrote a polemical treatise against the Old Believers by order of the tsar. Undoubtedly he did great harm to Russian literature by introducing into the literature of that time Polish-Ukrainian jargon and Polish syllabic verse alien to Russian culture. Many in Moscow accused Polotsk of unorthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum says directly: “Wolf-like in sheep’s clothing Simeon and Epifany. I know Epifany the Roman to the sea, when he came from Rome… And Semenka the monk came from there, from the Roman pope.”

“To establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen”…

And seminaries were established on the model of western scholastic schools, and learned people were indeed called from abroad. The brothers Likhud, alumni of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padua, confirmed Nikon’s reform while heading the Moscow Theological Academy for 15 years (until 1701).

As we see, the programme given by the Jesuits to the Pretender was basically fulfilled. The Pretender himself suffered defeat probably only because he took the matter too abruptly. Having ascended the Moscow throne, blinded by successes, he evidently decided that it was already possible to dispense with palliatives like the gradual introduction of the union by means of the identification of Russian and Greek worship. He writes to the Roman curia: “And we ourselves by God’s grace have accepted the union (of the churches) and will now firmly endeavour to bring all the Muscovite state into the one Roman faith and to establish Roman churches.” This was too abrupt; the pretence failed, and the Jesuits had to correct the mistakes of their agent by gradual painstaking activity.

Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks thus of the Jesuits’ activity: “From the very moment of their separation from the ecumenical church the Roman pontiffs were constantly occupied with the thought of subjecting to themselves the Orthodox East and, in particular, Orthodox Russia, as witnessed by the uninterrupted series of their attempts presented by history. But never were these attempts so strong, so close to success and dangerous for Orthodoxy as from the 16th century. In Greece they were favoured by the fall of the empire (1453) and the subsequent decline of enlightenment; in Russia by the lack of enlightenment and the annexation of its western part to Poland (1569). The chief instrument both here and there was the newly established (1540) order of Jesuits. They quickly penetrated Poland and western Russia, founded their schools in Polotsk, Vilna and Volhynia to raise the children of the Orthodox in their spirit; everywhere they disseminated writings against the Eastern Church to ensnare in their nets even adults who had been its children from the cradle, and the unhappy union that arose in the western region of Russia at the end of the 16th century was the first fruit of these efforts. Just as quickly the worthy disciples of Loyola penetrated Greece, established their schools in Galata and even in Constantinople, passed themselves off as gratuitous teachers of youth, strove to be confessors of the people and disseminated writings pernicious for Orthodoxy; meanwhile beyond the borders of Greece, in the famous universities and academies of the West, whither Greek youths hastened for lack of their own schools, thirsting for enlightenment, they imperceptibly imbibed the same spirit, were entangled in the same nets, and Pope Gregory XIII in Rome itself founded a Greek college where he gratuitously educated all incoming Greeks and Russians. All this intensified activity of the Vatican is explained by the Lutheran reformation: having lost as a result of it an innumerable multitude of their ancient children, the popes thought to compensate their loss by subjecting to themselves the eastern church and spared no means for this.”

The general Latin orientation of Nikon’s reformatory activity has been noted by many researchers. Some historians directly pointed out that the Nikon reform was the result of Jesuit intrigues. In the words of Yu. F. Samarin, Nikon wanted “to found in Russia a private national papism”. The pope is head of the church and the state: in the unity of spiritual and political power lies the chief nerve of papism. Nikon’s papo-caesarism fully revealed itself during the period of his tenure of power. “On the relations of the tsar’s power to the patriarchal Nikon expressed a view that in no way accorded with the traditions of the eastern church confirmed in Russia by history” (S. M. Solovyov). Imitating the Catholics, he introduces into use the four-ended cross, the carrying of the cross before the patriarch, makes himself a hat in the manner of a cardinal’s, his mitres have the form now of a tiara, now of a western crown. Nikon repeatedly makes use of the device of false oath, displaying knowledge of Jesuit teaching. Moreover, according to the historian Tatishchev, Simeon of Polotsk persuaded the young Tsar Fyodor to recall Nikon from exile to Moscow and make him pope.

The opinions of Nikon’s adherents about his supposed learning and intelligence do not correspond to reality. Here is how Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks of the book that Nikon wrote in his justification: “One must have great patience to read Nikon’s book even in parts… It is unfounded to see in this book extensive reading and learning on Nikon’s part. He had at hand the Bible, the printed Kormchaya, the explanatory Gospel and Apostle and another 2–3 books and drew from them with full hand as much as he wished, and to do this, especially from the Kormchaya with its index, was not at all difficult… But Nikon’s moral image appears in the book in the most unattractive light.”

It would be unfair to conclude about any architectural talents of Nikon in connection with the construction of the Resurrection Monastery, which he called the New Jerusalem. The well-known Arseny Sukhanov, at Nikon’s order, brought him from the East models of the Jerusalem temples; it remained for the builders only to copy. Of Nikon’s extremely negative moral image testify his cell-attendant Jonah, Prince Shaisupov and others (S. M. Solovyov).

With the passage of time many forgeries committed in the process of the Nikon reform by its creators and makers came to light. Perhaps sensational exposé material is adduced by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy N. D. Uspensky in the article “The Collision of Two Theologies in the Correction of Russian Service Books in the 17th Century.”

At the beginning of the reform at the 1654 council it was resolved to correct the service books according to ancient Greek and Slavonic models. Professor Uspensky irrefutably proved that the models for correction were contemporary Greek service books published mainly in Jesuit printing houses of Venice and Paris. To conceal this fact, Nikon’s correctors, falsifying, wrote in the prefaces of some books that the correction was carried out “according to ancient Greek and Slavonic” models (Sluzhebnik ed. 1655).

This is understandable, for the creators of the reform were in fact interested in achieving uniformity precisely with the contemporary Greek model, therefore ancient Greek and Slavonic charters (manuscripts) simply did not interest them. This probably also explains the very strange fact noted by Uspensky that Arseny Sukhanov, among a large number (498) of manuscripts acquired by him in the East, brought to Moscow only 7 that could be used in correcting books. Yet one of the chief aims of Sukhanov’s journey to the East was to bring the necessary sources for correcting the service books. And here he brings a huge number of manuscripts, among which are the works of pagan philosophers, information about earthquakes, about sea animals, but manuscripts that could be used in correcting service books – only 7… This expedition for manuscripts, lasting a year and a half, was dispatched by Nikon, therefore one may suppose that the messenger was given corresponding instructions. As we see, here too a forgery. Yet polemicists with the Old Belief always asserted that the correction of books was supposedly carried out according to ancient manuscripts brought by Sukhanov from the East and that there were a huge number of these manuscripts.

Thus, the solution to the apparent paradox lies in the fact that Tsar Aleksey and Nikon by no means pursued the aim of the actual correction of church books and rites, and the question of who had preserved the purity of Orthodoxy – the Russians or the Greeks – did not concern them at all.

This is confirmed by the following story. Wishing to secure support from the side of Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople, Nikon in 1654, on the eve of the council, sends him a letter with questions of a church-ritual character with a request to examine them at a council and give an answer. Nikon and the tsar evidently counted on Paisius approving their reform, and it would be convenient for them to refer to his authority. However, their hopes were not justified; in his reply epistle Patriarch Paisius expressed a sober and cautious view on the matter of changing liturgical orders and church rites, thereby making it clear that there was no necessity for reform. Despite this, Tsar Aleksey and Nikon continued the undertaking, thereby demonstrating that the theological justification of the reform did not particularly interest them, which is understandable given the political aims of the reform’s creators. There was no lack of forgery in this story with the inquiry to Patriarch Paisius either. Paisius’s reply epistle was received already after the council, yet Nikon at the council declares the receipt of a letter from the Constantinopolitan patriarch supposedly with approval of the reforms.

One more example of the tactical device of the reform’s creator Nikon. As already said, in order to bring public opinion to the consciousness of the necessity of reform, they advocate urgent correction of the various slips, errors and diverse faults supposedly accumulated in the Slavonic translations, admitted by translators and copyists. No one objected to such corrections. However, when it came to the point, Nikon at the 1654 council suddenly comes out with a stunning declaration that Russian piety itself is “doubtful” because the Russians maintain among themselves “incorrect innovations”. He demands, thus, the correction not simply of books but of the Church itself. “Nikon,” writes Kaptev, “speaks at the council not of such book corrections as would mean errors introduced into them by ignorance, slips and similar unimportant and easily correctable faults, but demands the correction of books insofar as they contain, in his opinion, newly introduced orders and rites, demands, so to speak, the correction of the Church itself, and not only of books.” This tactic too is understandable – by any means to obtain agreement to the reform, and then to do one’s own thing, copying the Greek model.

N. D. Uspensky in the aforementioned article describes the tragicomic story of Nikon’s “correction” of the Sluzhebnik. In the six years of Nikon’s patriarchate six editions of the Sluzhebnik were issued, differing from one another. As models, as Uspensky established, Kiev sluzhebniki were used, which shortly before had in their turn been corrected according to Venetian and Parisian editions of Greek sluzhebniki.

Of the six differing editions the first opponents of the book correction already wrote. Thus, in the petition to Aleksey Mikhaylovich by Fr Nikita Dobrynin it is said: “For six issues of his Nikon sluzhebniki have been forcibly sent out into the Russian state: but all those sluzhebniki disagree among themselves and not one agrees with another.”

Centuries later Kaptev states the same: “The more time passed, the greater the number of editions of one and the same book appeared, disagreeing among themselves, and the very number of these disagreements increased with the passage of time. Everyone noticed this, everyone was very troubled and scandalised by this circumstance, the more so as the opponents of Nikon’s book corrections constantly and tirelessly pointed to it as obvious proof to all that Russian church books were in reality not being corrected but only spoiled.” N. D. Uspensky summarises on this account: “When some grandiose undertaking in design leads to results opposite to the intended aims, such a situation may be called tragic.”

What, then, is the position today? As already said, a comparison of contemporary service texts with pre-reform ones permits the conclusion that the new texts are markedly inferior in soundness to the old. And this is the conclusion not only of the author of the present article, who carried out independent work in comparing texts, but of many other researchers. As early as the last century A. I. Nevostruev gave a detailed classification of the errors and inaccuracies of the reformed text: strange expressions, Hellenisms, for example “the radiance of noise”, “to understand with eyes”, “to see with a finger” and the like, confused use of grammatical forms, mixing of cases, turning the predicate into the subject and so on. The scholar adduces examples of troparia of canons with very unclear meaning, lists “sins not only against grammar, philology, logic, but also against history, exegesis, dogmatics”, pointing to a mass of errors in the texts, including the mixing of proper and common nouns and vice versa, discrepancies with biblical texts and the like. Professor M. D. Muretov also adduces numerous examples of incorrect translation and faults in the post-reform text. And the well-known philologist N. I. Ilminsky “on a whole series of examples shows the superiority in the sense of accuracy in many cases of the old translation over that renewed in the 17th century”.

The reason for such evident worsening of the new translation is simple. “Arseny the Greek, as a foreigner, could not grasp all the subtleties of translation into the Russian language, therefore his translations often yielded to the old translations in clarity, juiciness, in the aptness of one expression or another, sometimes seemed ambiguous and scandalous. Epifany Slavinetsky was an extreme adherent of literalism in translation; he sacrificed to literalism the clarity and intelligibility of the speech itself, composed his own words and their combinations very artificial and little-expressive, whence his translations are always clumsy, often obscure and little-intelligible, so that the meaning of some of our church hymns even now is assimilated with difficulty.”

The corruption of the Russian language began precisely in the 17th century in the process of the “correction” of books. Let us adduce only some examples from the Psalter, designating the old text by the letter O and the new by N.

O: “закон положит ему на пути”; N: “законоположит ему на пути”;

O: “обновится яко оpлу юность твоя” (102, 5); N: “обновится яко оpля юность твоя”;

O: “помощник во благо вpемя в печалех” (9, 10); N: “помощник во благовpемениих в скоpбех”;

O: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзе ми” (118, 163); N: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзих”;

O: “ибо благословение даст закон даяй” (83, 6); N: “закопополагаяй”;

O: “избави мя.., от pук сынов чужих” (143, 7); N: “из pуки сынов чуждих”;

O: “се пядию измеpены положил еси дни моя” (38, b); N: “се пяди положил еси дни моя”, – the meaning of the old translation is quite clear (a span is the distance from the end of the thumb to the end of the little finger), but of the new it is not.

O: “повелением им же заповеда” (7, 7); N: “заповедал еси” – phonetic worsening.

O: “яко услыша мя Боже” (16, 7); N: “яко услышал мя еси” – phonetic explosion.

O: “вскую остави мя” (21, 1); N: “вскую оставил мя еси” – weighting of the phrase construction, unnatural for the Slavonic language.

O: “И исцели мя (29, 2); N: “и исцелил мя еси” – the same.

Of course, one may discourse much on verbal forms – “aorist”, “pluperfect” and the like, but as is known, theory is dry, but the tree of life is green.

Errors were admitted that were more serious. The old text of the prayer from the rite of baptism: “The Lord our Jesus Christ, who came into the world and dwelt among men, forbids thee, O devil”. The new text: “The Lord forbids thee, O devil, who came into the world and dwelt among men”. The Old Believers repeatedly pointed to the blasphemous corruption of the text; the question was discussed for more than two centuries, and only in the Trebnik issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1979 was the pre-Nikon variant finally returned to.

The old text from the rite of baptism: “we pray thee, O Lord, let not an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. The new text: “let not, we pray thee, an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. And in this blasphemous corruption the adherents of the old rite constantly accused the new-ritualists, but the latter returned to the pre-Nikon variant also only after centuries. Thus this error worked for the schism: “they pray to an evil spirit”, said the Old Believers.

From the litanies for the sanctification of water on Theophany: S: “that this water may be leading into life eternal”. N: “that this water may be leaping into life eternal”. They returned to the old variant only in the “Festal Menaion” issued in 1970. It should be noted that the print runs of church books issued in Soviet times were very limited, therefore in many churches, especially rural ones, the service is performed according to pre-revolutionary trebniks, that is, with all the indicated errors.

It is hardly likely that such serious errors in the text of the fundamental sacrament were made due to insufficient professionalism of the correctors. A comparison of old and new texts leads to the thought that often a carefully masked conscious corruption of the texts was carried out on the principle “the worse the better”. In those times all secret enemies of Orthodoxy on Rus’ became voluntary supporters of Nikon’s reform, since the reform gave the possibility of mocking the church with impunity. And they mocked… Surikov showed this well in his painting “Boyarynya Morozova”.

Undoubtedly there were enemies of Orthodoxy among the correctors too, and not for nothing after the departure from the scene of his patron Nikon, Arseny the Greek, who headed the correction, was again exiled to Solovki. And what could be expected from a correction if it was headed by people like Arseny the Greek? The words of Archpriest Avvakum are amazingly close to the true state of affairs: “As Nikon said, so he did: ‘Print, Arsen, the books any old way, only not as before’ – and so he did.”

If, for example, in some cases the correctors replaced “smite” with “thou hast smitten”, “commanded” with “thou hast commanded”, then in others they did the opposite: S: “for the Lord hath saved” (19, 6); N: “for the Lord saved”. If in one place they replace an ancient speech form with a more contemporary one, then in another – the opposite. S: “for one of the princes falleth” (81, 7); N: “for one of the princes falleth” – evidently modernised. But in the same psalm: S: “in the midst of the gods he shall judge” (81, 1); N: “in the midst of gods he shall judge” – returned to a more ancient form. And such examples of “correction” on the principle “only not as before” may be adduced in multitude.

There are especially many errors and inaccuracies in the newly corrected texts of the irmoi. Let us compare the texts of the Sunday irmos of the 4th tone, song 1:

O: “Моpя Чеpмнаго пучину, немокpыми стопами, дpевле шествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазно моисеовыма pуками, амаликову силу победил есть”.

N: “Моpя чеpмную пучину невлажными стопами дpевний пешешествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазныма моисеовыма pукама амаликову силу в пустыни победил есть”.

An error is immediately noticeable if, for example, one says “the depth of the Caspian sea”. Therefore there is an evident error in the expression “the depth of the red sea”, since “Red” is a proper name. In the word “to traverse on foot” invented by the correctors a tautology is admitted – one always traverses on foot.

“With cross-shaped arms of Moses” – a gross error. It is known that Moses prefiguratively depicted the cross with his arms, but his arms were normal, not cross-shaped, as the correctors assure.

Through the fault of the correctors the colourful word “omrazishasya” (from the root “abomination”, “filth”) departed from the Church Slavonic language:

O: “pастлеша и омpазишася в беззакониях” (52, 2); N: “омpачишася”.

The conducted comparison of the pre-reform and post-reform Psalter with the involvement of a Greek text of the 10th century also speaks not in favour of the newly corrected text. For example, the Greek equivalent of the word “omrazishasya” has precisely the root “abomination” and not “darkness”.

Thus, it was far from for a single “az” that the zealots of traditional Orthodoxy rose against the reform. At that time people attended church often and many knew the texts by heart; one may imagine their indignation at this “correction” of the texts: it is not surprising that a schism arose.

In the period following Nikon’s abandonment of the patriarchal throne the Russian church found itself in the most grievous state. As Kaptev writes, “everything in our church life of that time from top to bottom was in complete confusion and as it were decomposition; in nothing was there stability, defined order and firmness; everything as it were tottered, everywhere discord, quarrels, struggle… It seemed that a return to the pre-Nikon church orders would then have been the most suitable way out of the tangled situation of church affairs… The matter with Nikon’s reform seemed to hang by a hair.” But after Nikon’s departure the actual manager of the Russian church becomes Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, who turns all his energy to confirming the reform, subordinating to this his activity, serving the reform often in defiance of simple common sense, offering to it in sacrifice both truth and honour and literally everything, when the reform becomes some all-consuming cult of his life, an obsessive idea. And quite justifiably the same Kaptev concludes that “to Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich chiefly the reform owes its beginning, its conduct under Nikon and its completion after Nikon’s removal.”

The phantom of the Byzantine throne hovered over Russia even after the death of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich right up to 1917. The heirs of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich were already firmly “fixated” on the circle of questions of the “Greek project”, passing this baton by inheritance. The very idea of Byzantine throne-inheritance gradually received very wide dissemination in Russian society, and if earlier it was inspired from without, then in the 19th century already many Russian thinkers paid tribute to the utopian project of creating a “Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire” with Constantinople as the chief capital. Of this write Tyutchev, Dostoevsky, I. Aksakov and other Russian public figures. Dostoevsky sees in this “our only way out into the fullness of history”, “sooner or later, but Constantinople must be ours”, he exclaims.

Even earlier Tyutchev wrote: “That which was promised by the fates even in the cradle to her, that which was bequeathed to her by the ages and by the faith of all her tsars… the crown and sceptre of Byzantium ye shall not succeed in depriving us of…”

It is understandable that in this situation the Nikon reform for the unification of Russian and Greek church practice acquired special political significance; church uniformity with the Greeks appeared as the single ideological foundation of the future great empire. The consequence of this was the further strengthening of the reform and the intensification of the struggle with the Old Belief.

It is now understandable why the Nikon reform, with its evident theological unsoundness, was beyond criticism – this was a political “taboo”.

Life dispelled the false prophecies like smoke. To everyone now it is clear that the idea of occupying the Constantinopolitan throne was an obsession, a phantom. The political “taboo” on criticism of the “Nikon-Aleksey” reform has also disappeared.

The 1971 Council lifted the curses on the old rites, but this is not a broad gesture or act of good will towards the Old Believers; this is what in justice should have been done long ago.

In the conciliar decree it is said: “May the Lord lead those separated again into one…” In confirmation of this call it is natural to expect future conciliar resolutions directed towards the liquidation of the schism, in which the first step could be a return to the pre-reform texts as the more sound ones. Besides, spiritual rebirth is unthinkable without the realisation of past errors and repentance for the untruths committed.

Many Russian Orthodox people were destroyed for faithfulness to traditional Orthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum, who headed the resistance to the criminal reform, has now appeared before us as a great Russian man, a national hero, a martyr.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Have you ever noticed how frequently the Holy Gospel speaks of the commandment of forgiveness? In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask that the Lord forgive us as we forgive our debtors. And the parable of the unmerciful servant affirms that only he who forgives shall receive forgiveness (Matthew 18:24 and onward). The commandment concerning prayer states that one must not bring a gift to the altar before first reconciling with one’s neighbor (Luke 11:25).

How many times must I forgive my brother?—asks the Apostle Peter—Is it not seven times?

“Not seven times, but seventy times seven,” replies the Lord (Matthew 18:21 and Luke 17:4).

The same commandment of forgiveness is repeated twice by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13).

Why does Holy Scripture so insistently command forgiveness?

Because Christianity is all about forgiveness, and in forgiveness is expressed both the essence and the power of Christianity.

Where there is no forgiveness, there is no Christ. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And who is pure in heart? He whose heart is free from enmity, hatred, and anger—that is, he who forgives. “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God” (1 John 4:16).

Thus, where there is no love but enmity, there is no place for God. He departs from the soul darkened by hatred and anger and leaves it to the one whose kingdom is darkness. “He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes” (1 John 2:11).

We have said that he who does not forgive his brother and does not reconcile with him, according to the Gospel, cannot even cross the threshold of the temple or offer a prayerful sacrifice to the Lord. But that is not all: if a man, harboring anger in his heart, stands in prayer, not only will his prayer be displeasing to God, having come from an impure heart, but he himself will be unable to offer a fervent and sincere prayer to the Lord. “The serpent of hatred, dwelling in the soul, undermines the roots of prayer,” depriving the soul of the strength to ascend to God.

A certain woman once complained to me that she did not know how to pray—her prayer felt cold and lifeless. She was very religious, loved Christ, loved church services, and loved the poor, yet I was surprised by her lack of the gift of prayer.

“Do you have an enemy whom you are unwilling to forgive?” I asked.

“Yes, I do.”

“Until you reconcile with him, your sources of prayer will remain dry.”

By an effort of will, this woman reconciled with her adversary, and the sweetness of prayer became known to her.

And what has been said about prayer, of course, applies to all manifestations of the soul’s life. The lives of the saints emphasize that a person who harbors unforgiveness in his soul cannot be a confessor of the Lord, will not stand firm in martyrdom, and is incapable of performing good deeds. And this is natural: the power of grace, which sustains a person in goodness, is withdrawn from such a soul, leaving it in its own weakness and impotence.

Enmity and hatred, as a kind of “poison of the soul,” corrupt the soul, extinguish the power of goodness within it, weaken it, and render it unfit for the Kingdom of God.

“He that hateth his brother is a murderer,” says the Apostle John (1 John 3:15). One might say that such a person is, at the same time, a murderer of his own soul. This is why the Lord Jesus and the Church—especially on this Forgiveness Sunday—so insistently call upon us to reconcile and forgive.

“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,” says the Lord.

You may say, “But it is difficult to forgive an offender. Let him come to us and ask for forgiveness, then we will be ready to reconcile with him.”

No, not so. That is how the Gentiles act.

A Christian behaves differently. He either does not notice offenses or blames himself for everything. When the Blessed Kyros, of whom St. John Climacus speaks (Prologue, April 12), was insulted, reviled, and beaten, he only smiled gently. “They are testing me,” he said to St. John. “They are trying my patience, not seeking to harm me.” And he responded to insults with kindness.

Other holy ascetics, when offended, were troubled by their own conscience. “Why did I anger him?” they would ask themselves. “If he became angry, then clearly I must have offended him in some way, wounded him, or provoked his wrath. If not intentionally, then perhaps carelessly—I failed to treat him with enough sensitivity and love.” And so they did not merely “forgive” their offender but sincerely believed that they, not he, were at fault.

This is the true logic of a Christian. Suppose you have been wronged without any fault of your own. Even then, you should pity the offender all the more: clearly, he is deprived of God’s mercy, he is destroying himself through enmity, life and hardship have hardened his heart. You should pity him and, sacrificing your pride, hasten to bring peace to his embittered soul.

It is true—sometimes it is difficult to overcome feelings of offense and hostility. But if a Christian remembers that there is no forgiveness for him who does not forgive up to seventy times seven, he will find the strength to overcome this evil feeling.

Here is the lesson that an elder once gave to a certain brother. The brother told the elder that despite all his efforts, he could not forgive his enemy.

“Very well,” said the elder, “let us pray. Repeat after me: ‘Our Father, who art in heaven…’”

The brother repeated the prayer word for word.

“But do not forgive me my debts, as I do not forgive my debtor.”

“How can I pray like that, Abba?”

“But how else will you pray? Will you lie and ask for forgiveness for yourself while you refuse to forgive your debtors?”

The monk was enlightened.

Reflect on this story. You say you cannot forgive? But that means you are closing off the wellspring of God’s mercy for yourself, condemning yourself to ruin…

by Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

source

By Bishop Mikhail Semyonov

Today we commemorate Saint John of the Ladder. He was a holy ascetic, enlightened with a deeply Christian spirit and great wisdom. He was a man who placed the Lord at the very center of his life in all its aspects—for him, “God is the object and goal of all endeavors, for in all actions and movements the true Christian is filled with the awareness that he stands before God, filled with an inner, life-giving reality in Him…” (from The Ladder).

The Church owes to the prayerful spirit of John a great book—The Ladder—filled with Christian understanding. The Ladder is a book essential for every Christian.

It consists of thirty chapters—steps, degrees of a ladder leading to the Kingdom of Heaven—and is truly a ladder of salvation.

Its descriptions of sins, their weight, their difficult conquerability, and their constant serpent-like cunning—how they deceitfully, slowly attach themselves to the soul through a passing thought (at first), which then grows into sinful desire—are full of wisdom and instruction.

Its descriptions of virtues are a call to ascend with great effort, like a man climbing a mountain, clinging with his hands and his whole body to the rocky ledges so that he does not fall. This call is powerful and convincing: “Go forward, do not look back; if you fall, rise up and continue the path…”

The content of The Ladder is profound; the language is vivid, full of imagery and comparisons, and charged with strength. Some of its brief sayings are worthy of long reflection.

Here is a sketch of a few—brief, incomplete, and imperfect.

Abstinence (Fasting) is the mother of health. It is founded upon the thought of death and the end of earthly life.

Just as a hungry man cannot forget bread, so it is impossible to be saved for him who does not remember his departure from this life. But do not place your hope in the idea that “because you fast, you will not fall;” for one who tasted nothing was still cast down from heaven.

Wretched is the one who falls—but more wretched still is the one who causes another to fall.

The fox pretends to sleep—and the demon pretends to be chaste: the one to deceive a bird, the other to destroy a soul.

As birds grown fat cannot fly toward heaven, neither can the man who serves his flesh.

Just as someone suffering from a long illness cannot be healed in an instant, so it is impossible to crush the passions—or even one of them—all at once.

In every passion, learn to know its measure; have a guide who knows the measure, and you will come to know your progress.

He who has conquered the passion of avarice has put an end to his anxieties, but he who is bound by it will never pray with a pure heart.

Do not say that you are storing up for the poor—by two mites the Kingdom of Heaven was purchased.

A proud soul is a slave to fear—it is self-assured, yet trembles at every rustle, even at shadows. He who has become a servant of the Lord fears only his one true Master. But he who does not fear God is often frightened even by his own shadow.

Among those who are learning letters, it is well known which subjects are appropriate for beginners, which for intermediates, and which for teachers. Let us be wise in our understanding, lest after long years of study we find ourselves still lingering over the first lessons. To see an old man attending a primary school—this everyone would regard as shameful.

Just as one who carries perfumes is revealed by their fragrance, even against his will, so too the one who possesses the Spirit of the Lord is known by his words and by his humility.

These teachings of John were not merely words, but the fruit of his own way of life. He was truly steadfast in his journey toward heaven and in the practice of virtue.

“Move slowly,” he would say—and in his own life, he walked with an unwavering, steady, and resolute step.

He who rushes to hasten his progress often stumbles and grows faint—sometimes just steps from the goal. And he sees his companion, who set out alongside him, pass him by, full of hope and strength. The same is true in the life of the soul.

He who trains his spirit in the realm of virtue, rising step by step and strengthening himself with faith, hope, and love for God—he will attain the uppermost step of moral perfection. But he who attempts to leap at once to the highest rung of perfection will soon feel his own powerlessness.

In the keeping of the fast, one must practice reasonable moderation and gradual growth, since the earthly life of a Christian is filled with labor, and the fruitfulness of that labor depends upon the condition of the body.

Victory over faults and sins comes when there is a gradual ascent—from lesser to greater, from what seems insignificant to what is significant. In the fulfillment of duties, there must be maintained composure, steadiness, and a consistent effort from beginning to end.

He who considers the reward before beginning the work, who weighs the final result without starting the task—he shall not enter into the joy known to those who labor.

And does not he stumble who, while walking, keeps his gaze fixed only on the far distance and never looks at the ground beneath his feet?

These teachings, of course, do not advise us to linger, to delay our movement intentionally—no, for he who tarries too long will arrive late and find the door shut by the Bridegroom.

Magnificent are the words of the Ladder’s author when he speaks of prayer—of its persistence and boldness, which lead the soul into ecstasy, and allow it to perceive the light of the divine.

He speaks beautifully of humility of spirit before prayer, and of the mystery of tears of repentance—tears he himself had known through personal experience:

Those who possess within themselves the fountain of these holy tears, within the sanctuary of their heart, come to hate even their own life as the source of their spiritual afflictions. Their body becomes repulsive to them, as an enemy. They rule over the body as over a slave. And just as outward fire consumes and devours straw, so too the spiritual fire of these pure tears burns up and destroys in them all visible and invisible impurity.

He also speaks of another effect of these holy tears:

Those who have received this gift spend every day of their life in spiritual festivity, and their sorrow contains within it an incomprehensible consolation and joy, just as wax holds within itself the honey.

Still more vivid are John’s words about the final stages of self-perfection.

After the long path—of forgiving humility, of chastity, of the labor of restraining the unruly tongue, of fasting and prayer—a person ascends the heights of love.

And love, gentle and peaceful, meets the ascetic; love which is greater than faith and hope.

It is a wondrous, poetic vision. Again we say: The Ladder should be our constant companion, our bedside book.

Brethren! We now stand before the ladder that leads to heaven. And the fast is itself a ladder. All of life is a ladder. And see how various are the attitudes of Christians toward this “ladder.”

Here are some who look up at the ladder and say, “It is too high—we shall never reach it,” and they quietly remain in the dust of the earth. They do not begin the fast, nor do they begin the struggle of Christian life…

Then there are others: they begin to ascend the ladder, but are so burdened with the heavy load of worldly cares, of love for the world, of the pursuit of wealth, of honor, and so forth, that they are unable to go on. The heavy burden pulls them down to the earth, and they fall off one of the lower steps.

Then there is a third group: these have reached halfway and stopped… “Enough… We are not saints; we cannot go to the top. What we have done is sufficient.”

These are the spiritually dead. Whoever stops on the path and no longer moves forward is a son of perdition: he is neither cold nor hot, and the Lord shall spew him out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16).

There are also those who climb high but fall from the steps nearest the top.

These are they who walk with great zeal for God, but without the gentle spirit of humility. At such heights, their heads grow dizzy. They are not bound to the Lord Christ with the humble cord of love, as mountain travelers bind themselves to their guide with a rope in the snow-covered peaks. They climb the ladder on the legs of pride and self-exaltation—

—and fall into the dark abyss.

Oh, if only we would make the Ladder of Saint John our path! Then we would reach the end. And we would enter the bridal chamber of the Lord, into the glory of the Resurrection through Him.

1916

source

(Printing House of the I. D. Sytin Partnership, Pyatnitskaya Street, own house. Moscow, 1907)

I. The First Stage

The title of the article may seem pretentious. It recalls Herr’s pamphlet How I Became a Social Democrat. We confess: we deliberately repeated the title of the German Christian socialist who became a social democrat, believing that we have more right to it than Herr himself. Herr did not “become” a social democrat; he simply joined the party, disillusioned with Christian (German) socialism. A Russian priest truly “becomes” one—that is, through a complex evolution, a kind of via dolorosa of doubts and torments, destroying old gods, sometimes deeply fused with the heart, he arrives at a new social ideal. And my path is not mine alone, but generally that of a priest—the path any Russian priest follows, raised on the Gospel, Dostoevsky, and life.

I will begin with a tiny memory from distant childhood.

A noisy, large cloth factory… So much fire. Unbearably loud: huge wheels clatter. The terrifying steel arms of machines flash by. It’s eerie. And amid this noise wander pitiful gray, dust-covered little figures of child sweepers. Weary, exhausted, and above all, pathetically small.

This was long ago, 25 years back, but the impression is vivid and bright. What struck me was precisely this: the insignificance of man, his powerlessness before the machine—terrifying, enormous, mercilessly strong.

I do not wish to regale readers with anecdotes on the theme of “how I became virtuous.” I simply point to a vivid fact that left the first unease in my soul, from which it could not free itself for whole decades afterward. I had accidentally glimpsed the kingdom of Moloch, and it immediately crushed me with its blasphemous might and triumphant power, yet somewhere it left the seed of a painful thought: still, this should not be… It can be otherwise. There is no need to confess what life did with this chance childhood unease. The evolution, growth, and decline of a “private” soul—mine or anyone else’s—are of no interest to anyone: only the evolution of a priest as a priest can hold attention.

Thus, I pass over an entire twenty years… Life thrust me into the very center of diverse currents, hurled me into Petersburg. I was called here, among other things, to fight neo-Christianity—that is, Merezhkovsky, Rozanov, and others. I was to defend the Church, its truth (not the living, earthly truth, which even I forgot at the time, but the dogmatic, philosophical one). And I did so sincerely and without falsehood, because the center of my faith, my sole lifeline, was (and is) the image of Christ, crucified for the world’s God… I spoke and wrote hurriedly and avidly, hastening to cry out: “Wait before condemning our truth—you do not know it. Come closer…”

Perhaps at times I succeeded in defending my truth: I gave it both brain and soul. But I myself always remained inwardly defeated by my audience, even when it was silent. A passing accusation would be flung, and one could not shake it off for days and weeks.

“You are lying,” they write from Saratov on behalf of an entire party in a lithographed leaflet, “it is not Christ you defend, but the order of things. One cannot live in your Church with your Christianity. So much slavish falsehood: the Church’s persecution of sectarians and of freedom of faith in general, the Church’s approval of war, even more—of executions, the approval of every existing ‘fact,’ even serfdom, because it is a fact; of the existing popular and social morality—again because it exists, because it is a fact… We see that the Church is a tool in the service of the ‘existing,’ whereas its task is to judge from the height of ‘eternity,’ from the height of the Gospel… And we cannot accept it… you… your Christ. Is it not for this that your repainted, renewed dogmatic truth is thrust forward—to lull us, to make us forget the living untruth and the fact that you are silent about it and dare not speak of it? You want to hypnotize us with dogma…”

“Leave off,” writes the naive, semi-literate but clever and plain-spoken merchant S-v from Samara (known for his open letter to Metropolitan Antony), “you are exactly like a shop clerk… Extolling your Church like goods you are selling off. And who knows, perhaps you really do not see that the goods are water-damaged, and above all, you do not see the mark of the Antichrist upon them… Faith is faith, and you speak well of it, but look— this faith is needed so that God may be set as a watchman over the property of the rich. You have given everything of God’s to Caesar for service, turned God into a watchman, remade the Gospel so that it, too, like the Code of Punishments, threatens only slaves who do not obey their masters, and comforts the robbed: endure, “there” you will receive tenfold.”

I felt that there was a terrifying amount of truth here. How could I deny it, when Iriney Orlovsky in a sermon proved that the poor are needed precisely so that the picture of life may be aesthetically richer? Not all flowers in the meadow are red and red; blue and purple are needed too. Not everyone can be sated and rich—it would be ugly and meager, and would pall (evidently, on the sated).

And this frank cynicism was no rarity. How many efforts, indeed, do we make in praising “poverty” for the sake of the rich’s peace of mind. Understandably, alongside such sermons, the letters from Saratov and Samara burned like coals. The necessity was felt to first free the truth of the Gospel from its slavish servile role. It was felt that there would be no faith in us or in Christ as long as our word and thought remained in service—yes, and above all, as long as that very thought was inwardly, by its very psychology, rotten, depraved, slavish.

The words of Samarin came to mind—a kind of pillar of Orthodox consciousness: “When the existing order of things, for example, even serfdom, is placed entirely under the direct protection of faith; when it is, so to speak, imposed upon her to approve, bless, and sanctify everything that exists at the present moment but did not exist yesterday and may not exist tomorrow, then naturally all the most reasonable needs unsatisfied by the present, all the most peaceful hopes for the better, finally, faith itself in the people’s future—all this becomes accustomed to viewing Christianity as a barrier that must sooner or later be stepped over, and little by little inclines toward falling away from Christ and the Church.”

They came to mind—oh, how they came to mind. The circumstances were already different from two or three years ago. Back then, I myself quoted these “words of Samarin” as self-justification: the state, they say, uses the Church for its own purposes and discredits it; we do not want this; we ourselves are burdened by the alliance as by a curse… Therefore, distrust toward us is unlawful and unfounded.

Thus could speak a priest with a “troubled” conscience a year ago. Thus spoke I. Now the priests of God Most High have shown that the alliance—their slavish service to one Caesar instead of God—does not seem a “curse” to them. An entire army of Moloch’s slaves, mistakenly standing near Christ’s altar, displayed such zeal in their blasphemous struggle against truth that it became frightening for the very integrity of Christianity. Fear was born that (as in Rozanov’s Anxious Night) the last slaves would leave the dishonored temple crying: “Out of this filth, meek in appearance, bloody within. Here the mystery of iniquity has begun to work.”

And Samarin’s thought arose before consciousness in a new, sharply accusatory form—visions of Lamennais. Seven purple-robed figures in a hall hung with black. The fifth, rising, approached the throne of bones with a wavering gait and placed his foot on the fallen crucifix. He took a skull filled with blood, drank from it, and said to his comrades: “You have thought much and well to destroy freedom. Your means are effective and energetic, but they are insufficient. Turn people into animals—that is good; strike them with fear of inexorable justice, cruel executions; otherwise, sooner or later they will tear you to pieces. The executioner must be the first minister to a good prince.”

And beside him, this “fifth,” the seventh, having drunk like the others from a human skull, spoke thus while standing on the crucifix: “There is no more Christ; it is war not for life but for death, eternal war between Him and us. But how to distract the peoples from Him? Listen! We must buy Christ’s priests with wealth, honors, power. And they will command the people, in Christ’s name, to submit to us in everything, whatever we do, whatever we order. And the people will believe them, entrust them with their conscience, and our power will be stronger than ever before.”

And they did it, and they bribed… A heavy and tormenting darkness descended… Precisely a heavy and tormenting darkness.

Is it surprising that I took fright at this threatening gloom and wanted to cry out to my comrades: “Save yourselves! Your proximity to the pagan and evil principle of slave-owning power is ruinous, especially now…” And as a result of this call, a break had to appear—not hidden or masked—with former forms of state views.

It is often said that for a priest, apparently, the forms of power and so on should be indifferent. Perhaps so. Very possibly. In any case, this is not important for us now. The fact is that the connection with past power corrupted, and it had to be severed as decisively and clearly as possible. This is a stage that every priest who does not wish to trade in Christ for the sake of power must necessarily pass through and will inevitably pass through. And thus the break with power became my first stage.

However, this did not resolve the question. In what form, then, should Christianity, liberated from slavery, reveal itself in its constructions of this “earthly, social life”? Finding a living earthly program was very difficult. From the past remained hard-to-erase stains of slavery. Consciousness turned out to be infected with the “leprosy of the ages.” And on bad soil, at first only false, compromise forms could take root. The “spirit of compromise,” the satan of our age (in Ibsen’s expression), triumphed in the person of Dostoevsky and the German socialists. The half-truth of my brochure Cursed Questions and Christianity was born.

II. In the Slavery of Compromise

Dostoevsky was, is, and probably will long remain the “evil genius” of Christian thought. In his work, alongside the seeds of “revelation,” are laid elements of a powerful narcotic poison, energetically decomposing above all the idea of Christian social order.

At the crossroads, in search of an answer to how to understand the world and reconcile with its untruth, my thought could not fail to encounter Dostoevsky on its path.

He had traveled the same road—first of sorrowful bewilderment, then of mortal horror before life, before “Baal reigning in our world of usurers”—the same road that our entire generation of “sick Christians” experiences, and I naturally met him at one crossroads.

Read two or three pages of Summer Impressions of Winter Impressions. One chapter is even called “Baal,” and it is filled with the impression of sorrowful horror at the desecration of man in the “kingdom of machines” laboring not for the worker but for the usurer. A city boundless as the sea— the screech and howl of machines. The poisoned Thames. The glittering crystal palace of the exhibition. Something apocalyptically triumphant, great, beautiful. This is a temple… Yes, of Baal. Wealth, luxury, mirrors, and gold. And against this background—a crushed and pitiful man.

The witches’ sabbath of runaway negroes—workers who, in drunkenness and debauchery, dull, joyless, heavy, and silent, give away on Saturday what they earned through a week of toil and cursing. Women and even girls selling themselves in Haymarket… All the pus of the shameful sediment of life’s order. Mothers who bring out their daughters for sale. All these are sacrifices to Baal. This drunkenness, debauchery, loss of consciousness, in which there is “something systematic, ostentatious, encouraged,” for Dostoevsky are “souls laid at the foundation of the accursed tower of Baal.” “Baal reigns and does not even demand obedience, because he is convinced of it. The poverty, suffering, murmuring, and stupefaction of the masses do not trouble him in the least.” “And for the pariahs of his kingdom, the prophecy will not come true for a long time. They will not be given palm branches and white robes for a long time, and for a long time yet they will cry out to the throne of the Most High: ‘How long, O Lord?’”

And alongside the pictures of adult slavery—especially for me—sickening and comprehensible pictures of children’s suffering. “I remember once, in the crowd,” Dostoevsky relates, “I saw a little girl, no more than six years old, all in rags, dirty, barefoot, emaciated, and beaten: her body, showing through the rags, was covered in bruises. She walked as if not remembering herself, not hurrying anywhere, God knows why staggering in the crowd; perhaps she was hungry… But what struck me most was that she walked with such grief on her face, such hopeless despair, that to see this tiny creature already bearing so much curse and despair was somehow unnatural and terribly painful. She kept shaking her disheveled little head from side to side, as if reasoning about something, spreading her tiny hands apart, gesticulating with them, and then suddenly clapping them together and pressing them to her bare little breast.” And this again was a morning sacrifice to the same god of evil capital.

Such pictures, such a view of the world, were too comprehensible to me for me not to accept it. Dostoevsky’s conclusion was also comprehensible: “Baal must be destroyed.”

Yes… yes… But how?

As is known, Dostoevsky answered this question with a sharp critique of socialism, in place of which he proposed his own “Russian socialism”—the socialism of Vlas, collecting alms for churches.

Dostoevsky’s Russian socialism was a slavish, compromise, beggarly product of a soul corrupted and crushed to dust by hard labor, but Dostoevsky’s language, the narcotic and hypnotic effect of his images illuminated by beautiful pain—his “dissolute heroes” (Zosima, Alyosha)—masked the slavish motives and sources of the system.

“Russian socialism” is a system that should elevate everyone to the moral level of the Church as a spiritual brotherhood, while preserving the external inequality of social positions; it “demands the spiritualization of the entire state and social order through the embodiment in it of the truth and life of Christ.”

“Not in institutions, not in ‘phalansteries’ and all sorts of social anthills, but in active love, in the loving compassion of Zosima, Alyosha—there is salvation. In the resolve to do everything for the sake of active love.”

Our life is bad because we ourselves are bad. “By becoming better ourselves, we will correct the environment and make it better. After all, this is the only way to correct it.”

Forget about your “rights,” forget that the world can be remade at once by “reforms.” Heal souls…

All these thoughts, set forth here concisely and drably, in the brilliant setting of Dostoevsky’s hysterical pictures and images steeped in suffering, seemed bright and convincing. Only one question arose: but must we really forget about all those girls selling themselves in Haymarket, about the horrors of their situation? Is nothing to be done with the very “fact” of sale? Can the witches’ sabbath of “runaway negroes” not be ended and a holiday obtained for them?

To agree entirely with the solution that we must wait, that now we can and should save only that one girl, those separate units encountered on the road, was unwilling… Against this rebelled the remnants of social conscience, which the Antichrist’s preaching of pity only for one’s neighbor could not obscure.

And here the Christian socialists helped Dostoevsky—those who approached him so closely in the basic idea of preaching active love. They “want to bring Christ into the kingdom of machines,” as Naumann declares—that is, they want precisely what I wanted.

“To drive poverty out of the world is our task. To fulfill this task, God has given us the machine. He has given billions of iron slaves, the ability to produce countless products. He said: ‘In it (the machine), My children, I give you the means to destroy want. Take the machine and illuminate the earth with it, take it and build a new age with it!’ God gave cloth factories so that no one would lack clothing, and transport ships so that no one would go hungry…”

And I wanted the same—to make the machine work for the toilers. Precisely. Nothing more need be desired: this was what I needed. A practical supplement to Dostoevsky.

And alongside this, their program—so broad, democratic: workers’ insurance, the fight to shorten the working day, prohibition of child labor, regulation of women’s labor…

I found myself captivated: I decided that the best expression of Christian consciousness would be precisely the union of Dostoevsky with Naumann’s Christian socialism, that of the Americans. And I became a proselyte and, perhaps, an apostle of compromise.

At one of the meetings at Fr. Grigory Petrov’s, S. N. Bulgakov defended his paper “Christian Politics,” in which he proposed, in the name of Christianity, to organize “unions of Christian politics” to fight against a social order hostile to freedom and, consequently, to the spiritual personality. Sergei Nikolaevich proposed an organization of a sort of political party, like the Western Christian socialist ones, only on the basis of genuine socialism, not the card-sharper’s socialism of Stöcker.

I spoke out as a strong opponent of the proposed Christian political organization. In my story In the City, in its first part, there is this dialogue:

“Fr. Peter (to the intellectual):

— If we speak of the Church’s role in life, then its ‘politics’ generally coincides with the politics of those who are for truth… for the rights of the lesser… We can join hands with those who fight for the rights of the offended, for the unification of the weak against the untruth of the strong.

Fr. Nikolai: — Rights?.. No…

Pale, trembling as if in hysterics. Face suffering, sick…

— Rights… No… no… There will be none. God forbid. This is Judas’s betrayal. This is the second temptation. Turn stones into bread… In your program there is no, no Christ, crucified Christ, God; if ever I come to the thought that there was no Christ, that His cause is impossible here, then I will accept this ‘Christian politics.’ Perhaps in a week, in two, but only then, when Christ dies. The Church cannot be in alliance with a group that says to the offended: ‘Take your right,’ because there are no rights in the Church, though it will say: ‘A curse on the oppressors.’ The Church can stand only for struggle, as the conscience of humanity—its judge. We can call only to such deeds as we can preach with the Chalice of the Lord’s Blood in our hands, to arrange such unions and organizations where there are no rights and there is only self-sacrifice, though we think that this will arrange life richer than socialism.”

Fr. Nikolai of these lines is me in my objections at that time to Fr. Petrov and S. Bulgakov.

Naturally, on the basis of this view, I considered possible only all sorts of church “factories of happiness,” like parish brotherhoods, Christian pastoral mediation between labor and capital, church organization of apartments for the poor, and so on and so forth. The most I would agree to were Naumann’s half-measures, stipulating, like hypocrites, that Christ attached no value to external forms, placing the essence of all world history in the development of individual souls.

I did not know then that in a week or two, precisely for the sake of faith in Christ, I would have to renounce my false point of view.

III. Quarrel with Dostoevsky and the German Christian Socialists

It took only a small push for the nightmarish influence of the “cruel talent” and the compliant Christians (Naumann, Stöcker, and others) to collapse.

This push came from a chance passage in Dostoevsky. If you remember, objecting to Gradovsky against his thought that institutions must be improved, not only personalities, that the Christian perfection of Korobochka would not abolish serfdom, Dostoevsky answered with positively wild, terrible words: “One must understand Christianity,” he writes to Gradovsky: “if Korobochka were a Christian, there would be no serfdom at all on her estate, despite the fact that all the serf documents remained in her chest. And what business is it of Christian Korobochka whether her peasants are serfs or not. She is their mother… etc.”

This was an illustration of the words about spiritual brotherhood while preserving social inequality. For me, these lines were a revelation. What? The fact that “the serf documents are in the chest” is indifferent? Korobochka is a mother…

No, such a mother is not needed. Precisely, one must understand Christianity, and that means understanding that in life’s relations, the most terrible and sinful thing is not that, using the documents and deeds, a person is hunted down with dogs, but the very “documents” on souls. And if the documents lie in the chest, the whole shame remains intact and untouched.

That is the essence of Christianity, as we have partly already said in Stolichnaya Pochta, that it demands condemnation not only of the facts of sin and violence, but above all demands the condemnation and negation of violence and evil in those forms where evil has become fixed, frozen, crystallized, where the leprosy and syphilis of the soul have embodied themselves in the form of general sin—that is, to condemn, as one’s own sin, every prison window and every light in a house of shame…

Christ above all condemned the old morality and the old social order as the quintessence of former slavery, and only by condemning the social order, serf deeds, usury, and property could He “firmly hope to eradicate evil” in every individual soul.

Korobochka a mother? God forbid—first of all, one must renounce the mother-Korobochka.

But then the question arose: how to regard the entire system built on such an anti-Christian foundation? Only negatively. I understood that the whole preaching of Zosima’s pity or Korobochka’s “motherhood” was not a mistake but a deception. Pity of Zosima’s type, so hostile to Christ’s type of loving hatred toward the world’s evil, was invented by self-interested people.

There is nothing more profitable for human insignificance than pity. It is profitable for the individual because, as I have already said in more detail elsewhere (Stolichnaya Pochta), a person hides in it from the torment of seeing the suffering and degradation of the whole world. But it is also profitable for egoistic bourgeois self-preservation: pity demands only concessions, charity, and thus simultaneously gives the bourgeois the “sweet joy of helping one’s neighbor” and saves him from greater sacrifices. Finally, charity, pity, and the like demand, by their very nature, gratitude and patience as light.

