The Orthodox Word No. 71

THE ORTHODOX WORD

A Bimonthly Periodical OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT HERMAN OF ALASKA

 

Established with the blessing of His Eminence the late John (Maximovitch), Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia PLATINA, CALIFORNIA 96076

1976, Vol. 12, no. 6 (71)
November December

CONTENTS

179 St. John of Kronstadt. Touchstone of True Orthodoxy by Archbishop Averky of Jordanville

184 Towards the "Eighth Ecumenical Council"

196 The Life of St. Gregory of Tours by Abbot Odo (Conclusion)

201 The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God by Archbishop John Maximovitch (Chapter V)

204 The Typicon of the Orthodox Church's Divine Services Chapter Eight: The Magnification (Concluded)

210 The Orthodox Word 1976 Index

COVER: Engraving of St. John of Kronstadt from the Russian periodical World Illustration, December, 1895. Page 183: Color Icon painted by Bishop Alypy of Cleveland; reproduction courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston.

All unsigned articles are written by the fathers of the St. Herman Brotherhood.

MICROFILM copies of all back issues and of individual articles are available from Xerox University Microfilms, 300 N. Zeeb Rd., Ann Arbor, MI., 48106. Copyright 1976 by The Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.

Published b;monthly by The Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. Second- class postage paid at Platina, California. Yearly subscription $5, two years $9, three years $12. Office of Publication: Beegum Gorge Road, Platina, California.

All inquiries should be directed to:

THE ORTHODOX WORD, PLATINA, CALIFORNIA, 96076, U.S.A.

 

St. John of Kronstadt
Touchstone of True Orthodoxy

by Archbishop Averky

The Orthodox attitude to the would-be "reformers" of our time is excellently expressed by a great Holy Father of our own days, Archbishop Averky, who reposed in the Lord on March 31/April 13, 1976. The following article is the introduction to one of his numerous homilies on St. John (Collected Homilies and Talks, vol. 4, 1976, pp. 224-6).


IN OUR EVIL TIME, when the servants of the coming Antichrist are putting forth all their efforts so as to undermine and replace authentic Orthodoxy with a false "Orthodoxy," an Orthodoxy only in name, there have appeared not a few "pastors" also who bear only the name of Orthodox but deny the authentic power and spirit of true Orthodoxy. Precisely such false pastors filled up the ranks of the "Living Church" and the "Renovated Church" clergy in our Russia.

But the "Living Church" and "Renovationism" were not recognized by the believing Russian people, who felt in their hearts their whole falsity; and they brilliantly collapsed on the Russian soil, ceasing their official existence. However, the spirit of the "Living Church" and "Renovationism" has not died, but has continued and up until now continues to live among us also in the Russian homeland, which has been enslaved by the godless, and also abroad among all the Orthodox Local Churches who have become infected with this pestilential spirit, not without, of course, the most strenuous cooperation of those same servants of the coming Antichrist.

These pseudo-pastors, modernists and ecumenists, in place of true Orthodoxy, preach and insistently propagandize false Orthodoxy, flattering all the sinful passions and vices of fallen man, striving in everything to go in step with the times and to adapt the Christian to the "world which lies in evil," under all possible cunning, well-sounding pretexts. Everywhere now they are seizing the reigns of government in the contemporary Orthodox Local Churches. They are striving to play everywhere the leading guiding role and often they have success, for they skillfully and cunningly make themselves seem to be zealots of Orthodoxy.

But their actual aim is to undermine true Orthodoxy by a false "Orthodoxy," in order to make it come about, in the expression of Christ the Savior, that the salt has lost its savor (Matt. 5:13), that it might lose its saltiness, that it might lose its spirit and power. This is a special kind of battle against the Church.

Behold of what a frightful undertaking we are the living and immediate witnesses! By all means there is being conducted in the world a frightful battle against the faith of Christ, by a path of falsification and imitations.

And on the background of this truly most frightful and nightmarish phenomenon, something more frightful than open atheism and fighting against God, which threatens to destroy our holy Orthodoxy from the root, having corrupted it from within — against this background, especially brightly shine our true pastors of the Church of Christ who have not sold their souls to the enemies of our holy faith. And among them, of course, in the first rank, is the great all-Russian pastor, Holy Righteous John, Wonderworker of Kronstadt, the tenth anniversary of whose canonization we are celebrating (1974).

And how characteristic it is that only our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has glorified him. This glorification has been recognized only by a few individuals in all the other Local Orthodox Churches! And let none of those who do not recognize this glorification as correct and lawful justify himself by some kind of purely formal excuses. The formal side here is totally beside the point. The whole essence of the different attitude to the glorification of our great righteous one lies in the fact that the attitude towards him in our time has become, as it were, a touchstone of the relation to true Orthodoxy, the criterion of the "Orthodoxness" of one person or another.

He who does not love our all-Russian righteous one and does not desire to recognize his glorification in the choir of the saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, by this very fact shows that he does not love Orthodoxy; because the holy righteous John is an authentic Orthodox pastor. He is a living incarnation of Orthodoxy in its power and action.

And it is not for nothing, not at all in vain, that our great righteous one so loved to exclaim: "O wondrous, life-giving, divine Orthodoxy! I behold your bright countenance!" After all, he bore in himself and constantly felt the holy incomparable powers and spiritual might of his wondrous, life-giving, divine Orthodoxy, authentic Orthodoxy, true Orthodoxy, in sharp distinction from all that cunning falsity which even in his days passed itself off for Orthodoxy, without being in actuality such at all.

And it is so in very fact. No matter how much those people who threw our unfortunate homeland into the bloody abyss of fierce atheism might have blasphemed our great righteous one, and then, even when they came abroad, they did not yet become sober, — still his spiritual grandeur and his entirely deserved glory is indisputable and self-evident to any dispassionate and sensible man. But from what source is this grandeur and glory of our wonderous pastor who has acquired world-wide renown? From what source is it?

From holy Orthodoxy.