Clearly, the preaching of Korobochka’s motherhood is a criminal involvement in a bad bargain and nothing more. Hence, I decided, Christianity must above all fight against ideas that decompose Christianity, against falsifications—that is, against ideas of charitable pity, which Christ condemns as a kind of counterfeit.

In the play Two Ideas (preparing for publication), a slave girl of a German feudal lord tears down a crucifix in the square and, in a mad ecstasy, hurls this accusation at Christians:

“I tore it down… Yes, I tore it down… You don’t need Him… I don’t want you to dishonor His wounds with your lips. Blasphemers, crucifiers!.. He wanted you, like Him, to suffer the shame and evil of the world. But with your own hands you multiply His wounds and those of His world, to find your happiness in them. And you have remade His torments into sweet wine for voluptuaries. You have covered the whole world with wounds, killing both bodies and souls, only to obtain and give others the joy of ‘enduring for the Lord.’ You don’t need Him…

I understood… I was there when He was dying, and I saw… And I wanted to throw myself at His feet, to kiss them, and suddenly I saw that He shuddered and drew back. And I understood: He was afraid. He feared that I, drunk with the happiness of kissing Him, pitying, would not see the torments of the poisoned world, onto which He had poured new rivers of pure blood to frighten the world with them.

Yes, yes. He shed it to wash away the leprosy from the world. You, in His name, multiply and grow this leprosy. And on holidays you approach Christ’s cross to take intoxication in voluptuous pity, and on weekdays you offer the same cross for your slaves to kiss, so that around His sufferings they may find consolation in patience, not rebel, and gratefully kiss your hands that beat them. You saved yourselves, your dinners, and made Him the advocate of your slave-owning, and on holidays you replace dancers and harlots with Him for variety…

A watchman-God, a God for rest and new ‘drunken’ sensations—is not needed…”

These lines were written on the day when, by chance, Dostoevsky’s article about the mother-Korobochka and the words of Ivan Karamazov about the saint who warmed lepers with his breath came to hand at the same time. And I liquidated Dostoevsky, recognizing his preaching of pity, of drunken compassion-self-sacrifice, as simply a bourgeois counterfeit of Christianity, in which Christ exists to give the rich the joy of “charity” and to restrain rebellion with the preaching that “suffering is great happiness.”

But once the revision began, it was easier to deal with his continuers.

The program of the Christian socialists could please only at first glance. Care for workers, their families, the promise to think only of the hungry—this was good, but it was a lie. Look closer at such humanitarian constructions of all bourgeois groups, and you will notice the falsification.

“On property,” writes Naumann, “we will look as Christ looked on it. Jesus, for ethical reasons, was a radical opponent of the accumulation of capital: ‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.’ The heart that desires to acquire eternal bliss must not be attached to property. Money must not be the measure of people. Jesus is not a communist; He has no intention of excommunicating Galilean fishermen from their boats and houses. He only denies the excess of property. The Christian concept of property must of itself replace the Roman one. Jesus wants to reduce want, grief, crime. This is the constant earthly goal of Christianity. There must be no helpless poverty, no unemployment, but we must go forward while adhering to the existing: Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. He gives to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

What do all these speeches represent if not deception?

Does it not turn out that the Christian socialists want to use Christianity as a shield of faith before the face of the whole world and, under the shadow of this shield, prepare a place for resisting reaction; does it not turn out that they think only of fundamentally discrediting socialism and, in place of its bright slogans, putting forward their own proposals, which in the end arrange only the affairs of reactionary forces?

The Christianity of Christ cannot be so half-hearted. It will always be direct and bold.

Mammon has conquered the earth. Not only the hearts and thoughts of people, but also their relations. All inventions, discoveries in the field of technology—he, and he alone, has appropriated to himself. What should have freed humanity from the cruel power of physical laws and made it master of nature, in Mammon’s hands has turned into a terrible instrument of torture, become a scourge under whose blows the defenseless masses writhe like fish. The higher culture rises, the deeper the majority of people fall into the abyss. The more glorious the progress, the more majestic the development, the more terrible the fate of those by whose labor progress and development are realized. The closer a person considers himself to the goal of his aspirations, the more terribly he is deceived. In our days, the poor in big cities are coarser, more embittered, more unhappy than the savages of the forests.

To crush Mammon, one must attack him in the sphere of his powerful relations of modernity. Whoever wants to disarm an enemy must deprive him of food. For Mammon to fall, the principle of private property must be rejected as falsehood and usury.

I had to become a socialist.

As strange as it may seem, I declared my socialist confession a year ago, in an article in Tserkovnye Vedomosti, written at the request of the editorial board of the official Synodal organ.

The last year—1906—I worked on the question of child labor, women’s labor, the situation of the poor in the capital. Obviously, such a year was bound to sharpen my enmity toward the “predatory-usurious.”

At a glass factory in Simbirsk Governorate, I saw how children of 12–13 years old rush about all winter night amid a “beautiful hell,” near unbearable heat, and every quarter hour are “cooled”—a technical term—in an ice hole.

I saw women at a white lead factory with corpse-like, dark-green faces, destroyed gums, trembling limbs. I saw their children, born only to die horribly the next day, the next month after birth, in convulsions of lead poisoning. Their fathers, who cannot drink like people because of constant convulsions and lap like dogs.

Life placed me face to face with the horrors of the life of St. Petersburg’s poor, there where “seven-year-olds are depraved and thieves.”

Clearly, there could be no hesitation in choosing, from a Christian point of view, between two worldviews—socialist and bourgeois. And so, in the name of Christ, I had to become a socialist, but why did I become precisely a people’s socialist?

IV. Why a People’s Socialist, and Not a Social Democrat or a Socialist-Revolutionary?

Why precisely a people’s socialist, and not a social democrat or a socialist-revolutionary? The reasons are clear. My worldview was born on the soil of expanding the concept of personality, but not on the soil of its negation.

I rejected the old concept of personality and its duties. In Korolenko, under whose enchanting influence I had been since childhood, there is a legend about the angel of ignorance. This angel, by God’s will, lived on earth, sowing smiles, joy, and happiness. But one day, blood fell upon his bright garments—the blood of a man to whom he, in ignorance, had himself led the murderers… And then the joy in the angel’s eyes dimmed, and instead of “joyful ignorance,” his soul accepted the torment of “sorrowful knowledge.”

For me, Korolenko’s angel has always been a symbol of humanity, in which “social conscience” has awakened in place of personal conscience, revealing the awareness that it is not enough to pour oil and wine on the wounds of one crushed by the wheel of life without trying to stop the “evil course” of the wheel itself.

This thought, I say, was always with me: now it has clothed itself in definite and vivid forms.

I understand personality as an indivisible part of society, fused with it inseparably, “chemically.” The development of personality outside of, separately from, the improvement of the entire complex into which it enters as a part is impossible.

Personality cannot distinguish between its own “wounds” and social wounds. Nevsky Prospect, prison, slavery—all this is the shame of every personality; it lies as a stain on each not only dishonoring but also decomposing, and one can never become personally free as long as the very concept of unfreedom exists, as long as there is prison, violence, “deeds of sale on a person.”

The phrase of the slave Epictetus—“a slave even in the quarries can be free”—is a depraved slavish phrase, because the unfreedom of others and even the “slave-owning of masters,” their shame, equally destroy my freedom and personality.

Human personality is part of the street, part of the entire social order. A girl on Nevsky sells her body… Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane betrays his Lord… My personality, its freedom, is not only morally interested in both facts, but is entirely “there,” on Nevsky, in Gethsemane. Accursed kisses on the girl’s cheeks. The accursed kiss on the Lord’s cheeks.

I must feel all the falsehood and vileness of the accursed kiss on my own lips (I kiss) and on my own cheeks (I am betrayed), and if so, the conclusion: I will become free and pure only when Nevsky itself with its selling souls ceases to exist, when Pilate’s judgment itself becomes impossible. In short, the liberation of man is possible only with the liberation of the entire life of all, and evil can and must be hated above all not in man, but in its “crystallizations” (regime, prison, deeds of sale, and serf documents).

To realize oneself as a human being means to realize oneself as a god… on Golgotha.

Are you human? You are god. The whole world is yours, your creation, your thing, your thought, the blood or ichor of your spirit. The design on your teapot is yours, the red lanterns on evil streets are yours… Prison windows are yours. All the souls around you, leprous and crippled, are yours… And you must experience the vileness of all this “yours.” Tear from yourself—and thus from the world—all the pus-stained garments. With the soul’s cry, its terrible pain, shake off from it and from the world the blood, shame, sin…

Every soul must bear the entire world, the evil world, like an entirely leprous body.

This is terrible, but this is Christ’s social order—the one that will destroy streets of slaves, slavery, violence, poverty. Here is the apotheosis of “sociality.”

But obviously, such a view, while advancing the principle of sociality, at the same time represents a kind of cult of personality. The negation of personality seemed to me and always will seem criminal. The social structure itself, it seems, can be based only on the “cult of personality.”

Man is divine, his future boundless. And this future will be built by personalities.

Understandably, under these conditions, I could not accept social democracy with its teaching that negates man as a personality. I fully agreed that personality is the “foam” of existing social conditions, the result of the environment. This did not oblige me to accept the dogma of the insignificance of personality. For me, personality is the synthesis of separate forces scattered as sparks in the mass, but the synthesis itself is a “new fact” and a new historical factor.

In the process of uniting scattered sparks into the “foam” of personality, a miracle occurs: from the elements emerges more than what seems given in them.

And I could not abandon the thought that personality, created by the synthesis of the moment’s mood, cannot thrust itself into history as a “biblical stone” destroying kingdoms. After all, personality is divine, and only its cult, its growth, can promise a rich, colorful, strong social order.

If you will, in the name of sociality and social good, I returned to the idea of personal perfection. The expansion of personality seemed to me a necessary condition for social arrangement on principles broader than simple satiety.

—“Do you believe in God and the soul, Nina?” asks the leader of the free in our as-yet-unwritten play Masters and Slaves.

—“No.”

—“Nor do I. But it seems we still need to love God… Yes, it’s all the same, Nina… All the same, I don’t believe. It is necessary to love… Not that god invented by people to stand watch over their samovars, fur coats, and wives. No, the real God. The One Who is in us. We need to love ourselves… You know what our misfortune is… We don’t love ourselves and therefore cannot be free and bring freedom into life… We didn’t understand Christ. Love your neighbor as yourself… As yourself. But Christians—and we with them… We with you?.. We decided that we need to and can love our neighbor more than ourselves. But that’s a lie, Nina, a lie… Whoever doesn’t love himself, hasn’t found himself—cannot love his neighbor, will bring him not what he needs. Better to say: not all that he needs. How can he bring “full” genuine, human freedom?

Are we free, do we acutely feel every desecration of freedom as a desecration of our own freedom? A thousand people died of hunger—that’s terrible. But a girl wanders Nevsky—that’s less terrible? So is that the thought of a free person, for whom the enslavement of the soul, the slavery of body and spirit, is the most terrible of all? People are shot by the hundreds—that’s shameful, terrible, but the fact that people don’t feel nervous convulsions when a lackey is given, tossed “a tip.” That’s not terrible?

No, a person must see himself, love himself and hate himself and say: man—that sounds shameful… Vile. But man is god. He can and must someday put Jupiter in Uranus’s place and Uranus in Jupiter’s. And we need to resurrect the great dead man, so that into the future triumph does not pass the man-louse.

We will fight for the liberation of the body, for the destruction of all slavery—but in the name of “man,” his spirit… In the name of the colors of the future spirit. In the name of future great souls…

In this monologue, excluding its, admittedly, dubious atheism, was and is my “credo.” But where in the socialist parties could I find an echo? Only among the people’s socialists. With the same Korolenko and his Mikeshin, peering inquisitively into the starry sky. Around him and his angel of sorrowful knowledge with a broad and aching social conscience, and his “murderer” with a tormentingly anxious conscience that punishes him even for killing a robber, could I find “my peace.”

On the party’s banner, alongside the old “Freedom for each. Land and machine—to the worker,” is placed one more word: “In the name of man.” Man is my “credo.”

And, of course, becoming a people’s socialist, I do not cease to be a Christian and a Christian socialist, only not in the image of Stöcker or Naumann.

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

“O Lord and Master of my life, drive away from me the spirit of despondency, negligence, avarice, and idle talk…”

There is hardly a prayer (after the Lord’s Prayer) that moves the soul more than the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim.

But how strange, it seems, are its petitions. To ask deliverance from the spirit of despondency and idle talk — are these really the gravest and most dangerous of the passions? What about hatred, greed, and the like?

Yes, St. Ephraim in his prayer pointed out — or rather, gathered together — precisely those things that pose the greatest danger to the soul and to its salvation.

St. Ephraim begins his prayer by asking to be delivered from the spirit of despondency. For despondency is the very first cause that can prevent one from beginning the Lord’s work. Some do not labor for the Lord because they are distracted by the vanity of the world; others — because the demon has instilled in them a spirit of despair, of despondency. Their hands fall limp at the work of the Lord. It seems to them that they are powerless, incapable. Evil and sin — both outside of them and within — appear to them as insurmountable.

A foreign writer who passed away just recently wrote a short story called The Head of Medusa. It offers a good description of those who, through a careless fascination with the world, become idle, and of those possessed by a spirit of despondency.

In ancient times (according to Greek legend), there lived the Gorgon Medusa. Upon her head were not hair, but snakes — and anyone who looked upon her was turned to stone by her dreadful gaze. Only Perseus was able to defeat the Gorgon, for he looked not directly at her, but at her reflection in the bright surface of his shield…

At times, a person finds the terrible eyes of Medusa fixed upon him. Medusa is a symbol of all the evil that fills the world, and of the sin that enslaves the soul.

People respond to this vision of evil — in which, according to the Apostle, the world lies — in different ways. Some try to shield themselves from the face of the Gorgon with the vanities of the world, by chasing after its goods and glittering honors.

They give no thought to the work of God, to the struggle with external evil and the sin within the soul — they do not see the face of the Gorgon. Others do see it, but lacking hope in God, the Conqueror of all evil, they become frightened by both their own sin and the evil of the world — and they too let their hands fall.

Remember those who sit weeping at the foot of the ladder, never even attempting to climb the first step.

It is from this destructive spirit of despondent inaction that we pray to be delivered in the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian. We pray that God may instill in us hope in His almighty help — so that evil and sin may appear to us, as in the shield of Perseus, dreadful, yes, but conquerable — calling us to do battle with them.

Yet here also is a prayer for deliverance from the spirit of idle talk. But idle talk — is that really such a grave sin, that it should be placed at the beginning of our prayer?

No, not quite.

There is a story told about a certain holy elder — Abba Pambo of Nitria. This servant of God was illiterate and would go to one of the brethren to be taught. They were reading the Psalter. And soon after beginning his “education,” something happened. The two elders opened the holy book and began to read… They opened to Psalm 38 (39 in the Hebrew):

“I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.”

Pambo interrupted the reading and silently returned to his cell. Six months later, his teacher met him and asked, “Why have you not come to me for so long?” — Pambo replied, “I have not yet learned (meaning, of course, in practice) the words of David: I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.” And for a full nineteen years, he “studied” those words — in which he saw the beginning of wisdom.

And indeed — is idle talk really such a trifle?

In mountainous regions, when travelers are ascending to high peaks, guides forbid them to speak even a word. The reason is that a single word can trigger a terrible disturbance in the air, which may in turn cause entire avalanches of snow to collapse upon the travelers. Idle words endanger life.

But does not idle talk in the “valleys” pose the same danger — not to the body, but to the soul? A single word can cause great and irreversible harm. Idle gossip has often poisoned a human soul with its venom — even leading to murder.

How many times has an idle word surrounded an innocent person with the dark fog of false accusations, shattered his life, and utterly destroyed the peace and happiness of a family? And so on, and so forth.

That is why, at the dreadful Judgment of Christ, we shall have to answer for every idle word.

But beyond this — even if your idle talk harms no one else — it does irreparable harm to your own self. It keeps you from gathering your thoughts, from collecting your soul. Idle chatter robs you of those precious moments when you might have been alone with your soul and with God — and grown fearful of the false and sinful paths upon which you walk.

II.

“But the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love bestow upon me, Thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother…”

We have already spoken of the spirit of patience in our conversation about the ladder to heaven. I said: I will watch my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. Let us not repeat ourselves here.

Patience is, above all, perseverance — steadfastness in the ways of righteousness… I slip, I fall — I, a sinner. I get up, I go on… I fall again, and again I rise. Having fallen, I do not remain in the mud forever. I do not make peace with sin.

This is the essence of patience…

Patience cultivates the gift of chastity, and at the same time is cultivated by it. Chastity — in Greek, sōphrosynē — is not chastity in our narrow, modern sense. It is not merely the bodily purity preserved from defilement by fornication. Chastity is the health of the spirit in the broadest sense. It is the safeguarding of the soul, its wholeness, from the rust of sin — through a special watchfulness, a special care of the conscience.

Have you ever noticed how a child protects a new garment on the first day of wearing it? The child, in his innocence, is completely on guard… Every little spot causes pain, feels like a misfortune.

In the same way should the soul relate to sin. A sensitive soul should respond to every stain with acute pain, should recoil at the touch of sin — like the eyelid, which instinctively shuts when a flame is brought near the eye. This vigilance of the soul, this highly developed power of resistance to sin — this is chastity.

But it is clear that one cannot attain chastity without humility. The spirit of humility — this is the same as poverty of spirit. A person who is satisfied with himself, who does not consider himself spiritually naked, “poor,” cannot seek the healing of his soul.

The healthy man — or rather, the one who mistakenly believes himself to be healthy — will not go to the doctor, will not place himself on a regimen (and the regimen of the soul is the spirit of chastity). Only the one who sincerely says within himself, “I am naked. I am poor. O Lord, give me raiment. Help me. Clothe me with Thy grace,” — only he will do these things.

That is why we are so in need of the spirit of humility. And a person who has recognized his sinfulness, who vigilantly guards the wholeness of his soul, may pray also for the spirit of love — and may even attain to this, the highest of Christian virtues.

A man who sees himself as a sinner does not judge others, he has compassion on every “one who has slipped.” He will know how to understand, to justify in his conscience, and to forgive every enemy and offender — and thus, to love all in a truly Christian manner.

We said that the spirit of humility is the awareness of one’s sinfulness — and this awareness gives birth to the spirit of forgiveness. The importance of “poverty of spirit” and “forgiveness” for the beginning of the Christian spiritual life is so great that St. Ephraim prays once more for the same thing: “Grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother.”

“One memory,” says a preacher, “I have kept from my childhood.

In the backyard, there lay a stone slab. Sometimes we would go over and lift it. And underneath — there were woodlice, spiders, all sorts of creeping things. And we would quickly close the slab again in fright, so as not to see them.”

We do exactly the same thing all the time. Sometimes, the thought arises to lift the “slab” of our conscience and to look into the depths of our soul. But we rarely dare to remain alone for long with our exposed conscience and its wounds. Fearing the abyss of our sin, we hurry to shut the slab again, to justify ourselves before ourselves, to “explain away the guilt of our sins.”

Of course, under such conditions, true repentance is impossible… In order to heal wounds, they must be exposed — not hidden. Yet we hide the wounds of the soul not only from others, but even from ourselves. And naturally, our wounds do not diminish, but only grow.

Even when a person reveals his wounds before a spiritual father, he often inwardly tries to justify himself, to cast a veil over the sin — not for the confessor’s sake, but for his own — and thus, covering the depths of his soul with a slab, he is not horrified by his spiritual state, does not approach the analogion in fear before the darkness of his sin, but in hypocritical self-justification — and leaves uncleansed.

This is why the Church so fervently prays — both in the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian and in other prayers: “O Lord, grant us to see our transgressions, grant us the strength not to conceal them from ourselves, not to invent excuses for sin.”

1909

source

On the 2nd day of November. A brief account of the valor, courage, elegant testimony, and patient suffering of the newly-revealed great martyr, the noblewoman Feodosiya Prokopievna, who in monasticism was named Feodora, and by her earthly fame called Morozova; together with her only sister and fellow-sufferer, the pious princess Evdokia, and their third companion in bonds, Maria.

This blessed and ever-memorable woman was born to noble and devout parents. Her father was Prokopiy, a senator of the reigning city of Moscow, from the family of Sokovnin; her mother was Anisiya. Both were faithful Christians who feared God. When she reached the age of seventeen, her parents married her to the boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov. She became a mother and gave birth to a son, who was named Ivan after a vision of the great wonder-worker Sergius.

Gleb’s brother, Boris Ivanovich Morozov, loved his sister-in-law Feodosiya with a deep spiritual love. Whenever she visited his house, he himself would come out to greet her warmly and say: “Come in, my spiritual friend! Come in, joy of my soul!” They would sit together for many hours, speaking only of spiritual matters. When she left, he would escort her and say: “Today I have tasted something sweeter than honey from your soul-strengthening words.”

After living only a few years in marriage, she was widowed and left with her young orphan son Ivan. She was instructed in the virtuous life and the true doctrines by the holy martyr and archpriest Avvakum. As soon as she learned the truth about Orthodoxy, she burned with zeal for it and turned away completely from everything corrupted.

By order of the Tsar, emissaries were sent to her: Joachim, archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, and Peter the key-keeper. She stood firm in her testimony and thoroughly shamed them. Because of her public exposure, the old form of the cross on the communion bread was abolished throughout all Russia, and half her estates were taken from her. Yet no matter how much she suffered, she refused under any circumstances to abandon her piety; she was ready to die for the truth. Thanks to the intercession of Tsaritsa Maria, who was very kind to her and loved her for her virtue, she received a brief reprieve after this trial.

Afterward she gave away huge amounts in charity: she distributed much of her wealth to the poor, redeemed many people from debt-collectors, gave generous support to monasteries, supplied churches with everything they needed, provided for desert hermits, and even cared for lepers in her own home.

Later, through the confessor Father Trifiliy, she heard about a reverent nun named Melania. She summoned her, listened to her words, loved her deeply, and chose her as her spiritual mother. In humility for Christ’s sake, Feodosiya placed herself completely under Melania’s guidance and cut off her own will to the end. She remained an obedient disciple until her dying day, never once disobeying her elder’s commands. Guided by Melania, she finally learned to understand and fulfill every deed pleasing to God. Together they walked on foot to prisons carrying alms, and very early in the morning—like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James hastening to the Lord’s tomb—they went together as a pair of doves to the Cathedral, to Chudov Monastery, and to the Lord’s Robe. There they placed the sacred robe upon themselves as worthy servants, kissed it with warm tears, and reverently kissed the relics of the wonder-workers with faithful hearts.

Feodosiya strove to fulfill God’s will in every action. She forced her body into ascetic labors, fed on fasting, flourished in prayer, trembled at the thought of death, and overflowed with tears of joy. Burned and kindled by the fire of divine love, she blazed without being consumed, for the Holy Spirit refreshed her. I do not know which virtue she neglected; above all, like a firm foundation, she held fast to the Orthodox faith, knowing full well that without faith it is impossible to please God. I boldly declare that this blessed woman could rightly cry out with the prophet of Tishbe and with the fiery-charioted Elijah: “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty! For they have abandoned the catholic faith, fallen in love with Roman-Latin doctrines, killed God’s servants, and are trying to destroy the Church of God to the end.” Anyone among her relatives who clung to the Nikonians she fearlessly rebuked.

Mikhail Alekseevich Rtishchev and his daughter Anna, ardent followers of Nikon, often visited her house. They would praise Nikon and bless his reforms, testing her and hoping to shake her and bring her over to their way of thinking. They said: “Patriarch Nikon was a great and wise teacher; the faith he handed down is perfectly orderly, and it is good and beautiful to serve according to the new books.” After listening in silence, Feodosiya would open her mouth and answer: “Truly, uncle, you have been deceived. You praise God’s enemy and apostate, and you call his books—sown with Roman and all kinds of heresies—blessed. An Orthodox Christian must turn away from his books, detest all his godless innovations, and curse him in every way as an enemy of Christ’s Church.”

The gray-haired elder pressed her further: “Oh, child Feodosiya! What are you doing? Why have you separated yourself from us? Don’t you see this vineyard—the children planted here? We were supposed to look at them like young olive shoots, rejoice and celebrate together with you, eating and drinking in shared love. But now one single division has come between us! I beg you: stop this quarrel, cross yourself with three fingers, and don’t oppose the great sovereign or any of the bishops in anything else! I know perfectly well who ruined you and deceived you—that worst of enemies, the archpriest whose very name I loathe to speak because of my great hatred. You yourself know who I mean—the one for whose teaching you are ready to die. Yet I will say it: Avvakum, cursed by our bishops!”

Feodosiya, seeing the old man raging like a madman, smiled gently and answered in a quiet voice: “No, uncle, no—that’s not right. Your answer is upside-down: you call the sweet bitter and the bitter sweet. Father Avvakum is a true disciple of Christ because he suffers for the law of his Master. Anyone who truly wants to please God need only listen to his teaching.”

She said many more things like this and always fought them with unstoppable courage, and by Christ’s help she put them to shame every time.

One day Anna Mikhailovna started in again: “Dear little sister, those Belëv crones have devoured you! They swallowed your soul like a baby bird and tore you away from us! You’ve not only scorned us—you don’t even care about your only son. You have just one child, and you won’t even look at him. And what a child! Who wouldn’t marvel at his beauty? You should be watching over him while he sleeps, lighting candles of the purest wax, burning a lamp above that lovely face, gazing at his handsome features and rejoicing that God gave you such a precious boy. The Tsar himself and the Tsaritsa have often marveled at his beauty, yet you treat him as nothing and refuse to obey the great sovereign. What if, because of your defiance, the Tsar’s fiery wrath falls on you and your house? What if he orders your home plundered? Then you’ll suffer greatly and make your own son a beggar through your hard-heartedness.”

Feodosiya opened her holy lips and replied: “You’re the one speaking falsehood! I was not deceived by those Belëv nuns, as you claim. By the grace of my Savior I worship God the Father with my whole mind. I love Ivan; I pray for him without ceasing and care for everything that is good for his soul and body. But if you think that for Ivan’s sake I would wound my own soul or, out of pity for my son, abandon piety—” She crossed herself with the two-fingered sign and continued, “May the Son of God preserve me from such unworthy tenderness! I will not—I will not ruin myself to spare my son. Even though he is my only child, I love Christ more than my son! Know this clearly: if you think you can use my son to block me from Christ’s path, you will never succeed. I tell you boldly: if you want, take my son Ivan out to the Lobnoye Mesto and throw him to the dogs to frighten me into abandoning the faith—I still will not do it. Even if I saw his beautiful body torn apart by dogs, I would not dream of betraying piety. Be certain of this: if I remain steadfast in Christ’s faith to the end and am found worthy to taste death for it, no one will ever snatch him from my hand.”

When Anna heard these words she recoiled as if struck by thunder, utterly astonished at Feodosiya’s iron courage and unshakable resolve.

Feodosiya prayed often that God would grant her sister, Princess Evdokia, the same burning love for Christ and the same care for her soul. She instructed her with great tenderness and urged her to place herself under Mother Melania’s obedience. Evdokia joyfully and eagerly begged the elder to take charge of her salvation. Melania refused for a long time, but the princess won her over with many tears and became an excellent disciple. Not only in obedience but in every virtue she emulated her elder sister Feodosiya—fasting, prayer, visiting prisoners—until one could say: two bodies, one soul.

Feodosiya now reached higher in her thoughts, longing intensely for the angelic habit. She fell at her mother’s feet, kissed her hands, bowed to the ground, and begged to be clothed in the monastic schema. Melania put it off for many reasons:

First, such a thing could not be hidden in her own house; if the Tsar found out, countless people would suffer interrogations to discover who had tonsured her.

Second, doing it secretly outside the house brought another danger.

Third, even if it stayed hidden, the time was coming for her son to marry, which would require much fuss, wedding preparations, and arrangements—things unseemly for a nun.

Fourth, once tonsured she would have to hide completely, stop even the little pretense she still kept, cease going to church altogether, and stand firm like a man to the end.

Yet Feodosiya burned with insatiable divine love and yearned for the monastic life. Seeing her immense faith, zeal, and unchangeable resolve, Melania finally consented. She asked Father Dosifei to bestow the angelic habit. He tonsured her, named her Feodora, and gave the Gospel portion to Mother Melania.

The blessed Feodora, now granted this great gift of God and seeing the longed-for angelic habit upon herself, plunged into even greater ascetic labors: stricter fasting, longer prayer, deeper silence. She withdrew completely from household affairs, claiming illness, and entrusted all legal matters to trusted servants.

When the Tsar’s wedding arrived and he took Tsaritsa Natalia, Feodora refused to attend with the other boyar ladies. Tsar Alexis took heavy offense, for she should have stood in the front rank and pronounced the ceremonial titles. He summoned her repeatedly; she refused to the end, saying, “My legs hurt terribly; I can neither walk nor stand.” The Tsar replied, “I know she has grown proud.” The real reason she stayed away was that she would have had to call the Tsar “most Orthodox,” kiss his hand, and receive the bishops’ blessing—things she could not avoid. She chose suffering over communion with them, knowing the Tsar would not let the matter drop. And so it was: all that summer he raged against her and began looking for any pretext to exile her without cause.

Toward autumn he first sent boyar Troekurov, then a month later Prince Pyotr Urusov, with stern warnings: submit, accept all the new rites, or face terrible consequences. Feodora, bold in the Lord’s name, answered the boyars: “I have done the Tsar no wrong and am amazed why his wrath falls on my lowliness. If he wants to tear me from the true faith, let him not be angry with me. Let him know plainly: until now the Son of God has protected me with His right hand; never once have I even thought of abandoning the fathers’ faith to accept Nikon’s decrees. I have chosen this: in the Christian faith into which I was born and baptized according to apostolic tradition, in that faith I wish to die. Let the sovereign stop troubling his poor servant; it is utterly impossible for me ever to renounce our Orthodox faith, confirmed by the seven ecumenical councils—as I have told him many times before.”

The envoys returned and reported her fearless words. The Tsar’s anger blazed hotter; he wanted to crush her and said to those around him: “It will be hard for her to fight me—one of us will surely prevail!”

He held council after council with his boyars about what to do with her. In the Upper Chambers they sat more than once, plotting how to break her. All the boyars saw the unjust fury and the evil conspiracy against innocent blood; they refused to join the counsel but, fearing for their lives, kept silent. The bishops, the “Jewish elders,” and the Jesuit-trained hieromonks egged the Tsar on most of all. They hated the blessed woman with a deadly hatred and longed to devour her alive, because wherever she was—at home with guests or visiting others—she fearlessly exposed their errors and publicly denounced their heretical wanderings in front of crowds. Everything reached their ears, and for this they loathed her.

While these plots were brewing, five exiled nuns were living in Feodora’s house. They begged to leave before they too were seized. She could not get enough of their company; she rejoiced to stand with them at the night rule before Christ and to eat with them at table. So she kept them about five weeks after the first warning. When they grew afraid, she comforted them: “No, my doves, do not fear! No one will come for me yet.” Princess Evdokia stayed with her and the nuns the whole time, inseparable, consoling her beloved sister in her trials; she only went home to the prince for brief visits.

On November 14 Feodora said to the nuns: “My mothers, my time has come. Each of you go wherever the Lord will keep you safe. Bless me for God’s work and pray that, through your prayers, the Lord will strengthen me to suffer without wavering for His name.” She kissed them tenderly and sent them away in peace.

On the eve of Meatfare Sunday the princess went home. While dining with her husband, he told her what was happening in the Upper Chambers: “Great sorrows are coming upon your sister; the Tsar is seized with uncontrollable rage and has decided to drive her from her house at once.” Another voice at table added: “Princess, listen carefully to what I am about to say. Christ said in the Gospel: ‘They will hand you over to synagogues and flog you in their assemblies; you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them… But I tell you, my friends: Do not fear those who kill the body and after that can do nothing more.’ Do you hear, princess? Christ Himself speaks—remember it well.” Evdokia rejoiced greatly at these words.

The next morning, as the prince was leaving for the palace, she begged him to let her visit Feodora. He said: “Go and say goodbye, but do not linger—I think today they will come for her.”

She arrived and stayed until nightfall; they were expecting guests.

Suddenly, at the second hour of the night, the great gates burst open. Feodora started a little, understood that the tormentors had come, and lay down on a bench. But the faithful princess, illumined by the Holy Spirit, strengthened her: “Dear mother-sister, take courage! Christ is with us—fear nothing! Rise, let us begin.” When they had finished the seven entrance bows, they blessed each other to bear witness to the truth. Feodora lay down on her featherbed near the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer of Theodorov, while the princess went into the little closet that Feodora had built in the same bedchamber for her spiritual mother Melania, and lay down on a mattress there.

Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov Monastery strode in with great arrogance, entered the bedchamber boldly, saw her lying down, announced that he had been sent by the Tsar, and ordered her to rise—at least to sit—so she could answer the Tsar’s words he was commanded to deliver. She refused to obey.

Then the archimandrite interrogated her: “How do you cross yourself? How do you pray?” She folded her fingers in the ancient two-fingered sign handed down by the holy fathers, opened her sacred lips, and chanted: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us! Thus I cross myself; thus I pray.”

The archimandrite pressed a second question: “The nun Melania—you gave her the name Alexandra in your house—where is she now? Tell us quickly; we need her.”

Blessed Feodora answered: “By God’s mercy and our parents’ prayers, as far as our poor house could, its doors were always open to receive Christ’s wandering servants. When the time came, we had Sidors, Karps, Melanias, Alexandras; now there is none of them.”

The duma secretary Hilarion Ivanovich stepped into the closet where it was dark, saw a person lying on the bed, and asked: “Who are you?” The princess replied: “I am the wife of Prince Pyotr Urusov.” He jumped back as if burned by fire. The archimandrite, seeing this, asked: “Who is in there?” Hilarion answered: “Princess Evdokia Prokopievna Urusova.” Joachim said: “Ask her how she crosses herself.” Hilarion, unwilling, replied: “We were sent only to boyarynya Feodosiya Prokopievna.” Joachim insisted: “Obey me—question her.”

Hilarion approached, asked, and she confessed. Lying on the bed, propped on her left elbow, she made the sign with her right hand—thumb joined to the two little fingers, the index and middle fingers extended—and showed it to him, proclaiming with her lips while glorifying the Lord Jesus as Son of God: “Thus I believe!” Hilarion went out and reported to the archimandrite. Joachim, no longer able to contain his fury at seeing his false faith trampled by faithful women, said to Hilarion: “Stay here. I will go tell the Tsar.”

He rushed off and found the Tsar sitting among the boyars in the Faceted Palace. He drew close and whispered in his ear that not only had the boyarynya stood firm like a man, but her sister Princess Evdokia, who happened to be in the house, was zealously resisting the Tsar’s command even more fiercely. The Tsar said: “Impossible! I heard that princess is gentle and does not scorn our services; it’s that madwoman who is the trouble.” But the archimandrite, filled with man-hating malice, pressed: “She has become exactly like her elder sister in everything—and mocks us even worse.” The Tsar replied: “If that is so, take her too.” Prince Pyotr, standing nearby, heard this, was deeply grieved, but could do nothing.

The archimandrite returned to the martyr’s house and began interrogating everyone present, especially her maidservants, to see who shared their mistress’s faith. The black deacon Iosaf, standing outside the door, said to him: “Question Ksenia Ivanova; interrogate Anna Soboleva.” He did. Both women stood firm, confessed, showed the two-fingered sign, prayed, and placed their hope in the Son of God. They were set apart on one side. All the rest, terrified, bowed to the new way and were placed on the left.

Then the archimandrite said to the boyarynya: “Since you refused to live in submission and hardened yourself in rebellion, the Tsar’s decree has overtaken you: you are to be driven from your house. Enough living in high places—come down! Rise and leave this place!” The blessed woman refused even this. He ordered the servants to carry her out. They brought an armchair, sat her in it by Joachim’s command, and carried her downstairs. Her son, the pious Ivan Glebovich, accompanied her as far as the middle porch, bowed to her from behind (she did not see him), then turned back.

They put horse-irons on the feet of Feodora and Evdokia, locked them in the servants’ quarters in the cellar, posted guards with strict orders to watch them, and left.

Two days later the duma secretary Hilarion returned, removed the irons from their feet, and ordered them to go wherever they were told. Blessed Feodora refused to walk; she commanded her servants to carry her. They spread out cloth, sat her on it, and carried her by Hilarion’s order all the way to Chudov Monastery; Princess Evdokia was led alongside.

They brought Feodora into one of the patriarchal chambers. As usual she bowed to the icon of God, but gave the authorities only a slight and reluctant bow. Present were Paul, Metropolitan of Krutitsa, Archimandrite Joachim of Chudov again, the duma secretary, and others. Blessed Feodora refused to stand while speaking with them; she answered sitting down. They pressed her hard to stand; she would not.

Then Metropolitan Paul began speaking softly, reminding her of her rank and lineage: “This is what those elders and nuns did to you—they bewitched you with their sweet talk, you spent time with them, listened to their teaching, and they brought you to this dishonor: your noble self dragged before a tribunal.” Then with many gentle words they tried to soothe her and persuade her to submit to the Tsar. They kept bringing up her son’s beauty, begging her to have pity on him and not let her defiance destroy his house.

Against every argument she gave wise answers. “I was not bewitched by elders and nuns, as you claim,” she said. “I learned the true path of Christ and piety from genuine servants of God. Stop talking to me about my son. I have promised myself to Christ my Light; I will not break that promise until my last breath. I live for Christ, not for my son.”

Seeing her unyielding courage and unable to silence her, they decided at least to frighten her. They put one final question bluntly: “Since you stubbornly resist our words, we ask you plainly and briefly: will you receive communion from the service-books by which the Tsar himself takes communion, and the pious Tsaritsa, the princes, and the princesses?” With a man’s heart she answered: “I will not receive!” “I know the Tsar communes from Nikon’s corrupted service-books; that is why I refuse!”

The metropolitan pressed further: “Then what do you think of all of us—are we all heretics?” She replied again: “Since that enemy of God Nikon vomited out his heresies like filth, and you now lick up his defilement, it is clear you are just like him.”

Then Paul of Krutitsa shouted loudly: “What are we to do? She calls every one of us a heretic!” Joachim shouted too: “Why, Archbishop Paul, did you ever call her a mother, and a righteous one at that? She is no such thing! She is no longer Prokopiy’s daughter; she deserves to be called the devil’s daughter!”

The blessed woman answered Joachim: “I curse the devil by the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ. Though unworthy, I am His daughter.” The dispute with them lasted from the second hour of the night until the tenth.

Then they brought in the pious princess and questioned her. She showed the same courage in everything.

Again they ordered Feodora carried on the cloth back to her house and placed in the same cellar where they had sat for two days, together with the princess once more. The irons were put back on their feet. Then blessed Feodora said to the princess: “If they separate us and send us into exile, I beg you—remember poor Feodora in your prayers.” Holy Evdokia was astonished; they had always been together and she had never heard such a thing.

The next morning, after their interrogation by the authorities, the duma secretary came. Chains with wooden stocks were brought in. The irons were removed from their feet and the chains fastened around their necks. Blessed Feodora crossed her face, kissed the collar of the chain, and said: “Glory to You, Lord, for making me worthy to put on Paul’s fetters!”

By the secretary’s order the servants lifted her onto a wood-sled and told a groom to drive. She sat down and placed the stock close beside her. As she was driven past Chudov under the Tsar’s covered walkway, great Feodora stretched out her right hand, clearly formed the two-fingered sign of the cross, raised it high, crossed herself repeatedly, and rattled her chain just as often. The saint believed the Tsar was watching her victory from the walkway, so she showed not only that she was not ashamed of their mockery but that she greatly rejoiced in Christ’s love and exulted in her bonds.

Princess Evdokia was likewise loaded with iron chains and taken to the Alexeevsky Convent, where she was ordered kept under strict guard and brought to church. Yet she displayed such courage that the whole royal city marveled at her bravery and how valiantly she resisted the tyrants’ will. Not only did she never walk to their services on her own feet, no matter how much they forced her; even when they dragged her on a mat (as they were ordered to do), she refused to lie on the mat by herself. Though perfectly healthy, at that moment she would make herself like a paralytic, unable to move hand or foot. When the nuns came to lift her, she sometimes made things difficult for them, even to the point of shamelessly slapping her holy, angelic face and saying: “Woe to us! What can we do with you? We ourselves saw you perfectly well and cheerfully talking with your friends just now, but the moment we arrive to call you to prayer you suddenly turn into a corpse and give us endless trouble, lying there like the dead and immovable.” The spotless lamb answered them: “Poor nuns, why do you exhaust yourselves for nothing? Did I force you to do this work? You are the ones running around in senseless frenzy. I weep even for you who are perishing—how could I ever think of going to your gathering? There you sing not to praise God but to blaspheme Him, your Savior, trampling His laws.” So they would lift the saint onto the mat like a dead body and drag her to the service.

Whenever the blessed woman caught sight of any of the faithful she knew standing in the monastery watching her ordeal, she would groan: “Alas, I am worn out—stop a moment!” The nuns would set the mat down. The great one would say: “Nuns! Why are you dragging me like this? Do I want to pray with you? Never! It is not right for us Christians to pray together with those who have abandoned Christ’s law. But let me tell you something: where your singing is heard, that is the proper place to go relieve oneself of excess belly-matter—that is how I regard your sacrifice.”

Feodora was taken to the metochion of the Pechersky Monastery and placed under heavy guard: two streltsy captains, relieving each other, watched her with ten soldiers.

Elena and the other sisters hid for fear; for a whole week they could learn nothing about holy Feodora, and they grieved deeply, weeping like babies torn from their mother. But on November 27, the feast of the Sign of the Most Holy God-bearer, Elena found her by God’s wonderful favor. Great Feodora had come out onto the back porch (the place used for necessary relief), and Elena happened to be walking along that street. By God’s guidance they recognized each other; the spot on the street served the same bodily need for passers-by. Elena drew near and spoke with Feodora, who stood above on the porch.

The blessed woman said: “O my beloved Elena! Nothing in these days has grieved me like being separated from you—not exile from my house, not the Tsar’s anger, not interrogation by the authorities, not chains, not guards. All these are dear to me for Christ’s sake; but it weighs heavily on me that for more than a week I have known nothing about you. For the Lord’s sake, do not abandon me, do not leave Moscow—stay here, do not be afraid! I trust in Christ: He will cover you. I do not sorrow this much even for blood relatives; I weep for you without ceasing. Through Christ who strengthens me all things are possible, but this one thing I cannot bear to the end.”

Maria, the third companion in their struggle, tried to flee while the Tsar’s wrath burned against blessed Feodora. Someone informed on her; a posse was sent, she was seized in the Podonsk region, brought back to Moscow, interrogated in the same way, and followed the example of the blessed sisters Feodora and Evdokia in everything. She fiercely resisted, publicly praised the ancient piety before everyone, and utterly rejected the new doctrines. They imprisoned her in chains under the Streltsy Office.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Ryazan often came to Feodora. She argued with him so courageously that he was repeatedly put to shame and left speechless.

Seeing herself loaded with heavy irons and tormented by the discomfort of the wooden stock, Feodora rejoiced. Yet one thing grieved her, and she wrote in her own hand to her spiritual mother Melania: “Alas, my mother! I have done no monastic deed at all! How can I now make full prostrations? Woe to me, a sinner! The day of death draws near, and I, wretched, remain in sloth! You, my joy, instead of earthly prostrations bless me to bear Paul’s chains for Christ’s sake and endure reproach. And if you will, bless me to abstain from beef fat, milk, cheese, and eggs, so that my monastic life may not be idle and the day of death not snatch me unprepared. Only command me to eat fasting oil.” The mother gave her blessing for suffering: “Stand bravely, you who suffer for the Lord’s name; may the Lord bless you to carry His chains. Go like a candle from us to God as an offering. As for food—eat whatever is provided.”

For many days after Feodora’s arrest the Tsar sat with his boyars plotting what to do with her for her fearless denunciations. He summoned her brother Feodor, interrogated him harshly about many things, and demanded: “Tell me—where is Melania? You know all your sister’s secrets!” He pressed Feodor with fierce anger.

He ordered Ivan Glebovich kept under guard. The boy fell ill from overwhelming grief. The Tsar sent his own physicians; they “cured” him so well that in a few days they sent him to his grave. When Ivan died, a Nikonians priest was sent to tell Feodora of her son’s death. The malicious man insulted the saint, quoting Psalm 108 about Judas and applying the godless, mitreless cleric’s words to the blessed woman: because she had turned from their faith, God’s punishment had come upon her—her house would be desolate and none would live in it. But the wise woman paid no attention to their madness. When she saw her beloved son dead, she was deeply wounded. She fell to the ground before the icon of God and wept with tender voice, sobbing: “Alas, my child—they have destroyed you, those apostates!” For many hours she did not rise from the floor, pouring out dirges over her son until others who heard her wept from pity.

The Tsar rejoiced at Ivan’s death, thinking he could now torment the mother more freely without her son. Not content with that, he sent her two brothers—Feodor to Chuguev, Alexei to Rybnoe—supposedly as military governors, but really into exile. Feodor grew so rich in his post that he spent a thousand of his own rubles. The Tsar did all this out of great malice toward the blessed woman, hoping no helping hand from anywhere would ever reach them in their great afflictions. Yet God was with them.

After Ivan’s death all the property was scattered: estates, herds, horses given away to boyars; every valuable thing—gold, silver, pearls, precious stones—was ordered sold. While demolishing the palace they found a huge amount of gold bricked into the wall. One of Feodora’s servants, Ivan, by his mistress’s command hid some precious items with a man thought to be trustworthy. Through the wife’s instigation he was betrayed, cruelly tortured—burned with fire and questioned by six men—and endured everything bravely. Like a good and faithful servant he sincerely followed his mistress’s example and was finally burned in Borovsk together with the other martyrs.

Later, as if the Tsar had softened, he allowed Feodora two of her maidservants to serve her in her chains. Anna Ammosova and Stefanida (called Gneva) ran to her with great joy and waited on her. Though righteous Princess Evdokia did not draw a servant by lot, God raised up a nobler one than any slave—the daughter of a lord—to serve her lady: the maiden Akilina, a boyar’s daughter, constantly came and went, serving her. Later Akilina herself took the veil and was named Anisia.

Maria, sitting there, suffered worse than either of the sisters. The shameless soldiers constantly tormented her with their crude behavior. Nikonians priests kept coming to her, troubling her spirit and cursing her as a schismatic. Once a priest and a deacon came in like devil paired with devil and forced her to cross herself with three fingers. She refused. They lost all shame, lunged at her like dogs, seized her fingers, and tried to twist them into the pinch. She pulled away in disgust and cried: “This is not the sign of the cross—it is the seal of Antichrist!” They shot back: “No! Those two fingers you use to make your cross are what mothers use to scrape filth off babies when they soil themselves.” That is how the godless knew how to curse!

So the three of them sat in separate places, enduring for the name of the Lord.

That same year God granted great Feodora, though in chains and under heavy guard, to receive communion from the hand of the holy father Job of Lgov (mentioned earlier). It happened miraculously. One of the captains on duty was very kind to her. The saint begged him: “When I still lived in my house, a certain elderly priest served in one of our villages; we were good to him. Now I hear he is here. I feel sorry for him because of his age. If you have any mercy for my lowliness, let me call him.” He allowed it. The holy elder came to the holy martyr like Barlaam to Josaphat, to give her the priceless pearl in the guise of a poor man. As he passed through the entryway, the captain himself stood up and bowed to him. After giving the martyr the Body and Blood of Christ, the elder left. The blessed old man was so moved at the sight of the great lady’s immense suffering that afterward he could never speak of her without tears.

Another wonder occurred. The two blood sisters—great Feodora and faithful Evdokia—longed to see each other face to face in this life and talk. They prayed to almighty God to comfort them. Finally Evdokia said to the noblewoman in whose cell she was kept: “Lady, you know the ache of leaving little children. I abandoned mine for Christ’s sake! If I have found favor with you, let me go home just long enough to kiss them and comfort them—and be comforted myself—and I will return before evening. No one will ever know except you and me. It can happen if you will only take pity on me. It is already midday; the abbess is visiting guests, the nuns have scattered, few people are about the monastery. If I cover myself with a veil I will pass unnoticed.” That lady, beyond all human expectation, let the martyr-princess go, asking her to leave the icon of the Most Holy God-bearer: “I know how you love the image of our Lady. Leave it here and go in peace; I am sure the Helper will bring you back.”

The blessed woman set out. On the way the devil stirred up some evil men who said to each other: “Grab her—she’s an escapee!” She boldly answered them back. On the road she met Elena, and together they reached the Pechersky metochion. The gatekeeper told Feodora of their arrival. The blessed woman sent her maid Anna away and Princess Evdokia went up instead; she passed the guard on the porch—he thought it was still Anna. The martyr and the confessor talked with great love.

The devil grew jealous, raised a storm, and the matter was discovered. All ten soldiers started a riot. Feodora begged the captain; he quieted the soldiers, and the uproar died down. For the martyrs it turned out for the better: the captain ordered the visitor to spend the night. “I will let her go secretly at night,” he said. The saints spent the whole night rejoicing in conversation. At dawn Evdokia left; Elena escorted her. She returned to the monastery and everything stayed hidden and calm. Elena stayed with them, serving, providing what they needed—food, clothing—sometimes carrying it herself, sometimes sending others.

Mikhail Alekseevich came to Evdokia more than once. Standing at the window he said with tears: “Your suffering amazes me, but one thing troubles me—I do not know whether you suffer for the truth.”