St. John of Kronstadt:
Archbishop John Maximovitch
AND THE CANONIZATION OF SAINT JOHN OF KRONSTADT

IN 1952 THE SYNOD of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, after receiving a formal request from Bishop Nicholas Velimirovitch of the Church of Serbia, appointed Archbishop John to collect material concerning the possible canonization of Father John of Kronstadt. The Sobor of Bishops examined the question in 1956, and approved the canonization, but regard- ed that the time for it had not yet come. At the Sobor of Bishops in 1964 Archbishop John raised the question again, and the Sobor chose a committee, headed by him, to examine the question once more. After the report of this committee, the Sobor unanimously approved the canonization, which took place in October of the same year. The kontakion for the service to the Saint was composed by Archbishop John himself.

Archbishop John deeply loved and venerated St. John of Kronstadt, whose pastoral spirit he reflected in many ways. Thus, from the first day of his priesthood he followed St. John in undertaking, without fail, the daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy; and in general he was like St. John in combining a hesychast life of constant prayer, deeply grounded in the teaching of the Holy Fathers, with a constant pastoral activity in the midst of a crowded city.

An example of Archbishop John's activity in the spirit of St. John of Kronstadt may be seen in the following incident from the Orthodox life of a large American city.

"In about 1964, after having been released from a hospital, T. went to New York City. There he was robbed, and being totally broke and distraught, he went one morning into the St. Sergius church at the Synod to pray before the Kursk Mother of God for some help, saying to himself that he would pray to ask the Holy Mother of God to get him somehow five dollars to tide him over. The service had not started as yet, and there seemed to be no one in the church. As T. started to make prostrations in front of the Icon, even before he started to pray, he felt a tap on he shoulder and was startled to see Archbishop John standing next to him. T.'s first thought was that he must have done something wrong and would be admonished for it. Great was his surprise when Archbishop John reached out and gave him five dollars, then went to the cliros to sing the service.

"About two years later, one morning T was in a light sleep before getting up. An image — a dream or a thought, he could not tell which, crossed his mind: Archbishop John was serving Liturgy in a large cathedral with St. John of Kronstadt. The thought upset him with an uneasy feeling of anticipation. Several days later he learned that Archbishop John had reposed." (Priest Roman Lukianov.)

 
SAINT JOHN OF KRONSTADT
Commemorated on October 19 and December 20
Canonized on October 19, 1964

KONTAKION, TONE 4
Composed by Archbishop John Maximovitch

O THOU who from infancy wast chosen by God,+ and in childhood and didst miraculously receive from Him the gift of teaching,+ and wast gloriously called to the priesthood in a vision during sleep,+ thou wast manifest as a wondrous shepherd of the Church of Christ,+ O Father John, namesake of grace.+ Pray to Christ God+ that we may all be with thee in the Kingdom of God.


Towards the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”

FIRST PRE-SYNODAL PAN-ORTHODOX CONFERENCE HELD

THE FIRST PRE-SYNODAL Pan-Orthodox Conference, with representatives from almost all the “canonical” Orthodox bodies, met at Chambesy, near Geneva, at the Orthodox Center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from November 21-28, 1976. Following this Conference, the Orthodox press was filled with news of it and with hopes for the actual convocation at last of the “Holy and Great Council” for which this Conference and several earlier ones have been preparing. It would seem that the long-advertised “Eighth Ecumenical Council” may indeed be near at hand, and it is time enough for Orthodox Christians to look closely at it and see precisely what may be expected of it.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva of the Russian Church Outside of Russia was invited to the solemn opening of this conference. In declining the invitation, Archbishop Anthony stated that he could not attend because the Russian Church Outside of Russia is not in favor of the convoking of a “Holy and Great Council,” but he did send two representatives as journalist-observers, Archpriest Alexander Troubnikoff and Priest Pierre Cantacuzene. (See the Messenger of the Western European Diocese of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, Sept.-Oct.-Nov., 1976.)

The latter were witnesses, on the second day of the Conference, of the accusatory address made by the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the enumeration of 14 canonical violations supposedly made by the latter since 1922. This address rather dampened the peace and harmony of the Conference, but it is evident that it is no more than another expression of the continuing rivalry of the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople for a position of leadership in “world Orthodoxy”; this rivalry is purely political in nature and involves no basic disagreement over the convocation or the aims of the proposed “Ecumenical Council.”


HISTORY OF THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE “EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL”
(The outline of historical facts is taken from Episkepsis, publication of the Orthodox Center at Chambesy, 1976, no. 155, pp. 7-9.)

THERE WAS TALK of an “Eighth Ecumenical Council” already before the First World War and especially in the 1920’s, but the only actual “Pan-Orthodox Synod” was the renovationist gathering of 1923 under Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis in Constantinople, which decreed many radical reforms but could only enforce one of them — the calendar reform — on a few Churches. There was talk of the need for a “Great Council” at the “Pre-Synod” Committee meeting at Vatopedi Monastery in 1930, and again at the “First Conference of Orthodox Theologians” at Athens in 1936, but nothing concrete was done about it then and for decades thereafter, owing to historical conditions in Europe.

In 1961 Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople took up in earnest the idea of calling an “Ecumenical Council”; in that year he convoked in Rhodes the first “Pan-Orthodox Conference” in order to decide on the subjects to be discussed by the future Council. Many subjects (about a hundred) were proposed; and characteristic already of this first Pan-Orthodox meeting was the presence of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, which had just entered the World Council of Churches after its “cold-war” period of isolation from the ecumenical movement and now (in the words of Boris Talantov, the Orthodox confessor in Russia who died in prison in 1971) “stepped forth on the world arena as a secret agent of worldwide anti-Christianity” (see The Orthodox Word, 1971, Jan.-Feb. and Nov.-Dec.) At the insistence of these Moscow representatives, the 1961 Conference agreed not to raise the question of atheism as a danger to Christian faith, and this political attitude, favorable to Communist ideology, has been faithfully kept by the Pan-Orthodox meetings up to the present, as will be seen further below.

Two more Pan-Orthodox Conferences were held in Rhodes (1963, 1964), but only at the Fourth Conference (Chambesy, 1968) was “systematic preparation” begun for the “Ecumenical Council.” Only six of the subjects proposed at Rhodes were kept, and these were assigned to various Local Churches for elaboration. The “Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission” then met (Chambesy, 1971) to express the “common Orthodox opinion” on these subjects, which were: (1) Economy. (2) Participation of the Laity. (3) Revision of fasting rules. 4) Revision of the rules for marriage of the clergy. (5) The calendar question. (6) Divine Revelation. The very subjects chosen, of course, already give a fairly good indication of the renovationist intent of all these “pre-Synodal” preparations; but this we shall examine more closely below.

The next stage in the preparations was the convocation of the First “Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference,” which was assigned the task of drawing up the final file of materials on the above-mentioned questions. It took five years for this Conference to be called, owing to the need to revise further the list of subjects and the necessity (as Episkepsis expresses it) “to create a conciliar climate in the Orthodox Church.” With the latter aim in view, Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon was sent as a special envoy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to all the Local Orthodox Churches in April and May, 1976 (see Episkepsis, nos. 146-148, 1976), making preparations with them for the approaching First Pre-Synodal Conference. However, this trip was conducted rather in haste and led to the accusation by the Moscow Patriarchate of a “lack of seriousness of approach to preparations for the Conference” on the part of Constantinople; according to Moscow, the opinion conveyed there by Metropolitan Meliton was that “the Holy and Great Council should take place as soon as possible, and that in Constantinople it is considered that the Council should be brief, have sessions only for the course of several days, and should take up only a few ‘burning’ questions which have a practical character.” (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, in Russian, 1977, no. 1, pp. 5, 6.) Despite this, however, and despite the fact that Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople gave only a few weeks’ notice of the convocation of the First Pre-Synodal Conference, Moscow did send its representatives. Here, as elsewhere, the differences between Moscow and Constantinople are not over the need for an “Ecumenical Council” or the basic purpose of such a Council, but only over secondary questions of preparation for it, precedence, and the like.

RESULTS OF THE FIRST PRE-SYNODAL CONFERENCE

THE RESULTS of this latest Pan-Orthodox Conference were printed in Episkepsis (1976, no. 158, in French, much abridged) and in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (1977, no. 3, pp. 4-14, in Russian, apparently complete). These results are composed of the reports of three Committees, a general Decree and Communique, and official Declarations of several hierarchs. These documents already begin to give a more clear and precise idea of what, after fifteen years of preparations, the approaching “eighth Ecumenical Council” is all about.

The first Committee suggested a revised list of subjects, ten in number (see below), for the agenda of the future Council, and suggested further preparations in the form of theological studies on the agenda subjects (rather than official position papers). The second Committee examined the whole history of the Orthodox Church’s involvement in the ecumenical movement and in “dialogues” with Anglicans, Old Catholics, the “non-Chalcedonian” Oriental Churches, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics, emphasizing the usefulness of these “dialogues” and the value of the “spiritual grandeur, evangelical fervor, theological seriousness of the Churches of the West.” This Committee, after expressing mild criticism of the “horizontal dimension” of the World Council of Churches in its activities of recent years (i.e., its social-political involvement as opposed to theological concerns), suggested placing primary emphasis in the WCC on the “vertical dimension,” which is “the purpose of its establishment: to promote the restoration of the visible unity of Christianity,” and called for “extending dialogue to the believers of non-Christian religions, in order to promote social justice, peace and freedom among all nations.” The third Committee examined the question of a common date of Easter for all Christian denominations, calling for a conference of scientific and theological experts to investigate this further.

The final Decree and Communique of the Conference, accepted unanimously by the participants, approved the recommendations of the three Committees, and called especially for the more active participation of Orthodoxy in the ecumenical movement and the WCC, “continuing its traditional avant-gardism (!) in the establishment and development of the ecumenical movement”; the Conference, finally, looks for “the convocation of the Holy and Great Council as quickly as possible.”

What can one say of the meaning of all this for true Orthodoxy?

(1) It is evident that “world Orthodoxy,” in the persons of its leading representatives (Metropolitans and Archbishops of the Local Orthodox Churches), far from learning anything from the utter futility of Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, from what Orthodox ecumenists themselves have called “the agony of the Orthodox” in participating in an organization that neither cares nor understands what Orthodoxy is (and when it does understand, recoils in disdain from Orthodox “exclusiveness” and “backwardness”) — “world Orthodoxy” is prepared to become yet more deeply involved in the ecumenical movement, and now not only with Christian denominations, but with non-Christian religions as well. It has expressed its desire to become in the future even more an “organic part” of the WCC than it now is; and as if to emphasize this (as the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate notes), “during the labors of the Conference the participants had contacts with the World Council of Churches and local Christian communities,” including several receptions at WCC headquarters.

(2) The subjects chosen for the agenda of an “Ecumenical Council” are astonishingly superficial and have nothing whatever to do with the actual spiritual needs of Orthodox Christians today. Of the ten subjects chosen for the agenda (although others may yet be added), four of them (which seem to arouse the most interest among the hierarchs) are concerned solely with questions of jurisdictional precedence and the like (The Orthodox Diaspora; Autocephaly and how it should be proclaimed; Autonomy and how it should be proclaimed; the Diptychs or order of precedence of the Churches in Liturgical Commemorations).

(3) The tone of the future Council is to be unmistakeably renovationist: three of the agenda subjects (the New Calendar; marriage impediments; revision of fasting regulations) concern the reforms which were attempted unsuccessfully by Constantinople in 1923 and by the Living Church in Russia in the 1920’s, and two of the other subjects concern the ecumenical movement and the relation of the Orthodox Churches to the rest of the Christian world — questions to which a “conservative” reply will certainly not be given in view of how far the “canonical” Orthodox Churches have already gone (in open defiance of canons!) in ecumenical concelebrations.

(4) The peculiar contribution of the Moscow Patriarchate, already begun in the Rhodes Conference in 1961, becomes now glaringly evident. The tenth point of the agenda of the “Holy and Great Council” is: “The contribution of the Local Orthodox Churches to the realization of the Christian ideas of peace, freedom, brotherhood and love among peoples and the suppression of racial discrimination.” And point II, 4 of the Conference Decree states: “That the Conference, expressing the desire of the Orthodox Church to aid inter-religious understanding and cooperation, and through it the liquidation of every kind of fanaticism, and thus the fellowship of peoples and the dominance of the ideas of freedom and peace in the world for the service of contemporary man, independently of race or religion — has decreed that the Orthodox Church should cooperate for this purpose with other, non-Christian religions.” Such statements, clearly “made in Moscow,” strikingly demonstrate the usefulness of the Moscow Patriarchate to the aims of Soviet propaganda. Now the Preparatory Conference of an “Ecumenical Council” expresses (in Soviet language!) aims identical to those of the whole Soviet “peace” movement.