Crowds of noblewomen came to watch, and common people ran to see the princess dragged on the mat. The great ladies especially marveled with deep affection and grieved as if for a relative. When the abbess saw this she was torn two ways: pity bent her heart at the princess’s suffering and her high rank, yet she was also disturbed that the dragging only brought her more glory—crowds gathered to witness her patience. With these thoughts she went to Patriarch Pitirim (who was then in office) and told him everything: what was happening in their monastery, who the princess was, and why she was there—he had not known, for they had been imprisoned before his appointment. As he questioned the abbess more closely, it was natural for her to mention Feodora too. Finally the patriarch said: “Go. I will speak to the Tsar about this.”

He hurried to the Tsar and reminded him of great Feodora and the blessed princess. “I advise you, Sovereign,” he said, “to give the boyarynya-widow Morozova her house back and grant her a hundred peasant households for her support; give the princess back to her prince too. That would be more fitting. It is women’s business—how much do they really understand?”

The Tsar answered: “Most holy lord, I would have done it long ago, but you do not know that woman’s ferocity. How can I even tell you how she has mocked me—and still mocks me! No one has ever done me such evil as she has. She has caused me endless trouble and great inconvenience. If you do not believe my words, test it yourself: summon her, question her, and you will learn her stubbornness. When you start interrogating her you will taste her sharpness. Then do whatever your holiness commands—I will not disobey a single word.”

At the second hour of the night they took Feodora in her chains, put her on a wood-sled, and ordered the captain to go with her. They brought her to Chudov and led her into the Patriarchal Chamber. Patriarch Pitirim was there, Metropolitan Paul, other authorities, and many city officials. The great woman stood before the assembly wearing iron chains around her neck. First the patriarch said: “I am amazed that you have come to love this chain so much you will not part with it.” The saint, her face radiant and her heart rejoicing, answered: “Truly I love it—not just love it, I have not yet had my fill of gazing at these longed-for chains! How could I not love them? Though I am such a sinner, by God’s grace I have been found worthy to see and bear Paul’s chains on my body—and for love of God’s only-begotten Son!”

The patriarch: “How long will you stay in this madness? Stop clinging to that devilish behavior! How long will you refuse to pity yourself and keep troubling the Tsar’s soul with your defiance? Abandon all these absurd ideas and follow my counsel, which I offer out of mercy and pity: join the cathedral Church and the Russian assembly—confess and receive communion.” The blessed woman answered: “There is no one to confess to, no one to commune me.” The patriarch again: “There are plenty of priests in Moscow!” The saint: “Plenty of priests, but not one true one.” The patriarch once more: “Because I care deeply for you, I myself will take the trouble in my old age to hear your confession and serve—I will commune you myself.” The wise woman replied: “What do you mean ‘myself’? I do not understand! Are you any different from them? Do you not do their will? When you were Metropolitan of Krutitsa and kept the Christian customs handed down by the fathers of our Russian land, when you wore the old-shaped kuluk—then we loved you a little. But now you have chosen to do the will of an earthly tsar and despised the Heavenly King and your Creator; you have put the horned klobuk of the Roman pope on your head. That is why we turn away. So stop comforting me with ‘I myself’—I have no need of your service.”

Then the patriarch said to his bishops: “Vest me now in the sacred robes so I may anoint her forehead with holy oil—perhaps she will come to her senses; as we see, she has lost her mind.”

They vested him, brought the oil, and he took the brush dipped in it and started toward the saint. Until then she had never stood on her own feet; the captain and another man had held her up, and she had spoken leaning on their arms. But when she saw him coming, she stood on her own feet and readied herself like a wrestler. Metropolitan Paul of Krutitsa stretched out one hand to steady the patriarch and with the other tried to lift the fur hat from the blessed woman’s head so the patriarch could anoint her easily. The great woman pushed his hand away and said: “Get back!” She shoved both his hand and the brush: “How dare you presume to touch our face so clumsily? You should know our rank!”

The patriarch dipped the brush again and stretched out his hand to sign her forehead. The most blessed woman, like a brave warrior fully armed against the adversary, thrust out her own hand, knocked his aside together with the brush, and cried: “Do not destroy me, a sinner, with your apostate oil!” Rattling her chains she continued: “Why have I, a sinner, worn these chains a whole year? Precisely because I refuse to join your worthless faith. Yet with one moment you want to ruin all my unworthy labor! Back off—away! I will never need your holiness!”

Hearing this, the patriarch could not bear the great shame. He flew into a rage and from bitter grief roared: “O offspring of vipers! Devil’s daughter, troublemaker!” He turned back from her growling like a bear, shouting: “Throw her down, drag her without mercy! Drag her out by the chain around her neck like a dog! She is the devil’s daughter, a troublemaker—no more life for her! Tomorrow the troublemaker goes to the stake!”

The blessed woman answered quietly: “I am a sinner, yet not the devil’s daughter. Do not curse me with that name, Patriarch. By the grace of my Savior God I am Christ’s daughter, not the devil’s. Do not curse me with that, Patriarch!”

By the patriarch’s command they hurled her to the floor so hard she thought her skull would split. They dragged her across the chamber so brutally that she expected the iron collar to tear her neck in two and rip her head from her shoulders. As they hauled her down the stairs she counted every step with her head. They brought her back to the Pechersky metochion on the same sled at the ninth hour of the night.

That same night, at the same hour, the patriarch had Princess Evdokia and Maria brought before him, thinking perhaps one of them would yield. It did not happen. Strengthened by God’s grace they testified boldly and showed themselves ready to die for the Lord’s name rather than fall from His love. The patriarch tried to anoint the faithful princess as well. But the most holy sufferer did something even more astonishing. Just as the Samaritan woman Photini under Emperor Nero once tore the skin from her own head with her hands and threw it in the tyrant’s face, so our thrice-valiant fighter, when she saw the patriarch coming with the oily brush to anoint her, instantly snatched off her head-covering, bared her hair, and shouted: “Shameless madmen! What are you doing? Do you not know I am a woman?” They were covered with double shame and stood helpless; thus the saint escaped their anointing. When the questioning ended they were taken back to their places.

Unable to endure his humiliation, the patriarch told the Tsar everything, complaining especially about great Feodora. The Tsar answered: “Did I not tell you beforehand how fierce that woman is? I have experienced it and know her hardness. You saw her behavior only once; I have endured it for years and do not know what to do with her.” Speaking thus they agreed together to torture them, and if they still did not submit, to decide afterward what they deserved.

Again the next night, at the second hour, all three martyrs were taken to the Yam Coach Yard. A huge crowd had been gathered there. They put the martyrs in a hut so packed with people there was hardly room to move. The saints sat in dark corners among the throng, each thinking she was alone. They did not expect torture; they hoped after one last interrogation they would be sent into exile somewhere. Later Feodora realized they had been brought not for exile but for torment. She learned the other two martyrs were there too. Unable to speak with them or encourage them, she rattled her chains and said in her mind: “My beloved fellow-sufferers, I am here with you! Endure, my lights, like men, and pray for me!” She reached out through the press of bodies, grasped Princess Evdokia’s hand, squeezed it hard, and said: “Endure, my mother, endure!”

Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, Prince Yakov Odoevsky, and Vasily Volynsky were appointed to oversee the tortures.

Maria was led to the fire first. Stripped to the waist, hands tied behind her back, she was hoisted on the rack, then thrown to the ground when taken down.

Then they led the princess to the fire. The tormentors saw the colored cover on her hat and said: “Why do you do this—you are in the Tsar’s disgrace yet wear bright colors!” She answered: “I have not sinned against the Tsar.” They tore off the cover and threw her a plain one. Stripped to the waist like the first, hands tied behind, she was hoisted on the rack and thrown down beside Maria.

Last they brought great Feodora to the fire. Prince Vorotynsky spoke many words to her: “Look what you have done! From glory you have come to disgrace! Who are you, from what family! This happened to you because you received into your house the fools for Christ Kipriyan and Feodor and others like them, followed their teaching, and angered the Tsar.” The valiant woman answered: “Our great nobility of the flesh and human glory on earth are nothing. All you mentioned is worthless because it is perishable and passing. Stop your speeches and listen to what I will say. Think about Christ—who He is, whose Son, what He did! If you are puzzled, I will tell you: He is our Lord, Son of God and God Himself. For our salvation He left heaven, took flesh, lived in complete poverty, and finally was crucified by the Jews—just as we are now tortured by you all. Is this not astonishing? Our suffering is nothing.”

Seeing her boldness, the authorities ordered her seized. They tied the sleeves of her shirt around her breasts, bound her hands behind her back, and hung her on the rack. Even there the victorious woman did not stay silent but rebuked their wicked apostasy. For this they kept her on the rack a long time—half an hour—until the straps cut her wrists to the bone. When they took her down they laid her as the third beside the other two. Thus inhumanly mocking them, they left them lying naked-backed on the snow with arms wrenched backward. They lay there three hours.

They tried other torments: placed a frozen block on their chests, brought them close to the fire as if to burn them—but did not burn them. When all their tricks were finished and the martyrs stood up, they covered the bodies of two; the third, Maria, was laid at the feet of Feodora and Evdokia and beaten mercilessly with five whips in two rounds—first across the back, then across the belly. The duma secretary Hilarion said to the other two martyrs: “If you do not submit, the same will happen to you!” Feodora, seeing the inhumanity, the many wounds on holy Maria, and the flowing blood, wept and said to Hilarion: “Is this Christianity—to torture a human being like this?” Afterward they were taken back to their places at the tenth hour of the night.

The next morning the Tsar held council to decide their fate. A stake had been set up on the Boloto. The patriarch strongly urged Feodora’s burning, but the boyars would not agree; Dolgoruky cut the matter short with few words but great effect. For three days Feodora ate no bread and drank no water, trying to die.

Mother Melania had stood at the stake on the Boloto and, returning that same day to holy Feodora, kissed the wounds on her hands and said: “Your house is already prepared for you—very fine and orderly, lined with whole sheaves of straw! You are about to depart to your longed-for Christ, leaving us orphans behind!”

Feodora lovingly received her mother’s blessing to set out on the eternal path. They embraced and kissed; the mother went weeping to Evdokia and brought her the same glad tidings. Standing at the window, gazing at the princess and bathed in tears, she said: “You are our beloved guests. Today or tomorrow you go to the Master. Walk this path without any doubt! When you stand before the throne of the Almighty, do not forget us in our sorrows!”

Everyone expected this to happen, but God willed otherwise: He desired the martyrs to suffer yet longer.

After the beating stopped, Maria passed a towel along her back; it came away soaked with blood, and she sent it to her spiritual father Ioakinf. On the third day great scabs fell from her back like scales. The tormentors demanded them; out of humility she did not want to give them, but finally, forced, she handed them over along with the rest.

Three days after the torture the Tsar sent a streltsy captain to Feodora with these words: “Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna! You are a second martyr Catherine. I myself beg you—follow my advice. I want to raise you back to your former honor. For the sake of appearances before the people, so it does not seem I seized you for nothing, do not cross yourself with three fingers, but simply raise your hand and pass it over those three fingers! Righteous mother Feodosiya Prokopievna, second Catherine! Obey—I will send my royal carriage for you with my own argamaks; many boyars will come and carry you on their heads. Obey, righteous mother—I, the Tsar, bow my head to you—do this!”

Hearing and seeing this, Feodora said to the messenger: “What are you doing, man? Why do you bow to me so much? Stop—listen to what I will say. That the sovereign speaks such words about me is far above my worth. I am a sinner and unworthy of the rank of the great martyr Catherine. As for merely passing my hand over the three-fingered sign—no, may the Son of God preserve me from ever even thinking such a thing about the seal of Antichrist! Know this clearly: by Christ’s help I will never do it! Even if I refuse and he orders me carried home in honor on the boyars’ heads, I will cry out that I cross myself according to the ancient tradition of the holy fathers! As for honoring me with his carriage and argamaks—truly, that means nothing to me. I have ridden in carriages and coaches, on argamaks and Turkomans; all that has passed away. This I count as great—truly wondrous—if God grants me to be burned with fire for His name in the stake you have prepared for me on the Boloto. That is glorious to me, for I have never tasted such honor and I long to receive such a gift from Christ.” Having spoken thus, the saint fell silent, and the captain said no more.

Soon afterward God’s judgment overtook Patriarch Pitirim; he perished by a cruel death.

The Tsar ordered Feodora moved from the Pechersky metochion to the Novodevichy Convent so that no one could bring her anything there. He commanded her kept under strict guard and dragged to services. Yet she showed great courage and rejected all their orders to the end.

God glorified His servant: so many noblewomen came that the whole monastery was blocked with their carriages and coaches. They did not come to plead but to behold her holy, angelic face and witness her steadfast endurance. Her loved ones and those who supplied her needs visited her there too, covered by God, just as they had at the Pechersky metochion, and comforted her suffering heart.

Unable to bear seeing crowds of nobles come to marvel at her suffering, the Tsar ordered her brought back to Moscow, to the Khamovniki quarter. In her old age she was taken to a courtyard; she rejoiced greatly. Her spiritual mother Melania came to visit her there, and Elena, servant of her chains. They rejoiced together with many tears.

Then the Tsar’s elder sister Irina said to him: “Brother, why do you act improperly and drag that poor widow from place to place? It is not good, brother! You should remember the service of Boris and his brother Gleb.” He roared with great anger and answered: “Very well, dear sister, very well! Since you chirp so much about her, I have a place ready for her at once!”

Immediately he sent her to Borovsk, to cruel imprisonment in the stockade built there and its earthen dungeon. Feodora entered the prison rejoicing and found a nun named Iustina already sitting there, confined for the same faith.

When the blessed princess heard that her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer had been taken far away, she wept bitterly like a child for its mother. The same with the passion-bearer Maria. But the all-seeing eye of God beheld their groaning and did not despise it; He desired to grant what they asked and join them inseparably to the great sufferer.

It happened thus: Tsar Alexis ordered the princess sent there too. As she drew near the prison, the doors were opened; she rejoiced greatly and began the prayer. When Feodora saw her beloved one, she seized both her hands and cried in a radiant voice: “All creation rejoices in you, O full of grace!”

A little later they brought Maria too, and their joy was complete.

Merciful God did not leave them without comfort even there, but consoled them like nestlings. Ioakinf, before the captains were sent to Borovsk, took them into his house in Moscow and fed them so they would not be savage. In Borovsk he sent his nephew Irodion, who visited the prison many times, along with many others. Their spiritual mother Melania visited them there more than once, and Elena many times.

But the evil one envied this and stirred up the authorities. They sent an order to investigate who was visiting them and how they got in. A certain Borovsk citizen Pamfil was tortured; they questioned Irodion. He endured great torment but betrayed no one. At that moment Irodion was hiding under the floor in Pamfil’s house. Since he did not confess, they let him go home. Lying there with blood flowing from his wounds, he said to his wife: “Agripina, now it is safe and free—quickly carry a basket of baked onions by daylight.” Later Pamfil and his wife were exiled to Smolensk, where they still suffer to this day.

While they sat in prison they often begged their spiritual mother Melania to visit them, but it was impossible. Then Feodora somehow learned that their departure was near, so she wrote in her own hand: “Take pity—visit us one last time,” and so it happened. She asked her to bring her elder brother too. God sped them on their way, for we heard that in those very days the Tsar planned to send someone to interrogate them strictly and, if they did not submit, to carry out the sentence. But God preserved us.

On Sunday, at the third hour of the night, we reached the prison. Our joy together with them was beyond words. Great Feodora—I do not know what to call her—named her prison a most radiant dungeon and called her spiritual mother Melania equal-to-the-apostles and an apostle of the Lord. “Why, my light,” she said, “have you left us, your fledglings, unvisited for so long? Without your guidance we cannot order our lives rightly.” They kissed both her hands again and again. Maria, the third with them, did the same. We talked the whole night. It was January 11. At dawn Irodion and I left. Mother Melania and Elena, at the martyrs’ pleading and out of their great love, dared to stay the whole day with them and were fully comforted.

After us, as I said, the next evening the captain still had not come to take us. We grieved, our souls torn in two.

But the Lord had mercy; we came to the prison again at midnight. The mother wanted to leave quickly. While all stood together, the mother instructed and admonished them. I do not fully know the reason for her admonition, but I relate what I heard. The teacher said: “I know my unworthiness, but since you yourselves press me hard and lay a heavy burden on my neck to show you God’s path—lest I forget—now, seeing your patience, I fear even to draw near you, lest fire come forth from you and burn me in my feebleness. Yet since you have bound me with the love of our Lord, listen to my unworthy words: strive to amend yourselves. I see that you are bound with the chains of demonic warfare; if you do not free yourselves from those chains, even these iron chains you wear for Christ will not help you.”

As the mother spoke these words to them, Feodora held her left hand with her right, and Evdokia her right hand. When blessed Feodora heard such words from her mother, fountains of tears poured down that holy face, and she never stopped kissing her mother’s hand with love. Whenever the mother paused, the most holy one, weeping, would say: “Did I not tell you before, my joy, that without your shepherding we can do no good at all? That is how we all are, lady—without you we follow our own will. Look what you saw in this short hour! Woe to us! We strayed from your guidance and lost the gift of obedience! From where did the Lord give you to us? You are Christ’s apostle to us! O our light! Do not leave us without guidance!”

Seeing and hearing this, I was utterly amazed at the understanding, endurance, and love of blessed Feodora—how, when lovingly corrected, she humbled herself though guilty of nothing.

When that winter had passed, the devil kind a great storm, raging with malice against the martyrs because he was defeated by their patience. It happened thus.

During Thomas week a Moscow clerk named Pavel suddenly burst into the prison with great ferocity. He seized all their necessities and even the scanty food—everything. He took whatever spare clothing they had, leaving them only the shirts on their backs. Not content with that, he took their little books and, in the ultimate satanic wickedness, even the holy icons the martyrs kept—small painted panels. Those foul vessels feared nothing and, worse than the Persian idolaters, stripped them of everything. Feodora had an icon of the most pure God-bearer, the wonder-working Hodegetria. When they carried it out of the prison, tearing it from her hands, she cried aloud with a mighty voice and wept bitterly over the icon. Blessed Evdokia comforted her: “Do not weep—the Helper has not only not abandoned us; Christ Himself is with us and will be!”

There was great uproar among the soldiers; the captains were interrogated about who brought them supplies and who let visitors in. Some confessed they had brought things themselves and allowed others to enter. The captains suffered terrible punishment. The captain under whom we had visited, Alexandr Sezonov son of Medvedevsky, was judged guiltier than the rest; he was flogged, reduced to common soldier, and exiled to Belgorod.

On St. Peter’s day the clerk Kuzmishchev was sent to Borovsk to investigate and interrogated the holy martyrs about visitors and supplies. He burned the venerable martyr Iustina in a log hut because she refused to cross herself with three fingers.

For the sake of those who remained they demolished the prison and made a worse one—dug very deep into the ground—and placed there the two blessed sisters, wise Feodora and glorious Evdokia. Maria they put in the jail where thieves were kept. They were forbidden food or drink. Anyone who dared to give them anything against the order, if later discovered, was to be executed.

The time that followed was utterly cruel. Everyone was now terrified to let anyone in or to offer the slightest comfort themselves.

Who can recount the fullness of their endurance in that deep dungeon—tormented by hunger in impenetrable darkness, choking from the foul air, for the earth’s vapors gathered and caused them great nausea? They could neither change nor wash their shirts. They constantly wore even their thin outer garments for warmth, and from this came countless lice—beyond telling. It was like an unceasing worm: by day it gnawed, by night it gave no sleep.

Yet though the earthly tsar strictly forbade giving them any food at all, the Heavenly King commanded that food be given to the teacher of wisdom—very little and poor: sometimes five or six crusts of bread, but then no water to drink; when water was given, do not ask for food. Sometimes they received one or two apples, sometimes nothing, sometimes a small piece of cucumber. This was done by soldiers who happened to be there and were kind-hearted; seeing the immense suffering of such great people, their hearts melted and, moved to tears, they showed a little mercy—lowering it secretly on a rope so their comrades would not know.

In such extreme need holy Evdokia endured patiently, thanking God, for two and a half months, and departed on September 11. Her passing was tearful. When she grew too weak from great hunger to stand for prayer, to bear her chains, or to move the stool, she lay down and sometimes prayed sitting, moving only her lips. They had no ladder—that is, no prayer rope—for the tormentors had taken that too. The martyrs tied fifty knots in rags and, like climbing the ladder to heaven, took turns sending prayers to God by those knots. When Evdokia saw she was clearly failing, she said to great Feodora: “Lady mother and sister! I am spent and think death is near. Release me to my Master, for whose love I embraced this hardship. I beg you, lady—according to Christian law, that we not remain outside church tradition—sing the departure canon for me. Say what you know, lady, and what I know I will say myself.” Thus both served the departure service. Martyr sang over martyr in the dark dungeon; prisoner wept over prisoner—one lying in chains and groaning, the other standing in chains and sobbing. So the faithful princess Evdokia gave her spirit into the Lord’s hands on September 11.

Feodora called one of the soldiers and ordered him to inform the city commander. He commanded the soldier to go into the prison and pull out her body. The soldier came. Feodora herself bound the body of her beloved sister and fellow-sufferer Evdokia with three threads in the name of the one-essence Trinity and tied it with a rope. When the soldier went out holding the end of the rope, Feodora helped him. The holy preacher poured warm tears upon the holy body of her sister confessor, saying softly: “Go, most beloved flower, and stand before your fair and longed-for Bridegroom Christ!” Having said this, she handed the body to the soldiers; they pulled it out and laid it simply on the ground, uncovered and unburied.

The commander sent a report to Moscow for instructions. The Tsar ordered the body taken outside and buried in the forest. But the duma secretary Hilarion said: “If that happens, the kapitonys and schismatics will find it, take it with great honor as a holy martyr’s relics, begin saying many miracles occur, and the last trouble will be worse than the first.” The Tsar agreed. He ordered the body kept under guard as if still alive and buried inside the stockade. They wrapped it in matting and did so. This was wondrous: until the order came from Moscow the holy body lay five days on the bare ground inside the stockade, yet not only did it not darken—it grew brighter and whiter every day. The soldiers who saw it marveled greatly and said: “Truly these are holy sufferers! This body shows no trace of death’s appearance; rather, as if alive and rejoicing, it blooms and grows more radiant before our eyes.” And they glorified God.

After the martyr Evdokia’s death, the Tsar imagined that great Feodora, worn down by terrible hunger, might soften a little, show some small yielding, and offer even slight submission. With this in mind he sent an elder monk of the Nikonians to persuade her.

The monk came to her prison and began the prayer, omitting the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He went on like this for a long time; there was no voice, no response. At last he pronounced the name of our Lord Jesus Christ as Son of God, and instantly the blessed woman answered: “Amen.” He entered the prison and said: “Why did you not say ‘Amen’ earlier while I stood outside praying so long?” The blessed woman replied: “When I heard a hostile voice I kept silent; when I sensed it was not hostile I answered.”

The monk spoke to her as he had been commanded, urging her to submit at least a little. But the valiant diamond, hearing such words, shook her head, sighed deeply, and said like a man: “Oh, what profound ignorance, what great darkness! How long will you be blinded by malice? How long will you refuse to rise to the light of piety? Do you not understand this? Even when I lived in my house in complete comfort, I did not want to join your falsehood and impiety. Clinging firmly to Orthodoxy, I spared neither property nor fear of suffering for the Lord’s name. Again, at the beginning of my struggle, when they bound me with these chains for Christ’s sake and showed me every torment, I turned away. And now, after I have tasted abundantly the sweet labors for the sweetest Jesus, do they think to separate me from my good and beautiful Master? For four years I have worn these irons, rejoicing greatly, never ceasing to kiss this chain in memory of Paul’s bonds—especially now that I have sent ahead my beloved blood-sister, my companion and fellow-sufferer, to the Master, and soon, with God’s strong help, I myself most eagerly strive to go there. So put aside all hope of separating me from Christ and trouble me no more about it! I am ready to die for the Lord’s name.”

Hearing this, the elder was moved, wept, and said to the great one: “Most honored lady! Truly blessed is your work! For the Lord’s sake I beg you—hasten to crown the beginning with the end. If you finish bravely to the last, who can recount your praises? You will receive great and unspeakable honor from Christ God.” Having said this, the monk left.

After the repose of the holy martyr Evdokia, blessed Maria was brought to great Feodora, and the two endured together in the same struggle. Who can describe their inexpressible patience—what they suffered from hunger and thirst, from suffocating air, from lice!

Later the most blessed Feodora grew utterly weak. She called one of the soldiers and said: “Servant of Christ! Do you still have father and mother alive, or have they reposed? If they live, let us pray for them and for you; if they have died, let us commemorate them. Take pity, servant of Christ! I am utterly spent from hunger and crave bread. Have mercy—give me a little roll.” He answered: “No, lady, I am afraid.” The martyr said: “Then at least a piece of bread.” He replied: “I dare not.” Again the martyr: “Then just a few crusts.” He said: “I dare not.” Feodora continued: “If you dare not, then bring at least an apple or a cucumber.” He answered: “I dare not.” The blessed woman said: “Very well, child. Blessed be our God who has willed it so! Since, as you say, it is impossible, I beg you—do one last kindness: cover my poor body with matting and lay it inseparably beside my beloved sister and fellow-sufferer.”

Later, when she was completely spent, she called another soldier and said: “Servant of Christ! Did you have a mother? I know you were born of a woman; therefore I beg you—arm yourself with the fear of God. I am a woman and, pressed by great need, must wash my shirt. As you yourself see, I cannot go and serve myself—I am in chains and have no maid to help me. Run to the river and wash this shirt for me. The Lord is about to take me from this life, and it is not fitting for this body to lie in unclean clothing in the bosom of its mother earth.”

Saying this, she gave him her headscarf. Hiding it under his coat, he went and washed it in the river. While washing that small cloth with water, he washed his own face with tears, thinking of her former greatness and her present need—how she endured for Christ’s sake and would not join the impious, and therefore was dying. For everyone knew that if she had agreed to even a little communion with them, she would have been honored more than before. But she utterly refused; she chose to die ten thousand times rather than fall from the love of Christ.

After this the blessed and great Feodora reposed in peace in the deep dungeon, from the first to the second day of November, in the hour of the night, on the commemoration of the holy martyrs Akindynos and Pegasios.

At that time her mother Melania was in the wilderness and that night saw in a dream great Feodora clothed in the schema and a most wondrous kukol. Her face was radiant and joyful; she rejoiced in her kukol, looked around everywhere, passed her hands over her garments, marveled at the beauty of her robes, and ceaselessly kissed the image of the Savior that was near her, and also the crosses on the schema. She went on doing this for a long time until the mother awoke from the vision. Rising, she wondered greatly. We came and she told us. Later we learned this too: the night Feodora the venerable departed to the Lord in the Borovsk prison was the same night the mother saw the vision in the wilderness. And we glorified God.

After her holy repose, her holy and much-suffering body was wrapped in matting, as the blessed woman herself had commanded, and buried there in the stockade beside her blood-sister, the faithful martyr princess Evdokia. When Tsar Alexis learned of it, he ordered that no one—no boyar or anyone else—be told. For three weeks it was kept secret in the Upper Chambers, but afterward it became known everywhere.

Blessed Maria outlived Feodora by only one month and reposed to the Lord on the ___ day of December (the manuscript leaves a blank for the number). Thus the third ascended to the two to rejoice eternally in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom belong all glory, honor, worship, and majesty, with His beginningless Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

When the Lord was about to lead great Feodora and her companions on the path of witness, that year, as they fasted, Father Dosifei communed them in the upper room of Ivan’s house in blessed Feodora’s home. As they drew near to receive the most pure Body and Blood of Christ, all three were bathed in warm tears. The holy father saw a wondrous thing: suddenly the three—glorious Feodora, faithful princess Evdokia, and blessed Maria—had their faces illumined and became marvelous to behold, exactly like angels of God. They remained in such radiance until they had received communion. Later the elder secretly told some people: “This is no ordinary thing; I think this year they will suffer for Christ”—and so it came to pass.

Once Mother Melania fell gravely ill and was dying. Feodora, then at the Pechersky metochion, wept bitterly, unable to bear separation from her mother, and said: “Lord, do not make us orphans! Who will guide us to You and lead us unfailingly on Your path?”

One night the mother grew so weak that she no longer recognized the sisters standing by her and weeping bitterly. Her breath came rarely; the sisters fully expected her to die. Suddenly the mother came to herself and the next day was well. She told the sisters: “I did not expect to live when you were weeping over me that night. My spirit was gathering in my breast; I felt something living drawing from my whole body toward my heart, as if about to leave through my throat. It was terribly hard for me. My legs and arms felt dead; it was so hard I thought my heart would burst. I clearly understood that all the gathered spirit swelling in my breast was about to leave my body at once. Then suddenly I felt that surge of spirit retreat from my breast; like water it flowed through my whole body. I felt my hands and feet come alive; I grew easier, immediately opened my eyes, and saw you weeping.”

The mother sent Feodora a maternal blessing. The maiden Maria came and saw Feodora not only black-faced but with lips cracked apart. She quickly asked: “Is our mother better?” Maria answered: “By your prayers she is well. But tell me—why are you so grieved?” The blessed woman, tears still in her eyes, said: “O Maria! I wept inconsolably over my orphanhood and begged Christ to leave us our mother. Yet I also said to the Master that He should give her something better. I was torn both ways—asking for the better yet desiring with all my heart that she live longer with us, send us to Christ, and herself become a martyr. So I spent the whole night weeping. Now blessed be the Lord our God who has left us our guide to restrain our lack of self-control and comfort us in sorrows!”

Maria went and told the mother everything the blessed woman had said. Everyone understood in their hearts that just as God, because of the tears and pity of the fathers, commanded the soul of Abbot Kozma to return, so here, because of the weeping of His servant Feodora, He granted life to her spiritual mother Melania.

While blessed Maria sat in chains under guard, Feodora sent her this message: “Unless you place yourself under obedience to our mother, you cannot be saved. If you beg her and she takes pity and accepts you as her disciple, you will do all good things and be able to endure to the end.” As soon as Maria heard this, without any delay she begged the mother to come to her. The way was extremely difficult, yet because of her earnest pleading the mother could not refuse. When they met, Maria began to entreat her. The mother refused, saying she was unworthy. The blessed woman fell to the ground, wept bitterly, and never stopped kissing the mother’s hands with her lips and washing them with tears. “Why will you not have mercy on me as you did on those two blessed sisters? I know I am not worthy to be called your daughter like those great ladies—great boyarynya Feodora and faithful princess Evdokia Prokopievna, your excellent and beloved disciples. But count me not even to your little finger—count me to one of your fingernails, only call me yours so that I may be your disciple! For the Lord’s sake take pity—do not separate me from my beloved ones, from Feodora and Evdokia, my lights!” Though the mother strongly refused, she finally said: “You are Christ’s and mine.” Maria rejoiced greatly. Thus all three rivaled one another in obedience.

When the mother and Elena were in the prison that day, the mother told Iustina to leave the prison in her place and go free while she herself remained. Iustina went to ask her elder, who had been her husband by law when they lived in the world; he was confined in another prison in the same stockade. He confirmed her resolve to endure to the end and not lose her crown. “See,” he said, “how they love Christ and willingly accept chains and death for His sake. You have endured much—do not now destroy everything.” She obeyed, strengthened herself to endure unto death. Returning from that prison to the martyrs, while between the two prisons she cried aloud, lifted her voice, wept bitterly, and poured out many words in her sobbing as was her custom. Mother Melania and Elena listened to her weeping, and the martyrs with them; they marveled and glorified God.

Iustina had this habit of weeping: whenever sorrowful thoughts came upon her, she could neither restrain herself nor hide it but wept bitterly for all to hear.

This was the beginning of her lament: “O my light, most holy God-bearer, Queen of heaven! O my light, Helper and Protectress Hodegetria! I have neither kin nor tribe—you are my helper in all things, my kin, my tribe, my protectress, Hodegetria! O my light, Christ Son of God! When You come to judge all on the last day and render to each according to his deeds, I beg You, O Son of God—have mercy on me and make me worthy to stand at Your right hand and hear Your sweet voice saying to the righteous: ‘Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ Deliver me from that fearful and most cruel voice You will say to the sinners on Your left: ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ And do not say to me, O sweetest Jesus: ‘Depart from me, you cursed!’” When Iustina reached this word…

source

May 10. Presided over by I. I. Zykov.

Chairman. Honorable and devout assembly! In this session, the question of the mystery of Holy Communion will be discussed. Given the importance of the subject, I most humbly request that the public conduct itself as peacefully as possible and follow the discussion with all humility, silence, and meekness—not only outwardly, but also in the heart. I ask that there be no repetitions of the applause and whistling that occurred yesterday and the day before. The first speech belongs to the esteemed defenders and advocates of the Austrian priesthood. I now declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. According to the established program, today the precise question to be discussed is this: Will the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord remain in Christ’s Church until His second coming? If it is proven that the sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, then it is clear that no powers of hell, nor the Antichrist, can destroy what Christ established in His Church. Then it will also be clear that yesterday’s proofs by our interlocutor—that the Antichrist is already reigning—do not change this question. Even if we were to agree that the Antichrist is reigning, the priesthood and sacrifice must still exist.

So I proceed to the question at hand. Christ the Savior, before His sufferings, desired to partake of the Passover with His disciples for the last time. This Passover was prepared in one of the upper rooms in Jerusalem, where Christ Himself and the holy apostles were present. Judas was there too. When they

“were reclining at table,” as the Gospel says, “Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19–20).

Thus Christ took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying:

“This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you and for many.”

From these few words of Christ the Savior, it is clear that He instituted the mystery of Holy Communion at the Mystical Supper and commanded that it be done in remembrance of His saving Passion. Did Christ command everyone to do what He Himself did at the Mystical Supper? No. He commanded the apostles to do it—that is, to bless and break in the same way He did, as stated on page 358 of the Great Catechism:

“For if in the Old Covenant no one dared to perform the mystery without being consecrated, how much less should it be permitted among us. Therefore, the Lord at the Mystical Supper made His apostles priests.”

Thus, this sacrifice must be performed not by ordinary people, not by laity, but by specially appointed persons, as the Catechism says: “those who bear the priesthood upon themselves.” Was this established by Christ the Savior only temporarily? Perhaps it was instituted only until the coming of the last Antichrist; when the Antichrist comes, will he destroy all this in the Church? No, the answer to this is given by the holy Apostle Paul, whose mouth—according to one of the Paschal matins teachings—is “the mouth of Christ”:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,” writes the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (Reading 149).

What he received from the Lord, he passes on to them. What is it?

“That the Lord Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread” (1 Cor. 10:16, Matt. 26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’”

Thus I, says the apostle, received this from the Lord and pass it on to you:

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’”

All this Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of the Lord’s saving Passion, which He endured for the sins of the whole world. Then the Apostle Paul continues:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

Consequently, until Christ comes a second time to earth to judge the living and the dead, this eating and drinking must remain in Christ’s Church. On these words of the Apostle Paul, the great teacher of the universal Church, John Chrysostom—whose mouth, according to the same teaching, is the mouth of Paul and of Christ—testifies in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (p. 871) as follows:

“‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.’ Interpretation: Just as Christ said concerning the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with other things, is sufficient for us to show reverence—when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical—so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death.’ And this is that very Supper. Then, showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes.’”

We read the same in the Great Catechism, on page 384:

“These are the words of the Lord: ‘Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins. And drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. And do this in remembrance of Me.’ That is, offer and bring with thanksgiving, and consecrate with blessing. Concerning this, Paul writes to the Corinthians: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (Reading 145). Then Matthew in the 108th reading of his Gospel shows the same. Luke also says the same. All these things pertain to the performance of the sacrifice and this mystery. But these words are the most efficacious for that mystery: ‘This is My body, this is My blood.’ Concerning this, Saint John Chrysostom, in the third [book, that is, the second volume], on Judas’s betrayal, says thus: Just as that word which the Lord God spoke, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth, so this word of the Lord, spoken once, gives power to the sacrifice on all altars even to this day and until His coming.”

Just as God once commanded “be fruitful and multiply,” and this is always fulfilled by His command with no possibility of stopping the power of those words, so the Lord’s words about the sacrifice were spoken once, but the power of the sacrifice will remain on all altars even until His coming. If we were to admit that the Antichrist reigns and has destroyed everything in the Church, then the words of the Apostle Paul “till He comes”—that is, until the second coming—and the words of Saint John Chrysostom would be rendered empty; but even to think this is dreadful. In the Book of Cyril, on the reverse of page 78, it is written as follows:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

These are the words of Christ at the Mystical Supper. This, it says, is sufficient for our assurance, because it is strong and invincible. On the same page it is written that the sacrifice and the priesthood have equal power, equal significance, and equal promise. This is evident from the words in the Book of Cyril, on the same page:

“The priesthood and the sacrifice are one and the same; one cannot exist without the other.”

They are together, inseparable, and one cannot be without the other. For example, could someone decide to say that there is priesthood but no sacrifice, or that there is sacrifice but no priesthood? One cannot say this in either case; rather, priesthood and sacrifice are together. The same is testified in the Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 545:

“Therefore, if there was a daily sacrifice there [in the Old Testament], then in the new there is one far better and more honorable. For the holy Paul says: when the priesthood of the old law is changed, so is the law. And if the priesthood, then also the sacrifice. For these two go together; one cannot exist without the other.”

The same regarding the eternity of the sacrifice is said in the same Explanatory Apostle, on the reverse of page 544:

“But what the Lord Himself did and commanded His disciples and those after them to do until His coming. For if this sign of Melchizedek the priest after the Lord’s Supper had not been fulfilled, then it would have no place anywhere else. For the Prophet says God to the Jews: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering. For My name is great among the nations, says the Lord.’ That is, He no longer desires sacrifice from the hands of the Jews, and He names another sacrifice dear to Himself, written in three ways: it shall be among the nations, and in every place, and a pure sacrifice. And this is that sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world. And until the end of the age it will offer the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in remembrance of His death. And this prophecy is sufficient for assurance, since it is firm and unconquerable.”

From these clear testimonies, I believe it is understandable to everyone that Christ established priesthood and sacrifice in His Church until His second coming. This is also stated in the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, and that it remains until the end is proven by the words: “till He comes,” as said by the Apostle Paul.

In this discussion, we will not examine the question of priesthood: which priesthood is good, which priesthood might be good—we will not debate this, because the question is not about that. The main question is: Will priesthood and sacrifice remain in Christ’s Church until Christ’s second coming? If it pleases our interlocutors to consider our priesthood unlawful, our sacrifice unlawful, we are not speaking about that in this discussion, but about something else—about the Lord’s sacrifice established in His Church. If such a sacrifice is acceptable among the Old Believer Pomortsy, then on the basis of what I have read, they must acknowledge that it will exist until the second coming, and then the question will be: where is this true sacrifice? But since they deny this and say that at present there is no such sacrifice, they are directly contradicting the teaching of the Apostle Paul, Saint John Chrysostom, and other holy fathers and teachers of the Church—they go against all the teachers of the Church. I say this only if they claim that it cannot be obtained anywhere now, or if they point out that they too have priesthood and sacrifice in the form Christ established at the Mystical Supper—then the question will depend on where the true sacrifice is and where it is not. But I know the view of our interlocutor: he considers the Antichrist to be the heretics. We cannot agree with this, because even in the ancient Church and before Patriarch Nikon there were many heretics, but they were not recognized as the final Antichrist, nor was it considered at that time that priesthood and sacrifice had been destroyed in Christ’s Church. I think that the testimonies I have read are sufficient to pose the question, and I consider it unnecessary to repeat or explain them, because they are so clear that explaining them would only obscure them.

Concluding my speech for the first time, I turn to my interlocutor Lev Feoktistovich with the following question: Show me in Holy Scripture where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming. I have pointed out that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the world, until the second coming. But where is it written that they will not remain? This will depend on your proofs. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, be so kind as to read for us and all the respected listeners a place in Holy Scripture where it is said that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in His Church will not remain until the second coming. This is my question. If you resolve this in your first speech, then it will not need to be repeated and will be considered exhausted by your arguments. But if in your first speech you do not give a substantive answer, I will remind you that I will repeat this question in each subsequent speech. We need clear testimonies, just as clear as those I have presented in proof that the sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming—we need equally clear proofs from your side that the sacrifice and priesthood will not remain.

Concluding my speech, I address my interlocutor with the following reminder, simply as a brother, not in offense or reproach: one should not evade the question; that is not how to conduct a discussion. Instead, point directly to where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming.

And we should not touch upon the question of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, as you call it. Just in case there is any attempt on your part to address this question, I invite you once again to discuss it specifically. If one discussion on the hierarchy is not enough for you, I invite you to two discussions.

Please, Lev Feoktistovich, answer the posed question: where is it written that the priesthood and sacrifice established by the Lord in Christ’s Church will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. Dear and highly respected assembly! The mystery of Communion was undoubtedly given by Christ the Savior to the holy apostles in the upper room on Zion, but I must make an important qualification on this matter. The Holy Church received from Christ an inheritance: priesthood and the grace-filled mysteries dependent on priesthood. Everything that took place in the upper room on Zion was done by the Master Christ Himself; and everything that was received by the holy apostles—His disciples and His divine preachers—and everything that the divine preacher-apostles passed on to their successors in faith, all this, in truth, was given only to Orthodox Christians. But from the time when this sacred mystery was entrusted by Christ the Savior, Christians divided into various sects and heretical societies. In heretical societies there could be no grace of Christ, and therefore there was none, nor is there among them the sacred mystery of the Eucharist, nor the other mysteries. Christ’s Church followed the path appointed by the Master Christ and the proclamation of the holy prophets and apostles. From the proclamation of the holy apostles, it is evident that heretics undermined the authority of the Church. Everything that my interlocutor read from Holy Scripture I accept unconditionally, but I ask him to pay special attention to the fact that this was said in its time and for the times of continuing piety. At the same time, we must not forget in what period of time we live, for the almighty Master God indicated to us through the prophet Daniel four periods of kingdoms in the world, which, according to the indication of Scripture, we have actually lived through. Now we are living through a period of time whose end is hidden solely in the counsel of God; and this end is the second coming of Christ to earth. Since in the last period of time the Roman kingdom was divided into 10 parts, after the division of the Roman kingdom into 10 parts, according to the prediction of the prophets, only the day of God’s Judgment remains. About this period of time, the divine prophets, holy apostles, and apostolic men said that in this time false prophets and false christs will nest and deceive many. Christ the Savior said:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Gospel of Matthew, Reading 22).

It is in such an unfortunate period of time that we live. Having said this preliminarily for your information, dear listeners, I proceed to analyze the testimonies that my interlocutor has put forward against me as accusations. First of all, I must answer: “Is the priesthood and sacrifice eternal?” I pay special attention to this question. I answer: Christ the Savior said about the Church in the Gospel of Matthew, Reading 67:

“I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

About the Church Christ said: “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” but about priesthood He did not make such a promise: “I will build My priesthood, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”—such words are nowhere said in the holy Gospel. On the contrary, about priesthood Christ the Savior made a qualification in the following words. Christ said about priesthood in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, Reading 10, at the end:

“You are the salt of the earth.” “But if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?”

That is, you are the salt of the earth. Just as salt seasons the body and prevents it from decomposing, so the priesthood in the person of the apostles must season with the living word of divine teaching the body of the Church. The Church is the assembly of the faithful people in one spirit according to faith and in united dogmas, constituting one body, and the sacred persons are members of the Church. Christ says to them: “You are the light of the world and the salt of the earth,” but “if the salt loses its flavor.” You are the salt of the earth, you season with the life-giving word of your grace-filled teaching the body of the Church, but if you lose flavor—that is, deviate into teaching alien to grace or fall away from what I have entrusted to you—then you are no longer priests, but “flavorless, stinking salt, fit for nothing.” What should the Church—that is, the body—do with this salt? Throw it out. But how will the body of the Church remain without salt—that is, without priesthood? In answer to this question, I will read the words of Christ the Savior, Reading 42 in the Gospel of Mark:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire,”

that is, every believing Christian, when the priesthood loses its flavor, will be seasoned—that is, governed—by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is here called fire. But “salt is good,” that is, priesthood.

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Here stands a question mark. Christ Himself answered:

“It is thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matthew, Reading 10).

Not only must such salt be thrown out of the Church, but even “trampled underfoot by men”—that is, despised by all. The Evangelist Mark, from the words of Jesus Christ, says:

“And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble—it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”

Thus, for this stumbling block it is better to hang a stone around the neck and throw oneself into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble in faith. And how to cause stumbling? To destroy with false teaching in faith. Further comes the parable:

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Dear listeners, do not think that this speaks of the right and left hand. No! You will hear that hand here mysteriously means a sacred person. It is better for you, says Christ, to go without a hand into the kingdom of God—that is, without a flavorless priest—than with a sacred person who causes you to stumble, to go into the fiery hell.

“And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off.”

The foot means church servants:

“It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

Further comes speech about the eye.

“And if your eye causes you to stumble,”

in this case do not go to a doctor or a knowledgeable person to remove this bad eye. But you yourself, the body of the Church, if you see that a bishop causes you to stumble, cast him aside. The eye means bishop and priest, the right hand—deacon, the foot—church servants. Consequently, all three ranks can lose flavor; and the question is, how will the sacred body of the Church live without members? How will it be seasoned?

I, as one of the mortals, am not able to answer this, but I see the resolution of the Master Christ Himself to this question:

“For everyone will be seasoned with fire.”

So do not think, Christian, that you cannot be saved without a priest and bishop, for you will be seasoned with fire.

What does this fire mean? In the first discussion I showed that this fire is the Holy Spirit; consequently, according to the words of Jesus Christ, in need one can be seasoned by the grace of the Holy Spirit:

“But if the salt loses its flavor, how will it be seasoned?”

Answer:

“Have salt in yourselves.”

Have the teaching of the holy Gospel in yourselves; have the teaching of the holy apostles in yourselves; finally, have the teaching of all the divine men of the Church in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves (Mark 9). And so, dear listeners, I have said briefly and clearly regarding priesthood that it will lose flavor and not remain until the end, but to the body—that is, the Church—the Savior promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Now I will present the interpretation of what hand, foot, and eye mean. The Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 7, page 48, interpretation of Athanasius of Alexandria: “Those walking the undeceived and life-giving path should cast out the eye—not the sensory one, but the noetic one. That is, if a bishop or presbyter, who are the eyes of the church, live improperly and cause people to stumble, it is fitting to cast them out; it is better to gather in a house of prayer without them than to be cast with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas, into the fiery hell. Likewise the hand, which is the deacon, if he does something unworthy, let him be removed from the altar. The foot, which is the servant, if he runs badly into falsehood, let him also be made alien to service, as a wicked and senseless man, so that the Church gathered may be preserved without stumbling.” Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, tells all truly believing Christians to beware of the eye: the bishop and priest. If they are Orthodox, they are bright eyes and bear the image of Christ Himself; but if they are heretics, by that damage they are already servants of hell. It is better for you, he says, to gather in a house of prayer without them—that is, better for simple, believing people to gather in a house of prayer without heretical bishops and priests than with them. What benefit was there to the Jews who remained with the Christ-killing high priests Annas and Caiaphas? So there will be no benefit to those who are governed by false priesthood. It is better to be in poverty according to faith than to perish from heretics. The apostles were simple poor fishermen; they themselves said of themselves:

“We are poor, yet making many rich.”

With Christ, these humble fishermen entered the dwelling that the Heavenly Father promised for all believers, while the unbelievers with the high priests went to the depths of hell. And now let those who wish to be saved walk the narrow evangelical path, not the broad splendid road that blinds the world; for a person attempting faith walks not the narrow evangelical path but the broad and destructive one, looking at appearances.

I openly say and answer the question that the priesthood at the present time has completely lost its flavor. And my most honorable interlocutor took priesthood from this flavorless, rotten root and supposes that it can bring him life-giving fruits—that is, the mystery of Communion. The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Reading 106, writes:

“If the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.”

But the firstfruit of your root is not holy, but heretical. You yourselves called this root “the harlot Babylon; the dwelling place of demons and a hold of every unclean spirit” and, finally, “the heretical church”; and a heretical root is the root of Sodom and Gomorrah. From Sodom and Gomorrah you took a dry vine, lifeless—that is, graceless—and therefore this dry vine does not bring you the fruits of Communion. Only the living grapevine brings life-giving fruits. Christ the Savior in the Gospel of John, Reading 50, said:

“Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. Whoever does not abide in Me is thrown away. Like a branch, it withers, and they gather it and throw it into the fire, and it burns.”

The branches are the apostles and their successors—the bishops, builders of Christ’s mysteries. Christ said to them:

“Without Me you can do nothing.”

Then how can a Sodomite branch without Christ produce the fruits of Christ’s mysteries? A cut-off vine no longer bears fruit; it withers, according to the word of God. They gather it, throw it into the fire, and burn it.

Then, you read Christ’s words spoken regarding the mystery of Communion at the Mystical Supper. With all my soul I confess that this is true; as a believing person, I accept that it was all unconditionally so, but to my regret, I must say, according to Scripture, that this highest mystery is now emptied, corrupted by heretics. As for the words of the Apostle Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians, Reading 149, which my interlocutor read without discernment, I will read them again to restore the truth. The Apostle says:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

I will read the words of Christ the Savior spoken in the upper room on Zion to His disciples:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to them and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.”

The Apostle adds:

“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (Reading 149).

The meaning of these words is this: If anyone receives the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, he pronounces judgment on himself, because he partakes unworthily. Consequently, even in the sacred mystery of Communion there are distinctions: not everyone can always partake unconditionally, but only, according to the proclamation of the Divine Church, “the holy things to the holy.” A Christian must prepare for receiving this sacred mystery and necessarily from the hand of an Orthodox builder. Thus the Apostle Paul said about this:

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.”

Already the Apostle Paul mentions two cups: one the Lord’s, the other demonic. At the present time the Lord’s cup is not visible, and to partake of the demonic cup is terrifying. And the demonic cup is the pretended communion arranged by false priests, like demons disguised as angels of light. For at the present time, in the period of the misfortune that has befallen us since 1666, there is no servant of this mystery in the true spirit, and all that exist are either artificial or derived from heretics.