ON THE WAY TO THE COUNCIL

SOME PUBLICATIONS, in particular the Greek press, seized upon the Constantinople-Moscow conflict at the Conference in order to emphasize the disagreements among the participants, and the Chairman of the Conference, Metropolitan Meliton, was thus forced to issue a Declaration emphasizing the basic oneness of mind of the participants. From all the accounts in the Orthodox press (reflecting different jurisdictional viewpoints) and from subsequent statements of Orthodox hierarchs, there would indeed seem to be no doubt that the leaders of Orthodox public opinion are agreed, not only on the necessity for a “Holy and Great Council,” but also on the basic outlook which the Council should express. One official Orthodox newspaper expressed this outlook quite frankly and simply: “The Great Council is needed to update the Church to meet the challenges of modern times” (Carpatho-Russian Church Messenger, Feb. 13, 1977, p. 2). Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople, in his Christmas Encyclical for 1976, said rather the same thing in more ideological language (to be precise, in the language of the ideology of freemasonry!): “The aim of the Council is the aim of Christmas: Humanity. The humanity of today and the humanity of all times... The first Pan-Orthodox Presynodal Conference decided unanimously that our Holy Church should face vital issues concerning the holy clergy and faithful, developing its activity for Christian unity... and that in a parallel direction the Orthodox Church cooperate with all religions so that the Christmas Gospel can become a reality of peace on earth and goodwill among all humans.” Further, “interpreting this holy and generous feeling of the whole of Orthodoxy... we propose and proclaim from the Ecumenical Throne that the coming year, 1977, be a year of full religious liberty, of tolerance, of cooperation of all religions for the good of humanity, and that more especially 1977 be a year of watchfulness against the great sin of religious fanaticism... so that full religious liberty and tolerance may triumph and that religious fanaticism may disappear from the face of the world.” (Orthodox Observer, Jan. 5, 1977, pp. 1, 3.) This is a well-expressed statement of the modern credo of secular humanism; but not until our truly corrupt days was an Orthodox Patriarch preaching it!

Shortly after this Encyclical appeared, the secretary of Patriarch Demetrios, Metropolitan Bartholomaios, gave an interview to the Roman Catholic newspaper National Catholic Reporter, expressing the renovationist aims of the future Council yet more clearly: “Our aims are the same an John’s (Pope John XXIII): to update the Church and promote Christian unity... The Council will also signify the opening of the Orthodox Church to non-Christian religions, to humanity as a whole. This means a new attitude toward Islam, toward Buddhism, toward contemporary culture, toward aspirations for brotherhood free from racial discrimination... in other words, it will mark the end of twelve centuries of isolation of the Orthodox Church.”

There can be no doubt whatever of the aims of the “Great and Holy Council” in the minds of the leadership of the Church which has been trying to convoke this Council for the better part of the 20th century, the Church of Constantinople. These aims are: ecumenism, modernism, renovationism, in the image and according to the example of John XXIII and the Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, it may be doubted that most participants in the future Council and its preparatory conferences will be aware of the full ideological program in which they will be playing a well-defined role; let us look more closely, therefore, at a small detail of the preparations being made for the Council, in order to see more precisely how the renovation of the Church will be brought about by the “theological experts,” and how it will affect ordinary Orthodox believers.

At the meeting of the “Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission” at Chambesy in 1971, reports were presented giving the “common Orthodox opinion” on the six subjects proposed for the agenda of the “Great and Holy Council.” One of these reports, entitled “Revision of the Ecclesiastical Prescriptions Concerning Fasting, in Conformity with the Needs of our Epoch,” proposes that, since most Orthodox believers do not keep the whole Orthodox fast, the fast should be made easier to suit them, “in order to avoid the problems of conscience created by the violation of the severe ecclesiastical prescriptions”! Such an approach, of course, is totally un-Orthodox, and constitutes an obvious and crude imitation of the reform spirit in the Latin church, which ended by abolishing fasting altogether. The Orthodox rule of fasting is not intended to “avoid problems of conscience,” but rather to call believers to a difficult, inspiring, and humbling standard of Christian life; if they fall short of the standard, then at least they can see how far their life is from the standard, the norm, which always remains the same. The Papal idea, based on the corrupt modern principle of spiritual self-satisfaction, is either to give a special “dispensation” from the standard (an idea which has already entered some Orthodox jurisdictions), or else to change the standard itself so that the believer can fulfill it easily and thereby obtain a sense of satisfaction from “obeying the law.” This is precisely the difference between the Publican and the Pharisee: the Orthodox man feels himself constantly a sinner because he falls short of the Church’s exalted standard (in spirit if not in letter), whereas the “modern” man wishes to feel himself justified, without any twinge of conscience over falling short of the Church’s standard. Even in such a seemingly small point we can already see how terribly wrong is the whole approach of those who are preparing the “Great and Holy Council.”

Let us see how the “Preparatory Commission” proposes to revise the fasting prescriptions. Briefly, it proposes: that Wednesday and Friday should remain as fast days, but with no fasting from oil and fish; all fasting should be abolished between Pascha and Ascension Day; the fast of Great Lent should be kept fully only on the first and last weeks, with oil and fish allowed on all other days except Wednesday and Friday (as also in the Dormition Fast); the Nativity Fast should be reduced from 40 to 20 days, and the Fast of the Apostles to eight days, with oil and fish permitted on all days (except the last five days of the Nativity Fast). (Episkepsis, Nov. 2, 1971.) Actually, one is surprised that the reform is so “conservative” — until one recalls that this is not the decision of the “Ecumenical Council” itself, but only the proposal of the “Preparatory Commission” in 1971. There is time enough to revise the rules further!

And indeed, what kind of rule of fasting is observed even now in the “canonical” jurisdictions? The Carpatho-Russian Diocese in America (under the Patriarchate of Constantinople), for example, has published a set of official “fasting regulations” for Great Lent for its clergy and faithful (Church Messenger, Feb. 27, 1977, P. 5): “1. Monday, February 21, the first day of Lent, is a day of strict fast. Likewise Good Friday, April 8. On these days, meat and dairy products are to be excluded from one’s diet. 2. Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the entire holy season of Lent are days of abstinence from meat. 3. Meat may not be partaken of during the entire Holy or Passion Week.” To be sure, “to those of stronger body and more willing spirit, we wholeheartedly recommend the penitential practices of a sterner quality...” — but the standard, the rule, has been changed, and rather drastically. A similar standard may be seen in the published “parish fasting rules” of separate parishes of the Greek Archdiocese in America, and in numerous other places. Clearly, in actual practice the reform spirit in Orthodoxy has already gone far beyond what the “Preparatory Commission” has suggested. If the local bishops and priests already issue revised fasting regulations, what need is there for an “Ecumenical Council” to do this — unless its function is simply to legalize the existing lawlessness?

How frivolous, how irresponsible is the very intent of those who wish to make an “Ecumenical Council”! This is the work, not of pastors, but of hirelings, who look first to see what the flock wants (and not the best part of the flock!), and then hasten to legalize it, solely to give an appearance of leading rather than following the lawless sheep! The Orthodox people can expect nothing from such a council except to be told, in effect if not in so many words, that their falling away from the standard of orthodox life is acceptable and even praiseworthy, and actually helps to unite them to the heterodox, who long ago lost the very concept of such a standard!

THE ATTITUDE OF GENUINE ORTHODOXY

SELDOM IN OUR LAMENTABLE and profoundly abnormal days is the voice of genuine Orthodoxy heard any more. Orthodox hierarchs and theologians alike, with rare exceptions, have adapted themselves to the intellectual fashions of the times and rarely even attempt to express themselves in any way that will be displeasing to the prevailing “ecumenical” mentality. The Orthodox press, in its turn, makes sure that all news receives an “ecumenical” slant. And thus it happens that there seems to be literally no opposition to the calling of an “Ecumenical Council” whose renovationist intent would call down the anathema of every Father of the Church from antiquity to our own day. Is Orthodoxy, then, really to “change with the times”? Is there no witness in our day of the unchanging standard of true Christianity?

To be sure, there is and has been the witness of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, whose stand for unadulterated Patristic Orthodoxy has made her a reproach and stumbling-block to the leaders of “world Orthodoxy.” But up to now there has been only one bold voice of response to this uncompromising stand: within the Church of Serbia, Archimandrite Justin Popovich has expressed himself against the very idea of an “Ecumenical Council” in our times.

Until others have the courage and wisdom to stand against the deadly current which is now engulfing the Orthodox Churches, let the voice of the Russian Church Outside of Russia be heard. From first to last, her hierarchs have not been afraid to speak the Church’s stand on such questions. Let us take only two examples.

In 1930 a young theological student, later to become the great spokesman of true Orthodoxy, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, heard of the rumors of an approaching "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and asked his Abba, the great theologian of the Russian Diaspora, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, about it. The latter replied: "Of an eighth ecumenical council I have as yet heard nothing. I can only say, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite: 'Not every gathering of bishops is a council, but only a gathering of bishops who stand in the Truth.' A truly ecumenical council depends not on the number of bishops gathered at it, but on whether it will deliberate and teach in an Orthodox way. If it will step away from the truth, it will not be ecumenical, even though it might call itself ecumenical. The famous 'robber council' in its time had more participants than many ecumenical councils, but nevertheless it was not called ecumenical, but received the name of 'robber council'." (Letters of Archbishop Theophan, Jordanville, 1976, p. 45.) This same Archbishop Theophan was present at the Moscow All-Russian Council of 1917-18, where he was approached by some of the modernist clergy, who tried to persuade him to join their "reform" movement with these words: "The waves of the times flow swiftly, changing everything, changing us; one must give in to them. You, too, must give in, Vladika, to the raging waves... Otherwise with whom will you be left? You will be left alone." And Vladika Theophan's answer, in the age-old Orthodox spirit, was: "With whom will I be left? I will be with St Vladimir the Enlightener of Russia. With Sts. Anthony and Theodosius the Wonderworkers of the Kiev Caves, with the holy Hierarchs and Wonderworkers of Moscow. With Sts. Sergius and Seraphim and with all the holy martyrs, God-pleasing monks and wonderworkers who have gloriously shone forth on Russian soil. But you, dear brothers, with whom will you be left if even with your great numbers you give over to the will of the waves of the times? They have already carried you to the flabbiness of Kerensky, and soon they will carry you under the yoke of the brutal Lenin, into the claws of the red beast." (The Orthodox Word, Sept.-Oct., 1969, p. 195.) Even the last part of this warning has not lost its meaning today, after 60 years, when Orthodox ecumenists would do well to ask themselves whom they are serving!

In 1968, when Patriarch Athenagoras announced in his Easter Encyclical the approaching "joy" of a "Great Synod, for the purpose of the renewal of the Church and the establishment of the unity of all Christian churches," Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, replied with a firm letter of warning. He wrote the Patriarch: "Not every convocation of a Council calls forth joy, and not every Great Council, however many representatives of autocephalous Churches may have attended it, has been honored by the recognition of the Church... For this, every new Council must be in full accord with all previous Ecumenical Councils." An Ecumenical Council is convened "in order to condemn and eliminate, in agreement with ancient tradition, innovation in the form of arbitrary doctrine, which is the fruit of human pride, of compliance with the mighty of this world, or of accomodation of the Church to a widespread error" — whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch now is not only not condemning any newly-arisen errors, but on the contrary is himself introducing a novelty called "the renewal of the Church." This false path of "renovationism" was already rejected by the Russian Church in this century. Finally, "however numerous may be the participants of the Great Council which you have called, it cannot possess an ecumenical Orthodox authority, for at it will not be heard the genuine voice of the Church largest in number of faithful, the martyrical Russian Orthodox Church." As for the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, "their voice at the Council will not be the free voice of the Church, but in many cases the voice of her enemies who rule over them. Although behind that voice will stand the external prestige of the Russian Church for those who do not know or do not wish to know its true condition — we who are aware of the true situation of things can attach neither canonical nor normal significance to any decisions made with the participation of the hierarchy enslaved by the godless." (The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1968, pp. 259-261.)