Here I must tell you, beloved assembly, that it is precisely these mysteries—artificial and lifeless, heretical—that we shun. But we believe that, according to our warmest desire and faith, in these last Antichrist times, for the need of salvation, the Lord will grant us the mystery of “the Holy of Holies” if we walk the Lord’s path. Finally, my interlocutor posed the question: “Point out where it is written that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the end of the age?” I will answer this question with the words of Christ the Savior, that

“On the holy place: the abomination of desolation will stand.”

The priesthood, the builders of this mystery, will lose flavor, and once the builders have lost flavor, consequently there is no longer the true mystery.

To prove that instead of true Communion such a high mystery will have the abomination of desolation, I must take the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior says in the Evangelist Matthew, Reading 99:

“When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

First testimony. Then the second, from Mark, Reading 60:

“But when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

Here, brethren, Christ the Savior said that there will be a time when, instead of the true sacrifice, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. Before finishing reading the words of the Gospel, I must explain what the holy place is that Christ speaks of. About this testifies the Book of Cyril, page 54:

“The holy place understand as Jerusalem chosen throughout the whole world, as Matthew writes, the holy city. And Cyril of Jerusalem says the supreme Apostolic Church. Understand also that in every place where there are Christian churches, on the altars the throne is the holy place, on which the priests offer sacrifice to God, consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.”

Thus, in the supreme Apostolic Church the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place—not only simply in the Church, but on the very altars the abomination of desolation will finally stand. If according to the word of Christ the Savior the abomination of desolation will stand on the altars even in the initial Jerusalem church and in all churches, then it is precisely this abomination of desolation that we now shun, and along with it we shun the builders of this improper mystery. I read the words of Christ the Savior:

“And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.”

When the last week of Daniel comes—and this, according to Scripture, is our time—in that time, it is said, when you see the abomination of desolation, they will say to you: here is an Orthodox bishop, and others will say: here is a more Orthodox bishop, others will say that a bishop is hiding in the desert (the bishop signifies the person of Christ), then

“Do not be deceived, for many will come in My name, even to deceive the elect.”

So it is said in the interpretation. But do not believe, do not enter into union with them; if you believe and enter into union with them, you will perish—said our Master Christ. The word false christ in a figurative sense means false anointed, for the true anointed is Jesus Christ, and the false anointed is a heretical bishop, just as the Antichrist is a false christ. Such a false anointed will give, supposedly in the name of Christ, such false christs as himself, and false prophets, and will show signs and wonders, and many in delusion will recognize him as Christ, for he will create an appearance similar to Christ’s Church, priesthood similar to Christ’s priesthood, and similar to everything that the Apostolic Church instituted. In this temptation, if one does not sober up, even the most elect person cannot discern; not to mention a person who cares little about this. But take heed—you poor, humble, trampled-upon apostles—and not the proud Jewish high priests, take heed. (Testimony from the Evangelist Matthew). Christ the Savior here by parable indicates: “Who stands in faith on a false foundation and who on a firm one,” Gospel of Matthew, Reading 24.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.”

By this Christ means a person’s firm faith in Christ, for the rock is Christ. If someone is established in truly Christ-like faith, no temptations in faith will shake him, for Christ says: “Whoever hears these sayings of Mine—sayings of teaching, counsel, and prohibition—and does them,” “I will liken him to a wise man”—that is, a person able to distinguish truth from deception and harmful from useful. And this high understanding, with God’s help, is precisely applied now. Christ seems to say: “You see false christs, false prophets, deceiving many in My name, and the abomination of desolation standing in the churches, and temptations attacking you from these false priests—take heed, stand firm in faith, do not fear, I am with you; if people destroy you in faith and shake your mind like a storm, hold fast, for the root of your faith is in Me. If you strengthen yourself thus in faith, neither the rain of afflictions nor the rivers of heretical teachings will undermine the house of your faith. For it is not people who will exalt you, not people who will set you on the rock—that is, false christs—but I will help you in your trouble. I will liken you to a wise man, and this wisdom the whole world will not be able to resist, for he built his house on the rock.” A wise person builds his house in faith on the rock, and no storms of afflictions or whirlwinds of lies will scatter it; he will never be shaken, because he stands on the firm rock of confession. But if someone bases his hope in faith on sand—that is, on human invention—then his spiritual house will fall; for it is founded not on Christ but on false teaching, and this person is no longer wise but foolish, as Christ says:

“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”

My brethren in faith, though they do not accept the modern priesthood, are founded on the rock of sound faith and are likened in faith in Christ to a wise man. But the faith of my honorable interlocutors is founded on sand, for by their own invention they established a priesthood that began only in 1846. What is the abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation is false teaching, false mystery of the Eucharist, and all Antichrist activity. And this is now—witness to this is blessed Jerome, part 16, p. 250: “Under the abomination of desolation can be understood any perverted teaching. When we see it standing in the holy place—that is, in the Church—and showing itself as God, we must flee from Judea to the mountains—that is, leaving the killing letter and Jewish corruption, draw near to the eternal mountains in which God wonderfully shines.”

When we see false teaching dominating in the Church, we do not seek salvation in the letter but on the mountains—that is, in the high prophetic writings.

Thus, I have proven that the priesthood has lost its flavor. Christ the Savior said that the sacrifice will also be subject to the abomination of desolation. Now let my interlocutor answer this.

D. S. Varakin. You have heard, most respected listeners, the first speech of our interlocutor and have probably become convinced that Mr. Pichugin not only did not answer the question posed to him but did not even approach an answer to the question. I asked, on the basis of the whole series of testimonies I read, to point out: where is it written in Holy Scripture that priesthood and sacrifice will not remain until the second coming? For now the question remains with him. Then Mr. Pichugin throughout his speech tried again to attack our priesthood. It seems to me there can be no clearer sign of the weakness of our interlocutors’ convictions. When a person speaks off-topic, it means he has nothing to say. If he had proofs from Holy Scripture for his conviction, he would have read a whole mountain of them, but since he read not one, it means there are none, and if there are none, it means their conviction, as he himself read, is founded like a house on sand. This is not new. After all, the two previous discussions (the third was specifically on the question of priesthood) were also directed against our priesthood, which did not relate to the question. So my interlocutor tries to proceed in this discussion as well. I challenged him: if you wish to discuss our priesthood further, I ask you, Lev Feoktistovich, to appoint—not just one—two special discussions, and I am at your service; but he said not a word to me whether he agrees or not to discuss priesthood. After all, we had conditions even before the discussions with you: when speaking about one side, not to mention the other, and you said: “yes, yes.” I wanted you to sign the condition, you said: “why, don’t you believe me if I say it.” It turns out you cannot be trusted. I should have asked you to sign the condition so that everything would be documented and everyone convinced that you are going against the promise you gave, which you signed, and evading the question. But God be your judge. I will not touch upon the question of our priesthood; I said I will go the straight path: will priesthood and sacrifice remain until the second coming, and I will prove that they will remain, but you did not read that they will not. Appoint further discussions about our priesthood; I agree to discuss with you as much as you like, but not now.

He also began with the Gospel, that in Christ the Savior’s Gospel it is said: “You are the salt of the earth” and “The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place.” No one is forcing you to accept the heretical; point out what you have if you have Christ’s Church; and do not point out that there and there is heretical. But since it is said that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, it means you must have it, but you do not. Therefore your Church is not Christ’s. Regarding the abomination of desolation, the honorable interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril:

“The abomination of desolation is the corpse of a dead man, which is a body of desolation without soul and without blood, dead and emptied, doing nothing. And when Vespasian and Titus the Roman emperors came, they captured Jerusalem, laid it waste, and set up their idol in the altar in the holy place. The Jews called the idol a human corpse, abomination, as they were defiled by hypocrisy, envy, and evil deeds” (Page 31 reverse).

This is the place my interlocutor read. Where is this abomination of desolation? It means where there is no true sacrifice, where there is no true piety. I agree with this. But on page 32 of the same book we see this:

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

But you do not have this. Here is where the abomination of desolation is. Note what abomination means. It is that heretics have no sacrifice. But it is known that in some Pomortsy prayer houses there are altars. But are there thrones and altars? No. There is neither throne nor altar. Instead of throne and altar, they have arranged a sideboard. This, I think, is known even to those Old Believer Pomortsy brethren present here. Did not the Antichrist drag it there? No, they arranged it themselves. The Antichrist has nothing to do with it. When rebuilding the temple, they drew up a plan and made a place for the altar, and said: here, instead of the altar, put a sideboard.

“And they do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice” (Cyril, p. 32).

This, it says, heretics themselves stripped from their altars. For example, take a Pomortsy temple. There is no Antichrist there. They themselves arrange everything without the Antichrist and decided that an altar is not needed. And instead of the altar here we will drink tea, snack, as in inns, and blame everything on the Antichrist: supposedly the Antichrist destroyed priesthood and sacrifice before the second coming. What else happens in this abomination of desolation?

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse” (Ibid., p. 32).

This is what all heretics do who have no sacrifice. This is what happens in their altars. This was not done by the Antichrist or his forerunner, but by those who call themselves pious Old Believer Pomortsy; so they vainly shift all the blame onto the Antichrist.

To make this even clearer to you, respected assembly, I will read what the Apostle Paul and Saint John Chrysostom—whose mouths are the mouths of Christ—say:

“Just as Christ said about the bread and the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,’ revealing to us the reason for giving the mystery, and saying that this, along with others, is sufficient for us to show reverence (for when you consider what your Master suffered for your sake, you will be more philosophical), so Paul here says: ‘As often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death,’ and this is that Supper. Then showing that it remains even until the end, he says, ‘till He comes’” (Homilies on the Acts, p. 871).

Here, not until some time, not until 1666, not until 1846. No. Till Christ comes a second time. And Christ has not yet come a second time, but for 250 years you have had nothing.

We were read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where it is said that pastors are called “evil eye.” Yes, I agree with this. One must beware of an evil bishop, priest, or deacon preaching false teaching. But if they repent, they should be accepted, because we see that in ancient times pastors deviated into error, but they repented and again became Orthodox pastors, and with them were all Orthodox Christians. I fully agree with this. But having read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain about the “evil eye,” you did not read in it the most important thing that precisely concerns your society. You should have finished reading it; but since you did not, I will do it myself. Here is what is said in Word 53, page 445 reverse:

“‘This is My body,’ He said. This word presents what is set before us, just as that voice saying ‘increase and fill the earth’… so this voice, spoken once, on every table in the churches from then until this day, and until His coming, makes the sacrifice perfect.”

This he did not read, but it is in the same book. To what my respected interlocutor said, I directly declare that he spoke off-topic, that he said not a word on the question; I do not even find anything to examine in his speech. Heretics should not be accepted—I agree with this; heretical pastors, he says, should not be accepted—I agree with this too. But I do not agree that when a pastor repents, he should not be accepted either; when he repents, he will be an Orthodox pastor just as before. And all this does not change our question. The question remains with him. Point out where it is written that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

We should dwell a little on the expression quoted by my interlocutor: “he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.” Is it possible that for 250 years among them in all Russia and the universe not one worthy person was found? According to my interlocutor’s conclusion, this is true. It turns out that for 250 years not one worthy person was found among them to receive the body and blood of Christ. An extremely sad and lamentable situation.

About the fact that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, testifies in another place the great teacher of the Church Saint John Chrysostom (part 7, p. 820): “As the old covenant had rams and bulls, so the new has the blood of the Lord. By this Christ shows that He will suffer death; therefore He mentions the covenant and recalls the first, since that covenant was also renewed with blood. Further, He again speaks of the reason for His death: which is shed for many for the remission of sins, and adds: do this in remembrance of Me. Do you see how Christ turns them away from Jewish customs? As you celebrated the Passover in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so celebrate this mystery in My remembrance. The blood of the old covenant was shed for the salvation of the firstborn, but this blood is shed for the remission of the sins of the whole world: this is My blood, He says, shed for the remission of sins. He said this also to show that the suffering and the cross are a mystery, and by this again consoles the disciples. And as Moses said: this shall be an eternal memorial for you (Ex. III, 15), so Christ says: in My remembrance, until that time when I come.”

Until what time? Until the coming of the Antichrist, perhaps? No, “until that time when I come.” And the Antichrist will come before Christ’s coming, and according to you he has already come, but Christ is not yet here. “Until that time when I come.” Are these words of Christ the Savior, transmitted through the mouth of John Chrysostom, false? Are they powerless? Is the Antichrist, such as you preach—even if he were the most terrible—stronger than Christ? The same Saint Chrysostom in another book, in Homilies on Various Occasions (vol. 2, p. 91), writes the following: “But it is already time to approach this fearful table. Let us all approach with due philosophy and attention, and let no one be a Judas, let nothing be evil, let no one hide poison in himself, bearing one thing on the lips and another in the mind. Christ is present; He who instituted that table also now arranges this one. For it is not a man who transforms what is set before us into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands bearing His image and pronounces the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. These words transform what is set before us, and just as that saying: ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28), spoken once, but throughout all time actually gives our nature the power of childbearing; so that saying, spoken once, from that time until now and until His coming, makes the perfect sacrifice on every table in the Churches.”

Can one in any way establish that the human race cease to multiply? Can this be done? Even the priestless celibates cannot do this, not to mention other priestless who accept marriages. This cannot be done because it is fulfilled by God’s command; likewise the sacrifice about which Christ spoke will remain until He comes—“until His second coming.” In the Book on Faith, on page 51, the following is written about those who do not have such a great gift—holy Communion:

“Drink of it, all of you, and confirming that no one should despise His command, He teaches with these words: Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

Here, those who do not receive the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, because they say there is none now, truly these people are like dead corpses:

“Terrible is the answer of Christ’s words, for His words are true; with this He concludes: heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

This is not said in vain. No.

“Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord, except the one who wishes to destroy eternal life?”

Who does not partake? Who? Except “the one who wishes to destroy his life.” This is where you are leading your people. Only the one who does not spare his life and wants to destroy it will not obey this voice.

Also on the words of the Apostle Paul writes the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (part 7, p. 248): “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” Why only until the second coming, why not further? The blessed Theodoret answers: “For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body.” And why? Answer: “because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said, till He comes.” Why will we not need at the second coming what we now perform—the offering of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine? Why? Because Christ Himself will come—the Body itself will appear—then its likeness will not be needed. This is why it is indicated to exist until Christ’s second coming.

About this, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming, I will also read a testimony from the Explanatory Apostle (page 536 reverse):

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Interpretation of Chrysostom: For when you understand that for your sake your Lord endured, you will be wise. This is what it means when it says: as often as you eat, you proclaim the Lord’s death. And that it will remain even until His second coming, it indicates: till He comes.”

I do not know what further proofs from Holy Scripture are needed to show that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming. This promise is strong and invincible, and just as it is impossible to stop the continuation of the human race, so it is impossible to stop the offering of this sacrifice. I will repeat the passage I read from the Book of Cyril, because my interlocutor did not even approach the proofs I read; he only spoke of “heretical communion,” “heretical priesthood”… No one is forcing you to accept the heretical. If you say it is heretical with us, then show where it is not heretical with you, because it is said: sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the end of the age, and if you do not have it, it means you do not have Christ’s Church. It means Christ did not say this about you. The Book of Cyril (page 78 reverse) says:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church, chosen from the nations, offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death. And this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible.”

How are we to recall His divine redemption of the human race from sin? Only by partaking of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, as it was at the Mystical Supper. In those societies where this is not performed, they have forgotten that Christ suffered; moreover, they do not want to remember. Here is the sorrow, here is the famine of the soul!

I consider the passages cited sufficient to prove the continuance of priesthood and sacrifice until Christ’s second coming. Concluding my speech, I again remind my honorable interlocutor: there is no need to speak of heretics—this or that—it does not pertain to the question. I ask only one thing from you, I ask little from you. You give much more, but not to the point. Please point out to me: where in Holy Scripture is it said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming? If you do not show this and do not have it yourselves, then you do not have Christ’s Church. So please, Lev Feoktistovich, show me: where is it written in Holy Scripture that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention! You have heard the refutation of my speech by my interlocutor. But to my regret, my interlocutor keeps speaking about that mystery and that priesthood which once existed. We believe in the ancient priesthood and the mystery of Communion, and we pray that the Lord may grant us to partake of this great gift spiritually, in view of the present need. We also believe and pray to those holy hierarchs who were Orthodox and by whose holy hands the holy church mysteries were performed. But that time has passed. Enter into yourself, my most honorable interlocutor, and ask your conscience: in what time do we live? That priesthood about which you speak and testify has ceased. That priesthood was truly Christ’s; it flowed successively from the apostles and, as a precious gift of Jesus Christ, flowed like a grace-filled river from the years of the Gospel’s preaching until the year 1666, which you yourselves confirmed—that the true succession of grace-filled ordination was broken at that date. This is factually confirmed also by the fact that you had no sacred ordination for about 200 years. By this you yourselves proved that Christ’s ordination ceased in 1666, and therefore the priesthood as well—for one cannot exist without the other. Meanwhile you forget what you should remember: that Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, was a suffering bishop and confessor; he could have restored the priesthood in the manner of Eusebius of Samosata, who, disguised in military clothing, during the Arian heresy went through cities and ordained bishops alone as needed. Therefore, if Paul of Kolomna did not ordain a bishop to continue the priesthood, it was not because he was unable to ordain, but because it was God’s will; consequently, the time had come when impiety had to fully manifest itself in the world. God permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the whole world. But you keep speaking about that priesthood which we know better than you and believe in better than you, because it was lawful. We also believe that ordination was successive from the apostles. So it is not about that time and priesthood that you need to reason—about which there can be no dispute between us—but you need to speak about the time in which we live, about the priesthood that we see.

You said here that the Pomortsy in the temple built here arranged a sideboard instead of an altar. I do not understand what the man is talking about. Allow me to note, my dear brethren in faith, whose zeal has exceeded all expectations, built us such a magnificent temple for offering prayers to the Lord God. If they had no living faith, there would be no such temple; if they had no hope in God for salvation, there would be no such zeal. But I assure you, my brethren in faith had no thought of making an altar. They knew there was no priesthood, and instead of an altar they made a consultation room for spiritual persons and the council, where at the end of conciliar sessions, for lack of space, some of the brethren reverently partook of food. Tell me, did they not spend the night in churches in ancient times? Did they not dine in churches in ancient times? There were cases where even cattle were brought into the church, but the church was not harmed by this. No one laughed or mocked it, but my interlocutor spoke out of place about some sideboard, which has no place here. My dear brethren in faith did nothing unlawful in arranging a consultation room behind the iconostasis, claiming no altar; but you, inflamed with the bile of envy, spread to the public such words that the Pomortsy have a sideboard behind the iconostasis, but the public will evaluate this and understand that all your reproaches are worth nothing. You also referred to page 445 of the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where Saint Chrysostom speaks:

“Christ is present now, He who adorned that table; He adorns this one now. For it is not a man who makes what is set before us to be the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest stands fulfilling the image, pronouncing the words, but the power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My body,’ He said. This word transforms what is set before us.”

I well understand that all this was in former times, but at the present time Christ no longer stands at your modern priesthood. I am not leading you into delusion regarding priesthood; you yourselves prove that any priesthood besides yours is deprived of grace. If you say that until Christ’s second coming the sacrifice will be offered in the church, you must indicate—in which church. Is the holy sacrifice offered in the Greek and dominant church in Russia? You yourselves factually confirm that it is not, for you call them heretical. Is it offered in the Armenian church? No, because the Armenians are heretics. Is it offered in the Western Catholic church? You also confirm that the pope fell away from the truth and that with him all Western countries fell into heresy. Why do you proceed so covertly and silently say that only with you is the truth, with you is priesthood and sacrifice, and nowhere else? Why lead yourselves and such a chosen people into delusion—people who for 4 days have reverently listened to our contestations? Speak openly about your church, about your sacrifice. So I will tell you that your sacrifice and church are not living—Christ’s—but artificial, human. It is proven in deed that you received priesthood from where, as you yourselves said, nothing good and holy can come. (Voices: “Off-topic.”)

No, on topic. My interlocutor cited the apostle’s words: “He who eats and drinks unworthily” directly against us. I am not offended that my interlocutor said the apostle supposedly speaks this about the Pomortsy: “Are the Pomortsy unworthy, that none of them has partaken for 250 years?” said my interlocutor. I will say to this: if the Pomortsy have not partaken for 250 years, it is only because they do not want to partake from heretics, but not out of caprice, not out of hostility to the holy, but out of extreme necessity, because all priesthood has fallen into heresy. I will read here a passage from the holy Gospel. Christ the Savior in a prefiguration said the following parable for this time—Gospel of Luke, Reading 87:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away.”

In that day, in that time when there will be temptation in faith and life, when false prophets appear, when false christs arise, then he who is on the housetop—that is, at the height of virtues and true faith—let him not take anything belonging to him below, not even a vessel:

“In that day of the Antichrist’s coming, he who is on the housetop, which is the height of virtues, let him not descend nor weaken for any pretext of worldly life: for all worldly things are called vessels to man. Thus he who stands at the height of virtue descends for worldly reasons and falls from his height, but let him stand against evil and not be silent.”

This is what these words mean. Further Christ says:

“Remember Lot’s wife.”

Tell me, my honorable interlocutor, why did Christ the Savior here mention not Lot, but only Lot’s wife? I am obliged to explain this: the holy Lot lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, whose inhabitants so angered God that God decided to destroy them for their impiety. Sending angels, God said to Lot:

“Go out, lest you also perish in the iniquity of the city. And it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, ‘Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain.’”

Lot, leaving the city, following God’s commandments, did not look back, but what did Lot’s wife do? She felt sorry for what she had in Sodom and Gomorrah; she looked back and turned into a “pillar of salt.”

I have cited this parable not of a mere mortal man; this is the parable of Christ the Savior Himself. Before Christ’s words we must revere, listen to His words with contrition of heart and tenderness, for it pertains to the present time:

“By this parable God indicates Lot’s wife, who, turning back, became a pillar of salt. This means: not departing from evil, but remaining in its sweetness, becoming evil to the end.”

This event was a prefiguration of what happened in the days when our ancestors received the blow, when faith in the Church was shaken. Tell me, which of our ancestors, like Lot, fled without looking back at impiety, and which, like Lot’s wife, looked back at impiety? The Pomortsy, our ancestors, the sufferers of the Solovetsky Monastery, in the person of Paul of Kolomna, seeing the shaking of faith, went the path of personal salvation and, passing through temptations, never once looked back, but your ancestors, like Lot’s wife, looked back, pitying the priests, and became petrified, saying: “But how will we go to salvation without priests?” They forgot Lot’s exodus and, losing hope in God, looked back at heretical priesthood and became salted. In such petrification all the priestly ones remain to this day. This is what this parable means.

Further, in my interlocutor’s speech it was said: “is the Antichrist stronger than God?” What, what, my dear interlocutor. I did not think you would take such a direction—to make the Antichrist stronger than God! No, no! It is not the Antichrist who is stronger than God, but God is stronger than the Antichrist. God, because of our weakness, permitted the spirit of deception to tempt the world. He set in the parable that the bridegroom will come at midnight. Whoever waits for him in faith to the end will enter with the bridegroom into the bridal chamber, but whoever weakens will be outside the chamber. So the Antichrist will deceive people not by his own power, but by people’s unbelief—those who, not enduring need and not believing the truth, act falsely. So, to distinguish truth from falsehood, God permitted the Antichrist to tempt the whole world. The elect, as those who endured, will go to eternal life, said Christ, but those who are tempted will go to eternal fire:

“He who endures to the end will be saved.”

Such are God’s words spoken regarding the Antichrist and his deception.

Then, you read words from the Book on Faith, page 51:

“Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.—Who will not be horrified by the aforementioned prohibition and not obey the voice of the Lord. Except the one who wishes to destroy his life.”

These words are in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

“I am the living bread… Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh… The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’”

To whom were these words addressed—to the faithful or the unfaithful? Christ the Savior always spoke according to the occasion: in parables, edifyingly, and with rebukes. So in this case, when the Jews saw that Christ performed a miracle, feeding 5000 people with five loaves and two fish, and wanted to make Him king so as always to live idly, but the Savior got into a boat and sailed to the other side. The Jews went after Him, and to their question He said:

“Rabbi, when did You come here? Amen, amen I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.”

Speaking these words: “You seek Me not to believe in Me, but to live idly; you follow Me only for food and do not believe My miracles, but if you want to be Mine, believe in that bread which My Heavenly Father sent you.”

“I am the living bread. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst… This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

You see, here the speech is about faith; one must believe in Christ. By faith Christ promises eternal life.

As for the Book on Faith, undoubtedly it speaks of true Communion, for the holy Church itself added this mystery to the mystery of faith and visible Communion.

Then, finally, from chapter 6 of the interpretations of the holy men, Saint John Chrysostom and Theophylact, Bishop of Bulgaria, it is evident that there is also Communion by faith. The Gospel of John, Reading 24, chapter 6:

“Everywhere He mentions life and often brings this name, since nothing is so dear to men as this thing. And you can not only eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Master by the secret Communion, but in another way, for one eats flesh when he undergoes active work, for the flesh of the worker is necessary, just as work is difficult. But he drinks blood like wine that gladdens the heart, I mean vision, for vision without labor is more than labor rest. For drinking without labor is more than food.”

Here it speaks of mysterious spiritual Communion, by which a person can partake separately, besides a priest, and especially in need.

Thus, the holy Church did not understand as you do that Communion must be only under one form, but as it pleased God, commanded that one can partake also mysteriously—that is, spiritually—by faith and desire.

Finally, you ask me: will the sacrifice of Communion be offered until Christ’s coming? I answer, listen: according to the teaching of the holy men—it will not be. I will confirm my answer to you with Scripture, that the Antichrist will disturb the sacrifice of Communion, that the Antichrist will darken the sacrifice, that the Antichrist will defile the altar and the sacrifice. Book of Cyril, page 55:

“For about this Saint Chrysostom says that the Antichrist, before his coming, will do what is everywhere on the altars, and will destroy the true sacrifice, and set up his idol in the holy place. For already such abominable desolation the false prophets sent by him begin. And from this we know that the day of the Lord is near. For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s Church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s Temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

The Antichrist, as it is said, will everywhere destroy the true altars and the true sacrifice—that is, true Communion. How to understand “destroy”? He will corrupt with false teaching not simply the sacrifice, but the “true” sacrifice, and along with it the holy place—that is, the altar. And what will replace it? As it is said, he will set up his idol in the holy place. And the idol is false teaching, heresies, evil teaching, which, as the abomination of desolation, will stand in the holy place. So may God save and preserve us from partaking of the Antichrist’s abomination of desolation! And if you say that this time has not yet come, the answer has already been read: “it was fulfilled and accomplished, and the power of the Jews ended, and the Church was destroyed.” And then: “so it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice.” A clear answer! There will be no sacrifice: and not only in some particular place, not in Solomon’s temple, but throughout the whole world, as Scripture says, which I will read:

“And not only everywhere and in all places, but even in the initial Apostolic Church in Jerusalem he will bring the true sacrifice into desolation.”

This Scripture sorrowfully and truly speaks not simply of the sacrifice, but with emphasis: “He will bring the true sacrifice into desolation” and “everywhere and in all places”—that is, in all parts of the world; which has already been accomplished. The last words of the testimony say:

“And he will set his evil abomination in the holy place, as it is written: When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

I have laid as the foundation of my speech the prophetic and Gospel teaching on the mystery of Communion together with the Old Testament sacrifice and proved how the Jewish sacrifice was destroyed. And the Antichrist has emptied the holy sacrifice. And what is done in heretical temples, Holy Scripture relates that this is not a holy sacrifice, but the abomination of desolation. The Great Catechism speaks on this question, page 25:

“The abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

In general, it turns out that we shun not the holy great mystery of Communion, but the abomination of desolation. I read again the interrupted place in the Catechism:

“This abomination is interpreted according to the writing of John Chrysostom as the army of the Antichrist destroying the Church of God (below). This is the third reason. Because of which they will depart from the faith and approach heresy by desire. Which will have in itself Judaism and every impiety will be found in it.”

And what does this word “Judaism” mean? It means, on the one hand, to revile heretics, and on the other hand, to have communion with them either in dogmas of faith or in anything else—this is Judaism. And among the priestly ones it is evident.

Then blessed Jerome explains what the mountains are to which one must flee from the abomination of desolation. His Works, part 3, p. 182: “But we, hearing the words of the Lord Savior: let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let us lift our eyes to those mountains of which it is written: ‘I will lift up my eyes to the mountains, from where my help will come’ (Ps. 120:1). And in another place: ‘Its foundations are on the holy mountains’ (Ps. 86:1). Again: ‘The mountains surround it, and the Lord surrounds His people’ (Ps. 124:2), and ‘A city set on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matt. 5:14). Casting off from our feet the skin of the letter and entering with Moses barefoot onto the mountain, let us say: ‘I will pass by and see this great vision’ (Ex. 3:3).”

Here, my most honorable interlocutor, you must first cast off from your tongue the skin of the letter, since you judge everything by the letter; ascend with reason higher and look into the core of the word, look at the mystery of the spirit of Scripture, revering it, and give it a just evaluation. But you go by the letter, eating the skin, and it pricks your jaws. And what would this mean? Blessed Jerome says here: “When he sees the abomination of desolation standing in the Church, and Satan transforming himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). That is, when you see heresies in the church and Satan—that is, a false bishop—pretending to be an angel of light—that is, showing himself Orthodox—flee from this church and this deceiver, for “the apostle spoke of this abomination of heretical and impious teaching, that the man of sin and the opponent will exalt himself above every so-called God or object of worship, so as to sit in the Church of God, showing himself as God” (2 Thess. 2:4). So said blessed Jerome. If a false heretical bishop is Satan, how will I allow myself to be given alive to him as food? God save and preserve! My dear brethren in faith, though they live outwardly in poverty—that is, without priesthood—their wealth is in the inner state of right faith. They shun only the abomination of desolation. I ask you to pay attention to the following testimony. Works of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, interpretation on the prophet Daniel, p. 147: “And then the sacrifice and libation, which are now offered to God in every place and by all nations, will be taken away.” Do you see how Holy Scripture teaches us about the great mystery of Communion: it, says the great man of the Church, will be taken away, and taken away, understandably, from the Church. When will this be? The holy father says: in the last week of Daniel; and it is in this that we live.

Thus, you prove that Communion is eternal, but I have proved that the mystery of Communion will be emptied—that is, corrupted by heretics. There will be no this mystery, and if there is, it will only be the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

This has already factually been accomplished, which you yourselves prove by not communing in the sacrifice with Christians of the whole universe, but disputing about universal Communion. Why then deceive the public in this? If universal Communion is eternal, why do you shun all nationalities in the Christian name, and go only your own narrow path, not even communing with the priestly anti-Okružhniki? Do you not clearly prove your weakness by this? You speak of Communion, but do not point out where it is. Speak with the tongue of a truthful, honest man, but do not point to what was in the ancient Church regarding priesthood.

If we remain without priesthood, it is not by our own will, but because priesthood has fallen into heresies. To this accusation of yours I will answer with the words of the patriarch of blessed memory Jeremiah of Constantinople (Historical Acts of Southwestern Russia, vol. 5, p. 241): “What does he do (Jeremiah)? He gathers the verbal flock, the sheep of Christ, be they tanners, saddlers, shoemakers of every estate, rank, and age, Orthodox Christians. Having gathered them, he says to them with these words: Save yourselves, my brethren, yourselves, for you cannot be saved by pastors! Why? Because they think not only of your salvation but not even of their own; already the pastors pilgrimage according to the light of this world, already the pastors have enlisted in the service of the prince of this world. Already the pastors care nothing for eternal life, yours or their own. Already the present pastors intend to live out the age in luxury, to glorify themselves, to play, to enrich themselves, to become wise. Save yourselves, my beloved brethren, faithful flock of Christ, chosen race, holy tongue, royal priesthood, people of renewal, pious Russian people—yourselves; save yourselves by faith, save yourselves by the Gospel commandments; save yourselves by the paternal law; save yourselves by honest and chaste life.”

Do you see what the pastor of Christ’s Church says: brethren, simple folk, craftsmen, laborers of every kind and position, save yourselves if you want to be saved yourselves; you, simple folk, save yourselves! For the time has come when your pastors have departed from the truth, think not of God’s Judgment, but care only for themselves—to grow rich, live luxuriously, glorify themselves with clothing and wealth, but not with faith, not according to God’s Law, and not with a meek and humble life. Therefore know, children, says blessed Jeremiah, that the church pastors have given themselves to the service not of God but of the prince of this world—that is, the devil. Your pastors, bishops and priests, have betrayed God in faith; they are distinguished not by truth, seek not eternal life, but splendor of clothing and work only for gluttony. These are not pastors but wolves! But what should simple people do without pastors? How to be saved? And this is the main thing. To these questions the true pastor and man of wisdom says: “Save yourselves by yourselves.” The great teacher as if climbs a high tower and makes a call, tearfully pleading, says: “Save yourselves, brethren, by yourselves, do not abandon the covenants of our fathers, walk the Gospel path, perform virtues and God’s commandments, live abstinently and chastely, hold to right faith, and faith will save you. Believe that you can be saved even without priesthood.”

My time is coming to an end; I must say in my defense a few more words from the Scripture of the holy father of the Church and teacher, the venerable Ephrem the Syrian, who, grieving over the present times, says (Word 105):

“Then the earth and the sea will weep”…

And tell me, can the earth weep, can the soulless and voiceless sea weep, if only understood literally? “Then the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

This is as if people will be without singing and without voice.

“Then all Christ’s Churches will weep with great weeping.”

I explain: Christ’s Churches are believing people; they will not simply weep, but weep with great weeping.

“Because there will be no holy service in the altars nor offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ.”

This is what they will weep over: that there will be no service in the altars—not simply no service, but no holy service in the altars; not only no holy service, but no offering—that is, the body and blood of Christ. Over this the pious people will weep: that there will be nowhere to receive this great mystery. This Scripture has been fulfilled. The time has come; the pious people weep over the altars and the mystery of offering. And who is this pious people? These are my dear brethren in faith, whom I have the happiness to defend.

BREAK

Chairman. Honorable assembly! I declare the session open.

D. S. Varakin. We have heard another speech from my interlocutor, Mr. Pichugin. In this speech he gave an answer: “I am asked, he says, where in Holy Scripture it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. I answer: they will not remain.” We will approach this answer and see how much foundation it has. But first let us pay attention to some of his words. It seems it has become a little offensive to my interlocutor when I pointed out that it is not the Antichrist who is to blame for the priestless having no sacrifice, but that they themselves build temples and allocate places for altars, but do not place altars in them. He says: “well, our benefactors and trustees built these temples and wished to arrange a council room behind the iconostasis.” They did this. It is clear that they did it, not the Antichrist. They made a council room instead of an altar, but testify against the Antichrist: the Antichrist destroyed everything. But they had nothing there that could be destroyed. So here you vainly accuse the Antichrist: this is the work of your hands. You yourselves did not set up an altar but set up something else, not what should have been. (The speaker is interrupted, saying this does not pertain to the matter.) It pertains: since our discussion is about the sacrifice, and they have none, it pertains.

Now let us pay attention to what my interlocutor said regarding Lot’s wife. He says: “look at Lot’s wife.” Before developing this subject, I will ask my interlocutor: where in Scripture is it said that Lot’s wife supposedly means accepting the second and third ranks of priesthood from heretics? Where is such an example? First, this does not exist; this is Mr. Pichugin’s own interpretation; but such has no value for us. And second, Lot’s wife means the holy Church. About this writes blessed Irenaeus of Lyons (p. 403): “His wife remained in the land of Sodom no longer with corruptible flesh, but as a pillar of salt, always abiding, which through natural functions shows what is usual in man, just as the Church, which is the salt of the earth, remained within the bounds of the earth and is subject to human things; and while whole members are taken from her, she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends forth sons to their Father.” Here is what Lot’s wife means: the Church, which is the salt of the earth. Lot’s wife turned back and became a pillar of salt. What comparison is here? Did not the Church turn back to return the erring? Throughout the entire history of Christ’s Church do we not see tens, hundreds of thousands of examples that the holy Church, like Lot’s wife, turned back and waited for the conversion and repentance of those who fell into heresy and error? This is the salt of the earth and the support of humanity. As whole members are taken from her and she remains a pillar of salt, so from the Church members are taken who deviate into error, and she remains a pillar of salt—that is, the foundation of faith, which strengthens and sends sons to their fathers. The very foundation of faith in the Church is unshakable; but you have none. Among the foundations of faith Christ established until His second coming the sacrifice. This is a foundation of faith; but you have none, so there is no foundation of faith.

Then you said that in the Gospel of John Christ said: “I am the living bread…” and that to believe the teaching means also to partake. But is not the teaching about the sacrifice contained in Christ’s teaching? Is there not in this teaching the indispensable question of the sacrifice, without which the Church cannot be? In this teaching there is the sacrifice arranged by the Lord Himself, and it will remain until the second coming, as the holy Apostle Paul and John Chrysostom say. The interlocutor says that under the living bread is meant teaching. This is a great error of my interlocutor. To correct this error, it is worth turning to the holy Gospel and learning what is meant here by living bread.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (Gospel of John, ch. 6, v. 51).

Further it says:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (Ibid., v. 53).

This is what this bread means in the Gospel to which you referred. Then my interlocutor read in defense of his conviction from the Great Catechism, page 24 reverse:

“The prophet Daniel said, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place. That is, impious heresy will possess the holy churches.”

What is this abomination of desolation? The abomination of desolation in the holy place is heretical teaching. What kind of teaching is this? That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. Here with you instead of the sacrifice this impious teaching is set up. Then, reading this place, you omitted another place in this same Catechism, which testifies that this sacrifice and this very teaching about it will remain until the end of the age:

“That which the Lord God said, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth,’ was spoken once and is always fulfilled whenever nature is applied to birth. So this word of the Lord was spoken once. Which on all altar thrones even to this day, and until His coming, gives power to the sacrifice” (Great Catechism, p. 384).

To this place, when I read it to the interlocutor, he paid no attention. But I repeat and continue further:

“Do you see, heretic, that this mystery is not accomplished by the mere reading of the epistle of the holy Apostle Paul or by preaching. Nor by simple prayers. But by blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? We bless the cup—that is, we consecrate the wine in the cup and say Christ’s words: this is My blood. Not by preaching, nor by reading do they act, but by blessing. Just as Christ blessed the bread, so we bless on the divine table. By this also the other heretical deception is driven away, which thinks that the mystery is accomplished not in consecration but in the very use.”

About the teaching, he read from the Apostle Paul that supposedly the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. He speaks in vain. It is not the preaching itself or the reading of the apostle’s epistle, or our simple prayers, but blessing and consecration, as the holy Apostle Paul says. Here it is—not teaching, but the actions of the priest, even blessing. This is what teaching means. This is what living bread means.

Then my interlocutor read from Ephrem the Syrian, Word 105:

“Then all Christ’s churches will weep with great weeping, because there will be no holy service in the altars, no offering.”

And it seems he almost wept himself. This is Word 105, page 304 reverse. But it is a pity that the interlocutor did not read everything. And why? Because if everything is read, it only exposes them. I will take just two and a half lines higher, starting with a capital letter. But you began with a small one.

“Then the earth and the sea will weep, for suddenly the voice of singing and prayer from human lips will cease.”

But did you hear what they sang yesterday? I was with them during the service; they sang then too.

“All Christ’s Church will weep with great weeping, because there will be no sacrifice in the altar.”

There are not even any offerings in the altar, but they sing and do not cease. Well, what kind of teaching is this? The Antichrist came and destroyed everything, destroyed the sacrifices and arranged something else, but could not eliminate singing. So according to you, simple singing is stronger than Christ’s sacrifice. Dear interlocutor, I should read this passage against you. After all, all holy services are performed in the altar: the liturgy and the all-night vigil. I am very grateful to you for acknowledging that you have nothing holy—only you say the liturgy alone is holy, but nothing else is holy. So, does that mean you have no holy service? Then why do you pray, why do you sing?

When Ephrem the Syrian says that singing from human lips will cease, he writes about visible churches. Where in the last kingdom of the last Antichrist they accept his teaching, there the churches will weep and there will be no service. The interlocutor will say: in Christ’s Church there will be no holy service. Who will destroy it? He says—the Antichrist. You say there is no Christ’s Church with us, no in the dominant church, no with the Armenians, no with the Catholics. Where is it then? With you, you will say? Yes! That means the Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice with you. That means you have the Antichrist. I congratulate you on the Antichrist.

But that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, that this sacrifice will not cease, and that the Antichrist will not be able to destroy it in Christ’s Church (the Antichrist is able to destroy the sacrifice only with you, but he is unable to destroy it in Christ’s Church), the same Ephrem the Syrian on page 320 of his book writes the following:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man (1 Cor., Reading 149), for the word of God is living and active. And all this, as much as God desired, He created. And if there is the word: let there be light, and there was light. Let there be a firmament, and there was (Genesis, ch. 2). And if by the Lord’s words the heavens were established. So if heaven and earth, water and fire, air and all creation were accomplished by God’s words, and the word-speaking man, and if the God-Word of all things desired to become man, then can He not make this prosphora His flesh, and wine and water His blood? In the beginning He commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and even until this hour, when rain comes, it immediately brings forth its growths by God’s command and as if coming from the earth, having first received the power of the Lord’s words. For God said: this is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance (Matt. 108, Mark 64, Luke 108), so by His almighty command it happens until He comes (1 Cor., Reading 149), for so He spoke: until I come. And just as rain coming upon the earth immediately grows grass, so this holy rain—I mean the Holy Spirit—called by the priest’s prayer, visiting by His power, immediately makes this bread flesh and wine blood. Just as God created from the beginning by the action of that Holy Spirit.”

Once God said: “let the earth bring forth grass,” no one can forbid this creation of God from growing. It always grows throughout the entire history of the world. So it is impossible to stop this command of God: “this is My body, this is My blood, do this in My remembrance, so the proclaimed command happens until He comes.” So God spoke: until I come. This is what Ephrem the Syrian writes. Where will the sacrifice cease? There where they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, because there where they accept it, there is the abomination of desolation. And since you have neither throne nor altar, but the abomination of desolation, it means you have accepted the Antichrist. From the soul I wish you to be delivered from this enemy, the Antichrist. Our interlocutor read to us that the Antichrist will everywhere destroy the altar and the sacrifice, but I read to him that it is not the Antichrist who will destroy it, but He who instituted it will abolish it. The same holy Ephrem the Syrian, from whom my interlocutor read, in part 6, on p. 75 writes: “And He will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King—Christ—will confirm a covenant with many with His blood. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” And who instituted? Christ. He will abolish. Blessed Theodoret says that there will be no need for the sacrifice at Christ’s coming, because the Body itself will appear. Christ Himself will come then. But if, according to you, the Antichrist abolished it, does that mean he instituted it? This is horror what you say. Then my honorable interlocutor, answering that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming, read to us a passage from the Book of Cyril, page 32.

“For the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the altars and the sacrifice everywhere.”

Pay attention, here it says before his coming, meaning before the Antichrist came. He is not yet here, he has not come, but before coming he destroyed the sacrifice. How is it that he has not come but destroyed? Here in the Book of Cyril there is a scribal error or misprint. This in the Book of Cyril is taken from the Explanatory Apostle, where it says “before Christ’s coming,” not his own. Here is the scribe’s error who copied this book. These words are placed in the Book of Cyril and instead of “Christ’s” it says before “his own” coming. That is the matter. Second, the Antichrist will destroy it. And where? There where

“Heretics have no sacrifice, note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar” (Book of Cyril, p. 32).

Saint Chrysostom writes about the same, that heretics, once they stopped offering sacrifices, destroyed the altars, made something improper in the altars for themselves, meaning here is the abomination of desolation. Further my interlocutor read:

“For when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel, so also spoken by the prophet Daniel, again it was fulfilled and accomplished and the power of the Jews ended, and the church was destroyed. So it will be in the desolation of the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s temple, but which is established throughout the whole world.”

Here, he says, nothing will be, but what will be after this he does not say. He did not finish reading:

“Then this age will also end.”

But he left this out. When everywhere on earth they accept the Antichrist’s teaching, the faithful will be persecuted and oppressed and there will be no possibility to offer bloodless sacrifices, then the age will end. But when did your age end? After Nikon we have lived another 250 years and cannot convince you that you are in error. That indeed, during the time of the Antichrist the priesthood will remain, there are also proofs for this. Even if we accept that the last Antichrist reigns, even then the priesthood will remain. Here is what Saint Andrew of Caesarea writes in the interpretation of the Apocalypse:

Present. “And every mountain and hill will be moved from their places. Interpretation: When the powerful of this life or those of church rank, called mountains, and the fathers of the faithful churches according to Isaiah, flee from their places, changing place for place because of the Antichrist.”

This is what is said. As a result of such unprecedented persecution in the times of the last Antichrist, the leaders of church order and the faithful churches will not cease, but will flee from the Antichrist, changing places one for another. Why then do they (the Pomortsy) not flee anywhere? Who persecutes them? Is it not known to everyone that they freely build temples, freely gather for celebrations and prayers, perform processions. Who persecutes them? They themselves simply did not want to arrange altars.

Then, honorable listeners, my interlocutor read so plaintively from the Historical Acts the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. But here too there is a distortion. To give more authority to these words, which were written by the monk John of Vyshensky, he read these words in the name of the patriarch, for this monk is not a very authoritative person. What is the speech about there? Why, dear interlocutor, did you not point out to the people what the speech is about there? There the speech is about the Little Russian Christians who remained alone with pious priests as a result of the bishops’ retreat to the pope. “Save yourselves… do not retreat from the pious faith.” Here the speech is specifically about the Little Russian Christians. And after this, a hundred years later there was Paul, Bishop of Kolomna. After all, the Little Russian Christians did not begin to save themselves as you do—they did not place a council room instead of altars in their places. So here too you have untruth. We were told here that Paul of Kolomna could have appointed a successor for himself. Why was this said? I suppose that if my interlocutor—of course, God forbid this, I only say as an example—if he had to sit locked in a casemate for something, guards were assigned, icons were not hung and they said: why do you not bow to the icon, he would say there is no icon. So too Paul of Kolomna: since he was kept in exile, deprived of all communication with the world, he was deprived of the opportunity not only to ordain but even to serve the liturgy. What to demand from him. But that there be teaching from Paul of Kolomna that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming—this does not exist. On the contrary, our ancestors wrote this: Protopope Avvakum writes:

“Do not move the boundaries which the fathers set, and hold the tradition unchanged. One must be baptized as we received, believe as we were baptized. But ring this in your ears, adversary: you abolish the priesthood, and the mystery in a Lutheran and Calvinist way. You have wandered, friend, into the depth of evils; arise; for neither the devil himself can abolish the holy mysteries, nor the Antichrist with his offspring. The Master said to His disciples: I am with you until the end of the age, amen. Our head is Christ, King and High Priest. When He allows the order (of holiness) to be abolished, do not be tempted, child: even if the priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. And those people who do not partake, they do not do well; with their own invention they say: grace has been taken away. And after the Antichrist, after the last devil, grace will not abandon His faithful” (Book of Borozdin “Protopope Avvakum”, p. 15 in the appendix).

This is what our ancestors wrote. So you stop your ears. Thus the asps stop their ears, the psalmist writes: “like a deaf asp stopping its ears.”

“And those who separate themselves from Communion, when it is possible to receive the holy sacrament, pure holy service, I do not praise that. For the Lord Himself said: he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. How boldly they say that the holy mysteries cannot be found. Only we are supposedly the holy people, and everyone else has perished! Dear fathers, good is zeal for God, but know its measure. Do not beware, the sacrifice will not be abolished to the end even by the Antichrist himself. For the Master said: I am with you until the end of the age” (Ibid., appendix p. 15).

This is what Protopope Avvakum says regarding the eternity of the priesthood. Here are how many proofs from our ancestors and the strongest from Holy Scripture that the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. But with them there is none, none, and none. It is said: “the sacrifice will cease and singing will stop,” but they sing, but there is no sacrifice. You read this to your own head. Saint John of Damascus also writes. See, brethren, how many proofs in defense of the eternal abiding in Christ’s Church of priesthood and sacrifice:

“Then breaking the bread, He gave it to them saying: take and eat, this is My body, broken for you for the remission of sins. Likewise taking the cup of wine and water, He gave it to them saying: drink of it all of you, this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for you for the remission of sins. Do this in My remembrance. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man and confess His resurrection until He comes. If then the word of God is living and active, and the Lord did whatever He desired. If He said: let there be light, and there was: let there be a firmament, and there was. If by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. If heaven and earth, water and fire and air, and all their beauty were accomplished by the Lord’s word, and this most glorious living creature man. If God the Word Himself desiring became man, and from the holy ever-Virgin, pure and undefiled blood seedlessly formed flesh, can He not make bread His body, and wine and water blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and until now when rain comes, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: This is My body, and this is My blood, and do this in My remembrance. And by His almighty command, until He comes, it happens. For so He said: until He comes” (Book “The Heavens” of Damascus, p. 77).

I have finished the proofs, and my time is ending. Concluding my speech, I turn again to my interlocutor. That it is bad with heretics, I do not need to speak: I myself know that it is bad with heretics. There is no need to speak about our hierarchy either. If you wish to continue discussions about this, I agree to discuss for another two days specifically about our hierarchy, but now I ask you not to deviate one inch from the question. So you see that the holy fathers wrote that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Please answer the question?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! You have heard the second and third speech of my interlocutor and his refutations regarding my testimonial data from Holy Scripture and heard his interpretation. Everything that my interlocutor said only confirms my words; he only repeated once again the same truth that I told you from a pure heart. My interlocutor spoke about the eternity of the sacrifice, that the sacrifice will continue until the end of the age, and showed himself in his actions that he has nothing in common with Scripture and with those holy men who wrote about this. About the New Testament sacrifice wrote holy men, church teachers, Orthodox and having direct succession of ordination from Christ. So these are not your men, with whom Christ’s men and the teachers of the truly Christ’s Church have nothing in common. But your priesthood and sacrifice do not depict the eternity of Christ’s sacrifice and ordination, but only a crude heretical counterfeit of soulless priesthood, as you yourselves testified that you received priesthood from a heretic. Therefore the full obligation lies on you to defend only your priesthood and your sacrifice, but you, as everyone now sees, try to bypass this question in silence and fear it like red-hot iron, fearing exposure; you hide your hands in your pockets and do not touch it. For this deceptive sacrifice of yours is performed only since 1846, it is a little over 60 years old, younger than a human age, remade from new to old style.