THE NARROW PATH:
FAITHFULNESS TO TRUE ORTHODOXY

MEASURED BY the sober standard of unchanging, Patristic Orthodoxy, the preparations for an "eighth Ecumenical Council" are exposed as un-Orthodox, lacking in seriousness, and profoundly unpastoral and irresponsible. Such a Council is a project rooted not in Orthodox wisdom and in heartfelt concern for the salvation of souls, but rather in the "spirit of the times"; it is intended to please, not God, but the world, and in particular the heterodox world. Judging from the experience of the Vatican Council and its effect on Roman Catholicism, such a Council, if it is held, will produce profound disorders and anarchy in the Orthodox world.

If the Orthodox hierarchs wanted a true Ecumenical Council, and if the times were favorable for it, there might be cause enough to convoke it. Although there is actually no new heresy that has not been already defined at earlier Councils, such a Council could still give a diagnosis of the spiritual disease of ecumenism and tell why it is totally alien to Orthodoxy; it could declare to the faithful that the Church remains as much as ever the enemy of the world that lies in evil, and that every compromise of the Orthodox conscience with the spirit of worldliness is a sin for which pastors and faithful are responsible before God; it could make clear for the faithful that the "charismatic" and other pseudo-spiritual movements are not from the Holy Spirit of God, but are rather symptoms precisely of the loss of the Holy Spirit; it could call for increased prayer against the scourge of atheism now afflicting humanity; it could make clear the chiliast and anti-Christian character of modern movements as diverse as Communism and Protestantism; it could proclaim for the last time that the Orthodox Church is the one True Church of Christ and the only hope of salvation for a world perishing for the want of God's grace.

All of this true Orthodox pastors are already doing, according to their opportunity to speak and be heard; but such subjects are not at all what the conferences of theologians and hierarchs are concerning themselves with. Orthodox "public opinion" is not in the least interested in true Orthodoxy, in the true Christian teaching handed down from Christ and His Apostles to our own day; the proposed "Ecumenical Council," on the basis of the preparations that have hitherto been made for it, cannot be anything but another "robber council," a betrayal of Christ and His Church.

How low, how unworthy of the Christian calling is this betrayal of the Christian flock by its supposedly Orthodox hierarchs! And yet lower is the betrayal of the enslaved Orthodox people of Russia by the acceptance of their false shepherds as true pastors at the "Pan-Orthodox" conferences. May God grant — as numerous indications now give hope for — that the most startling Orthodox "news" in future years will be the re-emergence of the long-suffering Catacomb True-Orthodox Church of Russia and the collapse of the Soviet puppet, the Moscow Patriarchate, whose authority will crumble with the fall of the regime that gave it birth. How will the present-day "Pan-Orthodox" fawning before the Moscow hierarchs and their Soviet ideology appear then?

But we need not have such an event before us to know what is the path of true Orthodox Christians today: faithfulness to Christ and His Church, which do not change with the times. If this means being part of a persecuted, ridiculed minority, out of touch with the "spirit of the times" — then let it be so. Only let us be found, not with those who follow the broad path to destruction, but with the "little flock" of Christ's true followers, to whom our Saviour has promised: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom (Luke 12:32).


VITA PATRUM
The Life of
Saint Gregory of Tours
By ABBOT ODO

26. THE REPOSE OF SAINT GREGORY.

LET THESE FEW WORDS on our bishop suffice. We do not recommend him by means of a quantity of miracles, such as one usually attributes even to the reprobate, although this sort of glory was not lacking to him either. But it is sufficient, to make his honor shine, that he followed, humble of heart, the example of Christ, and that he did not place his hope at all in treasures of gold. To have been able, as we have shown above (in part at least), to keep himself from the bonds of sin — is certainly to have done miraculous things. To be free from sins is a glory superior to any other.

In the twenty-first year of his episcopate, that is to say, at the moment when he had completed the number of three times seven years in faith in the Holy Trinity (594), he was placed beside his fathers, less full of days — for he had been ordained at the age of about thirty years — than full of perfection. However, one is not entirely sealed in the tomb if his word itself is living in the world; and similarly, we believe that Gregory is united to blessed Martin in Heaven, just as his holy body is near his in the grave. The inhabitants of Tours, therefore, if they do not wish to pass for ingrates, having regard for the Divine gifts which they have received, should always remember how much God has protected them. The patron whom He has given them is not an ordinary saint; it is Martin, of whom one does not know where to begin one's praises, nor what particular praise to make of him, since his least actions are manifestly greater, as has been written, than the greatest actions of others. All the nations of the world, so to speak, testify what honor we should bear him when they cherish him with an affection so intimate that even in our times, when love has become so cold, we see flocking to his most holy grave a throng of people of unknown country and language, so that one can say with justice of this Martin: "All the earth is eager to see him." Their zeal forcefully and rightly condemns the inertia of us who are near him; but it is clear that it is not without a Divine dispensation that his love has penetrated all hearts to the extent of making his memory everywhere fragrant, as that of a second Josiah, and that it is so widespread through all the countries of the earth that wherever the name of Christ reigns, there Martin is honored.1

___
1 In fact, the name of St. Martin is to be found in Greek and Russian Calendars.


What is more, the inhabitants of Touraine have been given Gregory, a man remarkable not only for sanctity, but also for knowledge, to the end that the city of Tours should not be a city without splendor and destitute of the practice of letters, but that it should be illustrious through him after being such through Martin, just as the city of Romulus (Rome), after the Apostles, was adorned by another Gregory.

Let us be assured that we have Gregory for advocate and for guardian, whether with God or with the blessed Martin, and that we can entrust to him our needs so that he might satisfy them. Gregory, in fact, will not at all lose the memory of the goodness which animated him just as it did Martin, whose compassionate heart he has made known to us with such concern. In order to show us this compassion, he collected the miracles of the Saint, so that all those in the future who should know what an enormous number of them he worked, and of what importance they were and what hopeless maladies he healed, might never doubt his power. And if it should happen, in consequence of the difference of times, that the material miracles should cease, let us nonetheless always believe that he works in our souls miracles which sustain them by his virtue.