Now I will follow in your footsteps. Tell me, why did you say nothing to me about the words of the Gospel of Christ the Savior “about the salt of lost-flavor priesthood”? And why do you think, listeners? Because this lost-flavor priesthood is precisely with them; it is thrown outside the church fence by law and trampled by reasonable people.

My interlocutor also read about altars and thrones from the Book of Cyril. Before I speak about altars, I will repeat the words of my interlocutor. He said that we without priests constitute nothing. On the contrary, even without visible priesthood we constitute a single whole, first of all by the inner power of hope, the beauty of expectation, and we are built on the granite of faith, not communing with false priesthood. Our holy faith is not darkened by either heretical baptism or heretical priesthood. This is the only beauty shining everywhere. But your faith is darkened by your superstition in soulless priesthood, your mysteries are darkened by false priests and bishops. So you have nothing in common with us. You throw mud at a crystal, but no matter how much you throw, your mud remains mud for you, and the crystal will not dim. And that without priesthood, in need, one can be saved, here is what the venerable John of Vyshensky tells us, book of Zachariah Kopystensky On the One Truth, page 224: “For your speech about the purification of the church has begun, and we will continue to do so. Let them ascend to the priestly degree according to the rules of the holy fathers, and not according to their own carnal desires, for the sake of property and papacy seizing the rank. And every such one who jumps in himself, do not accept, and even given by the king without your election, expel and curse. For you were not baptized into the pope, nor into the king’s power, that he give you wolves, villains, robbers and Antichrist’s mystagogues. It is better for you without bishops and without priests set by the devil to go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not called by God to be in the church and mock it and trample Orthodoxy. It is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your Orthodox faith, keeping God’s commandments, that wants to save us.”

Heretics, false bishops and priests do not do good, but evil, they make money by evil, live for contentment, deceive people; they are not pastors but robbers in the spiritual sense. False teachers, false priests who by deception destroy the souls trusting them—these are all your priests who entered not by the lawful door but over the fence of the law. These words of Christ the Savior are repeated by the holy man. Then—Antichrist’s mystagogues. By these words it is made known that false bishops are not Christ’s servants but Antichrist’s accomplices, for they originated not from Christ but from the Antichrist. I have proved to you on the basis of part 13 of blessed Jerome that as many false teachings as there are, so many Antichrists. Where there is only false teaching, there is the Antichrist, and false teaching regarding heretical priesthood is with you. That place where you took your bishop, you call Babylon, the dwelling of demons and a nest of every unclean spirit, as testifies the book of your bishop Ivan Grigorievich Usov. By this you convicted yourselves: you bought one demon, and from him by evil spirit you perform mysteries. As for the bishop, he can be recreated only by a grace-filled hand; like an unfired clay vessel, he must be tempered by fire—that is, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but there was no one with you to do this, therefore I can compare your modern priesthood only with raw clay pots. Then it is said: “it is better for you to be without priests and without bishops set by the devil.” So who sets priests and bishops among heretics—not Christ, but the devil. Do not count it rudeness, beloved listeners, I am forced to testify this and object to the remarks of my interlocutor. (Noise, cries: “To the point.”) I ask for your attention, do not betray your weakness by noise. I ask for attention! I was silent on everything my interlocutor said; I did not say a word when he applied the abomination of desolation to us. And my brethren in faith did not say a word to all the reproaches of my opponent. The behavior of my brethren in the discussions is instructive for you. By your protest you only declare once again your weakness. I am reading a book. (Cries: “Speak to the substance!”) I know better than you how to speak to the substance.

Chairman. Gentlemen, for God’s sake do not interfere.

Pichugin. I read: “It would be better for you to be without bishops and without priests set by the devil.” Perhaps this reading offends you, especially those of you who consider yourselves bishop or priest. But do not be offended at me. I am the same mortal as you, and only serve as an instrument of Scripture. My lips speak, but it is not I who speak; the church teachers speak.

Thus, heretical priests and bishops, as false, are not set by Christ, but by the devil. And you, gentlemen, not fearing God’s Judgment, not heeding the duty of conscience, carry this devilish priesthood around Russia. It would be better for you to be without devilish priesthood and go to church and keep Orthodoxy, than with bishops and priests not come to you from God to mock the church and trample its sacred laws!

To us pertain the words of the venerable man: “it is not priests who will save you or bishops or metropolitans, but the mystery of your faith and good deeds,” and this teaching is precisely applicable to our time. Here is our justification by faith, hope for the future, and foundation in our present life. Following the teaching of Christ’s Church, we firmly hold to it. It is not I who built our position by faith, dear listeners, but the Spirit of God through the lips of holy men. If I do not tell the truth, what kind of defender of my conviction by faith will I be? Likewise your defender, if he does not say what needs to be said, what kind of interlocutor will he be? After all, you heard, dear listeners, what my interlocutor said: “with you, priestless Pomortsy, is the Antichrist.” I endured this reproach, and my brethren in faith also endured it. Here, he said, “they build temples, made a council room instead of an altar, here is the abomination of desolation.” We listened, did not protest. So, gentlemen, learn patience from us.

The abomination of desolation has indeed stood, but let us see where: with us or with you? Christ the Savior said to one cunning servant:

“Cunning servant, by your own mouth I will judge you.”

So I will pronounce judgment, pronounced by the lips of your own bishops. Your bishop of Zadunai Anastasius writes: “Peace and God’s blessing to my children in the Lord! Know, children, that certain shameless ones thinking themselves Christians announced that finding in a cave the relics of the holy martyrs Dada, Gaveddai, and Kozdoi, but as doctors examined these bones, it turned out that these are corpses of Circassians, a dog, and a hare, and the accursed priest Stefan consecrated altars on these bones” p. 11. Further he writes: “Under the temple a cave is dug, on the floor of the cave lie two corpses, there lie corpses of a dog and a hare.” “By this abomination he (the priest) defiled many churches.” So here is where the abomination of desolation is.

My brethren in faith with flaming zeal and prayer built a temple to the Lord God and a section for spiritual affairs and council, but on what do you build your churches and altars? Your bishop Anastasius directly says: on the corpses of a dog and a hare—here is the abomination of desolation! Unknown corpses lay in the crypt without any Christian signs, and suddenly, out of nowhere, your council recognized them as relics of Persian martyrs.

It is not in the council room of my brethren in faith that the abomination of desolation is, but in your churches. And who writes about this? Your Anastasius, bishop of the city of Izmail. I think this is enough. You spoke out of place, my interlocutor, to offend my beloved brethren for building the temple. To such inappropriate statements and claims, as not pertaining to the matter, I gave you a rebuff.

You also said: “Where is it said that under Lot’s wife one can understand that we accept heretical bishops and priests?” But I did not say that under Lot’s wife one should understand that you accept bishops and priests. I said: your ancestors saw the need for priests and looked back. Meanwhile they said: “It is bad to live with heretical priests, but worse without them.” So too Lot’s wife: it is bad to live without house and property, but worse to live with beasts and suffer hunger; she looked back, through unbelief, to the perishing place and became salted. Thus you too did not believe God’s command to flee without looking back from the fall, looked back at heretical priests and became petrified.

I draw attention to the following words of my interlocutor: “What is the abomination of desolation? It is with you, he says, Pomortsy, because you teach that the sacrifice will cease.” To this I can object to my interlocutor: it is not we who teach that instead of the mystery of Communion the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place, but God Himself, through the lips of the prophet Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere on the altars and destroy the sacrifice.” But what did my interlocutor say to this passage from the Book of Cyril? He resorted to an improper device and with mockery said: “This is an error in the Book of Cyril, simply a misprint.” But allow me to ask you, Mr. interlocutor, on what basis do you say this is a misprint? Where did you find in Scripture such a remark to diminish the Book of Cyril by this? I will point you to the title page of the Book of Cyril, where it says:

“Truly this most excellent book is like a great ship laden with great wealth, for it is richly furnished with divine Scripture as a shield and barrier against evil heretics.”

Here is a worthy review of this holy book.

Then you also noted: “Then singing in churches will cease, but you, he says, sing, and sang yesterday.” First of all, I could say that my interlocutor speaks this off-topic. We sang yesterday in the temple, yes! But Saint Ephrem the Syrian does not speak of this ordinary singing, but of sacrificial singing, the Cherubic Hymn, and praise over the sacrifice. This is the singing in question.

For this singing occurs not in a common assembly, but where a true bishop in concelebration with presbyters and deacons offers the sacred sacrifice to the Lord God.

I will go further following the words of my interlocutor. He said another impropriety: “You have the Antichrist, congratulations.” But what signs do we have that the Antichrist is with us? For the Antichrist, like a wolf, will clothe himself in the robe of a true pastor, will be a pretended bishop. And that this is so, I will confirm by the thirteenth chapter of the book of the Apocalypse. There it says:

“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb.”

Like a lamb, it is said. What lamb? The true Lamb Jesus Christ, standing on Mount Zion. So the false christ appears for the deception of the deluded in the form of Christ. So does anyone among the Pomortsy dress in sacred robes and call himself by the name of Christ—a bishop? How out of place! This does not mean a simpleton in modest clothing, but a hidden wolf, according to the interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, a false bishop, for

“The Antichrist desires to imitate the Son of God in everything.”

Who, one asks, pretends to be in the image of Christ? False bishops and false priests. But we have none, and the insult inflicted on us falls with all its weight on your head. This happens with you, not with us.

Then, you cited page 75 of part 6 of the Works of Ephrem the Syrian, with the words that “He who instituted the sacrifices will abolish them.” Most honorable interlocutor, from the passage you read and your personal explanation it is evident that you are as ignorant in prophetic Scripture as you are intemperate in words and tongue. Reading the prophet’s words in Ephrem the Syrian, you should have thought and asked yourself what and about whom this is spoken. For this is spoken about Old Testament sacrifices, not about the mystery of Communion. I will read this passage and you will see that it will be as I say: “For this migration will not be like the Egyptian or Babylonian migration. From Egypt the Jews returned after four hundred years, and from Babylon they will return after seventy.” One asks: about whom is the speech? About the Jews who returned from Egypt after four hundred years, and from Babylon after seventy. Is this not clear? Further the holy father says: “But this desolation appointed by God will not cease, and forever it will be given to desolation.” Is it not evident here that this speaks of the last desolation of the Jews by the Romans? Finally, Saint Ephrem cites the words of the prophet Daniel: “And he will confirm a covenant with many; the slain King Christ with His blood will confirm a covenant with many. One week and half a week, and the sacrifice and offering will be taken away. He who instituted them will abolish them.” It turns out my interlocutor did not understand the most important thing. “Them”—that is, lawful sacrifices, and if this were spoken about the mystery of Communion, it would say: “He who instituted it will abolish it.” This is what my interlocutor lacks. And this is clear as God’s day that here it speaks of the institution of Old Testament sacrifices. God instituted them in the Sinai desert through Moses and Aaron the high priest, and on the cross abolished them. This is the sacrifice spoken of here. One needs to read a little more diligently and tell the public only what is truth. Then, what does my interlocutor say: “Here we have been struggling with the Pomortsy after Nikon.” But I have seen you only for the third time, Dmitry Sergeevich. We are comparatively so young, but after Nikon 250 years have passed, and no mortal could achieve such longevity.

But here is what you said well: “that from the years of Nikon to the present time we cannot prove to you.” Here is honor to you. This is the truth you said, that you cannot prove the correctness of your priesthood.

Then you say: “They will flee from the Antichrist, but where will the priestless flee?” And in this case you are gravely mistaken. The priestless do not commune with those close to the Antichrist; in this respect they flee. And how do they flee? By removing themselves from those fallen into heresies, from the teaching of the erring, from the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

Then you said that I supposedly read incorrectly from the book of Southwestern Acts, that it is not Patriarch Jeremiah who writes, but the monk John. Untruth. You must read books too dully. Here look: “What does he do?”

One must read more attentively. Look at the words: “What does he do?” Jeremiah gathers the flock. For if John were writing, he would say what I do, what I perform, what I gather the flock. The monk John would have no right to say that he gathers the flock, because he is a simple monk, and this is proper only to bishops. Tell me, how dull this is.

Then you stopped again on Avvakum. Tell me, dear interlocutor, it seems all your hope is only on Avvakum. But Avvakum did not write such words, and you should not have spoken them in a public discussion. What kind of words are these: “You have wandered, my friend.” Tell me, are these the words of a sufferer, the words of a martyr? No, these are the words of a merry company, words of a freethinker, words of an unbeliever. For you wrote this in the person of your ancestors; this was concocted by your Iona Kur-nosy. So this is false history!

Having examined your arguments, I will now present new testimonies that in need we can partake by faith, spiritually. The venerable Ephrem the Syrian in his book, Word 83, writes:

“Let there be churches of God, and the Most High God will dwell in you. For the soul having God in itself will be called a holy and pure Church, and divine mysteries are served in it.”

And how is this highest mystery of Communion accomplished in a person? Let us listen to reasonable Scripture: Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 63, page 568:

“The body of a person is the church of God, and the heart of a person is the altar of the Holy Spirit.”

On this altar—a pure heart—God comes and performs the mystery, by faith. Allow me to present to you also the interpretation of the holy blessed Ephrem the Syrian, his Works, part 4, p. 349:

“As long as the heart abides in good, so long God abides in it, so long it serves as a source of life. The heart is God’s dwelling, therefore it needs guarding so that evil does not enter it and God does not depart from it.”

“Wonderful this is, my brethren: most marvelous, my beloved; incomprehensible to the heavenly, and inexpressible to the earthly. Inaccessible to every mind enters the heart and dwells in it. Hidden from the fiery-eyed is found in the heart. The earth does not bear His footsteps, but a pure heart bears Him in itself. Heaven is small for His span, but the heart is His dwelling. Heaven He encompasses with His handful, and one span of space is His habitation. If He spreads out—all creation will not contain Him within its bounds, but if He seeks the heart, even a small heart contains Him. A small place He chooses in man for His dwelling, and man becomes a temple of God in which God dwells. The soul is His temple, and the heart is the Holy altar on which praise, glorification, and sacrifices are offered; and the priest is the Spirit who stands and officiates there.”

This is the kind of Communion true Christians, my brethren in faith, have.

Then, dear listeners, I also cite the testimony of Saint John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria. Cheti-Minei, month of November, 11th day, article 46:

“And this the blessed one taught and testified, that in no way ever should one partake of heretical communion, especially defilement. Even if your whole life, said the blessed one, and from some need or misfortune you remain without Communion, not finding a conciliar church (below). How then, having yoked oneself with right faith to the conciliar church, as the apostle said: betrothing a pure virgin to one husband, to present to God. If we defile the Orthodox and holy faith by heretical communion, will we not be partakers of the torment awaiting heretics in the age to come (below). Therefore do not, O children, touch such praying ones for the sake of bread.”

Now I have sufficiently proved, beloved listeners, all that was required of me.

A person, a true Christian, can and must hope for that Communion which the Heavenly King Himself gives by faith.

D. S. Varakin. The question was posed whether priesthood and sacrifice will remain in the Church until Christ’s second coming. Did my interlocutor say anything about this question in this speech? No, he did not. I am sure that more than half of you will agree that on the question he said nothing in this speech. He dragged in something about dogs and hares. But is our question today about dogs and hares? If you are interested in dogs and hares, take a rifle after Peter’s day and go hunting in the forest. Did you not hear that today our question is about Christ’s holy sacrifice: will it remain until the second coming? I simply do not understand your reasoning: the question is posed about the sacrifice, and he tells about dogs and hares. I think there is a difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs and hares, or have you become so coarsened that you no longer have a concept of the difference between Christ’s sacrifice and dogs? One must have no shame, my dearest interlocutor, to speak such baseness.

Then, again there was in his speech the question of our hierarchy. I told you, gentlemen, and addressed the dear interlocutor: appoint another two days for a discussion on our hierarchy and we will speak specifically about the hierarchy. Why do you not accept my challenge, if you wish, to speak another two days about our hierarchy? Why do you remain silent on this direct challenge? For the fourth speech I ask him to appoint a discussion specifically on the question of the hierarchy, but he seems not to hear. He needs to abuse, because he cannot answer the question, because in Scripture there is no such heretical teaching. So he must abuse. If it pleases my dear interlocutor even to discuss the bodies found there in the Caucasus, a special discussion must be appointed for this too; I agree to discuss the question of the martyrs’ bodies. However, where there is no true sacrifice, where instead of an altar they arrange something else that should not be in the church, there dogs and hares are most likely to appear. In good conscience I say that I would wish to speak on the question of relics and specifically on the question of the hierarchy for another two days. Let him accept the challenge and appoint the discussion; I am ready, but now I will not speak on this question because it does not pertain to the matter.

You read the last proof from the Cheti-Minei of John the Merciful, not to accept heretical teaching. I agree with this. But it was proved that until the second coming Christ’s sacrifice will remain in Christ’s Church. You say it is not suitable in the dominant church. But do you have it yourselves? It is not suitable there and not here, and I have none; but it will remain until the second coming. So where is it? This is why you needed dogs with hares.

Then, honorable listeners, I pointed out that my interlocutor read from the Historical Acts the words of the monk John of Vyshensky and intertwined them with the name of the patriarch. He says, here is where I read this, here is where I took this book. We see that indeed, instead of John of Vyshensky, he slipped in Patriarch Jeremiah (page 227 of the epistle of the Athonite monk John of Vyshensky). And he reads this epistle, passing off the words of John of Vyshensky as the words of Patriarch Jeremiah. “Here I,” says Vyshensky, “will now speak with you about the patriarch’s arrival as follows.” Can a patriarch speak about his own arrival where he has not yet been? What are you doing, interlocutor. This is a clear deception, to say no more. Is such defense fitting for truly Orthodox Christians? Is it fitting to lead the public into delusion? There he hides it. (Pichugin: “Please, whoever wants, if you wish, I will give it now.”) Calm down, brethren, calm down. So, honorable assembly, this is the epistle of the monk Vyshensky, but to give more weight to these words, my interlocutor needed the mask of Patriarch Jeremiah.

Then, supposedly I said that we have had disputes about faith for 250 years and cannot prove to you. And here you wished to rephrase. I said we cannot convince you; this does not mean we cannot prove. That the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming you did not read in Scripture. Then, I read the words of Protopope Avvakum, where it is said that priesthood and sacrifice will remain until the end of the age, that even if priesthood is exiled, it will not perish to the end. Our interlocutor does not believe this. But did not the Apostle Paul write the same? Protopope Avvakum said until the end of the age, Chrysostom says: until He comes, John of Damascus that it will remain until Christ’s coming, Ephrem the Syrian that it will remain until Christ’s coming. All exactly as one. Then he said: the bishop will be the Antichrist. This means that our Pichugin, uncompelled by anyone, confessed that the Antichrist is not yet here; he will be and come as a hierarch in a mitre. It is not I who needs to come to senses, but you, dear interlocutor. When my interlocutor read from the Book of Cyril that the Antichrist before his coming will destroy the sacrifice, I say these words are taken from the Explanatory Apostle, in whose interpretation it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” I say this is a scribal error or misprint. Pichugin objects: what right does he (i.e., I) have to say this? Here is what I will tell you. In the Gospel it is said:

“It will be fulfilled as spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: and they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s field.”

It turns out that Jeremiah does not have this, but Zechariah does. What is this? Who could have done this? We see that Zechariah has it. This is a scribal error. But for this error no one blames anyone. Here (Explanatory Apostle) it says: “before the Lord’s coming,” but here (in Cyril): “before his own coming,” i.e., the Antichrist’s. Where is my injustice here? I told the pure truth. So here it is said as I interpreted.

Then I read Ephrem the Syrian on page 75, part 6; here it speaks of the New Testament sacrifice. “The slain kingdom Christ with His blood will confirm covenants with many.” About the Old Testament sacrifice, says Pichugin, the speech is, Christ confirmed it with His blood. What do you think, Lev Feoktistovich, did Christ suffer in the Old Testament? “Christ with His blood confirmed covenants with many.” And why, for example, did you not pay attention to the words of Ephrem the Syrian where it is said that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s coming. Why do you not pay attention to these words. For if you say: it is not so with us, others have none, you must have it. Just as one cannot say that the human race will cease to be born, so one cannot say that the sacrifice will cease. In your society children are born; you cannot in any way make them not be born, because God said, increase and multiply; so too the sacrifice: once said, but until the second coming it has power. When the human race ceases to be born, then only can one say that the sacrifice has ceased, but as long as this exists, so long will the sacrifice exist. And this will exist until the second coming. That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, this is written in yet a third place by the same venerable Ephrem the Syrian. One I read, the other read by him does not serve him in justification. From the third place I read (part VII, pp. 250–51): “But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God the Father, who loved us and gave us eternal consolation, that is, instead of temporary sacrifices given to the former (ancient generations) and passed away. But consolation instead of sacrifices He will give us in eternal service: for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifices, however our sacrifice, which is our consolation itself, will not cease even in the second coming itself, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. He also gave us good hope, that our hearts may be consoled by it in sorrow from persecutors.” And what is eternal will not cease—that is, instead of the temporary sacrifice given to former generations, an eternal one will be given to us, for although the first coming abolished the former sacrifice, but this “will not cease until the second coming.” This is how Saint Ephrem the Syrian writes about the sacrifice, that even in the second coming the sacrifice which Christ established in the Church will not cease, but this very coming will cause it to abound even more than now. Now we partake of the body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, but then, when Christ Himself comes, then, as Saint Theodoret writes, there will be no need for bread and wine, because “the Body itself will appear.”

That indeed in the kingdom of the Antichrist the priesthood will not cease, we read this from another testimony, of Saint Andrew of Caesarea, chapter 12, verse 17:

Present. “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Interpretation: And he went to make war with the rest.—But when the best and chosen church teachers and those who despised the earth withdraw because of distresses into the desert, then the Antichrist, though deceived in them, will raise war against those warring for Christ in the world.”

Here, even in the time of the Antichrist’s kingdom the chosen church teachers will overcome the Antichrist and not follow him. So priesthood will be. One can see many proofs that indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will not cease. About this also writes Saint Gregory the Dialogist: “The good Shepherd laid down His soul for His sheep so that in our mystery His body and blood might be inexhaustible, and that the sheep He redeemed might be satisfied with the nourishment of His flesh” (Homilies on the Gospel by Gregory the Dialogist, book one, p. 124).

Christ established: “do this in My remembrance,” the apostle says: “until the second coming.” But for 250 years you have neither body nor blood. Why do you live not as the holy apostles and Chrysostom write, but simply as you please. That indeed the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood will remain until the second coming, testifies also Saint John of Damascus: “The word of God is living and active and the Lord did whatever He desired; if He said: let there be light: and there was; let there be a firmament: and there was; if by the Lord’s word the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host; if heaven and earth, and water, and fire, and air, and all their adornment were accomplished by the Lord’s word, likewise this most glorious living creature: man; if God the Word Himself desiring became man and from the pure and undefiled blood of the holy Ever-Virgin seedlessly formed flesh for Himself; then can He not make bread His body and wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green grass, and even until now, whenever rain occurs, it brings forth its proper plants, driven and empowered by divine command. God said: this is My body; and: this is My blood; and: do this in My remembrance; and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes; for so (Scripture) said: until He comes” (Exact Exposition, ch. XIII, pp. 220–221). God said: “this is My body and this is My blood and do this in My remembrance” and by His almighty command, this happens until He comes. So instead of resorting to hares in the discussion, which pertain to nothing here, you should read where the holy fathers wrote that the sacrifice will not remain until the second coming. No, you did not even think to answer; we knew in advance that we would not receive this answer from you. So how can one call that society which does not follow Scripture? Can one call it Christ’s Church? No, simply a crowd of people led by blind guides, like my interlocutor.

The same about the eternity of the sacrifice writes blessed Simeon of Thessalonica (in the Russian translation of his works, p. 182): “Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the age; for He said this not as if after this He would not always be with us, as when praying to the Father He says: Father, those You gave Me, I desire that where I am they also may be with Me, that they may see My glory, and before the prayer: and the glory You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one as We are one, and I in them and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, but until the end of the age He will be through His mysteries, and He said this also because He is not now seen, having ascended bodily, until He comes.” This is how Christ will be with us until the end of the age—through His mysteries. If you have none of this, Christ is not with you, and if He is not with you, you are not Christians, and if you are not Christians, you are anti-Christians. This is the conclusion—sound, logical conclusion—because Christ has communion with us in the mysteries. Saint Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent writes the following about those who do not partake (Book “Chrysostom”, fifth week of Lent, p. 129 reverse):

“If anyone lives purely in repentance but does not receive Christ’s mysteries, he cannot be saved.”

One must think about this. By my duties and by my work, which I do by calling, I have had to be in the Pomor lands, among the priestless. When I asked them: tell me please, when you read the above words of Chrysostom in the fifth week of Lent, what do you think at that time? They told me: “We do not read them.” And why? “So as not to tempt the people. For the people will hear and revolt. We take and skip this place.” Here is an example of this. In the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle writes: “The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” So these words for those being saved, who believe all Scripture, are the power of God. And for those who do not believe this Scripture and do not live so, it is foolishness for them. Therefore they skip these words. This is the judgment lying on those who do not partake of Christ’s Body and Blood. This Scripture about the eternity of the sacrifice serves them only as poverty, reproach, and foolishness, but for the saved it serves as the power of God, on which alone we can rely, on which we hope. By works we cannot be justified, but can only hope to repent of our sins and by receiving the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood obtain eternal life.

That indeed the sacrifice will remain until the second coming, further testimonies are given from the Great Collection (page 559):

“Just as that voice saying ‘increase and multiply and fill the earth’ was spoken once, but every year the deed occurs, giving power to our nature for procreation. So this voice was spoken once, but always (ever) on the tables in the churches from that day and until His coming makes the perfect sacrifice.”

See, honorable listeners, how many proofs, almost letter for letter identical. All Scripture says one and the same. There are no disagreements about the sacrifice. Disagreements are only in the own language of my interlocutor. If you have no sacrifice, it means either Christ has come, or since this is not so, it means you are deceived. The same is written in the Book of Cyril (page 351):

“But at every time, and every hour, every year, even until the end of the world, He left His most pure body and life-giving divine blood, shed for the world for the remission of sins, for His faithful to eat, uniting and joining them to His divine and incorruptible nature. As Chrysostom also recalling this writes thus: for just as after the creation of all things the Lord’s word abounds, as He said: increase and multiply and fill the earth. Which spoken once occurs in deed every year, helping our nature to childbearing; so the word of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, proclaiming all creation from corruption to resurrection. Especially man possessing all these, spoken once: take and eat and drink of it all, never fails, helping His faithful to union and joining to the divine nature and inheritance of the heavenly kingdom.”

Here more than 20 testimonies have been read by me in proof that sacrifice and priesthood will remain until the second coming, because priesthood and sacrifice are together; one cannot be without the other. So, my interlocutor, take at least one of these proofs in hand. Where is the truth here? Where is the sincerely expressed desire by him to defend his supposed brethren as truly Orthodox Christians? Where is this desire? This desire, these tears of yours, are mere pretense, only pretense. Here is such a cloud of witnesses in defense of Christ’s saving sacrifice, established by Him at the Mystical Supper in the presence of His disciples.

Concluding my speech with this, I turn again to my dear interlocutor: let him go the straight path, let him read in Holy Scripture where it is said that sacrifice and priesthood will not remain until the second coming. If he mentions our priesthood once more, or another priesthood, or generally touches questions that do not pertain to this discussion, I will again remind him of the challenge. I wish to conduct with him a two-day discussion on the question of our hierarchy and on the question of relics. I ask you to accept my challenge and answer the question on the basis of Holy Scripture: where is it written that the sacrifice will not remain until Christ’s second coming?

L. F. Pichugin. I ask for your attention, dear listeners! My interlocutor has fallen into irritation. He himself spoke nonsense and is offended himself. I presented such a cloud of testimonies that my interlocutor cannot fly above this cloud. This cloud soaring in the air is the testimonies of holy men. I advise you, gentlemen priestly ones, to look around, enter into yourselves and ask: where now is this sacrifice actually offered in the Orthodox spirit? In Rome you do not recognize, in the East and Arabia you do not recognize, in Uniates what is done you reject, in Gregorian Armenians you do not recognize, in the Armenian common-heretical church also you do not recognize, finally you do not recognize in the Greco-Russian church. Where is the true sacrifice? For you factually sum it up yourselves that only with you is the sacrifice, but about your sacrifice, gentlemen, you must speak cautiously, because it is foreign with you, not your own, not Christ’s, but heretical and Antichrist’s, bought for money, assembled by human inventions, not by the living word of the Gospel. You ask, let Lev Feoktistovich show me where in Scripture it is written about the final desolation or cessation of the sacrifice? To this I can say to my interlocutor with the words of the Gospel. “Tell us, blind man, ask the proud Pharisees, who healed you? Who opened your eyes?” The healed one answers: “I have told you several times that Jesus healed me, or do you not hear?” These sacred words are precisely applicable to my interlocutor. I have testified to you several times from the Book of Cyril that “the Antichrist before his coming will do what is everywhere to destroy the true sacrifice and set the abomination of desolation in the holy place,” that is, impious heresies.

Then, I brought you a series of other testimonies and, finally, here is the following conclusion of Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, in the Great Collection, Meatfare week, third word: “The sun and moon will weep at that time,” he says.

But the sun naturally cannot weep, nor can the moon shed tears. This must be understood spiritually.

“Then the wild animals with the birds will weep, the mountains and hills will weep, and the field trees, for the sake of the human race, because all have turned away from God and believed the deceiver.”

And it is said that this will be in the days of the Antichrist. So if understood literally, as you do, one must literally account for how birds and beasts will weep? How will mountains, hills, and trees weep? For in essence this cannot be. Well, so here it speaks not of birds and beasts, but of people similar to them.

Then: “Having received the mark of the foul God-fighter instead of the life-giving Cross of the Savior.”

Who among us has received this number 666?

“Then God’s churches will also weep with great weeping, because neither offering nor incense is performed, nor is there God-pleasing service. For the sacred churches will be like vegetable storehouses, and the honorable body and blood of Christ will not appear in those days.”

So, brethren, understand that in these days there will be no body and blood of Christ, for they will be destroyed by the Antichrist, the enemy of the human race—the devil.

But my interlocutor as if intentionally pointed out to me that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be helpers of the Church: pastors and excellent church teachers. This he read from chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea, and adding his own words said: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be priests and bishops.” But is this really so? Let us see: Apocalypse, chapter 12, says thus:

“And the dragon persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child.”

The woman is Christ’s Church, desiring to give birth through holy baptism by faith of the baptized. The dragon is the devil:

“He spews water like a river after the woman.”

This is heretical teaching, by which he wanted to drown the child of the woman—that is, destroy it in the muddy water of heretical teaching.

“And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon spewed from his mouth. And the dragon went to make war with the rest; Excellent and chosen church teachers, it says.”

Thus it is written in the explanatory Apocalypse that in the time of the Antichrist there will truly be the best church teachers. And therefore my interlocutor says: “that even in the time of the Antichrist there will be bishops and priests.” In this place my interlocutor is gravely mistaken: these excellent church teachers were, but will not be. This I say on the basis of the Great Collection, page 877 reverse and in the margin. Apocalypse, chapter 12, where it is written:

“This war I think John the Theologian shows in the revelation, that the dragon persecuted the woman desiring to give birth to lawful children, that is, the church of the new covenant, against which the dragon spewed water, that is, those heretics. Which God seeing not a little shaken and afflicted by him, raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors.”

“He raised up for her strong and vigilant pastors, of whom I say the first and most wise and great Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, and Irenaeus, and the divine Hippolytus, and the wonderful and excellent among philosophers Cyprian. And the strong and invincible warrior for the Holy Trinity Athanasius the Great. The firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, who truly helped the church, swallowing heretical teaching like the earth water with right teachings, which even now are set before the faithful to drive away such abomination.”

See, dear listeners, my words are confirmed by Scripture. The dragon persecuted the woman—that is, the Antichrist the holy Church. He spewed water after the woman—that is, the teaching of heretics. “He raised up for her strong fighters”—already, not will raise in the future. He raised Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin the Philosopher, Irenaeus the most holy, Hippolytus, the divine Cyprian, Athanasius the Great, the firm and unshakable pillars of Orthodoxy: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom. These are the true helpers of the holy Church. And since they are no longer in life, they reign with Christ, but we still suffer in this life and see with our eyes the flood-like false teaching, so how can we repel the foul wiles of the deceiver Antichrist?

Whoever reads impartially and reasons soundly Scripture will be a champion of truth and follower of those great pillars. This is the meaning of the said Scripture. So, my dearest interlocutor, you should read the original books of the holy fathers, not those little books and small brochures, but take the holy books and read them diligently. Then you noted to me: “one must have shame to speak such baseness about hares and dogs.” Forgive me, for I did not speak this in my own words; I read the letter of your lord Anastasius. You yourself call this shame and reproach, and do not call me a blind guide and my brethren in faith.

I will answer this too not in my own words, but in the words of one holy man. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (part 2, p. 235) says this to people who attribute their absurdities to others: “Be ashamed, second Babylon and new Sodomite mixture. How long will you mix tongues? How long will you dare against those whom you harm not at all? You seek to do violence to angelic powers, casting out words of truth from the church and saying to holy Lot: bring out the men (Gen. 19:5). But what you undertake, you undertake against yourself. For you will not cast out words of truth, but strike yourself with blindness (Gen. 19:11). And you walk in dark night, groping for the door and not finding it, until the sun rises, and you see the day of judgment, when fire (Gen. 19:23, 24) will overtake you for lying words.”

“Be ashamed,” says the holy father, “second Babylon.” So, to whom does this rebuke apply if not to you? Babylon means mixture.

Where is the first Babylon? I will answer in your words. There where you took your priesthood. And who is the second Babylon? It is you.

I will now speak about that Communion you mentioned. Saint Theodore the Studite on this occasion says, his letter, part 1, p. 325: “For Communion from a heretic or one openly condemned by life separates from God and delivers to the devil.” So we avoid this devilish Communion.

Part two of the same book of the venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 81:

“Communion with heretics is not common bread, but poison, damaging not the body but blackening and darkening the soul.” Consequently, whoever partakes with heretics and false priests has his soul poisoned with spiritual poison.

Further I read, part two, p. 219: “For a temple defiled by heretics is not a holy and God’s temple, but an ordinary house, as Basil the Great says, since the angel formerly present in each church has departed from it for impiety. Therefore the sacrifice performed in it is not accepted by God. Listen how he himself says: the sinner sacrificing a calf to Me is like one killing a dog” (Isa. 66:3).

This is what heretical Communion is like. We avoid and abhor such Communion. But Christ’s Communion in the present last time there is none, for false priests cannot arrange it.

Further I read, part two of the same venerable Theodore the Studite, p. 339: “What is this forced participation, under threat of bodily unpleasantness in case of refusal, to participate in heterodox bread. The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—O most Christian thought!—is a voluntary sacrifice.”

Thus, let those who forcibly draw us to communion with them against our will know that they act in a pagan way. “Offering not Christ’s body voluntarily sacrificed, but on the contrary some kind of idol-sacrificed, similar to involuntarily offered sacrifices to demons.”

Then I will also cite a testimony. Works of blessed Jerome, part 6, p. 78: “The church of heretics, which calls to itself the senseless in mind, so that deceived by it he accepts thievish breads.” What is this thievish bread? Heretics, stealing the Orthodox form of performance, perform mysteries with this form and deceive the senseless in mind—that is, simpletons. These are not my words, but the words of holy men. And not only did they accept thievish bread, but thievish water. And what does thievish water mean? False heretical baptism, as it is said: “Thievish water—that is, false mystery and foul baptism.” This is what we avoid.

Further I testify. In part 6 of the Works of blessed Jerome, on p. 254, it is written: “He commands then to the Jewish people and now to us, seemingly in the church, not to rely on the splendor of buildings, on gilded ceilings and marble-clad walls, and not to say: temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord. For the temple of the Lord is that in which true faith dwells, holy life, and the assembly of all virtues.”

Here only temples can be temples of the Lord, but Christ the Savior about such said in the Gospel of Luke, Reading 72:

“Then you will begin to say: we ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.”

This will be said at Christ’s Judgment by those who partook of false mysteries. And Christ answers them:

“I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.”

This is what bitter answer of the Savior to you. And after this He said:

“There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Thus, temples are recognized not by Communion, but by faith pure from heresies and virtuous life.

And if many people like you say that they partook, ate the body and drank the blood of Christ, Christ will say to such: “Depart from Me, I do not know you.”

Then another testimony. Work of blessed Jerome, part II, p. 159: “Thus all deceived by heretics serve as food for demons.” Whoever partakes with heretics becomes not a temple of God, but food for demons. P. 165: “For heretics also imitate church meekness, but their offering appears not as service to God, but as food to demons.”

So, although false priests and bishops perform similar rites in the service of the sacrifice, their offering—that is, Communion—appears not as service to God, but as food to demons. Strict words, dear listeners, but not my words, but the words of holy men. This is where heretics’ Communion leads—to food for demons, but Orthodox Communion nowhere now exists. Works of blessed Jerome, part 12, p. 88: “For all that was done afterward in the temple was not sacrifice to God, but service to the devil.”

Further I read on p. 238: “No one doubts that the hearts of heretics are kindled by the devil’s fire,” so that breads—that is, Communion—are baked in them for the Antichrist. I will make a comparison. The heart of a true Christian is God’s altar, but the heart of a heretic is an oven in which breads are baked for the Antichrist.

Further testimony of the same part of blessed Jerome, p. 265: “The sacrifices of heretics are bread of sorrow and tears, because all that they do will turn to weeping (below). By bread of sorrow we can call those pernicious words in which they express impiety against the Lord. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the assemblies of heretics are called not God’s house, but dens of robbers.” And everyone who eats partakes with these people and is defiled. These are blind guides, false teachers who lead the blind into the pit. The Master Christ said: “Woe to you, blind guides, you yourselves do not enter the Kingdom of God and do not allow those wishing to enter. You, He says, are like whitewashed tombs.” And who are these beautiful outward tombs? These are false bishops. Beautiful in appearance, but dead inside, they appear like children’s dolls. And what does the content of the tombs mean, dear listeners? Graceless priests. All that they do is done for pleasure, to deceive the people, to devour widows’ houses, to make more money. By bread of sorrow, says blessed Jerome, we can call those pernicious words in which impiety against the Lord is expressed. This bread does not enter God’s house, because the church of heretics is called not God’s house, but a den of robbers.

You say, interlocutor, we have no church. Untruth, with us precisely only the undefiled faith and right Church is preserved: we have neither heretical priesthood nor heretical baptism. On the contrary, look at yourselves. The holy father says that the assembly of heretics is not Christ’s Church, but “a den of robbers,” and this is factually true.

Further the same blessed Jerome says, in part 13, p. 154: “All this we can refer also to heretics: their altar is broken, and all dedications and sacrilegious mysteries are shaken: they had covetousness in their heads and are like a partridge which by cry gathers those it did not hatch, and acquires riches by unrighteousness (Jer. ch. 17).”

They had covetousness—that is, they arranged their priesthood for money, and most of all they had covetousness in their heads.

So this is not a mother Church, but a stepmother of demonic origin, which did not bear children by the Holy Spirit in baptism, but by the voice of a native mother gathers the inattentive for deception and boasts of them. You say we have flock and pastors. But by the words of the holy father you are convicted “that you acquire riches by unrighteousness.” Now judge for yourselves who you are.

Further I read, p. 191 of the same part: “For as you rejoiced at their slaughter and arranged feasts and on My holy mountain”—that is, in your madness, when you were carried away by the pleasures of the spiritual wealth you acquired—that is, priesthood—and arranged feasts—that is, offered sacrifices on the holy mountain in the church—“you drank not My cup, but the devil’s cup.” When you rejoiced at your find, you did not drink Christ’s cup when you partook, but partook of the devil’s cup. Thus said the holy father. Here is what bitter lesson to these people who do not heed God’s words and blaspheme them. Christ the Savior said:

“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will weep and wail and there will be none to comfort them.”

Finally, dear listeners, from whom, do you think, did the church of the priestly ones originate? Their church originated not from Christ successively, but from the heretic Ambrose, and they themselves called it Belokrinitsa, not apostolic or Christ’s. Having received beginning from a mortal man and heretic, what kind of church is it? Blessed Jerome about such in his Work, part 4, p. 92, said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from someone else (below), know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” For one must firmly hold to that Church which was founded by the apostles, not the new Belokrinitsa one.

Thus, now the totals are summed up. I will read to you another testimony from the book of Baronius, epistle of the sacred martyr Cyprian, page 165 reverse, about Communion: “You have, he says, beloved brethren, no vanity in reverence and faith, that there in this time God’s priests cannot perform offerings and sacrifices: offer as sacrifice a broken spirit, a contrite and humble heart, God will not despise. This sacrifice offer to God continually, day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice, as the apostle says, in your bodies.”

If you do not have priests and cannot perform the sacrifice, do not grieve over this.

Here, finally, is the holy teaching of the Church: where there are no priests, where there is no service, there you can yourselves offer, by faith, the sacrifice of your spirit and heart. Here is what Zachariah Kopystensky says about this (his book On the One Truth, page 152 reverse): “I know the three youths spoke. And there is in that hour neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader, nor whole burnt offering, nor sacrifice, nor offering, nor incense, nor place to offer (altar) before You, and find mercy, but with a contrite soul and humble spirit may we be accepted. As You see Yourself in that hour to have both prophet and place, and would offer to God; or wherever it could not be, a contrite soul hoping in God’s mercy, and a humble spirit offered (partook). And believing in this way they would be accepted by God as the foremost offering. Likewise the right-believing, and in the hour (of need) mentioned, then they will understand about their acceptance by God: and prophet—that is, priest; place—that is, Church. Sacrifice—that is, most holy mysteries (Communion), where there is none, as those three youths offered to God a contrite soul, a humble spirit. Do not be troubled, it is better and safer (for you) to fall thus into God’s hands, as the reigning prophet David says: then I will fall into the Lord’s hands, for I know His mercies are many and swift, but into human hands then I will not fall (below). To die with right faith, yes. So I know we fall into God’s hands and mercy and goodness, rather than into human hands—that is, impious and unOrthodox. Through this perdition and loss of salvation, not being faithful to the end. Be (be) carefree in the final step of your life, preserve yourself, remember that thief on the cross, remember the first-martyr Stephen and innumerable other martyrs, exiles and those exiled in deserts, who ended their life without Communion, preserving faith in their heads above all. For remembering I know: be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life; and be (be) more confident about baptism and confession and Communion—Eucharist, as it is written, for I know that you will do this not out of contempt or disdain, but because of persecution and through harms from visible tormentors, and striving to preserve and keep the right faith unbroken, I say again do not lament (do not grieve), but firmly assure this.”

D. S. Varakin. I ask for your attention. Only for half an hour I ask your precious attention. Here we have heard the last speech with the proofs of our interlocutor. In this speech he seems to have brought everything he had at hand to somehow defile that priesthood which has its succession from Christ through pious patriarchs, bishops, and priests and finally through Metropolitan Ambrose. Arming himself with Scripture against heretics, he does not inflict any defeat on us, because is it not known to anyone that we, truly Orthodox Christians, have no heresy and what was accepted in the holy universal Church from heretics, we accepted too. If we did this badly, let him first pour this poison on the holy Church. Then only will this poison be appropriately poured by him if he dares to pour it on the ecumenical councils. No matter how bold my interlocutor is, he will not do this. So let him stop pouring the poison of malice on what was also done by the holy Church. With his last proof he wanted to prove that the liturgy is not needed, that one can partake without sacrifice, with contrition of spirit, and sacrifice is prayer, and referred that this was said by Saint Cyprian. Reading the Chronicle of Baronius, he says: these are Cyprian’s words. If it were known to you, dear interlocutor, that this is in Cyprian’s book, you would have read it in Cyprian’s book. You have it at hand. And why did you not read it in it? Because Cyprian does not have this. And here too you told untruth. You did not finish reading the place that clarifies the main thought. And this is always his practice: he reads and does not finish. Like some epidemic, he cannot break the habit of reading and not finishing, necessarily cutting off. In Baronius he read a clear self-rebuke. Further is written what he left out.

“This sacrifice offer to God continually day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice (as the apostle says) in your bodies. Here he clearly distinguishes the external sacrifice, which they could not perform in prison—that is, the liturgy—from the internal, which they could offer with one heart. Lest the heretic say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice, which is contrary to truth and all antiquity” (Baronius, p. 165 reverse).

Well, if in prison, he says, a person is not given freedom, can he partake of Christ’s body and blood when neither priest is allowed nor holy gifts are brought? No, he says, he cannot. Then, he says, by force of this necessity, let him partake by prayer. For he is not released from this prison. What further?

“Lest heretics say that the Church of Christ has no external sacrifice.”

It is not Saint Cyprian who says that the Church of Christ now has no sacrifice, but lest heretics say this. This is contrary to all antiquity. He did not finish this. Well, what kind of interlocutor is this. This place strikes him, but he reads it against us. Here the heretic said that Christ’s Church has no external sacrifice, and he says this. This is what you have come to, L. F. Your head is simply spinning. You no longer know what you are reading.

It was read from Jerome parts 6 and 2, 13 and 17. And what is read here, that one must not have communion with heretics, must not have mixture, must turn away from heretics. But who disputes this with you? If you wish, I will read you not 5 proofs, but 205, that one must not have communion with heretics. But was the discussion about this? The discussion was about the following: will Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood remain until the second coming? The question was posed by me. So know this, dearest interlocutor, and you, Pomortsy, remember that your interlocutor did not answer the question from Scripture and leaves without an answer, meaning he has nothing to justify himself with. But was our question about whether to have communion with heretics? There is no discussion about this at all.

Here he read from the fourth part of Jerome: “whoever,” he says, “is not from Christ, that,” he says, “is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of the Antichrist.” But this place, one can say, has two ends. According to him, we originated from the time of Metropolitan Ambrose. Let us stop at this for now. But as history says, they have their origin from Pomorye. So he says: “we Old Believers-Pomortsy earlier than them.” But they appeared from the time of the Denisov brothers. Consequently, you are not from the time of Christ, but from the time of the Denisov brothers; so you too are the synagogue of the Antichrist? This is also proved by the fact that in your temples instead of altars and thrones sideboards are set. Also, gentlemen, I draw your attention to this: the interlocutor condemned those persons in our society who have successive ordination descending from pious patriarchs and called our bishops, priests, and deacons by various shameful names. What cunning Mr. Pichugin has reached in abuse; it seems he has achieved virtuosity in this. But we will draw your attention to what he did at the council recently, how they appointed their mentors. Our bishops and priests received ordination. But with them they were only establishing conciliarly: how to count our fathers—spiritual persons or the same simple as we? It turned out that for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were? Does, they say, our mentor have succession? Yes, for 250 years they did not know who their mentors were. Here is this brochure—“List of subjects of conciliar discussion”—and it poses this question. Of course, we could read it in the big book, but since it is not written in the big book, by necessity one has to read from the small one. Thus, one must recognize their pastors not as simple laymen. But who are they? I do not know—who. Not priests, not deacons, not bishops, yet not laymen. Something in between. John the Theologian said about such: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot; I will spit you out.”

Then were read the words of Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “God’s Church will weep… there will be neither incense nor sacrifice.” I was recently in their temple. They have a large censer. But in the time of the Antichrist there is no incense. Where did you get it from? He, according to Hippolytus, destroyed even incense. So where did you get this censer? The Antichrist destroyed the sacrifice, but not the censer. Then they perform services: molebens, vespers, matins, panikhidas, hours, sing, read Scripture. Gentlemen, pay attention: in the 20th century, in Moscow, in a large auditorium, we read such a heap of Scriptures, but in the times of the Antichrist Scripture will not be heard, it will be impossible to read. Well, who can agree with such an absurd conclusion of my interlocutor that now is the kingdom of the last Antichrist. Then he said that “temples will be like vegetable storehouses.” But in their temples there are neither cucumbers nor potatoes, but in the place of the altar a council room, but no vegetables there. So be consistent in what you read: if you want to compare present life with Scripture, compare from beginning to end. But you say about the sacrifice that there is none, but singing, reading, and censer you have. So here is something else. This is not Christ’s Church, but what blessed Jerome said: “If you hear somewhere about such who, considering themselves Christ’s, accepted a name not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from someone else, as for example about Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists or Campites, know that it is not Christ’s Church but the synagogue of the Antichrist” (part 4, p. 92). In the Russian translation of the same Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, it says: “Public worship will cease, psalm singing will fall silent, the reading of Scriptures will not resound” (Works of Hippolytus, issue II, p. 78). Even psalms will not be allowed to be sung. However, they read kathismas and read psalms. Here they even read, but there is no sacrifice. Can one recognize such a conclusion as correct that at present the last Antichrist reigns? I will say one can, but conditionally, that the kingdom of the Antichrist is with them, because the sacrifice with them is destroyed, the Antichrist destroyed it, destroyed everything, but could not manage to destroy the censer. In conclusion of the speech I will read to you that proof which I read from the Book of Cyril, since I have no right to bring new proofs.

“Note the abomination of desolation, for heretics have no altars, and when they remain in Christian churches, they destroy and cast out from the altar the physiasthirion—that is, the altar.”

“They do not slaughter the living bread sacrifice. And the bread of the innocent Lamb, the most pure body, and the wine of the precious blood of Christ, they do not offer in sacrifice.”