Let Gregory, then, who experienced the compassion of Martin, ever remind him of his flock, ever ask of him the maintenance of the holy place where Martin reposes, and implore of him the prosperity of the entire kingdom. Let us not forget, either, how he preserved even in his own burial his habits of humility. He had himself buried in a spot placed in such a manner that he would always be trampled under foot by everyone, and one would necessarily be prevented by the disposition of the place from ever rendering him any respect.1 But the flock of the blessed Martin, being unable to support such things, removed from this place the friend of their Lord, and placed him with the proper respect in a splendid mausoleum erected at the left of the holy sepulchre (of Martin). He died on November 17, in the very week consecrated to Martin;2 so that, after having commenced, already ill, to celebrate the feast of Martin, he could complete it together with him in Heaven, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the living God, Who reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen.

___
1 Compare the testaments of Sts. Nilus of Sora and Alexander of Svir in Russia.
2 Who died on November 11.


A NOTE ON THE RELICS AND SEPULCHRE OF STS. MARTIN AND GREGORY OF TOURS

OWING TO HIS extraordinary life and many miracles, the importance of St. Martin as an intercessor for the Orthodox people before God only increased after his death in 397, and his sepulchre soon became a place of pilgrimage. His successor as Bishop of Tours, St. Brice, erected a church over the tomb, where there was also a basin with healing waters wherein the faithful would immerse themselves. Later Bishop Perpetuus replaced this first church with a spacious basilica, which was consecrated on July 4, 470, and was perhaps the most striking monument of Christian Gaul, being, outside of Rome, the chief center of Christian pilgrimage in the West. This is the basilica described by St. Gregory. In the 5th century also the tomb was covered by a slab of white marble sent by St. Euphronius of Autun. The tomb of St. Gregory was placed near that of St. Martin, and at the end of the 7th century it was rebuilt into an impressive monument itself by St. Ouen. The basilica suffered various injuries over the centuries, especially from the Norman invasions, and finally in 997, shortly after Abbot Odo was there, it was totally destroyed by fire. The relics of Sts. Martin and Gregory, however, were preserved and placed in the new cathedral which was dedicated on July 4, 1008. Partially rebuilt in the 11th to 13th centuries, this church survived to the French Revolution, but historians note that the veneration of St. Martin never regained the power it had during France's Orthodox era (before 1054).

In 1562, on May 25, the relics of Sts. Martin and Gregory were profaned and given over to flames by Protestant Huguenots. The next year a bone of St. Martin and some pieces of the skulls of Sts. Brice and Gregory were recovered together with some ashes of their relics, which were placed again in the cathedral. In 1793, in the midst of the most ferocious anti-Christian revolution before our own century, the cathedral was leveled to the ground, and the very site was covered with houses and paved streets in a deliberate attempt to blot out the memory of the saints. Only in 1860, in a commendable spirit of repentance for the revolutionary sacrilege (something worthy of imitation in the future Russia!), did some devout Roman Catholics seek out the sepulchre of the holy Hierarchs of Tours and find the very place of their burial, together with parts of the marble slab which had covered St. Martin's grave since the 5th century (illustrated here). Subsequently a new cathedral of St. Martin was built on this spot, where some fragments of his relics are still venerated; but of the relics of St. Gregory nothing remains.


Next: Orthodoxy in 6th-century Gaul.

 
PLACES OF PILGRIMAGE IN 6TH-CENTURY GAUL
(Tours occupies the central place; the small rectangles indicate other relics of St. Martin, the circles with crosses, other tombs of saints.)

 
A 7th-century manuscript of St. Gregory's History of the Franks

 
18th-century view of the Cathedral built in 1008 over the relics of St. Martin of Tours (with later additions); destroyed in 1793.

 
The marble slab sent by St Euphronius of Autun to cover the relics of St. Martin (reconstructed from pieces found in 1860)


The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God
by Archbishop John Maximovitch

 

V.

ATTEMPTS OF ICONOCLASTS TO LESSEN THE GLORY OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN; THEY ARE PUT TO SHAME.

AFTER THE Third Ecumenical Council, Christians began yet more fervently, both in Constantinople and in other places, to hasten to the intercession of the Mother of God and their hopes in Her intercession were not vain. She manifested Her help to innumerable sick people, helpless people, and those in misfortune. Many times She appeared as defender of Constantinople against outward enemies, once even showing in visible fashion to St. Andrew the Fool for Christ Her wondrous Protection over the people who were praying at night in the Temple of Blachern;.

The Queen of Heaven gave victory in battles to the Byzantine Emperors, which is why they had the custom to take with them in their campaigns Her Icon of Hodigitria (Guide). She strengthened ascetics and zealots of Christian life in their battle against human passions and weaknesses. She enlightened and instructed the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, including St. Cyril of Alexandria himself when he was hesitating to acknowledge the innocence and sanctity of St. John Chrysostom.

The Most Pure Virgin placed hymns in the mouths of the composers of church hymns, sometimes making renowned singers out of the untalented who had no gift of song, but who were pious laborers, such as St. Romanus the Sweet-Singer. Is it therefore surprising that Christians strove to magnify the name of their constant Intercessor? In Her honor feasts were established, to Her were dedicated wondrous songs, and Her Images were revered.

The malice of the prince of this world armed the sons of apostasy once more to raise battle against Immanuel and His Mother in this same Constantinople, which revered now, as Ephesus had previously, the Mother of God as its Intercessor. Not daring at first to speak openly against the Champion General, they wished to lessen Her glorification by forbidding the veneration of the Icons of Christ and His saints, calling this idol-worship. The Mother of God now also strengthened zealots of piety in the battle for the veneration of Images, manifesting many signs from Her Icons and healing the severed hand of St. John Damascene, who had written in defense of Icons.