Those temples which had altars, they chopped up and arranged something improper.

“Only in the altar in the place of sanctification they set up an abomination of desolation like a corpse.”

This, he says, heretics do, but they have none, so they are heretics; in the altar, in the holy place, the abomination of desolation like a corpse is set. This they did. So say: the abomination of desolation is with you. Then, when I read Andrew of Caesarea the following: “those in charge of the Church and church pastors even in the time of the coming of the last Antichrist will overcome him,” my interlocutor takes the Collection and says they overcame, not will overcome. Athanasius the Great and other saints—they overcame. Does my interlocutor not know that Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century, 750 years after Athanasius the Great, but he says as if this is spoken about Athanasius the Great, but Andrew of Caesarea lived in the 12th century and speaks of future time. See how many inconsistencies, misinterpretations, how much confusion he has in Scripture and interpretations. For when the apostles asked the Lord about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, He predicted the future. Where is the truth here? Here is only your sophism; you simply mix proofs, confuse. I will repeat another proof of blessed Theodoret: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Interp. For after His coming there will no longer be need for that which signifies the body, because the Body itself will appear. Therefore the apostle said until He comes.” When Christ Himself comes, then, he says, we will have no need for this, but the sacrifice will remain until the second coming. Then I will repeat another proof of Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 78 reverse of the Book of Cyril), where it is said that this sacrifice will be in the Christian Church:

“And this is the sacrifice which the Christian Church chosen from the nations offers to the Lord God throughout the whole world, and until the end of the age will offer the body and blood of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in memory of His death, and this prophecy is truly for assurance, since it is strong and invincible” (78 reverse).

Thus, I had to repeat the proof only because I have no right to bring new proofs. You see, brethren, that sacrifice and priesthood, according to Scripture, will remain until the second coming. Therefore my interlocutor was obliged to point it out with himself, because he recognizes only himself as Christ’s Church, but he has no sacrifice—meaning he has no Christ’s church. Since Christ did not establish and did not indicate a church without mysteries, this church is not Christ’s, but, as blessed Jerome says, the synagogue of the Antichrist. About our hierarchy he touched many times. But this does not pertain to the question. I already challenged and said that if desired, I agree to discuss this question too. Thus, concluding my speech, I bring to all of you my deep gratitude, both to our brethren of the same faith and to the Old Believer Pomortsy brethren, and I ask you to imprint on the tablets of your hearts Holy Scripture, that the sacrifice will remain until Christ’s second coming.

L. F. Pichugin. Most honorable listeners! Our discussion is ending. In this short speech I will make a brief review of all that was said.

The first discussion with us was about the Belokrinitsa priesthood. The Belokrinitsa priesthood turned out to be non-successive priesthood from the living source of the Savior Christ and the holy apostles, but it originated, in the words of the priestly ones themselves, from the harlot Babylon, where demons live and unclean spirits dwell, and was born into God’s world only in 1846.

The second discussion was about the baptism of heretics coming to the Church. I proved with full clarity that the holy Church never and nowhere accepted heretics with their baptism, but either chrismated or baptized anew, counting heretics’ baptism as nothing.

In the third discussion I also proved with clarity that, according to the prescribed prophetic, Gospel, apostolic, and holy fatherly Scripture, the Antichrist has come and reigns.

Finally, in this present fourth last discussion about the New Testament sacrifice of the Communion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I also proved that by God’s permission and according to the high-proclaiming writing of the prophet Daniel and the word of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ—this great mystery—alas, worthy of tears—has been corrupted by the Antichrist and his servants the heretics and false priests.

I pointed to the writing of the prophet Daniel and the words of Jesus Christ saying:

“Then in the holy place the abomination of desolation will stand.”

When the Roman kingdom falls and is divided into 10 parts. But the Roman kingdom was divided long ago into 10 monarchies, and the false lamb, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, has already appeared on earth under the name of Christ, bearing false symbols, two horns like the true Lamb, and deceived the sacred world.

The false lamb is a false bishop pretending to be the true Lamb.

The final enthronement of the Antichrist, the last appearance, according to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, and his actions are the number 666. This number, as a fateful event of the times, found its indicated place (Book on Faith, ch. 30): the year 1666. The fact has occurred.

There is no longer holy Communion; if it exists anywhere, it is false—because it is performed by false builders.

Thus, by force of compelled circumstances, we Old Believers priestless Pomortsy with great sorrow remain without priesthood and visible Communion for a very valid reason, for the pastors have retreated from Christ’s faith and gone astray, offering false instead of true sacrifice.

I am happy and consider it a high honor that at the present time I defend my brethren in faith and bring special thanks to the Lord God that He granted me strength to fight for the holy faith in this field these four days.

Forgive me, brethren, if I offended anyone; but to offend intentionally, believe me, I wished no one. In struggle there are extremes.

I bring thanksgiving and praise to the Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen!

The Chairman declares the session closed.

To the beloved children of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church, abiding everywhere and in all places, who preserve and keep the sacred dogmas of the right faith and the traditions of the holy Apostles and the holy and God-bearing fathers, pastors, and teachers of the ecumene.

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy and worshipful Spirit be with you all. Amen.

We must have every diligence and striving, beloved ones, to follow the teaching of the divine Scriptures and to preserve the sacred canons and traditions of the holy Apostles and holy fathers, who gathered at various times in the seven ecumenical and nine local councils for the eradication of God-abhorrent heresies and for the confirmation of right decrees. Concerning these, the Divine Apostle cries out, saying: Remember your leaders, who spoke to you the word of God; considering the outcome of their way of life, imitate their faith; and: Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings [Hebrews, ch. 13].

Heeding this, we must beware of all heresies and schisms, both manifest and hidden; and hold fast to and preserve the dogmas of the faith and the church traditions whole and unaltered, according to the saying: Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set [Proverbs, ch. 22]. For this reason, let us diligently search the Scriptures and the traditions of the fathers, and from these let us be zealous: and as we have found the Church from Christ’s descent, so let us preserve it, and so let us hand it down, and not separate ourselves from our fathers, reading some things one way and understanding them another [Sobornik Bol., fol. 337, verso].

Bearing these things in mind, it is fitting for us to walk the middle royal path, deviating neither to the right nor to the left, and to turn away from all blasphemies, shunning crooked teachings and falsely named knowledge. For many false prophets (false teachers) have gone out into the world [1 John, ch. 4], who set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth [Ps. 72]. Of these, some openly war against the ancient statutes and ordinances of the holy fathers, while others, following ancient church traditions but not thinking rightly, are stolen from the right and, as if out of zeal for ancient church piety—but truly speaking, according to their own false reasoning—compose scrolls of God-opposing wisdom and notebooks of lying teachings, and giving them plausible titles under the names of saints, they corrupt the right teaching of the holy Church, and with the poison of their wisdom they water the hearts of the guileless and draw them to death. To enumerate all these is not the task of the present time; however, it is necessarily needful and highly beneficial to mention some in brief.

There are circulating certain falsely composed notebooks, not only disagreeing with Holy Scripture and contrary to sound reason, but overflowing with blasphemous wisdom, which we here set forth in the midst:

1. The first place is occupied by a notebook under this title: The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse.
2. A notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian.
3. A notebook containing the false interpretation of Amphilochius on the second song of Moses.
4. A notebook under the title: A Word from the Elder, the Monk Zachariah, to His Disciple Stephen.
5. A falsely composed interpretation of the ten fingers and the ten horns of the beast.
6. A notebook: On the Drunkard.
7. A notebook: On the Creation of Wine.
8. A notebook: On the Potato, Supposedly from Pandok and Other Books.
9. A notebook containing strange reasoning about the spiritual Antichrist.
10. Prophetic notebooks in which the time and day of the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are appointed.

All these are false and fabulous compositions, in which is preached the cessation of the Christ-delivered priesthood, the ending of the new-grace law, the reign of the last Antichrist, who supposedly sits on the thrones of the altars of the Church now dominating in Russia, which as if believes in and worships another god, confessing under the name of Jesus—not Christ the Savior, but His adversary, the Antichrist.

Such baseless and absurd reasonings have been sown maliciously by the priestless ones who have darkened their conscience and imperceptibly creep into the Christ-named people, who breathe simplicity and guilelessness and cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

Guarding the flock of Christ’s verbal sheep from soul-destroying teaching and to avert such absurd reasonings and all-defiling tares sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith, we offer this epistle and beseech all the Christ-named heritage, together with the God-wise philosopher, the Venerable Maxim the Greek, saying: “Do not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, but with much caution and sober reason test the spirits, that is, the books written by certain ones, whether they are truly from God, according to the Divine Apostle and Evangelist John—that is, whether they agree in all things with the prophetic and apostolic and evangelical sacred and right words written by the Holy Spirit, and with the unerring theological dogmas of the God-inspired hierarchs and teachers who shone forth everywhere in the ecumene after them. But if the books written by certain ones do not agree in all things, nor conform with the God-inspired Scriptures, it is fitting to reject and abhor them as blasphemous and defiled and separating us from God… Let us attend to ourselves for the Lord’s sake, and not believe every spirit of teaching without testing, but let us diligently test the Scriptures, whether they agree in all things with the apostolic and prophetic traditions and teaching. For if they differ in any way, let us not receive them, but reject them from ourselves as the evil one’s tares, sown in the midst of the pure wheat of true faith for the deception and destruction of our souls” [Maxim the Greek, Word 10].

Following the teaching of the venerable man, let us return to the aforementioned compositions and examine with an impartial eye the false reasonings lying within them. Let us begin thus:

1. The Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse, in which it is inscribed as if printed by the command of the pious sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and as if it has four hundred and one chapters, and not twenty-two, as contained in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, and as if John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue. In this God-abhorrent notebook, so many harmful reasonings are written that it is dreadful not only to speak of them but even to think of them. There (and in other false compositions), the four-ended cross is blasphemed (oh, the audacity!) as the image of the foul God-opposing Antichrist, an idol, the abomination of desolation, a graven image standing in the holy place, and other absurd reproaches are hurled against it: the name Jesus is attributed to the name of the last Antichrist himself; the Eucharist, performed under that name and with the four-ended cross, is called the serpent’s vomit and the lamb of the Antichrist; and finally, the destruction of sacred ordination throughout the entire universe is preached.

Such God-fighting teaching is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, cross-blasphemous, heretical, soul-destroying, and utterly false. False, because it is signed as if printed by the command of the sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich; but there was not only no printed edition of the book, but not even a single sheet of such content anywhere, and there absolutely is none. False, because it declares 401 chapters; but according to its content, it circulates everywhere among its lovers in a small notebook. Moreover, in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, not 401 but 22 chapters are set forth: whence, then, were 379 chapters added? False, because it fabulously claims that John the Theologian interprets in the Slavic tongue; but John the Evangelist preached Christ in Asia, and there he wrote the Gospel and the Apocalypse by divine revelation; he was not among the Slavs and did not interpret in the Slavic tongue. To the Slavs, Andrew the First-Called proclaimed the saving preaching; but even he did not blaspheme the four-ended cross, concerning which see in his life [Book On Faith, fol. 70, and the Cheti-Menaion, November 30]. From this, it is also clearly seen that this pseudo-named Seven-Interpreted Apocalypse was composed not by John the Theologian but by some utterly audacious fabulist, and it is a falsely woven invention released by the priestless ones for the destruction of Christian souls. Concerning the blasphemies circulated in it, more will be said hereafter in its place.

2. The notebook under the title: The Book of Eustathius the Theologian—or truly speaking, of a marketplace babbler—in which it is preached that the Antichrist will kill three great kings: faith, love, and hope, and that the remaining seven, the seven church sacraments, have their origin (oh, dark delusion!) from the beast of the sea (which Daniel [ch. 7] saw having ten horns), from which the Antichrist himself will also come forth, and for this reason they will be near and akin to the Antichrist, as sprouting from the same root and perishing by the same offspring. And what could be more baseless than this vain and mad notion!
3. The notebook containing the false “Interpretation of Amphilochius on the Second Song of Moses” is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox Church.
4. The notebook under the title “A Word from the Elder”. In it, as if the monk Zachariah conversed with his disciple Stephen about the Antichrist and announced to him that the priestly and monastic orders will be utterly destroyed to the end, and other false fabrications are seen there, which are nothing else but fables repulsive to the hearing of the reasonable.
5. The notebook, the falsely composed “Interpretation of the Ten Toes of the Body Shown to Nebuchadnezzar and the Ten Horns of the Fourth Beast Seen by Daniel”, applied to the tsars of the God-preserved Russian state, is inconsistent with the book of the holy prophet Daniel and the interpretation of the holy fathers, full of untruth and false prediction, in which nothing is true, but all is vain and false; for the ten toes and ten horns signify the division of the Roman monarchy into ten parts, and not ten tsars of the Russian power succeeding one another.
6. The notebook “On the Drunkard”, falsely signed as if from the Gospel conversations, in which it is fabulously told how a drunkard caroused on earth, and after death, standing at the gates of holy paradise, reproached the holy King David and Solomon, together with the Apostle Peter and John the Theologian, and thus entered paradise. Likely composed by some blasphemer and serving as a stumbling block to a corrupt life.
7. The notebook “On the Creation of Wine”, as if the devil taught a man to brew intoxicating drink, and that man earned honor from the tsar for it, falsely signed as if from the Stoglav of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. But this is not in the Stoglav. Moreover, the blessed kyr Zinovii the monk, disciple of the Venerable Maxim the Greek, refutes such reasoning in the 45th word of his book, saying: “Hops are not from the devil, for the devil cannot create anything, he can only create illusions: hops are God’s creation, of Him who said: let the earth bring forth grass; it is manifest, then, that hops also sprouted then by that command of God.” (Further) “And concerning monks not drinking with hops, this is not a law, nor do I think it worthy of much condemnation, for to devise to keep what is not commanded to monks, to pretend not to drink, and for this reason to bring about such a rule” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, Word 45]. From this, it is evident that if hops are not from the devil, then neither did the devil teach to make that drink, but men themselves invented it. We say this to refute false fables, and not to open the door to drunkenness. For we know the Apostle crying out: Food (and drink) will not commend us to God [1 Cor., ch. 8]. And again: Do not get drunk with wine, in which is debauchery [Eph., ch. 5]. And the wise Solomon saying: Wine is not to blame, but drunkenness is cursed [Prov., ch. 2], from which every Christian must flee and avoid: for drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God [1 Cor., ch. 6].
8. The notebook “On the Bulb or Potato”, as if from Pandok and other books, and hiding secretly forged extracts of the dove, imposing heavy prohibition on those who use it, which is neither in the Kormchaia nor in the Nomokanon. And this reasoning is heretical, since it calls unclean a God-created herb given for food to men and used according to nature, and falsely refers to books in which there is not even a trace of this: but every lie is from the devil, for he is the father of lies and does not stand in the truth.
9. The notebook “On the Spiritual Antichrist”, a God-opposing composition intolerable to pious hearing, and the blasphemies circulated in it are not fit even to commit to writing.
10. The notebook composed by a false-prophetic spirit, appointing the time and day of the end of the world and the second and fearful coming of Christ, is truly filled with God-fighting teaching, as produced by the audacious contrary to the most pure words of Christ God Himself [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1].

These aforementioned and other similar compositions, compiled by brazen ignoramuses, are false and alien to the Church. Having set them forth and exposed the false teaching contained within them, which we reject and cast aside, and for the guidance of sound reasoning, we briefly propose here to all followers of ancient church piety:

First The holy orthodox-catholic Church and the priesthood, together with the offering of the bloodless sacrifice, will endure until the end of the age and until the day of judgment, according to the unfailing promise of the Lord, as He Himself said with His most pure lips: On this rock (of Peter’s right confession) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [Matt., ch. 16]. And: “As Christ does not die, so His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek will not cease forever” [Kirillova fol. 77].

Second The Church now dominating in Russia, as well as the Greek one, believes not in another God, but in the one with us: “Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” [Symbol of Faith]. I speak of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial and undivided: the Father without beginning, the Son co-beginningless, and the Holy Spirit co-enthroned. It confesses also the fleshly dispensation of Christ, accomplished for the redemption of the human race. It honors the honorable dominical feasts together with us (according to the ancient calendar) not in appearance but in deed: the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation, Theophany, the Crucifixion, the Burial, the three-day Resurrection, and the most glorious Ascension into the heavens, and others; likewise those of the Most Pure Theotokos and of God’s holy saints. It bows down to the holy icons of ancient depiction, with the inscription of Christ’s name: IC XC. It kisses the honorable nail and tunic of Christ, the holy and wonderworking icons, the relics of God’s holy saints. And by all these it is clearly proven that it believes in one and the same God, confesses one and the same Christ with us. And for the sake of such faith of hers, the baptism performed by her in three immersions—in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—and the ordination, on the basis of the sacred rules and holy-fatherly precedents, are accepted without repetition.

The reasons, however, for our not following the pastors of that church are weighty and well-founded. For by God’s permission, through Nikon the former patriarch, the ancient church traditions were altered. And subsequently, by a council (with the presence of the Greek patriarchs) in the year 1667, the most terrible curse and anathema were pronounced upon those who hold to the ancient holy-church traditions, and strict persecution and hunting were raised up with torment. And after this, polemical books were issued by the pastors contending for the newly set forth dogmas and traditions, in which the most holy and worshipful name of our Savior Christ (Jesus) was blasphemously reviled, as if it does not signify the Savior and Healer of our souls, but some other Jesus of equal ears [Rozysk, part I, ch. 15, fol. 18]. Moreover (oh, the audacity!), they called it monstrous and signifying nothing [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 87, edition 1854]. The two-fingered folding for depicting the sign of the cross was likewise reviled: Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, wicked division, Armenianism, Armenian heresy, Armenian fig, Arian abyss, gates of hell, magical sign, demon-slaying, and devilish tradition! [Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 336]. But even in their three-fingered folding, their teaching is inconsistent with itself. For in the Skrizhal, in the Prashchitsa, and in the prefaces to the Psaltyrs, it is commanded in the three fingers to confess both mysteries: the mystery of the Trinity together with the dispensation; but the last two fingers to hold empty [Skrizhal, 805; Prashchitsa: answer 54; fol. 116; Psaltyrs of various editions]. In other books—in the three fingers the mystery of the Trinity, in the last two the mystery of the dispensation [Ob licheniye: fol. 24. Uveshchaniye of Metropolitan Platon, fol. 45; and Nikifor Astrakhansky, p. 121]. To these are added other changes and adaptations, subtractions and additions, which it is not convenient to enumerate here. Let him who wishes read in the Answers of Hierodeacon Alexander, in the 50th answer of the Pomorskiye Otvety, and in the composition of the monk Nikodim, in the six articles and thirty indications.

For these reasons, our conscience does not allow us to be in submission to the pastors of that church, who, to the extreme regret of the sound-minded, do not pay due attention to the correction of their polemical books and do not abolish the indicated harsh-verbal reproaches—reproaches that are repulsive, intolerable to pious hearing, and utterly improper for Christian pastors.

But if someday, illuminated by the grace of God, they lay aside the aforementioned reproaches and conciliarly abandon their new dogmatizations, and “love and accept the holy antiquity and command those entrusted to them to preserve it” [Book On Faith, ch. 25, fol. 195 verso], and begin to follow all the ancient church traditions unchangingly, and the Church is arranged in such exactness of dogmas and traditions as it was from the years of the equal-to-the-apostles Prince Vladimir and until the years of Nikon the former patriarch: “then the whole rampart of that boundary will turn into a level plain, and hearts will come together one with another” [Book On Faith, fol. 185 verso; words of St. Maxim the Confessor: Cheti-Menaion, Jan. 21]. And we, without any human persuasion, will go to communion with her. But as long as the scandals and stumbling blocks remain that disturb our conscience, we cannot, contrary to the conviction of our conscience, follow the newly set forth dogmas and traditions.

And for this reason, we are not schismatics and dividers, but children of the one holy, catholic, apostolic, ancient-orthodox-catholic Church.

Having declared, therefore, our confession and sacred desire, witnessed before the all-knowing God—that as we distance ourselves from those who revile the ancient church traditions, so we do not ally ourselves with the priestless blasphemies circulated in the aforementioned notebooks, against which we now make refutation. And we pray the One who dwells on high, the one beginningless King of glory, that this may serve as an example to the learned pastors of the Church now dominating in Russia, so that they too may turn due attention to the aforementioned harsh-verbal reproaches composed by their predecessors and published to the world. But we turn away from all blasphemy and reason thus:

Third Concerning the most holy and worshipful name of Christ, Jesus.

The most holy, most sweet, most beloved, and most desired name of our Savior Christ we write and pronounce in reading and singing thus: Jesus (Isus), as it was translated from the beginning into our Slavic language by the ancient holy translators. And thus it was written and pronounced until the years of Nikon the former patriarch, as is clearly seen in the Slavonic-Russian handwritten and ancient printed books and on countless holy and wonderworking icons. Therefore, henceforth it is fitting to hold to this ancient spelling and pronunciation unchangingly, unalterably, and inviolably, accepting no innovations or syllogistic suggestions, and to preserve it without addition or diminution. For this, according to the testimony of the holy fathers, signifies: Savior, Deliverer, Physician, and Healer of our souls and bodies. Thus confessing, we say with the Apostle: this is the most holy name besides which there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved [Acts, ch. 4]. And this is the worshipful name at which every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Phil., ch. 2].

Nevertheless, the name written and pronounced by the present-day Greeks and Russians thus: Iisus, we dare not blaspheme or call the name of another Jesus or the name of Christ’s adversary, as certain priestless ones wickedly reason. For the Church now dominating in Russia, together with the Greek one, under this name confesses the same Christ the Savior, according to the flesh the descendant of David, the son of Abraham, born of the tribe of Judah, from the Most Pure Virgin Mary without seed, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, who received circumcision on the eighth day, was then taken into the arms of Simeon the God-receiver, went into Egypt and returned from there, was raised in Nazareth, was baptized in the Jordan by the Forerunner, thereafter gathered the company of apostles, preached the Gospel of the kingdom of God, was betrayed by a disciple, crucified, buried, rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens on the fortieth, and sits at the right hand of the Father. We believe also that He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. From all the above-mentioned, it is most clearly shown that it confesses the same Christ the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and there is here no possibility of understanding another god or another “Jesus” in any way.

Moreover, it is seen in certain ancient books printed thus; as, for example, at the end of the Ostrozh Bible of the printing of the year 7089, on the last leaf arranged in two columns, where in the Slavic dialect it is printed IC (Jesus), but in Greek Iisus (Ιησοΰς).

It is further fitting to know: the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, in the year 1646 issued a small Katekhizis, into which he newly introduced the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the name of Christ the Savior, instead of IC (Jesus), printed Iisus. This Katekhizis the most holy Joseph, Patriarch of Moscow, in the year 7157 issued a second time and excluded from it the opinions inconsistent with church tradition, such as the three-fingered folding, sprinkling baptism, and the newly introduced name Iisus; but he did not at all pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god or another Jesus. Likewise, the entire consecrated All-Russian Council, gathered in the reigning city of Moscow in the tsar’s chambers [Sluzhebnik in the 10th year of Patriarch Joseph, in the preface, fol. 7 verso], referring for the correction of church singing to the Apostolic Discourses issued in Kiev by Zakhariy Kopystensky in the year 7131, in which in many places the name of Christ is printed Iisus, saw this and did not accept it into church use, yet not only did they not pronounce the judgment of blasphemy that Iisus should be called another god, but they did not even speak of this. But if the fathers of the All-Russian Council had understood Iisus to be another god, then certainly, for the sake of precaution before future generations, they would have declared this: for this matter is great and utterly unworthy of silence. But since they did not declare it, it is evident that the name Iisus is not the name of another god and is not the name of Christ’s adversary. And the entire error consists only in the addition to the name IC (Jesus) of one vowel letter I, which having added, they print and pronounce Iisus.

And since the most holy Moscow patriarchs—Job, Ermogen, Filaret, Ioasaf, and Joseph—did not introduce this name into use, neither do we introduce it, and just as they did not lay blasphemy and reproach upon it, neither do we lay such: moreover, we annul and reject the priestless blasphemy, not wrought by the Spirit of God, as well as the God-opposing mockery of the most holy and worshipful name IC (Jesus) circulated in the Rozysk, Prashchitsa, and other books, and serving as the greatest scandal and stone of stumbling; we repel and refute it, and hand over all blasphemers of the name of Christ to the judgment of that same almighty Jesus, who, when He comes in His glory, will render to each according to his deeds and to each according to the intent of his heart.

Fourth Concerning the honorable and life-giving cross.

We believe and confess that the honorable and life-giving cross of Christ, from three woods—cypress, pine, and cedar—was made for the three-day death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Isaiya the God-seer foretold of this from the Lord’s person, saying: and the glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the pine, and the cedar together, to glorify My holy place, and I will glorify the place of My feet [Isaiya, ch. 60]. For according to the testimony of the church teachers, the upright beam of the cross was of cypress, the crossbeam of pine, on which the hands of Christ were nailed, and the footrest of cedar, as the Church also sings [Oktoikh: on Wednesday and Friday at matins, tone 3], crying out: “on cypress and pine and cedar You were lifted up, Lamb of God.” On it also the titulus (according to the testimony of certain ones [Grigoriy of Omirot, discourse with Ervan, third day]) was made from olive wood, which Pilate commanded to be placed above the head of Christ the Savior, as the divine Evangelists proclaim [John, ch. 19]. This three-composite cross of Christ is of this form [an eight-pointed cross is depicted].

But after the voluntary crucifixion of Christ, whether from three woods, or from one, or from gold or silver, or copper and other metals, the holy Church makes the cross of Christ with the depiction of His flesh, and it is equally accepted and honored; or if only a single cross is depicted without the flesh of Christ, as on antiminses, on prosphora, on all-night breads, on artos, on the panagiarny bread, and on other various church objects, the image of that same cross of Christ is confessed; and thus it is also placed on the very domes of sacred temples. Not only this, but even the abbreviated form made in the image of that same cross of Christ is accepted: as, for example, the planted cross which is placed under the throne, having this appearance: [depicted are a seven-pointed cross: the titulus placed atop the vertical beam; a six-pointed cross without titulus; and a four-pointed cross].

Likewise, the four-pointed cross is not a shadow of the old shadowy covenant and is not abolished by the new-grace law of Christ. Moreover, it is not the image of the God-opposing Antichrist, nor an idol, nor the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, as it is blasphemed in the aforementioned notebooks; but it is the image of the cross of Christ, accepted by the orthodox-catholic Church from apostolic days until now, and formed “by shadow and depiction” [Lenten Triod, on Monday of the 4th week of Lent: 2nd canon of the second creator, last sticheron]. By shadow: when the sign of the cross is depicted by the overshadowing of the hand, with candles, with blowing, and by fencing oneself with the hand. By depiction: when the cross is drawn with oil, myrrh, wax, and any material formation. And thus it is accepted in the church mysteries and seals them: as in the anointing with oil, in the anointing with myrrh, in the cutting of hair, in the priest’s blowing over the water, and in overshadowing with the hand and candles, and in our fencing when we sign our faces. Likewise, it is placed on the sacred vestments of deacons, priests, and hierarchs, which, when one of the sacred order vests, he first overshadows the garment—not consecrating the cross, but blessing the garment—and then kisses the cross and vests [Ustav Bol., fol. 10].

And that the cross is not consecrated by the overshadowing of the hand, but its depiction consecrates, is witnessed by the holy Patriarch Kallistrat, saying: “wherever the cross is depicted, it blesses, and sanctifies, and enlightens, and gives all salvation” [Didactic Gospel on the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross, fol. 402].

Such a depiction of the cross is also placed on the sacred veils with which are covered the divine Lamb on the diskos and the life-giving blood in the chalice. Therefore, wherever with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering for us it is depicted or drawn, it is and is called the image of the cross of Christ, as the holy and God-bearing fathers teach concerning this, whom the Church following confesses that by the shadow and depiction of the cross all opposing powers are crushed, as is evident in the prayer at the baptism of a person over the water, which the priest, overshadowing crosswise with candles, with blowing and with the hand, says: “let all opposing powers be crushed under the sign of the depiction of Your cross” and so forth [P Trebnik Bol., fol. 102].

Not only is the sign of the cross depicted with the pledge of remembrance of Christ’s suffering not rejected, but it is accepted and honored with reverence; but wherever by chance the simple form of the cross is drawn or composed: +: even such, though not honored in a saintly manner, is nevertheless not defiled or dishonored, as proclaims the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: “The cross drawn on the ground shall be erased. That is: if the image of the cross is drawn or composed on the ground by someone, let it be trampled or scattered, lest it be trodden by unknowing people or animals and our victorious weapon be mocked” [Kormchaia, fol. 200]. But also in the rules of Iliya, Archbishop of Novgorod, it is enjoined: “and if it is not possible to sleep: it is blessed, as it is not to walk over them and not to trample them with feet. For the holy Church calls the Latins cross-tramplers, and moreover curses them, saying: ‘I curse the Latin hypocrisy concerning the depiction of the honorable cross, which the Latins do: entering the church and drawing the cross on the ground with two fingers, and having kissed it, they rise and again trample it with their feet, and thus appear as cross-tramplers'” [Ancient handwritten manuscript, written in the year 7078]. In accordance with this, the wise kyr Zinovii the Monk also writes, saying: “Henceforth we command to curse those who make the image of the cross on the ground” [Book of Zinovii the Monk, ch. 56].

Under this church curse inevitably fall the cross-mockers among the priestless, who with dreadful blasphemies defile the four-pointed cross, calling it the abomination of desolation and naming it the seal of the Antichrist (oh, the audacity!).

But we, as those redeemed by the honorable and God-flowing blood poured out on the cross for the salvation of the whole world, think in unison with the holy theologians concerning the honorable cross of Christ, keeping and preserving the eternal boundaries set by the fathers inviolably, sacredly, and unbroken. And the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ we depict on the three-composite cross unchangingly; but elsewhere, wherever any form of the cross is placed by the Church, we preserve it unalterably, and accept and honor it as the image of the cross of Christ, crying out with the Apostle: But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ [Gal., ch. 6]. “Therefore we too hold fast to the cross of the Lord, the boast of all: for this tree is our salvation, the weapon of peace, the unconquerable victory” [Ikos to the Cross]. But wherever by chance the form of the cross (+) is drawn or composed, even that we do not dishonor or blaspheme, for the sake of the original cross of Christ; but, according to the injunction of the holy fathers, we strive to preserve it from every mockery, as far as strength allows. All cross-blasphemy and cross-mockery we refute, cast aside, and annul.

To these we also forbid and prohibit making the cross (+) in improper places, where not honor but mockery may come to its depiction [Matfey Rule-compiler, comp. 200, ch. 3]: as on the ground, on soles, on carpets, on playful objects, and wherever by the smoke of incense or some stench it is dishonored, and other similar things. But if anywhere such is found, we command it to be covered, or erased, or scattered, according to the power of the 73rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of the holy and God-bearing fathers.

Fifth The priestless ones, who do not confess the offering of the bloodless sacrifice upon the face of the universe, bring audacious mockery upon the Eucharist now performed in the Greek and Russian Churches. But to such audacious ones the eastern teachers stop their mouths: the most sacred Ioann of Kitros, the Venerable Matfey the Rule-compiler, and the all-honorable Sevast of Armenopol, who writing concerning the Roman unleavened breads do not command to partake of them, but bless them and do not count them as ordinary, for the sake of the Lord’s invocation and the sacred chants of Saint Iakov the Brother of God performed over them [most sacred Ioann of Kitros (Kormchaia ancient handwritten, ch. 4 [57?]); Matfey the Rule-compiler, comp. 800, ch. 12; Sevast of Armenopol, book 5, answer 3 of Archbishop Dimitriy Khomatin]. But if concerning the unleavened breads of the Roman Church there is such a conclusion by the interpreters of the sacred rules, and it is not condemned by the holy Church: then the priestless reasoning about the Eucharist of the Greek and Russian Churches is harmful. The mockery brought by them upon the mysteries performed according to ancient church tradition in our orthodox-catholic Church is exceedingly blasphemous and destructive.

For these reasons, we enjoin Orthodox Christians not to listen to the harmful teaching of the priestless, and all their compositions, the above-named and others, directed toward the destruction of the church mysteries and the mockery of holiness, inconsistent with Holy Scripture and church teaching, we command to be given to burning by fire, as tares sown by the enemy for the deception of the souls of the Christian race, as the sacred rules proclaim and the Venerable Maxim the Greek advises [Rules of the holy apostles 60; of the Sixth Ecum. Council 63; of the Seventh Ecum. Council 9; Maxim the Greek, word 3 (10?)].

Sixth To this we enjoin and beseech, together with the supreme Apostle Paul, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all men [1 Tim., ch. 2]; especially for the health, and salvation, and tsar’s victory of him who is set by the most high and all-ruling right hand of God, and crowned with glory and honor, our most autocratic, God-preserved Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince Alexander Nikolaevich, and all His Most August House, and all his palace and armies [Sobornik Bol., fol. 360 verso], for whom also at the holy proskomedia of the divine liturgy, among the great seven, the fifth prosphora is offered, and will be offered, as for him, so for his future successors to the throne and scepter, from generation to generation and forever, that the Lord God may preserve him healthy, peaceful, and long-lived, may grant him victory over enemies, may surround his dominion with peace, and may subdue under his feet every enemy and adversary, and may place in his heart good and useful things concerning the holy Church, that we too may live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and honesty under their tranquility [Stoglav, ch. 9; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Job; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Filaret; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Ioasaf; Sluzhebnik of Patriarch Joseph; Potrebnik Bol., fol. 709; Nomokanon rule 210; Apostolic Discourses, fol. 2421].

Seventh Again for the second time we enjoin and beseech to flee crooked teachings, and not to accept at all falsely composed writings inconsistent with the narration and interpretation of the holy fathers, but to cast them aside, and to think in unison with the holy Church, with one voice and one mind, as the holy fathers handed down and taught.

Eighth And concerning the coming of the holy prophets Iliya and Enokh, to believe as the holy Church teaches, that before the end of this world they will be sent by God to expose the deception of the Antichrist, in their own true flesh, sensibly, visibly, and in their own form, and will be seen by fleshly mortal men, and will preach the good faith to the human race, and will work wonders and signs, and will suffer nothing from anyone until the end of their reproof, and then they will fulfill their martyrdom, and, having been killed by the Antichrist, will depart, and already not only as prophets but as martyrs will be crowned with victorious crowns by God the Giver of crowns [St. Ippolit; St. Ioann Zlatoust; Efrem word 105; St. Feofilakt; St. Simeon Metafrast, July 20; Ven. Ioann Damaskin; St. Andrey Kesariysky; Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday; Prolog, July 20; Svyattsy Iosifskiya, July 20, and others].

Ninth Likewise concerning the Antichrist, it is fitting to think in unison with the holy Church. For though there are many antichrists, according to Saint Ioann the Theologian [1 John, ch. 2], yet particularly and specially the Antichrist is spoken of, who will come at the end of the age, sensibly, visibly, and in his own form [Ancient handwritten book of Ioann Damaskin, word on the Antichrist], whose coming is according to the working of Satan, by God’s permission [2 Thess., ch. 2]. He will be born of the Jewish tribe, of the tribe of Dan, the seventh son of Iakov the Old Testament patriarch, from an unclean woman, a supposed virgin, but utterly defiled in every way. “He will be born of fornication, as we said, and will be nourished in secret and suddenly rise up, and oppose and reign.” He will raise great persecution and torment against all who abide in the faith of Christ. He will reign for three years and a half, as Holy Scripture teaches and the God-bearing fathers relate [St. Ippolit, Mirror of the Soul, Sinaksar on Meatfare Sunday, Book On Faith ch. 30 fol. 270, Ioann Damaskin book 4 ch. 27, Church teachers. Daniel ch. 7, St. Ioann Zlatoust, Ven. Efrem Sirin, Kirill Ierusalimsky, and others]. Him our Lord Jesus Christ will slay with the breath of His mouth and abolish with the appearance of His coming [2 Thess., ch. 2]. For he will be seized together with his false prophet, and both will be cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone, as Christ’s bosom friend and Evangelist Ioann says in his Revelation, and Saint Andrey Kesariysky explains [St. Andrey Kesariysky in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, ch. 19].

Tenth But concerning the day and hour of the end of the world and the second coming of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but He alone [Matt., ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; and Acts, ch. 1]. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone born of earth to know this, and it is not fitting to speculate at all, according to the saying: seek not things too high for you, and search not things too strong for you [Sirach ch. 3], and so forth.

In conclusion of this epistle, we announce to all Orthodox Christians that, with God’s help, an Ustav, or brief exposition of the dogmas and traditions of the ancient-orthodox-catholic confession of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, will be composed, which will be given for guidance and steering to all Orthodox, sacred and lay, that they may rightly and surely know concerning the dogmas of faith and the traditions, concerning the seven church mysteries and other necessary and theological matters.

Finally, again we enjoin and beseech those who kiss the ancient church traditions to keep all the commandments of God and the church traditions unchangingly, sacredly, and unbroken, and to distance themselves from all heresies and schisms and foreign customs, and to have among themselves agreement and unity of mind in all things, peace and love, which is the bond of perfection, and not to do to others what is not pleasing to themselves [Col., ch. 3; Acts, ch. 15; 1 Cor., ch. 4; Ps. 76].

But the God of peace and Father of mercies, the God of all consolation, who gathers the scattered and settles the like-minded in His house, may He gather the scattered sheep into the fold of His pasture and grant unanimity and unity of mind to all Orthodox Christians by His grace and love for mankind: that there may be one flock and one shepherd [John, ch. 10]. Amen.

This Encyclical Epistle was issued [written] in the reigning city of Moscow, in the year 1862 [7370], on the 24th day of the month of February.

The original was signed by: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Deacon Kirill of Archbishop Antoniy. Monk Olimpiy of the Belokrinitsa Monastery. Clerk Simeon Simeonov. [According to another list: Antoniy, Archbishop of Vladimir. Onufriy, Bishop of Brayila. Pafnutiy, Bishop of Kazan. Varlaam, Bishop of Baltov. Hieropriest Petr, Guardian of Moscow. Hieropriest Fedor of Vokhna. Hieromonk Evfrosin. Hieromonk Iliya. Hierodeacon Pakhomiy. Hierodeacon Ippolit. Hierodeacon Mitrofan. Monk Alimpiy].

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

In secular art, following a tradition that nonetheless has its roots in ancient Christian iconography, the Holy Virgin or the angel in depictions of the Annunciation is often shown with lilies.

The lily is a beautiful symbol of the chaste purity of the Holy Virgin—a fragrant, snow-white flower, joyfully opening itself to the sun. Was not the Most Pure Lily of Israel herself such a fragrant bloom? When we ask ourselves what quality of the Holy Virgin made her the Mother of the Most High, we will scarcely find it difficult to answer.

Was it her humility, her obedience, with which she received the angel’s message? But who would not bow in humble awe before the revelation of a heavenly messenger? Her graciousness? But that was revealed only later, when the Holy Virgin entered upon her life’s path. Her humility is great, the graciousness of her soul extraordinary, but above all these shines the purity of a soul that lives in love for the Lord, her Son. Her heart is filled with Christ, lives in Him. His image dwells and reigns within her soul and makes it a temple of grace.

“But what image?”—you may ask—“She is the Mother of the Lord and saw Him upon her bosom. Not an image, but He Himself was with her.” True—but the Holy Virgin was with Christ even before the Lord came down to earth through her. Consider the account which tells of the circumstances of the Annunciation. According to this account, the Holy Virgin was reading the Holy Scriptures. And she came to the familiar words of the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

“How I wish I could be even the lowest handmaiden of the Mother who bears this Son,” thought the Holy Virgin. And at that very moment, the angel-messenger appeared. This account reveals what filled the life of the Virgin: she lived with the thought of the Coming Savior, of the Lord who would come and redeem mankind. She thought of Him while living in the temple. She awaited Him, desired Him, and wished only one thing for herself—to serve Him, even as the humblest servant in His Kingdom. And she became His Mother, because her soul was already His Pure Bride, arrayed in the golden garments of love’s purity: “Upon thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours.” And having become His Mother, she loves in her Son not only a Son, but the One whom she had long awaited: the Redeemer and Savior—her Lord. Thus, the purity of her soul, where even before Christ His image was enthroned, became a temple of Divinity.

We are not capable of receiving the likeness of the Lord into our souls to the same degree as St. Mary. We cannot, as she did, be so united in love with the Redeemer. But the path is shown to us nonetheless, by which we may draw near to the Most High and become worthy of the glad tidings. That path is to live after the example of the Pure One. She was raised in the air of the temple, breathed prayer, was nourished by the Word of God—and so received the image of Christ into her soul. And then she walked where the thought of Christ led her—His image, His word, His will—and with that guiding light, without stumbling, she walked the way of the Cross to eternal glory in the likeness of her Son.

This is the path of the Christian: to receive, in the air of the Church of God, by prayer and instruction in the Word, the image of Christ into oneself, and to follow Him wherever He leads. But how can we, sinners, walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, who knew no sin? In the footsteps of the One who is the very embodiment of Goodness and Truth? In the footsteps of God.

Indeed, her Son was man—but He was also God, and His Name fills us with awe. But she was a human being, born of righteous parents, yet not untouched by sin. She was not without human tenderness toward her Son, nor without human fear for Him. If the image of her Son dazzles like the noonday sun, her countenance is peaceful, like the gentle radiance of the morning dawn. Let us follow Him—learning from her humility, obedience, meek endurance of suffering, and devotion to the work of her Son. And she will cover us with her omophorion, and, like a mother leading her blind child, she will guide us to the Kingdom of God.

There is a story told of a Western ascetic, Anthony of Padua (whom we do not recognize as a saint, but the story remains edifying nonetheless): that once, the Holy Virgin cast to him her lilies, and all his life he perceived their fragrance. Let us ask the Holy Mother of God that she may grant us to breathe the fragrance of her lilies—the holy scent of her virtues—so that this aroma may never leave us, not for a moment, and may give us strength to imitate, even in part, the Inimitable.

Queen of Heaven, help us to love thy Son. Grant us the grace to hear with soul and heart His holy Good News—the Gospel. Before thy icon I stand, O All-Praised One:

“O Queen of Heaven! In my utter helplessness, in my complete unworthiness, in my condemnation and wretchedness, the gaze of this sinner rests upon thee. Thou dost not reject the despised and outcast. Thou art able to raise even from the depths of hell one who is perishing. Save me, O Sovereign Lady, by thy motherly intercession, even me, the wretched one! As the Mother of thy Son and my Judge, incline Him to mercy toward me! As my gracious Mother, incline thyself to come to my aid and to grant me mercy! O my Lady, O Theotokos! How much I need thee! How dear thou art to my sinful heart! How comforting it is to think of thee, to pray to thee, to imagine thee, to behold thy radiant, pure, virginally beautiful face, full of divine tenderness toward us—tenderness which in thy womanly gentleness and motherly care shines forth yet more beautifully, more majestically, more touchingly. O the Lord created and gave thee to us as the most perfect reflection of His ineffable goodness—as the clearest and most accessible embodiment of His love for mankind and mercy.”

May even a faint reflection of thy radiant light shine upon our soul.

“Thou seest all things, knowest all things—look thou into my soul and grant it what it needs. Thou who hast endured all things and conquered all things—thou wilt understand all things. Thou who didst wrap the Infant in swaddling clothes in the manger and didst receive Him in thine own hands from the Cross—thou alone knowest the full height of joy and the full weight of sorrow. Thou who hast received all mankind as thy children—look also upon me with motherly care. Lead me out of the snares of sin to thy Son. I see a tear that has moistened thy countenance. It is for me that thou hast shed it—may it wash away the traces of my transgressions.”

-Church, 1914, No. 12

source

Dimitry Urushev

Bishop Pavel of Kolomna is one of the most significant figures in Russian spiritual history of the 17th century. Alas, he was not fortunate. His name failed to attract the attention of scholars. He remained in the shadow of his more famous contemporaries—Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, and Archpriest Avvakum.

Pavel and Nikon

Bishop Pavel was remembered only by Old Believer scribes. It is no accident that the renowned 18th-century Old Believer writer Simeon Denisov began his book The Russian Vineyard—a collection of legends about martyrs for the old faith—with the story of Pavel. He began most solemnly:

“The leader of that goodly host was not of common folk, nor from the peasant estate, but a shepherd of Christ’s flock, a vigilant guardian of church virtue, a trumpet of gold-forged piety.”

Secular scholars took notice of Pavel of Kolomna only in the 19th century. The first to do so was the historian Mikhail Pogodin. In 1854, in one of the issues of the journal Moskvityanin, he published an article titled A Remark on the Homeland of Patriarch Nikon and His Opponents. In it, Pogodin urged young scholars:

“How much of importance and benefit for scholarship remains to be done, if one would become acquainted with the written literature and diligently gather information about our historical figures. What is known in general circulation about someone like… Bishop Pavel?”

Half a century passed. The only scholar to respond to that call was historian Sergei Belokurov. In 1905, he compiled and published two volumes titled Tales of Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna. However, Belokurov did not publish authentic historical documents, but rather hagiographical tales, far removed from historical reality.

Another 33 years passed. And in 1938, the French scholar Pierre Pascal released his book Archpriest Avvakum and the Beginning of the Schism. For the first time, Pavel of Kolomna was presented not as a figure of pious legend but as a living man of flesh and blood. The French historian helped the Russian bishop find his voice. And if we were to hear it, Pavel would begin his account as follows:

“My birth was in the lands of Nizhny Novgorod.”

This is how Archpriest Avvakum famously begins his Life. And Bishop Pavel might have said the same. According to Pascal, he was born “in the hills”—on the right bank of the Volga, in the village of Kolychevo, which stood on the Sundovik River.

We do not know the exact date of the bishop’s birth. But it can be assumed he was a contemporary of Nikon—that is, born in 1605. Pascal also tells us the name of the future bishop’s father—“a good priest named Ivan.”

According to Pascal, Priest Ivan taught literacy to Nikita Minin, the son of a Mordvin peasant from the neighboring village of Veldemanovo—who would later become Patriarch Nikon. In his Life, it is written that he was “given over to the study of the Divine Scriptures,” and, having left “the house of his father,” lived for a time with his teacher. If Nikita indeed studied with the priest from Kolychevo and lived in his house, one may suppose that the future hierarchs were friends from childhood. Who would have imagined that they would one day become bitter adversaries?

From Kolychevo, Priest Ivan moved with his family downstream along the Sundovik to the village of Kirikovo, where he continued his priestly ministry. Kirikovo was located not far from the large trading village of Lyskovo, situated on the Volga.

It was here that Pavel spent his adolescence and youth. From “the hills,” the future bishop crossed to the left bank of the Volga—“into the forests.” We encounter Pavel in the Makaryev Monastery on the Yellow Waters. The ancient Zheltovodsky Monastery, founded by Saint Macarius in the 15th century, had been destroyed by the Tatars and only revived in 1620. The monastery soon became one of the foremost centers of spiritual and cultural life in the Volga region. Among its brotherhood, we find many key figures of 17th-century ecclesiastical history.

It was to the Makaryev Monastery that the young Nikita Minin fled from his cruel stepmother. After making a small monetary contribution, he lived there for a time but was later brought back home by his father. Among those tonsured in the Zheltovodsky Monastery were Metropolitan Korniliy of Kazan, Archbishops Ilarion of Ryazan and Simeon of Siberia.

Undoubtedly, the Makaryev Monastery played a major role in the life of the future bishop of Kolomna. It was here that the priest’s son took monastic vows and was given the name Pavel. It is also most likely that he was ordained a priest here.

In the summer of 1651, Pavel was summoned to Moscow and appointed by Patriarch Joseph as abbot of the ancient Pafnutiev Monastery in Borovsk. His assignment to lead the renowned monastery was made upon the recommendation of Nikon, who by then was Metropolitan of Novgorod and a confidant of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Joseph died on April 15, 1652. The highest clergy of the Russian Church gathered in the capital for a Council and selected twelve “spiritual men” deemed worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne. Among those mentioned were Metropolitan Nikon and Abbot Pavel.

By the will of the Tsar, Nikon was chosen as Patriarch. The participation of the Borovsk abbot and the other “spiritual men” in the selection was merely symbolic, though it does testify to the high regard in which Pavel was held by his contemporaries.

The Apple Orchard of the Bishop’s Court

The beginning of the new patriarchate held no ill omens for the abbot. In November 1652, Pavel was consecrated bishop of the city of Kolomna near Moscow by Nikon.

The Kolomna diocese was one of the oldest in Rus’. A detailed and vivid description of this diocese, its cathedral of the Dormition, the bishop’s treasury, and the episcopal residence was left by Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo, who visited Russia from 1654 to 1656 in the retinue of his father, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, and who wrote a book about the journey.

The diocese included, besides the major trading city of Kolomna, the towns of Serpukhov, Kashira, and Tula. With significant resources at his disposal, the bishop of Kolomna kept a large retinue of servants and guards.

Paul of Aleppo left a rapturous description of the bishop’s residence in Kolomna. He was especially struck by the bishop’s orchard:

“In which grow wondrous apples, remarkable for their beauty, color, and taste. They are of various kinds: red like carnelian, yellow like gold, white like camphor, all with a very fine skin.”
The historian Gerhard Friedrich Müller, who visited Kolomna in 1778, was likewise impressed by the apples:
“There are many fruitful orchards in Kolomna and its environs, which yield significant income for the inhabitants. The apples of Kolomna are particularly praised, said to surpass others in both size and flavor.”

Yet when the Tsar and Patriarch undertook to reform the Russian Church, neither the orchard with its sweet apples, nor the splendid cathedral with its rich treasury, nor the luxurious residence could restrain the bishop of Kolomna. He took the side of the opponents of the reforms—Archpriests Ioann Neronov and Avvakum.

At the beginning of Great Lent in 1653, Nikon sent a decree to Ioann Neronov forbidding prostrations (full bows to the ground) during the reading of the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life.” The Patriarch wrote:

“According to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not proper in church to make prostrations on one’s knees, but rather bows from the waist; and moreover, you ought to cross yourselves with three fingers.”

This decree made a heavy impression on many clergymen. Avvakum recalled:

“We were troubled, having gathered together. We saw that winter was coming—our hearts froze and our legs trembled.”

Neronov withdrew to the Chudov Monastery, shut himself in a solitary cell, and prayed for a week. During his prayer, he heard a voice from an icon:

“The time of suffering is at hand. You must suffer steadfastly!”

These dreadful words Neronov repeated to Archpriest Avvakum and Bishop Pavel. Avvakum was soon exiled to Siberia. For Pavel, the time of suffering came the following year.

At the Patriarch’s suggestion, the Tsar convened a Church Council in 1654 to review and abolish those Russian liturgical rites which differed from contemporary Greek usage. The exact date of the Council is unknown. Scholars believe it was held in February or March, as in the mid-17th century such Councils were usually convened on the eve of or during the start of Great Lent.

The session began with Nikon’s address. Speaking to the Tsar and the clergy, he declared that all novelties in the Church must be eradicated, and everything handed down by the Holy Fathers should be preserved without corruption, addition, or alteration. After this, the Council was presented with several examples of differences between Russian and Greek rites. Each time these differences were discussed, Nikon proposed they be changed to conform to the Greek model, which he described as more ancient. The Council consistently approved these changes.

The only one who opposed Nikon and the new rites was Pavel. When the Patriarch proposed discussion on abolishing the Lenten prostrations, the bishop of Kolomna dared to object. As Paul of Aleppo recounts, the bishop declared:

“From the time that we became Christians and received the right faith as an inheritance from our pious fathers and grandfathers, we have held to these rites and to this faith, and we will not now accept a new faith!”

Nevertheless, the bishop opposed not only the abolition of prostrations but the church reforms in general. Yet his words were not heeded. The Council, bowing to pressure from the Tsar and the Patriarch, approved the correction of Russian liturgical books according to Greek models. Paul of Aleppo reports that when the clergy were adding their signatures to the conciliar decree, “the bishop of Kolomna, being of a stubborn character, refused to accept or approve the act, nor would he place his hand upon it, let alone affirm it.”

However, the bishop did ultimately sign the conciliar act—but under his signature, he added these words, marking his dissent on the matter of prostrations:

“And as for what I said at the Holy Council regarding the prostrations, and that ustav (order) written on parchment which I laid forth here in justification, and another in writing.”

Simeon Denisov, in The Russian Vineyard, recounts that after the Council, Nikon attempted to win over the bishop of Kolomna through gentle persuasion. At first, he addressed Pavel with “flattering words” and tried to convince him of the necessity of reform, pointing out the “vulgarity” of the old Russian liturgical books. To this, the bishop replied that the Gospel truths and apostolic preaching were also conveyed in the plain speech of the Galilean fishermen.

Then the Patriarch pointed to the inconsistencies between Greek books and the customs of the Russian Church. Pavel countered that while the new Greek customs did not align with Russian ones, the ancient Byzantine rites fully corresponded with the Muscovite church order.

When Nikon saw that the bishop dared to contradict him, he flew into a rage, seized the defiant bishop, tore off his monastic mantle, and—as Denisov writes—personally beat him:

“Calling forth the wondrous Pavel, he, with his own hands (oh, what malice of fury!), struck the sacred face of the sacred man. He was not ashamed of the high priestly rank, nor did he blush at the holiness of the venerable gray hair of that man.”

While we cannot confirm whether Nikon himself struck the bishop, it is certain that, at the Patriarch’s order, Bishop Pavel was beaten, imprisoned, and then exiled.

The Moscow Council of 1666, when reviewing the charges against Nikon, counted this among his offenses:

“Furthermore, Nikon alone deposed a bishop without any local council, at which his faults should have been demonstrated… After deposing Pavel, bishop of Kolomna, he stripped him of his mantle and subjected him to cruel beatings and punishments, and cast him into distant exile. He did not recall the word that no man ought to be punished twice for the same offense. Thus it came about that this bishop lost his mind and perished miserably—whether devoured by beasts or drowned in the water, no one knows.”

Archbishop Lazar (Baranovich) of Chernigov, a participant in the Council, wrote in a private letter that Nikon was judged for “his cruel governance of the clergy, his unilateral deposition of a bishop, which led to the bishop’s untimely death through madness.”

A Fool-for-Christ’s Sake

By Nikon’s decree, the bishop was exiled to the ancient Khutyn Monastery near Novgorod, under the strict watch of Archimandrite Euthymius (Barashko).

The conditions of exile were so harsh that Paul of Aleppo shuddered as he wrote:

“It would have been better for him to die than to live there, because of the severe confinement and miserable life, the constant darkness, hunger, and complete absence of bread; from there, it was impossible to flee and be saved!”
That said, the archdeacon had no sympathy for his Russian namesake, adding:
“That bishop deserved it!”

In the Khutyn Monastery, the disgraced bishop was completely cut off from communication with his fellow Old Believers. The Patriarch forbade anyone to visit him, and those most persistent in their desire to do so were ordered to be arrested and thrown into prison.

At that time, the bishop undertook the ascetic feat of foolishness for Christ’s sake—feigned madness. For in the conditions of growing persecution, it was much easier to preach the old faith under the cover of apparent insanity. Thus, Pavel became an image of a fool-for-Christ bishop, the likes of which neither the Greek nor Russian Churches had known.

The 17th-century Old Believer writer, Deacon Feodor, recounts Pavel’s foolishness for Christ’s sake:

“Pavel, that blessed bishop, began to act the fool for the sake of Christ.”
But outside observers believed that the bishop had truly “lost his mind” due to the torments he had endured.

The abbot and brethren of the Khutyn Monastery, considering the bishop mad, decided not to burden themselves with keeping watch over a “madman” and allowed him to wander the vicinity of the monastery. He used this freedom entirely to preach among the local people.

It soon became known to Nikon that the bishop was preaching the old faith. And he resolved to destroy the defiant bishop once and for all. The decrees of the Council of 1666 refer vaguely to Pavel’s death: he “lost his mind” and perished “without a trace”—whether devoured by wild beasts or drowned, it is not said. However, the council’s decrees threaten Nikon:

“And this, too, shall be counted unto thee as murder.”

Avvakum, who at the time of the bishop’s death was in exile in Siberia, recounts based on available testimony that Nikon “tortured Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and burned him with fire in the Novgorod region.”

The most vivid description of the bishop’s death is given by Deacon Feodor:

“Nikon learned of it and sent his servants to the Novgorod lands, where he (Pavel) was wandering. There they found him in a desolate place, walking alone, and seized him—like wolves a gentle lamb—and they killed him to death, and burned his body with fire by Nikon’s command.”

Unfortunately, historians do not know the truth about the bishop’s death. No documents have yet been found that might shed light on this dark affair—and perhaps they never existed at all.

At the Council of 1666, Nikon was interrogated:

“By what canon did you depose Bishop Pavel of Kolomna without a council, strip him of his episcopal vestments, and exile him to the Khutyn Monastery, where he disappeared without a trace?”

To this, the Patriarch on trial replied:

“By what canon I deposed him, I do not recall, and I do not know what became of him. There is a record about him in the patriarchal court.”

“There is no such record in the patriarchal court, nor has there ever been! Bishop Pavel was excommunicated without a council,” came the response.

And so, from the realm of historical research we pass into the realm of popular tradition. And tradition holds that the martyrdom of Bishop Pavel of Kolomna took place on April 3, 1656, on Great Thursday.

The murdered bishop became one of the most venerated saints among the Old Believers. Yet only the Old Believers held him in such esteem. To others, he always remained an exotic historical figure, a legend from the deep past, a minor character from the forgotten 17th century.

That is why it was so unusual to see Bishop Pavel of Kolomna appear in the television miniseries The Schism (Raskol), completed in 2011. Director Nikolai Dostal and screenwriter Mikhail Kurayev presented modern viewers not only with the Tsar and the Patriarch, Archpriest Avvakum and Lady Morozova, but also with Bishop Pavel. He was superbly portrayed by actor Valery Skorokosov. Thanks to him, the voice restored to the bishop by scholars rang out with vitality and spirit across the vastness of Holy Rus’.

source

from the Periodical “Church”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 solemnly resolved to lift the curses (anathema) imposed in the 17th century on the old rites and on those who adhered to them. The old Russian rites were declared “salvific and equal in honour” to the new ones. In the report read at the Local Council, the Nikon reform was characterised as “a sharp and hasty breaking of Russian church ritual”. The grounds for replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered one were declared more than dubious.

This resolution may seem unexpected only to someone unfamiliar with the issue; in reality, the 1971 Council merely summed up a decades-long discussion of the old rite and, more precisely, confirmed the decisions of the Holy Synod adopted as early as 1929.

This is how it was expressed in the conciliar decree: “Having examined the question… from theological, liturgical, canonical and historical perspectives, we solemnly decree:

1. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on recognising the old Russian rites as salvific, like the new rites, and equal in honour to them.
2. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on rejecting and regarding as non-existent the condemnatory expressions relating to the old rites and especially to the two-fingered sign of the cross, wherever they may appear and by whomsoever they may have been uttered.
3. To confirm the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of 23 April 1929 on abolishing the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667 imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christian believers who adhered to them, and to regard these oaths as non-existent.”

One may say that the words written in 1912 by the eminent church historian, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy N. F. Kaptev, came true: “The condemnation by the 1667 Council of the Russian old rite was, as a more careful and impartial investigation of this phenomenon shows, a complete misunderstanding, a mistake, and therefore must prompt a new conciliar review of the whole matter and its correction, in order to pacify and end the centuries-old quarrel between Old Believers and New Believers, so that the Russian Church may once again become one, as it was before the patriarchate of Nikon.”

Thus, if the old rites are equal in honour to the new, the first question that arises is: was the Nikon reform necessary at all? The answer was given by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy, Protopresbyter Ioann Belevtsev, in his report to the Second International Church-Scholarly Conference held in Moscow in May 1987: the Nikon reform was “theologically unjustified and completely unnecessary”.

The 17th-century church schism, which without fear of exaggeration may be called a great national catastrophe, was the consequence of a reform that, as has now become clear, was justified neither theologically nor canonically and was simply “unnecessary” for the Church. But if so, then who needed this reform after all, what were its true causes and aims, and who was its real author?

The author of the present article, having studied the problem of the old rite for several years, has reached a conclusion that fully coincides with the above statement by Fr Ioann Belevtsev: the Nikon reform had neither theological nor canonical foundations; it was imposed on the Church artificially. The chief architect of the reform was Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, while Patriarch Nikon was merely the executor. Therefore it would be fairer to call the reform “Aleksey’s”.

A widespread opinion holds that the reform was caused by the need to correct the numerous errors and slips that had crept into the service books over time. However, an unbiased comparison of the texts of pre-reform service books (of the Iosif printing) and post-reform ones leaves no doubt as to the superiority of precisely the old books: there are perhaps fewer misprints in them than in editions contemporary to us. Moreover, this comparison permits exactly the opposite conclusions. The post-reform texts are markedly inferior in quality to the old-printed ones. As a result of the so-called correction, a huge number of errors of various kinds appeared – grammatical, lexical, historical, even dogmatic (a comparison of the texts is given below). So if the aim was to correct errors in the old-printed books, it can hardly be considered achieved.

But there was another aim: to achieve uniformity between Russian and Greek church practice. And the Greeks were taken as the model, as noted in the report of Metropolitan Nikodim read at the 1971 Local Council. This aim was dictated exclusively by political considerations.

The fact is that Aleksey Mikhaylovich was the first Russian tsar seriously to contemplate ascending the ancient Byzantine throne and standing at the head of the entire Orthodox world. “Aleksey Mikhaylovich considered himself the successor of the ancient Greek emperors not only in matters of faith and piety but also the lawful heir of their kingdom; he believed that he or his successors were destined in the future to rule Constantinople itself and all the Orthodox peoples languishing under the Turkish yoke… The tsar was not averse to the idea of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox nationalities from the Turkish yoke and of taking possession, as his inheritance, of Constantinople; and he regarded church unity as the first and necessary step towards future political unity.”

The political naïvety of these designs fully matched the short-sightedness of the tsar himself, who with full justification may be called a calamity not only for Russia but for universal Orthodoxy. For Tsar Aleksey, the reform to achieve church uniformity on the Greek model was the first step in realising his global political designs – the creation of a Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire.

It must be said that the very idea of uniting all Orthodox peoples under the sceptre of the Russian tsar arose long before Aleksey Mikhaylovich. After the fall of Byzantium in 1453 the Russians had no doubt that Russia had become its spiritual heiress. In 1516 the elder Philotheus, in an epistle to Grand Prince Vasily III, wrote the words that later became famous: “All Christian kingdoms have converged in thine own alone; for two Romes have fallen, the third (that is, Moscow – B.K.) stands, and there shall not be a fourth… Thou alone in all the earth art the Christian tsar.”

On this idea of the exclusive vocation of the Russian tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich was raised. Ascending the throne at the age of only sixteen, he resolved with all youthful directness to resurrect in his own person the image of the ancient Byzantine emperors. But what did this mean? To begin a war with the gigantic Ottoman Sultanate that stretched across half the world? Earlier the same had been urged upon Grand Prince Vasily III and Tsar Ivan the Terrible, but those were sufficiently wise and experienced politicians and did not succumb to the provocation. War with the Turks at that time would have been political madness.

A comprehensible interest in this was shown by the enslaved Greeks. But it is also known who else, besides the Greeks, wished to draw the Russians into the struggle with the Turks: “the threat of Turkish invasion alarmed Western Europe right up to the defeat of the Turks before the walls of Vienna in 1683.”

At the already-mentioned Moscow church-scholarly conference Protopresbyter N. Novosad spoke quite definitely on this question: “In that era (16th–17th centuries) the Papacy had a long-standing idea that the popes wished to instil in all Europe: the idea of a crusade to drive the Turks out of Europe. This idea was shared by Stephen Báthory. The plan of struggle with the Turks was equally carefully worked out both in Rome and in Poland. At the same time it was considered that for success it was necessary to draw Moscow in as a tool. Moscow had to be saddled with a Catholic tsar (so thought Stephen Báthory and Possevino) in order to Catholicise Moscow and secure its help.”

The authors of the plan came very close to realising it in the adventure of the pretenders. If they had succeeded in placing a Catholic tsar on the Moscow throne, half the job would have been done. And to draw the Russians into war with the Turks, the most attractive bait for the Muscovites had to be the throne of Constantinople.

The “Vicar of the whole North”, the papal legate Antonio Possevino, arriving in Moscow, presented Tsar Ivan the Terrible with a book about the Union of Florence, “richly adorned with golden initials, and by this gift at once made it clear that all Russia’s woes could easily be remedied if the Russians did not disdain to accept the union and kiss the pope’s slipper.” The legate without circumlocution promised Tsar Ivan the throne of Tsargrad. “If thou unite in faith with the pope and all the sovereigns, then with their assistance thou shalt not only be on thy ancestral patrimony in Kiev but shalt become emperor of Tsargrad and of the whole East.”

And what did Ivan IV reply to this cunning temptation? The reply was as follows: “As for the Eastern Empire, the earth is the Lord’s; to whom God wills, to him He will give it. My own realm is enough for me; I desire no other and greater realms in all the world.”

In this case, Ivan the Terrible displayed statesmanship, wisdom and firmness worthy of a tsar! How far from this Aleksey Mikhaylovich turned out to be. By the proposal to occupy the throne of Tsargrad, Possevino rather clearly expressed the Jesuits’ programme on this question – that is, precisely those who persistently tried to draw the Muscovites into an eastern adventure over the course of several centuries. There had been attempts before. As early as 1518 a legate of Pope Leo X, the Dominican monk Nicholas Schönberg, came to Moscow and urged Grand Prince Vasily III to unite with the other sovereigns of Europe to drive the Turks out of Greece. As the “carrot” there figured again the same throne of Tsargrad: “To influence Vasily Ivanovich they represented to him that he had the right to take Tsargrad from the Turks as his lawful inheritance, being a son of the Greek Church, and that if he united with the Roman Church the pope would crown him with the imperial crown and title, and elevate the Russian metropolitan to the rank of patriarch.”

In 1525 Pope Clement VII sent a letter to Moscow again proposing participation together with the other sovereigns in driving the Turks out of Constantinople. In the 17th century the Jesuit missionary Juraj Križanić and Milescu Spathary, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, urged the Russian government to fight the Turks.

As we see, Catholicism was very interested in drawing Russia into an anti-Turkish coalition, and over a long period western emissaries persistently pushed the Russians towards struggle with the Turks.

The eastern hierarchs constantly exhorted Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich to begin a campaign against the Turks with the aim of taking Tsargrad. These exhortations began immediately after the fall of Byzantium but grew especially strong in the second half of the 17th century. Metropolitan Gabriel of Nazareth even made a Russian translation of the “Tale of the Fall of Tsargrad”, timing it for the “jubilee” year of 1653. Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem, during his visit to Moscow, persuaded Tsar Aleksey to conclude an alliance with Hetman Khmelnytsky and with the voivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia for joint action against the Turks. About the same thing, when sending Arseny Sukhanov in 1649 from Iași to Moscow, Paisius told him to remind the tsar, and in a letter to Aleksey Mikhaylovich he wrote: “The Most Holy Trinity… will graciously enable you to receive the most exalted throne of the great emperor Constantine, your forefather, that you may free the peoples of the pious and Orthodox Christians from impious hands, from savage beasts.”

It may be that this essentially provocative blessing finally confirmed Tsar Aleksey in his intention to take concrete measures to carry out the “Greek project”, the first stage of which was church reform to unify Russian and Greek church-worship practices. Of course, a “prophecy” of this kind, uttered by a patriarch in the name of God Himself, could tempt someone far less inexperienced than Tsar Aleksey.

It was precisely this – the elimination of “a certain isolation” of the Russian Church in its liturgical rites – that Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem proposed to the tsar as the first step.

How much effort did the Jesuits need to expend at that time to intensify the pressure on the Russian tsar from the eastern patriarchs? The venality of many of them is too well known, as is the Vatican’s extreme interest in drawing the Muscovites into the struggle with the Turks by any means.

Skilful mentors instilled in the simple-minded and trusting Tsar Aleksey that the quest for the throne of Tsargrad was a holy matter, even a sacrifice, to which his Christian duty obliged him and to which God Himself called him. No wonder Patriarch Paisius, for weightiness, begins his epistle directly in the name of the Holy Trinity. The goal was achieved: the “Greek project” took possession of all the tsar’s thoughts and those of his immediate circle.

A conversation of the tsar with Greek merchants is known: “Do you want and do you expect me to free you from captivity and ransom you?” They answered: “How could it be otherwise? How could we not desire this?” The tsar said, turning to the boyars: “God will require them of me… I have taken upon myself the obligation… I will offer as sacrifice my army, my treasury and even my blood for their deliverance.” (Tsar Aleksey offered to this idea an incalculable number of lives of Orthodox Christians, his fellow countrymen, executed for resisting the reform which now with full justification may be called criminal; he split the hitherto united Russian Church, yet he never achieved the liberation of the Greeks from Muslim rule – and to this day Tsargrad is called Istanbul.)

After the departure of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch the tsar said to the boyars: “I pray God, before I die, to see him among the four patriarchs serving in Hagia Sophia (that is, in Constantinople – K.B.) and our patriarch the fifth together with them.” But of course, if the Russian tsar had ascended the throne of Constantinople, Nikon would not have been the fifth among the patriarchs but the first, and he understood this perfectly, which was the true reason for his particularly interested attitude towards the “Greek project”.

Before his patriarchate Nikon, like all Russians at that time, regarded contemporary Greeks with great suspicion, considering that true piety had been preserved only among the Russians. He expressed these views openly, without concealment, even after moving to Moscow when he became archimandrite. However, becoming patriarch, Nikon suddenly declares himself a zealous Hellenophile; a sharp about-face occurs – the denouncer of the Greeks becomes their admirer and venerater. And not long ago he used to say: “The Greeks and Little Russians have lost the faith and there is no firmness or good morals among them; peace and honour have seduced them, and they work by their own law, and no constancy has appeared in them, nor any piety.” Having entered the tsar’s closest circle, Nikon was let into the secret of the “Greek project” and drew the appropriate conclusions, with his characteristic lack of principle in an instant transforming himself from a denouncer of the Greeks into their venerater. It was precisely after this that, with the tsar’s active assistance, he was installed as patriarch. Thus was found and prepared the executor of the future reform fateful for Orthodoxy.

Nikon undoubtedly already had in mind in this situation the ecumenical patriarchate, and knowing his boundless ambition one may conclude that this breathtaking prospect was the chief and decisive factor in his “maturing” in the well-known direction and transformation into a zealous Hellenophile. It is telling that after his unworthy and unwise demarche with the demonstrative abandonment of the patriarchal see (“and how will you, tsar, manage without me now?”), when the phantom of the Byzantine throne ceased to trouble Nikon’s imagination, the mask of feigned Hellenophilia also slipped from him, replaced by complete indifference to his own reform, to the book corrections. Moreover, in his monastery he again printed books according to the old models.

The death of Patriarch Joseph untied the hands of the Hellenophile advocates of reform, and they developed stormy activity. Becoming patriarch, Nikon immediately began zealously copying Greek church practice. “It even seems that Nikon set himself the idea of making a second Byzantium out of Moscow.” Indeed, he transferred to Rus’ Greek ambos, the Greek archbishop’s staff, Greek kamilavkia and mantles, Greek church melodies; he invited Greek painters to Moscow, built monasteries on the Greek model, drew various Greeks close to himself, everywhere put Greek authority in the forefront, and so on.

Evaluating in particular this blind copying of the Greek model, Fr Pavel Florensky in the article “The Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Russia” called Patriarch Nikon’s activity “reactionary and in general anti-national”. To speak more precisely, the reformatory activity of Nikon and Tsar Aleksey should first of all be recognised as anti-Orthodox and anti-church. It becomes anti-national, anti-Russian only as a consequence of the organic unity of all Russian life of that time and Orthodoxy.

The anti-national character of the reform manifested itself especially vividly at the 1667 Council, when according to the tsar’s programme a campaign was officially launched to besmirch the age-old Orthodox Russian traditions and rites – in effect, the whole Russian past. Kaptev evaluates this conciliar activity as “a tendentious humiliation by foreign Greeks of Russian church antiquity, its public tendentious abuse”.

Here is where we should seek the origins of our contemporary disease of abusing and forgetting our historical past! No wonder Fr Pavel Florensky in one of his private letters said that “the world atmosphere has been corrupted perhaps since the 17th century”. A thorough investigation of the 17th-century Russian church reform fully confirms this surmise, for the Russian spiritual catastrophe in its consequences has not only a local Russian but a global character.

At the 1667 Council the tsar handed over the conduct of all affairs to two eastern patriarchs – Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch – having first made sure that they would pursue the line he needed. And the patriarchs, sensing the moment, behaved at the council as authoritative supreme judges and peremptory deciders of Russian church affairs.

It is hard to imagine that these two foreign guests, obsequious and compliant collectors of alms, being in the centre of Russia in the tsar’s presence, would have dared to revile and condemn the whole Russian antiquity, even to anathematise the old Russian rite, if there had not been special sanction from the tsar for this. “The most that a Greek hierarch visiting Moscow could venture on his own would be flattering, pompous praise of the Russian tsar, of Russian piety, public recognition of the Russians as the light and support of all Orthodoxy.”

To argue with the tsar at that time was simply impossible for anyone, especially for visiting guests, even if they were patriarchs; all that remained was to “comply”. Under any authoritarian regime even minor state decrees are issued only with the sanction of the highest authority. Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, having the highest conception of his royal power, “recognised himself as the viceroy of God Himself on earth”. With such an opinion of himself on the part of the tsar, who could dare to act independently, apart from the autocrat, in such an important church-state matter as the reform? Finally, Archpriest Avvakum will understand who the true author of the reform is and will denounce the tsar already in his fifth petition, written in 1669: “You are the autocrat; you will raise judgment concerning all these who have given such boldness against us… Who would dare to utter such blasphemous words against the saints if your power had not permitted it to be?.. All the matter is enclosed in you, O tsar, and stands on you alone.”

Pleasing Tsar Aleksey and pursuing the necessary line (the council according to the tsar’s plans was to finally confirm the reform), the eastern patriarchs went far in their activity. The council under their leadership recognised the old Russian rite as heretical and forbade it, and excommunicated from the church and anathematised those who adhered to the old rite. However, as Kaptev writes, “the rite recognised by them as heretical was in reality the creation of the Orthodox Greek ecumenical church, and earlier, for whole centuries, it had existed among the old Orthodox Greeks, and to accuse the Russians of heresy for it in essence meant to accuse the old Greek Orthodox Church of heresy”.

The eastern hierarchs at the council broadly and in detail reviewed the entire Russian church practice in general and the age-old folk customs, in order to condemn and destroy everything that deviated from the then Greek practice. All ancient Russian church things, even clothing, were replaced by contemporary Greek models, “so that there might be unity of mind and agreement in everything”. The tsar approved the conciliar activity of the eastern patriarchs and generously rewarded them.

It is telling that in 1666 the tsar by a special epistle asks to send him from the East the “Sudebnik” and the “Chinovnik of the entire tsar’s order of the former Greek tsars”, which he evidently needed for practical preparation for the expected coronation on the Byzantine throne. Here one may already speak not of political naïvety but of the feeble-mindedness of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, by which all his activity was marked, the consequence of which, among other things, were the “salt” and “copper” riots, and finally one of the first mad “projects of the century” – the all-embracing church reform for the realisation of global political pretensions.

Tsar Aleksey was raised in contempt for everything native and in adoration of everything foreign. He had a directly fantastic idea of the “wonders of western culture”: he was convinced of the almost all-encompassing power of the foreign master. These qualities, especially contempt for native history and culture, would develop and manifest even more in his son, Tsar Peter I.

We have already spoken of the intrigues of Catholicism in connection with the Eastern Question. There exists a curious document published by Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) in his “History of the Russian Church” in the section on the Time of Troubles: “From the Jesuits’ instruction to the Pretender on how to introduce the union in Russia”.

/…/ d) the sovereign himself should speak of the union rarely and cautiously, so that the matter does not begin from him, but let the Russians themselves first propose concerning some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation, and thus pave the way to the union;

e) to issue a law that everything in the Russian church be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers and to entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union: disputes will arise, reach the sovereign, he will appoint a council, and there one may proceed to the union;

f) to hint to the black clergy about privileges, to the white about rewards, to the people about freedom, to all about the slavery of the Greeks;

g) to establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen.”

So here is who long ago cared about the uniformity of Russian and Greek worship! Long before Tsar Aleksey and Nikon the main point of the reform (its essence) had been thought out by the Jesuits, formulated and given to their agents as a working instruction. This Jesuit plan was almost fully realised half a century later in the process of the 17th-century church reform. The course of the reform strikingly coincides with all the points of this instruction.

Concerning “some unimportant subjects of faith requiring transformation”, Patriarch Paisius of Jerusalem spoke in 1649 while in Moscow, and the Greek clergy supported him; the corrector Epifany Slavinetsky proposes reforms as a learned theologian. Epifany, an alumnus of Jesuit colleges, was sent from Kiev instead of another person requested.

Regarding the fact that “everything be brought under the rules of the councils of the Greek fathers”, it is necessary to recall that after two unions with the Catholics (Lyons in 1274 and Ferrara-Florence in 1439) and two hundred years under Turkish rule, so many changes had occurred in Greek church practice that the Russians questioned the very Orthodoxy of the Greeks. Around 1480 in our country a promise was included in the archiepiscopal oath not to accept Greeks either to the metropolis or to the episcopate as being under the power of an infidel tsar.

Thus, before the reform aimed at achieving uniformity with the Greeks, it was first necessary to raise the authority of the Greeks, significantly compromised in Russian eyes. This is what the Russian government actively engaged in immediately after Aleksey’s accession to the throne, for several years and in various directions. In Moscow several South-Russian books were published in which the full Orthodoxy of the Greeks was persistently preached, the necessity of communicating with them on all church questions and of acting in full accord with them in everything.

For the creators of the reform, besides the rehabilitation of the Greeks, another side of the question was important – namely, the creation of a firm opinion about the corruption of Russian service texts and the extreme necessity of their correction. In preparing public opinion about the supposed uncorrectedness of the old Russian books a special role was played by the extensive preface to the grammar of Meletius Smotritsky (1648). Here the idea is advanced in every way that Russian church books are very uncorrected and therefore need immediate thorough correction, and to correct them one must, of course, use only Greek models.

“To entrust the execution of the law to reliable people, adherents of the union”…

They found “reliable” people: Arseny the Greek, Epifany Slavinetsky, Paisius Ligarides, Simeon of Polotsk and others.

Arseny the Greek – an alumnus of the Jesuit college in Rome, repeatedly passed from Orthodoxy to Latinism and back, for a time accepted Mohammedanism. For heresy he was exiled to Solovki, but Nikon in 1652 frees him, makes him the chief corrector of service books and even settles him in his own cell. Arseny in turn recommends to Nikon Paisius Ligarides, also an alumnus of the Roman Jesuit school.

“Paisius Ligarides is not a branch of the Constantinopolitan throne,” says Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople about him, “I do not call him Orthodox, for I hear from many that he is a papist, a cunning man.” According to contemporary data, Ligarides is a Catholic missionary sent to the east in 1641. In Moscow he plays the role of Orthodox metropolitan of Gaza, acquires enormous influence on Tsar Aleksey and in many ways determines the decisions of the 1667 council. He is the tsar’s chief assistant in carrying out the “Greek project”; according to Kaptev, the tsar himself listened to him “as to a prophet of God”.

Simeon of Polotsk – a graduate of the Polish Jesuit college in Vilna, tutor of the tsar’s children (raised them in the Polish-Latin spirit), a skilful scribbler writing comedies for the tsar’s theatre, an active supporter of Nikon’s reform, who wrote a polemical treatise against the Old Believers by order of the tsar. Undoubtedly he did great harm to Russian literature by introducing into the literature of that time Polish-Ukrainian jargon and Polish syllabic verse alien to Russian culture. Many in Moscow accused Polotsk of unorthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum says directly: “Wolf-like in sheep’s clothing Simeon and Epifany. I know Epifany the Roman to the sea, when he came from Rome… And Semenka the monk came from there, from the Roman pope.”

“To establish seminaries, for which to call learned people from abroad, even if laymen”…

And seminaries were established on the model of western scholastic schools, and learned people were indeed called from abroad. The brothers Likhud, alumni of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padua, confirmed Nikon’s reform while heading the Moscow Theological Academy for 15 years (until 1701).

As we see, the programme given by the Jesuits to the Pretender was basically fulfilled. The Pretender himself suffered defeat probably only because he took the matter too abruptly. Having ascended the Moscow throne, blinded by successes, he evidently decided that it was already possible to dispense with palliatives like the gradual introduction of the union by means of the identification of Russian and Greek worship. He writes to the Roman curia: “And we ourselves by God’s grace have accepted the union (of the churches) and will now firmly endeavour to bring all the Muscovite state into the one Roman faith and to establish Roman churches.” This was too abrupt; the pretence failed, and the Jesuits had to correct the mistakes of their agent by gradual painstaking activity.

Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks thus of the Jesuits’ activity: “From the very moment of their separation from the ecumenical church the Roman pontiffs were constantly occupied with the thought of subjecting to themselves the Orthodox East and, in particular, Orthodox Russia, as witnessed by the uninterrupted series of their attempts presented by history. But never were these attempts so strong, so close to success and dangerous for Orthodoxy as from the 16th century. In Greece they were favoured by the fall of the empire (1453) and the subsequent decline of enlightenment; in Russia by the lack of enlightenment and the annexation of its western part to Poland (1569). The chief instrument both here and there was the newly established (1540) order of Jesuits. They quickly penetrated Poland and western Russia, founded their schools in Polotsk, Vilna and Volhynia to raise the children of the Orthodox in their spirit; everywhere they disseminated writings against the Eastern Church to ensnare in their nets even adults who had been its children from the cradle, and the unhappy union that arose in the western region of Russia at the end of the 16th century was the first fruit of these efforts. Just as quickly the worthy disciples of Loyola penetrated Greece, established their schools in Galata and even in Constantinople, passed themselves off as gratuitous teachers of youth, strove to be confessors of the people and disseminated writings pernicious for Orthodoxy; meanwhile beyond the borders of Greece, in the famous universities and academies of the West, whither Greek youths hastened for lack of their own schools, thirsting for enlightenment, they imperceptibly imbibed the same spirit, were entangled in the same nets, and Pope Gregory XIII in Rome itself founded a Greek college where he gratuitously educated all incoming Greeks and Russians. All this intensified activity of the Vatican is explained by the Lutheran reformation: having lost as a result of it an innumerable multitude of their ancient children, the popes thought to compensate their loss by subjecting to themselves the eastern church and spared no means for this.”

The general Latin orientation of Nikon’s reformatory activity has been noted by many researchers. Some historians directly pointed out that the Nikon reform was the result of Jesuit intrigues. In the words of Yu. F. Samarin, Nikon wanted “to found in Russia a private national papism”. The pope is head of the church and the state: in the unity of spiritual and political power lies the chief nerve of papism. Nikon’s papo-caesarism fully revealed itself during the period of his tenure of power. “On the relations of the tsar’s power to the patriarchal Nikon expressed a view that in no way accorded with the traditions of the eastern church confirmed in Russia by history” (S. M. Solovyov). Imitating the Catholics, he introduces into use the four-ended cross, the carrying of the cross before the patriarch, makes himself a hat in the manner of a cardinal’s, his mitres have the form now of a tiara, now of a western crown. Nikon repeatedly makes use of the device of false oath, displaying knowledge of Jesuit teaching. Moreover, according to the historian Tatishchev, Simeon of Polotsk persuaded the young Tsar Fyodor to recall Nikon from exile to Moscow and make him pope.

The opinions of Nikon’s adherents about his supposed learning and intelligence do not correspond to reality. Here is how Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) speaks of the book that Nikon wrote in his justification: “One must have great patience to read Nikon’s book even in parts… It is unfounded to see in this book extensive reading and learning on Nikon’s part. He had at hand the Bible, the printed Kormchaya, the explanatory Gospel and Apostle and another 2–3 books and drew from them with full hand as much as he wished, and to do this, especially from the Kormchaya with its index, was not at all difficult… But Nikon’s moral image appears in the book in the most unattractive light.”

It would be unfair to conclude about any architectural talents of Nikon in connection with the construction of the Resurrection Monastery, which he called the New Jerusalem. The well-known Arseny Sukhanov, at Nikon’s order, brought him from the East models of the Jerusalem temples; it remained for the builders only to copy. Of Nikon’s extremely negative moral image testify his cell-attendant Jonah, Prince Shaisupov and others (S. M. Solovyov).

With the passage of time many forgeries committed in the process of the Nikon reform by its creators and makers came to light. Perhaps sensational exposé material is adduced by Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy N. D. Uspensky in the article “The Collision of Two Theologies in the Correction of Russian Service Books in the 17th Century.”

At the beginning of the reform at the 1654 council it was resolved to correct the service books according to ancient Greek and Slavonic models. Professor Uspensky irrefutably proved that the models for correction were contemporary Greek service books published mainly in Jesuit printing houses of Venice and Paris. To conceal this fact, Nikon’s correctors, falsifying, wrote in the prefaces of some books that the correction was carried out “according to ancient Greek and Slavonic” models (Sluzhebnik ed. 1655).

This is understandable, for the creators of the reform were in fact interested in achieving uniformity precisely with the contemporary Greek model, therefore ancient Greek and Slavonic charters (manuscripts) simply did not interest them. This probably also explains the very strange fact noted by Uspensky that Arseny Sukhanov, among a large number (498) of manuscripts acquired by him in the East, brought to Moscow only 7 that could be used in correcting books. Yet one of the chief aims of Sukhanov’s journey to the East was to bring the necessary sources for correcting the service books. And here he brings a huge number of manuscripts, among which are the works of pagan philosophers, information about earthquakes, about sea animals, but manuscripts that could be used in correcting service books – only 7… This expedition for manuscripts, lasting a year and a half, was dispatched by Nikon, therefore one may suppose that the messenger was given corresponding instructions. As we see, here too a forgery. Yet polemicists with the Old Belief always asserted that the correction of books was supposedly carried out according to ancient manuscripts brought by Sukhanov from the East and that there were a huge number of these manuscripts.

Thus, the solution to the apparent paradox lies in the fact that Tsar Aleksey and Nikon by no means pursued the aim of the actual correction of church books and rites, and the question of who had preserved the purity of Orthodoxy – the Russians or the Greeks – did not concern them at all.

This is confirmed by the following story. Wishing to secure support from the side of Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople, Nikon in 1654, on the eve of the council, sends him a letter with questions of a church-ritual character with a request to examine them at a council and give an answer. Nikon and the tsar evidently counted on Paisius approving their reform, and it would be convenient for them to refer to his authority. However, their hopes were not justified; in his reply epistle Patriarch Paisius expressed a sober and cautious view on the matter of changing liturgical orders and church rites, thereby making it clear that there was no necessity for reform. Despite this, Tsar Aleksey and Nikon continued the undertaking, thereby demonstrating that the theological justification of the reform did not particularly interest them, which is understandable given the political aims of the reform’s creators. There was no lack of forgery in this story with the inquiry to Patriarch Paisius either. Paisius’s reply epistle was received already after the council, yet Nikon at the council declares the receipt of a letter from the Constantinopolitan patriarch supposedly with approval of the reforms.

One more example of the tactical device of the reform’s creator Nikon. As already said, in order to bring public opinion to the consciousness of the necessity of reform, they advocate urgent correction of the various slips, errors and diverse faults supposedly accumulated in the Slavonic translations, admitted by translators and copyists. No one objected to such corrections. However, when it came to the point, Nikon at the 1654 council suddenly comes out with a stunning declaration that Russian piety itself is “doubtful” because the Russians maintain among themselves “incorrect innovations”. He demands, thus, the correction not simply of books but of the Church itself. “Nikon,” writes Kaptev, “speaks at the council not of such book corrections as would mean errors introduced into them by ignorance, slips and similar unimportant and easily correctable faults, but demands the correction of books insofar as they contain, in his opinion, newly introduced orders and rites, demands, so to speak, the correction of the Church itself, and not only of books.” This tactic too is understandable – by any means to obtain agreement to the reform, and then to do one’s own thing, copying the Greek model.

N. D. Uspensky in the aforementioned article describes the tragicomic story of Nikon’s “correction” of the Sluzhebnik. In the six years of Nikon’s patriarchate six editions of the Sluzhebnik were issued, differing from one another. As models, as Uspensky established, Kiev sluzhebniki were used, which shortly before had in their turn been corrected according to Venetian and Parisian editions of Greek sluzhebniki.

Of the six differing editions the first opponents of the book correction already wrote. Thus, in the petition to Aleksey Mikhaylovich by Fr Nikita Dobrynin it is said: “For six issues of his Nikon sluzhebniki have been forcibly sent out into the Russian state: but all those sluzhebniki disagree among themselves and not one agrees with another.”

Centuries later Kaptev states the same: “The more time passed, the greater the number of editions of one and the same book appeared, disagreeing among themselves, and the very number of these disagreements increased with the passage of time. Everyone noticed this, everyone was very troubled and scandalised by this circumstance, the more so as the opponents of Nikon’s book corrections constantly and tirelessly pointed to it as obvious proof to all that Russian church books were in reality not being corrected but only spoiled.” N. D. Uspensky summarises on this account: “When some grandiose undertaking in design leads to results opposite to the intended aims, such a situation may be called tragic.”

What, then, is the position today? As already said, a comparison of contemporary service texts with pre-reform ones permits the conclusion that the new texts are markedly inferior in soundness to the old. And this is the conclusion not only of the author of the present article, who carried out independent work in comparing texts, but of many other researchers. As early as the last century A. I. Nevostruev gave a detailed classification of the errors and inaccuracies of the reformed text: strange expressions, Hellenisms, for example “the radiance of noise”, “to understand with eyes”, “to see with a finger” and the like, confused use of grammatical forms, mixing of cases, turning the predicate into the subject and so on. The scholar adduces examples of troparia of canons with very unclear meaning, lists “sins not only against grammar, philology, logic, but also against history, exegesis, dogmatics”, pointing to a mass of errors in the texts, including the mixing of proper and common nouns and vice versa, discrepancies with biblical texts and the like. Professor M. D. Muretov also adduces numerous examples of incorrect translation and faults in the post-reform text. And the well-known philologist N. I. Ilminsky “on a whole series of examples shows the superiority in the sense of accuracy in many cases of the old translation over that renewed in the 17th century”.

The reason for such evident worsening of the new translation is simple. “Arseny the Greek, as a foreigner, could not grasp all the subtleties of translation into the Russian language, therefore his translations often yielded to the old translations in clarity, juiciness, in the aptness of one expression or another, sometimes seemed ambiguous and scandalous. Epifany Slavinetsky was an extreme adherent of literalism in translation; he sacrificed to literalism the clarity and intelligibility of the speech itself, composed his own words and their combinations very artificial and little-expressive, whence his translations are always clumsy, often obscure and little-intelligible, so that the meaning of some of our church hymns even now is assimilated with difficulty.”

The corruption of the Russian language began precisely in the 17th century in the process of the “correction” of books. Let us adduce only some examples from the Psalter, designating the old text by the letter O and the new by N.

O: “закон положит ему на пути”; N: “законоположит ему на пути”;

O: “обновится яко оpлу юность твоя” (102, 5); N: “обновится яко оpля юность твоя”;

O: “помощник во благо вpемя в печалех” (9, 10); N: “помощник во благовpемениих в скоpбех”;

O: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзе ми” (118, 163); N: “непpавду возненавидех и омеpзих”;

O: “ибо благословение даст закон даяй” (83, 6); N: “закопополагаяй”;

O: “избави мя.., от pук сынов чужих” (143, 7); N: “из pуки сынов чуждих”;

O: “се пядию измеpены положил еси дни моя” (38, b); N: “се пяди положил еси дни моя”, – the meaning of the old translation is quite clear (a span is the distance from the end of the thumb to the end of the little finger), but of the new it is not.

O: “повелением им же заповеда” (7, 7); N: “заповедал еси” – phonetic worsening.

O: “яко услыша мя Боже” (16, 7); N: “яко услышал мя еси” – phonetic explosion.

O: “вскую остави мя” (21, 1); N: “вскую оставил мя еси” – weighting of the phrase construction, unnatural for the Slavonic language.

O: “И исцели мя (29, 2); N: “и исцелил мя еси” – the same.

Of course, one may discourse much on verbal forms – “aorist”, “pluperfect” and the like, but as is known, theory is dry, but the tree of life is green.

Errors were admitted that were more serious. The old text of the prayer from the rite of baptism: “The Lord our Jesus Christ, who came into the world and dwelt among men, forbids thee, O devil”. The new text: “The Lord forbids thee, O devil, who came into the world and dwelt among men”. The Old Believers repeatedly pointed to the blasphemous corruption of the text; the question was discussed for more than two centuries, and only in the Trebnik issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1979 was the pre-Nikon variant finally returned to.

The old text from the rite of baptism: “we pray thee, O Lord, let not an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. The new text: “let not, we pray thee, an evil spirit descend with him who is being baptised”. And in this blasphemous corruption the adherents of the old rite constantly accused the new-ritualists, but the latter returned to the pre-Nikon variant also only after centuries. Thus this error worked for the schism: “they pray to an evil spirit”, said the Old Believers.

From the litanies for the sanctification of water on Theophany: S: “that this water may be leading into life eternal”. N: “that this water may be leaping into life eternal”. They returned to the old variant only in the “Festal Menaion” issued in 1970. It should be noted that the print runs of church books issued in Soviet times were very limited, therefore in many churches, especially rural ones, the service is performed according to pre-revolutionary trebniks, that is, with all the indicated errors.

It is hardly likely that such serious errors in the text of the fundamental sacrament were made due to insufficient professionalism of the correctors. A comparison of old and new texts leads to the thought that often a carefully masked conscious corruption of the texts was carried out on the principle “the worse the better”. In those times all secret enemies of Orthodoxy on Rus’ became voluntary supporters of Nikon’s reform, since the reform gave the possibility of mocking the church with impunity. And they mocked… Surikov showed this well in his painting “Boyarynya Morozova”.

Undoubtedly there were enemies of Orthodoxy among the correctors too, and not for nothing after the departure from the scene of his patron Nikon, Arseny the Greek, who headed the correction, was again exiled to Solovki. And what could be expected from a correction if it was headed by people like Arseny the Greek? The words of Archpriest Avvakum are amazingly close to the true state of affairs: “As Nikon said, so he did: ‘Print, Arsen, the books any old way, only not as before’ – and so he did.”

If, for example, in some cases the correctors replaced “smite” with “thou hast smitten”, “commanded” with “thou hast commanded”, then in others they did the opposite: S: “for the Lord hath saved” (19, 6); N: “for the Lord saved”. If in one place they replace an ancient speech form with a more contemporary one, then in another – the opposite. S: “for one of the princes falleth” (81, 7); N: “for one of the princes falleth” – evidently modernised. But in the same psalm: S: “in the midst of the gods he shall judge” (81, 1); N: “in the midst of gods he shall judge” – returned to a more ancient form. And such examples of “correction” on the principle “only not as before” may be adduced in multitude.

There are especially many errors and inaccuracies in the newly corrected texts of the irmoi. Let us compare the texts of the Sunday irmos of the 4th tone, song 1:

O: “Моpя Чеpмнаго пучину, немокpыми стопами, дpевле шествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазно моисеовыма pуками, амаликову силу победил есть”.

N: “Моpя чеpмную пучину невлажными стопами дpевний пешешествовав Изpаиль, кpестообpазныма моисеовыма pукама амаликову силу в пустыни победил есть”.

An error is immediately noticeable if, for example, one says “the depth of the Caspian sea”. Therefore there is an evident error in the expression “the depth of the red sea”, since “Red” is a proper name. In the word “to traverse on foot” invented by the correctors a tautology is admitted – one always traverses on foot.

“With cross-shaped arms of Moses” – a gross error. It is known that Moses prefiguratively depicted the cross with his arms, but his arms were normal, not cross-shaped, as the correctors assure.

Through the fault of the correctors the colourful word “omrazishasya” (from the root “abomination”, “filth”) departed from the Church Slavonic language:

O: “pастлеша и омpазишася в беззакониях” (52, 2); N: “омpачишася”.

The conducted comparison of the pre-reform and post-reform Psalter with the involvement of a Greek text of the 10th century also speaks not in favour of the newly corrected text. For example, the Greek equivalent of the word “omrazishasya” has precisely the root “abomination” and not “darkness”.

Thus, it was far from for a single “az” that the zealots of traditional Orthodoxy rose against the reform. At that time people attended church often and many knew the texts by heart; one may imagine their indignation at this “correction” of the texts: it is not surprising that a schism arose.

In the period following Nikon’s abandonment of the patriarchal throne the Russian church found itself in the most grievous state. As Kaptev writes, “everything in our church life of that time from top to bottom was in complete confusion and as it were decomposition; in nothing was there stability, defined order and firmness; everything as it were tottered, everywhere discord, quarrels, struggle… It seemed that a return to the pre-Nikon church orders would then have been the most suitable way out of the tangled situation of church affairs… The matter with Nikon’s reform seemed to hang by a hair.” But after Nikon’s departure the actual manager of the Russian church becomes Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, who turns all his energy to confirming the reform, subordinating to this his activity, serving the reform often in defiance of simple common sense, offering to it in sacrifice both truth and honour and literally everything, when the reform becomes some all-consuming cult of his life, an obsessive idea. And quite justifiably the same Kaptev concludes that “to Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich chiefly the reform owes its beginning, its conduct under Nikon and its completion after Nikon’s removal.”

The phantom of the Byzantine throne hovered over Russia even after the death of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich right up to 1917. The heirs of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich were already firmly “fixated” on the circle of questions of the “Greek project”, passing this baton by inheritance. The very idea of Byzantine throne-inheritance gradually received very wide dissemination in Russian society, and if earlier it was inspired from without, then in the 19th century already many Russian thinkers paid tribute to the utopian project of creating a “Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire” with Constantinople as the chief capital. Of this write Tyutchev, Dostoevsky, I. Aksakov and other Russian public figures. Dostoevsky sees in this “our only way out into the fullness of history”, “sooner or later, but Constantinople must be ours”, he exclaims.

Even earlier Tyutchev wrote: “That which was promised by the fates even in the cradle to her, that which was bequeathed to her by the ages and by the faith of all her tsars… the crown and sceptre of Byzantium ye shall not succeed in depriving us of…”

It is understandable that in this situation the Nikon reform for the unification of Russian and Greek church practice acquired special political significance; church uniformity with the Greeks appeared as the single ideological foundation of the future great empire. The consequence of this was the further strengthening of the reform and the intensification of the struggle with the Old Belief.

It is now understandable why the Nikon reform, with its evident theological unsoundness, was beyond criticism – this was a political “taboo”.

Life dispelled the false prophecies like smoke. To everyone now it is clear that the idea of occupying the Constantinopolitan throne was an obsession, a phantom. The political “taboo” on criticism of the “Nikon-Aleksey” reform has also disappeared.

The 1971 Council lifted the curses on the old rites, but this is not a broad gesture or act of good will towards the Old Believers; this is what in justice should have been done long ago.

In the conciliar decree it is said: “May the Lord lead those separated again into one…” In confirmation of this call it is natural to expect future conciliar resolutions directed towards the liquidation of the schism, in which the first step could be a return to the pre-reform texts as the more sound ones. Besides, spiritual rebirth is unthinkable without the realisation of past errors and repentance for the untruths committed.

Many Russian Orthodox people were destroyed for faithfulness to traditional Orthodoxy. Archpriest Avvakum, who headed the resistance to the criminal reform, has now appeared before us as a great Russian man, a national hero, a martyr.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Have you ever noticed how frequently the Holy Gospel speaks of the commandment of forgiveness? In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask that the Lord forgive us as we forgive our debtors. And the parable of the unmerciful servant affirms that only he who forgives shall receive forgiveness (Matthew 18:24 and onward). The commandment concerning prayer states that one must not bring a gift to the altar before first reconciling with one’s neighbor (Luke 11:25).

How many times must I forgive my brother?—asks the Apostle Peter—Is it not seven times?

“Not seven times, but seventy times seven,” replies the Lord (Matthew 18:21 and Luke 17:4).

The same commandment of forgiveness is repeated twice by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13).

Why does Holy Scripture so insistently command forgiveness?

Because Christianity is all about forgiveness, and in forgiveness is expressed both the essence and the power of Christianity.

Where there is no forgiveness, there is no Christ. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And who is pure in heart? He whose heart is free from enmity, hatred, and anger—that is, he who forgives. “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God” (1 John 4:16).

Thus, where there is no love but enmity, there is no place for God. He departs from the soul darkened by hatred and anger and leaves it to the one whose kingdom is darkness. “He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes” (1 John 2:11).

We have said that he who does not forgive his brother and does not reconcile with him, according to the Gospel, cannot even cross the threshold of the temple or offer a prayerful sacrifice to the Lord. But that is not all: if a man, harboring anger in his heart, stands in prayer, not only will his prayer be displeasing to God, having come from an impure heart, but he himself will be unable to offer a fervent and sincere prayer to the Lord. “The serpent of hatred, dwelling in the soul, undermines the roots of prayer,” depriving the soul of the strength to ascend to God.

A certain woman once complained to me that she did not know how to pray—her prayer felt cold and lifeless. She was very religious, loved Christ, loved church services, and loved the poor, yet I was surprised by her lack of the gift of prayer.

“Do you have an enemy whom you are unwilling to forgive?” I asked.

“Yes, I do.”

“Until you reconcile with him, your sources of prayer will remain dry.”

By an effort of will, this woman reconciled with her adversary, and the sweetness of prayer became known to her.

And what has been said about prayer, of course, applies to all manifestations of the soul’s life. The lives of the saints emphasize that a person who harbors unforgiveness in his soul cannot be a confessor of the Lord, will not stand firm in martyrdom, and is incapable of performing good deeds. And this is natural: the power of grace, which sustains a person in goodness, is withdrawn from such a soul, leaving it in its own weakness and impotence.

Enmity and hatred, as a kind of “poison of the soul,” corrupt the soul, extinguish the power of goodness within it, weaken it, and render it unfit for the Kingdom of God.

“He that hateth his brother is a murderer,” says the Apostle John (1 John 3:15). One might say that such a person is, at the same time, a murderer of his own soul. This is why the Lord Jesus and the Church—especially on this Forgiveness Sunday—so insistently call upon us to reconcile and forgive.

“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,” says the Lord.

You may say, “But it is difficult to forgive an offender. Let him come to us and ask for forgiveness, then we will be ready to reconcile with him.”

No, not so. That is how the Gentiles act.

A Christian behaves differently. He either does not notice offenses or blames himself for everything. When the Blessed Kyros, of whom St. John Climacus speaks (Prologue, April 12), was insulted, reviled, and beaten, he only smiled gently. “They are testing me,” he said to St. John. “They are trying my patience, not seeking to harm me.” And he responded to insults with kindness.

Other holy ascetics, when offended, were troubled by their own conscience. “Why did I anger him?” they would ask themselves. “If he became angry, then clearly I must have offended him in some way, wounded him, or provoked his wrath. If not intentionally, then perhaps carelessly—I failed to treat him with enough sensitivity and love.” And so they did not merely “forgive” their offender but sincerely believed that they, not he, were at fault.

This is the true logic of a Christian. Suppose you have been wronged without any fault of your own. Even then, you should pity the offender all the more: clearly, he is deprived of God’s mercy, he is destroying himself through enmity, life and hardship have hardened his heart. You should pity him and, sacrificing your pride, hasten to bring peace to his embittered soul.

It is true—sometimes it is difficult to overcome feelings of offense and hostility. But if a Christian remembers that there is no forgiveness for him who does not forgive up to seventy times seven, he will find the strength to overcome this evil feeling.

Here is the lesson that an elder once gave to a certain brother. The brother told the elder that despite all his efforts, he could not forgive his enemy.

“Very well,” said the elder, “let us pray. Repeat after me: ‘Our Father, who art in heaven…’”

The brother repeated the prayer word for word.

“But do not forgive me my debts, as I do not forgive my debtor.”

“How can I pray like that, Abba?”

“But how else will you pray? Will you lie and ask for forgiveness for yourself while you refuse to forgive your debtors?”

The monk was enlightened.

Reflect on this story. You say you cannot forgive? But that means you are closing off the wellspring of God’s mercy for yourself, condemning yourself to ruin…

by Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

source

By Bishop Mikhail Semyonov

Today we commemorate Saint John of the Ladder. He was a holy ascetic, enlightened with a deeply Christian spirit and great wisdom. He was a man who placed the Lord at the very center of his life in all its aspects—for him, “God is the object and goal of all endeavors, for in all actions and movements the true Christian is filled with the awareness that he stands before God, filled with an inner, life-giving reality in Him…” (from The Ladder).

The Church owes to the prayerful spirit of John a great book—The Ladder—filled with Christian understanding. The Ladder is a book essential for every Christian.

It consists of thirty chapters—steps, degrees of a ladder leading to the Kingdom of Heaven—and is truly a ladder of salvation.

Its descriptions of sins, their weight, their difficult conquerability, and their constant serpent-like cunning—how they deceitfully, slowly attach themselves to the soul through a passing thought (at first), which then grows into sinful desire—are full of wisdom and instruction.

Its descriptions of virtues are a call to ascend with great effort, like a man climbing a mountain, clinging with his hands and his whole body to the rocky ledges so that he does not fall. This call is powerful and convincing: “Go forward, do not look back; if you fall, rise up and continue the path…”

The content of The Ladder is profound; the language is vivid, full of imagery and comparisons, and charged with strength. Some of its brief sayings are worthy of long reflection.

Here is a sketch of a few—brief, incomplete, and imperfect.

Abstinence (Fasting) is the mother of health. It is founded upon the thought of death and the end of earthly life.

Just as a hungry man cannot forget bread, so it is impossible to be saved for him who does not remember his departure from this life. But do not place your hope in the idea that “because you fast, you will not fall;” for one who tasted nothing was still cast down from heaven.

Wretched is the one who falls—but more wretched still is the one who causes another to fall.

The fox pretends to sleep—and the demon pretends to be chaste: the one to deceive a bird, the other to destroy a soul.

As birds grown fat cannot fly toward heaven, neither can the man who serves his flesh.

Just as someone suffering from a long illness cannot be healed in an instant, so it is impossible to crush the passions—or even one of them—all at once.

In every passion, learn to know its measure; have a guide who knows the measure, and you will come to know your progress.

He who has conquered the passion of avarice has put an end to his anxieties, but he who is bound by it will never pray with a pure heart.

Do not say that you are storing up for the poor—by two mites the Kingdom of Heaven was purchased.

A proud soul is a slave to fear—it is self-assured, yet trembles at every rustle, even at shadows. He who has become a servant of the Lord fears only his one true Master. But he who does not fear God is often frightened even by his own shadow.

Among those who are learning letters, it is well known which subjects are appropriate for beginners, which for intermediates, and which for teachers. Let us be wise in our understanding, lest after long years of study we find ourselves still lingering over the first lessons. To see an old man attending a primary school—this everyone would regard as shameful.

Just as one who carries perfumes is revealed by their fragrance, even against his will, so too the one who possesses the Spirit of the Lord is known by his words and by his humility.

These teachings of John were not merely words, but the fruit of his own way of life. He was truly steadfast in his journey toward heaven and in the practice of virtue.

“Move slowly,” he would say—and in his own life, he walked with an unwavering, steady, and resolute step.

He who rushes to hasten his progress often stumbles and grows faint—sometimes just steps from the goal. And he sees his companion, who set out alongside him, pass him by, full of hope and strength. The same is true in the life of the soul.

He who trains his spirit in the realm of virtue, rising step by step and strengthening himself with faith, hope, and love for God—he will attain the uppermost step of moral perfection. But he who attempts to leap at once to the highest rung of perfection will soon feel his own powerlessness.

In the keeping of the fast, one must practice reasonable moderation and gradual growth, since the earthly life of a Christian is filled with labor, and the fruitfulness of that labor depends upon the condition of the body.

Victory over faults and sins comes when there is a gradual ascent—from lesser to greater, from what seems insignificant to what is significant. In the fulfillment of duties, there must be maintained composure, steadiness, and a consistent effort from beginning to end.

He who considers the reward before beginning the work, who weighs the final result without starting the task—he shall not enter into the joy known to those who labor.

And does not he stumble who, while walking, keeps his gaze fixed only on the far distance and never looks at the ground beneath his feet?

These teachings, of course, do not advise us to linger, to delay our movement intentionally—no, for he who tarries too long will arrive late and find the door shut by the Bridegroom.

Magnificent are the words of the Ladder’s author when he speaks of prayer—of its persistence and boldness, which lead the soul into ecstasy, and allow it to perceive the light of the divine.

He speaks beautifully of humility of spirit before prayer, and of the mystery of tears of repentance—tears he himself had known through personal experience:

Those who possess within themselves the fountain of these holy tears, within the sanctuary of their heart, come to hate even their own life as the source of their spiritual afflictions. Their body becomes repulsive to them, as an enemy. They rule over the body as over a slave. And just as outward fire consumes and devours straw, so too the spiritual fire of these pure tears burns up and destroys in them all visible and invisible impurity.

He also speaks of another effect of these holy tears:

Those who have received this gift spend every day of their life in spiritual festivity, and their sorrow contains within it an incomprehensible consolation and joy, just as wax holds within itself the honey.

Still more vivid are John’s words about the final stages of self-perfection.

After the long path—of forgiving humility, of chastity, of the labor of restraining the unruly tongue, of fasting and prayer—a person ascends the heights of love.

And love, gentle and peaceful, meets the ascetic; love which is greater than faith and hope.

It is a wondrous, poetic vision. Again we say: The Ladder should be our constant companion, our bedside book.

Brethren! We now stand before the ladder that leads to heaven. And the fast is itself a ladder. All of life is a ladder. And see how various are the attitudes of Christians toward this “ladder.”

Here are some who look up at the ladder and say, “It is too high—we shall never reach it,” and they quietly remain in the dust of the earth. They do not begin the fast, nor do they begin the struggle of Christian life…

Then there are others: they begin to ascend the ladder, but are so burdened with the heavy load of worldly cares, of love for the world, of the pursuit of wealth, of honor, and so forth, that they are unable to go on. The heavy burden pulls them down to the earth, and they fall off one of the lower steps.

Then there is a third group: these have reached halfway and stopped… “Enough… We are not saints; we cannot go to the top. What we have done is sufficient.”

These are the spiritually dead. Whoever stops on the path and no longer moves forward is a son of perdition: he is neither cold nor hot, and the Lord shall spew him out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16).

There are also those who climb high but fall from the steps nearest the top.

These are they who walk with great zeal for God, but without the gentle spirit of humility. At such heights, their heads grow dizzy. They are not bound to the Lord Christ with the humble cord of love, as mountain travelers bind themselves to their guide with a rope in the snow-covered peaks. They climb the ladder on the legs of pride and self-exaltation—

—and fall into the dark abyss.

Oh, if only we would make the Ladder of Saint John our path! Then we would reach the end. And we would enter the bridal chamber of the Lord, into the glory of the Resurrection through Him.

1916

source

(Printing House of the I. D. Sytin Partnership, Pyatnitskaya Street, own house. Moscow, 1907)

I. The First Stage

The title of the article may seem pretentious. It recalls Herr’s pamphlet How I Became a Social Democrat. We confess: we deliberately repeated the title of the German Christian socialist who became a social democrat, believing that we have more right to it than Herr himself. Herr did not “become” a social democrat; he simply joined the party, disillusioned with Christian (German) socialism. A Russian priest truly “becomes” one—that is, through a complex evolution, a kind of via dolorosa of doubts and torments, destroying old gods, sometimes deeply fused with the heart, he arrives at a new social ideal. And my path is not mine alone, but generally that of a priest—the path any Russian priest follows, raised on the Gospel, Dostoevsky, and life.

I will begin with a tiny memory from distant childhood.

A noisy, large cloth factory… So much fire. Unbearably loud: huge wheels clatter. The terrifying steel arms of machines flash by. It’s eerie. And amid this noise wander pitiful gray, dust-covered little figures of child sweepers. Weary, exhausted, and above all, pathetically small.

This was long ago, 25 years back, but the impression is vivid and bright. What struck me was precisely this: the insignificance of man, his powerlessness before the machine—terrifying, enormous, mercilessly strong.

I do not wish to regale readers with anecdotes on the theme of “how I became virtuous.” I simply point to a vivid fact that left the first unease in my soul, from which it could not free itself for whole decades afterward. I had accidentally glimpsed the kingdom of Moloch, and it immediately crushed me with its blasphemous might and triumphant power, yet somewhere it left the seed of a painful thought: still, this should not be… It can be otherwise. There is no need to confess what life did with this chance childhood unease. The evolution, growth, and decline of a “private” soul—mine or anyone else’s—are of no interest to anyone: only the evolution of a priest as a priest can hold attention.

Thus, I pass over an entire twenty years… Life thrust me into the very center of diverse currents, hurled me into Petersburg. I was called here, among other things, to fight neo-Christianity—that is, Merezhkovsky, Rozanov, and others. I was to defend the Church, its truth (not the living, earthly truth, which even I forgot at the time, but the dogmatic, philosophical one). And I did so sincerely and without falsehood, because the center of my faith, my sole lifeline, was (and is) the image of Christ, crucified for the world’s God… I spoke and wrote hurriedly and avidly, hastening to cry out: “Wait before condemning our truth—you do not know it. Come closer…”

Perhaps at times I succeeded in defending my truth: I gave it both brain and soul. But I myself always remained inwardly defeated by my audience, even when it was silent. A passing accusation would be flung, and one could not shake it off for days and weeks.

“You are lying,” they write from Saratov on behalf of an entire party in a lithographed leaflet, “it is not Christ you defend, but the order of things. One cannot live in your Church with your Christianity. So much slavish falsehood: the Church’s persecution of sectarians and of freedom of faith in general, the Church’s approval of war, even more—of executions, the approval of every existing ‘fact,’ even serfdom, because it is a fact; of the existing popular and social morality—again because it exists, because it is a fact… We see that the Church is a tool in the service of the ‘existing,’ whereas its task is to judge from the height of ‘eternity,’ from the height of the Gospel… And we cannot accept it… you… your Christ. Is it not for this that your repainted, renewed dogmatic truth is thrust forward—to lull us, to make us forget the living untruth and the fact that you are silent about it and dare not speak of it? You want to hypnotize us with dogma…”

“Leave off,” writes the naive, semi-literate but clever and plain-spoken merchant S-v from Samara (known for his open letter to Metropolitan Antony), “you are exactly like a shop clerk… Extolling your Church like goods you are selling off. And who knows, perhaps you really do not see that the goods are water-damaged, and above all, you do not see the mark of the Antichrist upon them… Faith is faith, and you speak well of it, but look— this faith is needed so that God may be set as a watchman over the property of the rich. You have given everything of God’s to Caesar for service, turned God into a watchman, remade the Gospel so that it, too, like the Code of Punishments, threatens only slaves who do not obey their masters, and comforts the robbed: endure, “there” you will receive tenfold.”

I felt that there was a terrifying amount of truth here. How could I deny it, when Iriney Orlovsky in a sermon proved that the poor are needed precisely so that the picture of life may be aesthetically richer? Not all flowers in the meadow are red and red; blue and purple are needed too. Not everyone can be sated and rich—it would be ugly and meager, and would pall (evidently, on the sated).

And this frank cynicism was no rarity. How many efforts, indeed, do we make in praising “poverty” for the sake of the rich’s peace of mind. Understandably, alongside such sermons, the letters from Saratov and Samara burned like coals. The necessity was felt to first free the truth of the Gospel from its slavish servile role. It was felt that there would be no faith in us or in Christ as long as our word and thought remained in service—yes, and above all, as long as that very thought was inwardly, by its very psychology, rotten, depraved, slavish.

The words of Samarin came to mind—a kind of pillar of Orthodox consciousness: “When the existing order of things, for example, even serfdom, is placed entirely under the direct protection of faith; when it is, so to speak, imposed upon her to approve, bless, and sanctify everything that exists at the present moment but did not exist yesterday and may not exist tomorrow, then naturally all the most reasonable needs unsatisfied by the present, all the most peaceful hopes for the better, finally, faith itself in the people’s future—all this becomes accustomed to viewing Christianity as a barrier that must sooner or later be stepped over, and little by little inclines toward falling away from Christ and the Church.”

They came to mind—oh, how they came to mind. The circumstances were already different from two or three years ago. Back then, I myself quoted these “words of Samarin” as self-justification: the state, they say, uses the Church for its own purposes and discredits it; we do not want this; we ourselves are burdened by the alliance as by a curse… Therefore, distrust toward us is unlawful and unfounded.

Thus could speak a priest with a “troubled” conscience a year ago. Thus spoke I. Now the priests of God Most High have shown that the alliance—their slavish service to one Caesar instead of God—does not seem a “curse” to them. An entire army of Moloch’s slaves, mistakenly standing near Christ’s altar, displayed such zeal in their blasphemous struggle against truth that it became frightening for the very integrity of Christianity. Fear was born that (as in Rozanov’s Anxious Night) the last slaves would leave the dishonored temple crying: “Out of this filth, meek in appearance, bloody within. Here the mystery of iniquity has begun to work.”

And Samarin’s thought arose before consciousness in a new, sharply accusatory form—visions of Lamennais. Seven purple-robed figures in a hall hung with black. The fifth, rising, approached the throne of bones with a wavering gait and placed his foot on the fallen crucifix. He took a skull filled with blood, drank from it, and said to his comrades: “You have thought much and well to destroy freedom. Your means are effective and energetic, but they are insufficient. Turn people into animals—that is good; strike them with fear of inexorable justice, cruel executions; otherwise, sooner or later they will tear you to pieces. The executioner must be the first minister to a good prince.”

And beside him, this “fifth,” the seventh, having drunk like the others from a human skull, spoke thus while standing on the crucifix: “There is no more Christ; it is war not for life but for death, eternal war between Him and us. But how to distract the peoples from Him? Listen! We must buy Christ’s priests with wealth, honors, power. And they will command the people, in Christ’s name, to submit to us in everything, whatever we do, whatever we order. And the people will believe them, entrust them with their conscience, and our power will be stronger than ever before.”

And they did it, and they bribed… A heavy and tormenting darkness descended… Precisely a heavy and tormenting darkness.

Is it surprising that I took fright at this threatening gloom and wanted to cry out to my comrades: “Save yourselves! Your proximity to the pagan and evil principle of slave-owning power is ruinous, especially now…” And as a result of this call, a break had to appear—not hidden or masked—with former forms of state views.

It is often said that for a priest, apparently, the forms of power and so on should be indifferent. Perhaps so. Very possibly. In any case, this is not important for us now. The fact is that the connection with past power corrupted, and it had to be severed as decisively and clearly as possible. This is a stage that every priest who does not wish to trade in Christ for the sake of power must necessarily pass through and will inevitably pass through. And thus the break with power became my first stage.

However, this did not resolve the question. In what form, then, should Christianity, liberated from slavery, reveal itself in its constructions of this “earthly, social life”? Finding a living earthly program was very difficult. From the past remained hard-to-erase stains of slavery. Consciousness turned out to be infected with the “leprosy of the ages.” And on bad soil, at first only false, compromise forms could take root. The “spirit of compromise,” the satan of our age (in Ibsen’s expression), triumphed in the person of Dostoevsky and the German socialists. The half-truth of my brochure Cursed Questions and Christianity was born.

II. In the Slavery of Compromise

Dostoevsky was, is, and probably will long remain the “evil genius” of Christian thought. In his work, alongside the seeds of “revelation,” are laid elements of a powerful narcotic poison, energetically decomposing above all the idea of Christian social order.

At the crossroads, in search of an answer to how to understand the world and reconcile with its untruth, my thought could not fail to encounter Dostoevsky on its path.

He had traveled the same road—first of sorrowful bewilderment, then of mortal horror before life, before “Baal reigning in our world of usurers”—the same road that our entire generation of “sick Christians” experiences, and I naturally met him at one crossroads.

Read two or three pages of Summer Impressions of Winter Impressions. One chapter is even called “Baal,” and it is filled with the impression of sorrowful horror at the desecration of man in the “kingdom of machines” laboring not for the worker but for the usurer. A city boundless as the sea— the screech and howl of machines. The poisoned Thames. The glittering crystal palace of the exhibition. Something apocalyptically triumphant, great, beautiful. This is a temple… Yes, of Baal. Wealth, luxury, mirrors, and gold. And against this background—a crushed and pitiful man.

The witches’ sabbath of runaway negroes—workers who, in drunkenness and debauchery, dull, joyless, heavy, and silent, give away on Saturday what they earned through a week of toil and cursing. Women and even girls selling themselves in Haymarket… All the pus of the shameful sediment of life’s order. Mothers who bring out their daughters for sale. All these are sacrifices to Baal. This drunkenness, debauchery, loss of consciousness, in which there is “something systematic, ostentatious, encouraged,” for Dostoevsky are “souls laid at the foundation of the accursed tower of Baal.” “Baal reigns and does not even demand obedience, because he is convinced of it. The poverty, suffering, murmuring, and stupefaction of the masses do not trouble him in the least.” “And for the pariahs of his kingdom, the prophecy will not come true for a long time. They will not be given palm branches and white robes for a long time, and for a long time yet they will cry out to the throne of the Most High: ‘How long, O Lord?’”

And alongside the pictures of adult slavery—especially for me—sickening and comprehensible pictures of children’s suffering. “I remember once, in the crowd,” Dostoevsky relates, “I saw a little girl, no more than six years old, all in rags, dirty, barefoot, emaciated, and beaten: her body, showing through the rags, was covered in bruises. She walked as if not remembering herself, not hurrying anywhere, God knows why staggering in the crowd; perhaps she was hungry… But what struck me most was that she walked with such grief on her face, such hopeless despair, that to see this tiny creature already bearing so much curse and despair was somehow unnatural and terribly painful. She kept shaking her disheveled little head from side to side, as if reasoning about something, spreading her tiny hands apart, gesticulating with them, and then suddenly clapping them together and pressing them to her bare little breast.” And this again was a morning sacrifice to the same god of evil capital.

Such pictures, such a view of the world, were too comprehensible to me for me not to accept it. Dostoevsky’s conclusion was also comprehensible: “Baal must be destroyed.”

Yes… yes… But how?

As is known, Dostoevsky answered this question with a sharp critique of socialism, in place of which he proposed his own “Russian socialism”—the socialism of Vlas, collecting alms for churches.

Dostoevsky’s Russian socialism was a slavish, compromise, beggarly product of a soul corrupted and crushed to dust by hard labor, but Dostoevsky’s language, the narcotic and hypnotic effect of his images illuminated by beautiful pain—his “dissolute heroes” (Zosima, Alyosha)—masked the slavish motives and sources of the system.

“Russian socialism” is a system that should elevate everyone to the moral level of the Church as a spiritual brotherhood, while preserving the external inequality of social positions; it “demands the spiritualization of the entire state and social order through the embodiment in it of the truth and life of Christ.”

“Not in institutions, not in ‘phalansteries’ and all sorts of social anthills, but in active love, in the loving compassion of Zosima, Alyosha—there is salvation. In the resolve to do everything for the sake of active love.”

Our life is bad because we ourselves are bad. “By becoming better ourselves, we will correct the environment and make it better. After all, this is the only way to correct it.”

Forget about your “rights,” forget that the world can be remade at once by “reforms.” Heal souls…

All these thoughts, set forth here concisely and drably, in the brilliant setting of Dostoevsky’s hysterical pictures and images steeped in suffering, seemed bright and convincing. Only one question arose: but must we really forget about all those girls selling themselves in Haymarket, about the horrors of their situation? Is nothing to be done with the very “fact” of sale? Can the witches’ sabbath of “runaway negroes” not be ended and a holiday obtained for them?

To agree entirely with the solution that we must wait, that now we can and should save only that one girl, those separate units encountered on the road, was unwilling… Against this rebelled the remnants of social conscience, which the Antichrist’s preaching of pity only for one’s neighbor could not obscure.

And here the Christian socialists helped Dostoevsky—those who approached him so closely in the basic idea of preaching active love. They “want to bring Christ into the kingdom of machines,” as Naumann declares—that is, they want precisely what I wanted.

“To drive poverty out of the world is our task. To fulfill this task, God has given us the machine. He has given billions of iron slaves, the ability to produce countless products. He said: ‘In it (the machine), My children, I give you the means to destroy want. Take the machine and illuminate the earth with it, take it and build a new age with it!’ God gave cloth factories so that no one would lack clothing, and transport ships so that no one would go hungry…”

And I wanted the same—to make the machine work for the toilers. Precisely. Nothing more need be desired: this was what I needed. A practical supplement to Dostoevsky.

And alongside this, their program—so broad, democratic: workers’ insurance, the fight to shorten the working day, prohibition of child labor, regulation of women’s labor…

I found myself captivated: I decided that the best expression of Christian consciousness would be precisely the union of Dostoevsky with Naumann’s Christian socialism, that of the Americans. And I became a proselyte and, perhaps, an apostle of compromise.

At one of the meetings at Fr. Grigory Petrov’s, S. N. Bulgakov defended his paper “Christian Politics,” in which he proposed, in the name of Christianity, to organize “unions of Christian politics” to fight against a social order hostile to freedom and, consequently, to the spiritual personality. Sergei Nikolaevich proposed an organization of a sort of political party, like the Western Christian socialist ones, only on the basis of genuine socialism, not the card-sharper’s socialism of Stöcker.

I spoke out as a strong opponent of the proposed Christian political organization. In my story In the City, in its first part, there is this dialogue:

“Fr. Peter (to the intellectual):

— If we speak of the Church’s role in life, then its ‘politics’ generally coincides with the politics of those who are for truth… for the rights of the lesser… We can join hands with those who fight for the rights of the offended, for the unification of the weak against the untruth of the strong.

Fr. Nikolai: — Rights?.. No…

Pale, trembling as if in hysterics. Face suffering, sick…

— Rights… No… no… There will be none. God forbid. This is Judas’s betrayal. This is the second temptation. Turn stones into bread… In your program there is no, no Christ, crucified Christ, God; if ever I come to the thought that there was no Christ, that His cause is impossible here, then I will accept this ‘Christian politics.’ Perhaps in a week, in two, but only then, when Christ dies. The Church cannot be in alliance with a group that says to the offended: ‘Take your right,’ because there are no rights in the Church, though it will say: ‘A curse on the oppressors.’ The Church can stand only for struggle, as the conscience of humanity—its judge. We can call only to such deeds as we can preach with the Chalice of the Lord’s Blood in our hands, to arrange such unions and organizations where there are no rights and there is only self-sacrifice, though we think that this will arrange life richer than socialism.”

Fr. Nikolai of these lines is me in my objections at that time to Fr. Petrov and S. Bulgakov.

Naturally, on the basis of this view, I considered possible only all sorts of church “factories of happiness,” like parish brotherhoods, Christian pastoral mediation between labor and capital, church organization of apartments for the poor, and so on and so forth. The most I would agree to were Naumann’s half-measures, stipulating, like hypocrites, that Christ attached no value to external forms, placing the essence of all world history in the development of individual souls.

I did not know then that in a week or two, precisely for the sake of faith in Christ, I would have to renounce my false point of view.

III. Quarrel with Dostoevsky and the German Christian Socialists

It took only a small push for the nightmarish influence of the “cruel talent” and the compliant Christians (Naumann, Stöcker, and others) to collapse.

This push came from a chance passage in Dostoevsky. If you remember, objecting to Gradovsky against his thought that institutions must be improved, not only personalities, that the Christian perfection of Korobochka would not abolish serfdom, Dostoevsky answered with positively wild, terrible words: “One must understand Christianity,” he writes to Gradovsky: “if Korobochka were a Christian, there would be no serfdom at all on her estate, despite the fact that all the serf documents remained in her chest. And what business is it of Christian Korobochka whether her peasants are serfs or not. She is their mother… etc.”

This was an illustration of the words about spiritual brotherhood while preserving social inequality. For me, these lines were a revelation. What? The fact that “the serf documents are in the chest” is indifferent? Korobochka is a mother…

No, such a mother is not needed. Precisely, one must understand Christianity, and that means understanding that in life’s relations, the most terrible and sinful thing is not that, using the documents and deeds, a person is hunted down with dogs, but the very “documents” on souls. And if the documents lie in the chest, the whole shame remains intact and untouched.

That is the essence of Christianity, as we have partly already said in Stolichnaya Pochta, that it demands condemnation not only of the facts of sin and violence, but above all demands the condemnation and negation of violence and evil in those forms where evil has become fixed, frozen, crystallized, where the leprosy and syphilis of the soul have embodied themselves in the form of general sin—that is, to condemn, as one’s own sin, every prison window and every light in a house of shame…

Christ above all condemned the old morality and the old social order as the quintessence of former slavery, and only by condemning the social order, serf deeds, usury, and property could He “firmly hope to eradicate evil” in every individual soul.

Korobochka a mother? God forbid—first of all, one must renounce the mother-Korobochka.

But then the question arose: how to regard the entire system built on such an anti-Christian foundation? Only negatively. I understood that the whole preaching of Zosima’s pity or Korobochka’s “motherhood” was not a mistake but a deception. Pity of Zosima’s type, so hostile to Christ’s type of loving hatred toward the world’s evil, was invented by self-interested people.

There is nothing more profitable for human insignificance than pity. It is profitable for the individual because, as I have already said in more detail elsewhere (Stolichnaya Pochta), a person hides in it from the torment of seeing the suffering and degradation of the whole world. But it is also profitable for egoistic bourgeois self-preservation: pity demands only concessions, charity, and thus simultaneously gives the bourgeois the “sweet joy of helping one’s neighbor” and saves him from greater sacrifices. Finally, charity, pity, and the like demand, by their very nature, gratitude and patience as light.

Clearly, the preaching of Korobochka’s motherhood is a criminal involvement in a bad bargain and nothing more. Hence, I decided, Christianity must above all fight against ideas that decompose Christianity, against falsifications—that is, against ideas of charitable pity, which Christ condemns as a kind of counterfeit.

In the play Two Ideas (preparing for publication), a slave girl of a German feudal lord tears down a crucifix in the square and, in a mad ecstasy, hurls this accusation at Christians:

“I tore it down… Yes, I tore it down… You don’t need Him… I don’t want you to dishonor His wounds with your lips. Blasphemers, crucifiers!.. He wanted you, like Him, to suffer the shame and evil of the world. But with your own hands you multiply His wounds and those of His world, to find your happiness in them. And you have remade His torments into sweet wine for voluptuaries. You have covered the whole world with wounds, killing both bodies and souls, only to obtain and give others the joy of ‘enduring for the Lord.’ You don’t need Him…

I understood… I was there when He was dying, and I saw… And I wanted to throw myself at His feet, to kiss them, and suddenly I saw that He shuddered and drew back. And I understood: He was afraid. He feared that I, drunk with the happiness of kissing Him, pitying, would not see the torments of the poisoned world, onto which He had poured new rivers of pure blood to frighten the world with them.

Yes, yes. He shed it to wash away the leprosy from the world. You, in His name, multiply and grow this leprosy. And on holidays you approach Christ’s cross to take intoxication in voluptuous pity, and on weekdays you offer the same cross for your slaves to kiss, so that around His sufferings they may find consolation in patience, not rebel, and gratefully kiss your hands that beat them. You saved yourselves, your dinners, and made Him the advocate of your slave-owning, and on holidays you replace dancers and harlots with Him for variety…

A watchman-God, a God for rest and new ‘drunken’ sensations—is not needed…”

These lines were written on the day when, by chance, Dostoevsky’s article about the mother-Korobochka and the words of Ivan Karamazov about the saint who warmed lepers with his breath came to hand at the same time. And I liquidated Dostoevsky, recognizing his preaching of pity, of drunken compassion-self-sacrifice, as simply a bourgeois counterfeit of Christianity, in which Christ exists to give the rich the joy of “charity” and to restrain rebellion with the preaching that “suffering is great happiness.”

But once the revision began, it was easier to deal with his continuers.

The program of the Christian socialists could please only at first glance. Care for workers, their families, the promise to think only of the hungry—this was good, but it was a lie. Look closer at such humanitarian constructions of all bourgeois groups, and you will notice the falsification.

“On property,” writes Naumann, “we will look as Christ looked on it. Jesus, for ethical reasons, was a radical opponent of the accumulation of capital: ‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.’ The heart that desires to acquire eternal bliss must not be attached to property. Money must not be the measure of people. Jesus is not a communist; He has no intention of excommunicating Galilean fishermen from their boats and houses. He only denies the excess of property. The Christian concept of property must of itself replace the Roman one. Jesus wants to reduce want, grief, crime. This is the constant earthly goal of Christianity. There must be no helpless poverty, no unemployment, but we must go forward while adhering to the existing: Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. He gives to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

What do all these speeches represent if not deception?

Does it not turn out that the Christian socialists want to use Christianity as a shield of faith before the face of the whole world and, under the shadow of this shield, prepare a place for resisting reaction; does it not turn out that they think only of fundamentally discrediting socialism and, in place of its bright slogans, putting forward their own proposals, which in the end arrange only the affairs of reactionary forces?

The Christianity of Christ cannot be so half-hearted. It will always be direct and bold.

Mammon has conquered the earth. Not only the hearts and thoughts of people, but also their relations. All inventions, discoveries in the field of technology—he, and he alone, has appropriated to himself. What should have freed humanity from the cruel power of physical laws and made it master of nature, in Mammon’s hands has turned into a terrible instrument of torture, become a scourge under whose blows the defenseless masses writhe like fish. The higher culture rises, the deeper the majority of people fall into the abyss. The more glorious the progress, the more majestic the development, the more terrible the fate of those by whose labor progress and development are realized. The closer a person considers himself to the goal of his aspirations, the more terribly he is deceived. In our days, the poor in big cities are coarser, more embittered, more unhappy than the savages of the forests.

To crush Mammon, one must attack him in the sphere of his powerful relations of modernity. Whoever wants to disarm an enemy must deprive him of food. For Mammon to fall, the principle of private property must be rejected as falsehood and usury.

I had to become a socialist.

As strange as it may seem, I declared my socialist confession a year ago, in an article in Tserkovnye Vedomosti, written at the request of the editorial board of the official Synodal organ.

The last year—1906—I worked on the question of child labor, women’s labor, the situation of the poor in the capital. Obviously, such a year was bound to sharpen my enmity toward the “predatory-usurious.”

At a glass factory in Simbirsk Governorate, I saw how children of 12–13 years old rush about all winter night amid a “beautiful hell,” near unbearable heat, and every quarter hour are “cooled”—a technical term—in an ice hole.

I saw women at a white lead factory with corpse-like, dark-green faces, destroyed gums, trembling limbs. I saw their children, born only to die horribly the next day, the next month after birth, in convulsions of lead poisoning. Their fathers, who cannot drink like people because of constant convulsions and lap like dogs.

Life placed me face to face with the horrors of the life of St. Petersburg’s poor, there where “seven-year-olds are depraved and thieves.”

Clearly, there could be no hesitation in choosing, from a Christian point of view, between two worldviews—socialist and bourgeois. And so, in the name of Christ, I had to become a socialist, but why did I become precisely a people’s socialist?

IV. Why a People’s Socialist, and Not a Social Democrat or a Socialist-Revolutionary?

Why precisely a people’s socialist, and not a social democrat or a socialist-revolutionary? The reasons are clear. My worldview was born on the soil of expanding the concept of personality, but not on the soil of its negation.

I rejected the old concept of personality and its duties. In Korolenko, under whose enchanting influence I had been since childhood, there is a legend about the angel of ignorance. This angel, by God’s will, lived on earth, sowing smiles, joy, and happiness. But one day, blood fell upon his bright garments—the blood of a man to whom he, in ignorance, had himself led the murderers… And then the joy in the angel’s eyes dimmed, and instead of “joyful ignorance,” his soul accepted the torment of “sorrowful knowledge.”

For me, Korolenko’s angel has always been a symbol of humanity, in which “social conscience” has awakened in place of personal conscience, revealing the awareness that it is not enough to pour oil and wine on the wounds of one crushed by the wheel of life without trying to stop the “evil course” of the wheel itself.

This thought, I say, was always with me: now it has clothed itself in definite and vivid forms.

I understand personality as an indivisible part of society, fused with it inseparably, “chemically.” The development of personality outside of, separately from, the improvement of the entire complex into which it enters as a part is impossible.

Personality cannot distinguish between its own “wounds” and social wounds. Nevsky Prospect, prison, slavery—all this is the shame of every personality; it lies as a stain on each not only dishonoring but also decomposing, and one can never become personally free as long as the very concept of unfreedom exists, as long as there is prison, violence, “deeds of sale on a person.”

The phrase of the slave Epictetus—“a slave even in the quarries can be free”—is a depraved slavish phrase, because the unfreedom of others and even the “slave-owning of masters,” their shame, equally destroy my freedom and personality.

Human personality is part of the street, part of the entire social order. A girl on Nevsky sells her body… Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane betrays his Lord… My personality, its freedom, is not only morally interested in both facts, but is entirely “there,” on Nevsky, in Gethsemane. Accursed kisses on the girl’s cheeks. The accursed kiss on the Lord’s cheeks.

I must feel all the falsehood and vileness of the accursed kiss on my own lips (I kiss) and on my own cheeks (I am betrayed), and if so, the conclusion: I will become free and pure only when Nevsky itself with its selling souls ceases to exist, when Pilate’s judgment itself becomes impossible. In short, the liberation of man is possible only with the liberation of the entire life of all, and evil can and must be hated above all not in man, but in its “crystallizations” (regime, prison, deeds of sale, and serf documents).

To realize oneself as a human being means to realize oneself as a god… on Golgotha.

Are you human? You are god. The whole world is yours, your creation, your thing, your thought, the blood or ichor of your spirit. The design on your teapot is yours, the red lanterns on evil streets are yours… Prison windows are yours. All the souls around you, leprous and crippled, are yours… And you must experience the vileness of all this “yours.” Tear from yourself—and thus from the world—all the pus-stained garments. With the soul’s cry, its terrible pain, shake off from it and from the world the blood, shame, sin…

Every soul must bear the entire world, the evil world, like an entirely leprous body.

This is terrible, but this is Christ’s social order—the one that will destroy streets of slaves, slavery, violence, poverty. Here is the apotheosis of “sociality.”

But obviously, such a view, while advancing the principle of sociality, at the same time represents a kind of cult of personality. The negation of personality seemed to me and always will seem criminal. The social structure itself, it seems, can be based only on the “cult of personality.”

Man is divine, his future boundless. And this future will be built by personalities.

Understandably, under these conditions, I could not accept social democracy with its teaching that negates man as a personality. I fully agreed that personality is the “foam” of existing social conditions, the result of the environment. This did not oblige me to accept the dogma of the insignificance of personality. For me, personality is the synthesis of separate forces scattered as sparks in the mass, but the synthesis itself is a “new fact” and a new historical factor.

In the process of uniting scattered sparks into the “foam” of personality, a miracle occurs: from the elements emerges more than what seems given in them.

And I could not abandon the thought that personality, created by the synthesis of the moment’s mood, cannot thrust itself into history as a “biblical stone” destroying kingdoms. After all, personality is divine, and only its cult, its growth, can promise a rich, colorful, strong social order.

If you will, in the name of sociality and social good, I returned to the idea of personal perfection. The expansion of personality seemed to me a necessary condition for social arrangement on principles broader than simple satiety.

—“Do you believe in God and the soul, Nina?” asks the leader of the free in our as-yet-unwritten play Masters and Slaves.

—“No.”

—“Nor do I. But it seems we still need to love God… Yes, it’s all the same, Nina… All the same, I don’t believe. It is necessary to love… Not that god invented by people to stand watch over their samovars, fur coats, and wives. No, the real God. The One Who is in us. We need to love ourselves… You know what our misfortune is… We don’t love ourselves and therefore cannot be free and bring freedom into life… We didn’t understand Christ. Love your neighbor as yourself… As yourself. But Christians—and we with them… We with you?.. We decided that we need to and can love our neighbor more than ourselves. But that’s a lie, Nina, a lie… Whoever doesn’t love himself, hasn’t found himself—cannot love his neighbor, will bring him not what he needs. Better to say: not all that he needs. How can he bring “full” genuine, human freedom?

Are we free, do we acutely feel every desecration of freedom as a desecration of our own freedom? A thousand people died of hunger—that’s terrible. But a girl wanders Nevsky—that’s less terrible? So is that the thought of a free person, for whom the enslavement of the soul, the slavery of body and spirit, is the most terrible of all? People are shot by the hundreds—that’s shameful, terrible, but the fact that people don’t feel nervous convulsions when a lackey is given, tossed “a tip.” That’s not terrible?

No, a person must see himself, love himself and hate himself and say: man—that sounds shameful… Vile. But man is god. He can and must someday put Jupiter in Uranus’s place and Uranus in Jupiter’s. And we need to resurrect the great dead man, so that into the future triumph does not pass the man-louse.

We will fight for the liberation of the body, for the destruction of all slavery—but in the name of “man,” his spirit… In the name of the colors of the future spirit. In the name of future great souls…

In this monologue, excluding its, admittedly, dubious atheism, was and is my “credo.” But where in the socialist parties could I find an echo? Only among the people’s socialists. With the same Korolenko and his Mikeshin, peering inquisitively into the starry sky. Around him and his angel of sorrowful knowledge with a broad and aching social conscience, and his “murderer” with a tormentingly anxious conscience that punishes him even for killing a robber, could I find “my peace.”

On the party’s banner, alongside the old “Freedom for each. Land and machine—to the worker,” is placed one more word: “In the name of man.” Man is my “credo.”

And, of course, becoming a people’s socialist, I do not cease to be a Christian and a Christian socialist, only not in the image of Stöcker or Naumann.

By Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov)

“O Lord and Master of my life, drive away from me the spirit of despondency, negligence, avarice, and idle talk…”

There is hardly a prayer (after the Lord’s Prayer) that moves the soul more than the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim.

But how strange, it seems, are its petitions. To ask deliverance from the spirit of despondency and idle talk — are these really the gravest and most dangerous of the passions? What about hatred, greed, and the like?

Yes, St. Ephraim in his prayer pointed out — or rather, gathered together — precisely those things that pose the greatest danger to the soul and to its salvation.

St. Ephraim begins his prayer by asking to be delivered from the spirit of despondency. For despondency is the very first cause that can prevent one from beginning the Lord’s work. Some do not labor for the Lord because they are distracted by the vanity of the world; others — because the demon has instilled in them a spirit of despair, of despondency. Their hands fall limp at the work of the Lord. It seems to them that they are powerless, incapable. Evil and sin — both outside of them and within — appear to them as insurmountable.

A foreign writer who passed away just recently wrote a short story called The Head of Medusa. It offers a good description of those who, through a careless fascination with the world, become idle, and of those possessed by a spirit of despondency.

In ancient times (according to Greek legend), there lived the Gorgon Medusa. Upon her head were not hair, but snakes — and anyone who looked upon her was turned to stone by her dreadful gaze. Only Perseus was able to defeat the Gorgon, for he looked not directly at her, but at her reflection in the bright surface of his shield…

At times, a person finds the terrible eyes of Medusa fixed upon him. Medusa is a symbol of all the evil that fills the world, and of the sin that enslaves the soul.

People respond to this vision of evil — in which, according to the Apostle, the world lies — in different ways. Some try to shield themselves from the face of the Gorgon with the vanities of the world, by chasing after its goods and glittering honors.

They give no thought to the work of God, to the struggle with external evil and the sin within the soul — they do not see the face of the Gorgon. Others do see it, but lacking hope in God, the Conqueror of all evil, they become frightened by both their own sin and the evil of the world — and they too let their hands fall.

Remember those who sit weeping at the foot of the ladder, never even attempting to climb the first step.

It is from this destructive spirit of despondent inaction that we pray to be delivered in the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian. We pray that God may instill in us hope in His almighty help — so that evil and sin may appear to us, as in the shield of Perseus, dreadful, yes, but conquerable — calling us to do battle with them.

Yet here also is a prayer for deliverance from the spirit of idle talk. But idle talk — is that really such a grave sin, that it should be placed at the beginning of our prayer?

No, not quite.

There is a story told about a certain holy elder — Abba Pambo of Nitria. This servant of God was illiterate and would go to one of the brethren to be taught. They were reading the Psalter. And soon after beginning his “education,” something happened. The two elders opened the holy book and began to read… They opened to Psalm 38 (39 in the Hebrew):

“I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.”

Pambo interrupted the reading and silently returned to his cell. Six months later, his teacher met him and asked, “Why have you not come to me for so long?” — Pambo replied, “I have not yet learned (meaning, of course, in practice) the words of David: I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue.” And for a full nineteen years, he “studied” those words — in which he saw the beginning of wisdom.

And indeed — is idle talk really such a trifle?

In mountainous regions, when travelers are ascending to high peaks, guides forbid them to speak even a word. The reason is that a single word can trigger a terrible disturbance in the air, which may in turn cause entire avalanches of snow to collapse upon the travelers. Idle words endanger life.

But does not idle talk in the “valleys” pose the same danger — not to the body, but to the soul? A single word can cause great and irreversible harm. Idle gossip has often poisoned a human soul with its venom — even leading to murder.

How many times has an idle word surrounded an innocent person with the dark fog of false accusations, shattered his life, and utterly destroyed the peace and happiness of a family? And so on, and so forth.

That is why, at the dreadful Judgment of Christ, we shall have to answer for every idle word.

But beyond this — even if your idle talk harms no one else — it does irreparable harm to your own self. It keeps you from gathering your thoughts, from collecting your soul. Idle chatter robs you of those precious moments when you might have been alone with your soul and with God — and grown fearful of the false and sinful paths upon which you walk.

II.

“But the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love bestow upon me, Thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother…”

We have already spoken of the spirit of patience in our conversation about the ladder to heaven. I said: I will watch my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. Let us not repeat ourselves here.

Patience is, above all, perseverance — steadfastness in the ways of righteousness… I slip, I fall — I, a sinner. I get up, I go on… I fall again, and again I rise. Having fallen, I do not remain in the mud forever. I do not make peace with sin.

This is the essence of patience…

Patience cultivates the gift of chastity, and at the same time is cultivated by it. Chastity — in Greek, sōphrosynē — is not chastity in our narrow, modern sense. It is not merely the bodily purity preserved from defilement by fornication. Chastity is the health of the spirit in the broadest sense. It is the safeguarding of the soul, its wholeness, from the rust of sin — through a special watchfulness, a special care of the conscience.

Have you ever noticed how a child protects a new garment on the first day of wearing it? The child, in his innocence, is completely on guard… Every little spot causes pain, feels like a misfortune.

In the same way should the soul relate to sin. A sensitive soul should respond to every stain with acute pain, should recoil at the touch of sin — like the eyelid, which instinctively shuts when a flame is brought near the eye. This vigilance of the soul, this highly developed power of resistance to sin — this is chastity.

But it is clear that one cannot attain chastity without humility. The spirit of humility — this is the same as poverty of spirit. A person who is satisfied with himself, who does not consider himself spiritually naked, “poor,” cannot seek the healing of his soul.

The healthy man — or rather, the one who mistakenly believes himself to be healthy — will not go to the doctor, will not place himself on a regimen (and the regimen of the soul is the spirit of chastity). Only the one who sincerely says within himself, “I am naked. I am poor. O Lord, give me raiment. Help me. Clothe me with Thy grace,” — only he will do these things.

That is why we are so in need of the spirit of humility. And a person who has recognized his sinfulness, who vigilantly guards the wholeness of his soul, may pray also for the spirit of love — and may even attain to this, the highest of Christian virtues.

A man who sees himself as a sinner does not judge others, he has compassion on every “one who has slipped.” He will know how to understand, to justify in his conscience, and to forgive every enemy and offender — and thus, to love all in a truly Christian manner.

We said that the spirit of humility is the awareness of one’s sinfulness — and this awareness gives birth to the spirit of forgiveness. The importance of “poverty of spirit” and “forgiveness” for the beginning of the Christian spiritual life is so great that St. Ephraim prays once more for the same thing: “Grant me to see mine own transgressions, and not to judge my brother.”

“One memory,” says a preacher, “I have kept from my childhood.

In the backyard, there lay a stone slab. Sometimes we would go over and lift it. And underneath — there were woodlice, spiders, all sorts of creeping things. And we would quickly close the slab again in fright, so as not to see them.”

We do exactly the same thing all the time. Sometimes, the thought arises to lift the “slab” of our conscience and to look into the depths of our soul. But we rarely dare to remain alone for long with our exposed conscience and its wounds. Fearing the abyss of our sin, we hurry to shut the slab again, to justify ourselves before ourselves, to “explain away the guilt of our sins.”

Of course, under such conditions, true repentance is impossible… In order to heal wounds, they must be exposed — not hidden. Yet we hide the wounds of the soul not only from others, but even from ourselves. And naturally, our wounds do not diminish, but only grow.

Even when a person reveals his wounds before a spiritual father, he often inwardly tries to justify himself, to cast a veil over the sin — not for the confessor’s sake, but for his own — and thus, covering the depths of his soul with a slab, he is not horrified by his spiritual state, does not approach the analogion in fear before the darkness of his sin, but in hypocritical self-justification — and leaves uncleansed.

This is why the Church so fervently prays — both in the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian and in other prayers: “O Lord, grant us to see our transgressions, grant us the strength not to conceal them from ourselves, not to invent excuses for sin.”

1909

source