The persecution against the venerators of Icons and Saints ended again in the victory and triumph of Orthodoxy, for the veneration given to the Icons ascends to those who are depicted in them; and the holy ones of God are venerated as friends of God for the sake of the Divine grace which dwelt in them, in accordance with the words of the Psalm: "Most precious to me are Thy friends." The Most Pure Mother of God was glorified with special honor in Heaven and on earth, and She, even in the days of the mocking of the holy Icons, manifested through them so many wondrous miracles that even today we remember them with contrition. The hymn "In Thee All Creation Rejoices, O Thou Who Art Full of Grace," and the Icon of the Three Hands remind us of the healing of St. John Damascene before this Icon; the depiction of the Iviron Icon of the Mother of God reminds us of the miraculous deliverance from enemies by this Icon, which had been thrown in the sea by a widow who was unable to save it.

No persecutions against those who venerated the Mother of God and all that is bound up with the memory of Her could lessen the love of Christians for their Intercessor. The rule was established that every series of hymns in the Divine Services should end with a hymn or verse in honor of the Mother of God (the so-called "Theotokia"). Many times in the year Christians in all corners of the world gather together in church, as before they gathered together, to praise Her, to thank Her for the benefactions She has shown, and to beg mercy.

But could the adversary of Christians, the devil, who goeth about roaring like a lion, seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8), remain an indifferent spectator to the glory of the  Immaculate One? Could he acknowledge himself as defeated, and cease to wage warfare against the truth through men who do his will? And so, when all the universe resounded with the good news of the Faith of Christ, when everywhere the name of the Most Holy One was invoked, when the earth was filled with churches, when the houses of Christians were adorned with Icons depicting Her — then there appeared and began to spread a new false teaching about the Mother of God. This false teaching is dangerous in that many cannot immediately understand to what degree it undermines the true veneration of the Mother of God.

Next: The "Immaculate Conception."

 
The KORSUN Mother of God


The TYPICON of the
Orthodox Church's Divine Services

CHAPTER EIGHT
THE MAGNIFICATION

MAGNIFICATIONS USED IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

On the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos (Sept. 8)

We magnify Thee,+ O Most Holy Virgin,+ and we honor Thy holy parents,+ and glorify Thine All-glorious Nativity.
—Selected Psalm: Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness (131:1).

On the Elevation of the Precious Cross (Sept. 14)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ and we honor Thy Holy Cross+ whereby Thou hast saved us+ from the bondage of the enemy.
—Selected Psalm: Judge them, O Lord, that do me injustice; war against them that war against me (Ps. 34:1).

On the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos (Oct. 1)

We magnify Thee,+ O Most Holy Virgin,+ and we honor Thy Precious Protection,+ for St. Andrew saw Thee in the air+ entreating Christ for us.
—Selected Psalm: Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness (131:1).

On the Entrance of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple (Nov. 21)

We magnify Thee,+ O Most Holy Virgin,+ God-chosen Maiden,+ and we honor Thine Entry+ into the Temple of the Lord.
—Selected Psalm: Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, in the city of our God, in his holy mountain (Ps. 47:1).

On the Nativity of our Lord and God Jesus Christ (Dec. 25)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ Who for our sake art now born in the flesh+ of Her Who knew not wedlock,+ the Most Pure Virgin Mary.
—Selected Psalm: Shout with jubilation unto the Lord, all the earth (65:1).

On the Holy Epiphany of our Lord and God Jesus Christ (Jan. 6)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ Who for our sake art now baptized in the flesh by John,+ in the waters of the Jordan.
—Selected Psalm: God be gracious unto us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us and have mercy upon us (Ps.66:1).

On the Meeting of our Lord Jesus Christ (Feb. 2)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ and we honor Thy Most Pure Mother,+ by Whom Thou art now brought according to the Law+ into the Temple of the Lord.
—Selected Psalm: My heart hath poured forth a good word (Ps. 44:1).

On the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos (March 25)

With the Archangel's voice we cry to Thee, O Most Pure One: Rejoice, Thou Who art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee.

 

—Selected Psalm: O God, give Thy judgment to the king, and Thy righteousness to the son of the king (Ps. 71:1).

On Palm Sunday

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ Hosanna in the Highest do we also sing to Thee,+ Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.
—Selected Psalm: O Lord, our Lord, how wonderful is Thy name in all the earth (Ps. 8:1).

New Sunday (Sunday of St. Thomas)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ Who for our sake hast descended into hades+ and resurrected all with Thyself.
—Selected Psalm: The Lord is King, He is clothed with majesty (Ps. 92:1).

On the Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius (May 11)

We magnify you,+ O Equal-to-the-Apostles Methodius and Cyril,+ who have enlightened all the Slavic lands by your teaching+ and brought them to Christ.
—Selected Psalm: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Ps. 18:1).

On the Ascension of our Lord

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ and we honor Thy Divine Ascension+ with Thy most pure flesh into heaven.
—Selected Psalm: Clap your hands, all ye nations; shout unto God with a voice of rejoicing (Ps. 46:2).

On the Sunday of Pentecost

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ and we honor Thine All-Holy Spirit,+ Whom Thou hast sent from the Father+ to Thy divine disciples.
—Selected Psalm: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Ps. 18:1).

On the Sunday of All Saints of Russia

We magnify you,+ O all ye saints that have shone forth in the Russian land,+ and we honor your holy memory,+ for ye do pray for us+ to Christ our God.
—Selected Psalm: Hear this, all ye nations; give ear, all ye that inhabit the world (Ps. 48:1).

On the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24)

We magnify thee,+ O John, Forerunner of the Saviour,+ and we honor that which came of barrenness,+ thine all-glorious nativity.
—Selected Psalm: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and wrought redemption for His people (Luke 1:68).

On the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29)

We magnify you,+ O Apostles of Christ,+ by your teaching the whole world hath been enlightened,+ and all the ends of it brought to Christ.
—Selected Psalm: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Ps. 18:1).

On the Transfiguration of the Lord (Aug. 6)

We magnify Thee,+ O Christ the Giver of Life,+ and we honor the all-glorious Transfiguration+ of Thy most pure flesh.
—Selected Psalm: Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, in the city of our God, in His holy mountain (Ps. 47:1).

On the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God (Aug. 15)

We magnify Thee,+ O undefiled Mother of Christ our God,+ and we glorify Thine all-glorious+ Dormition.
—Selected Psalm: Shout with jubilation unto the Lord all the earth (65:1).

On the Beheading of St. John the Baptist (Aug. 29)
(and the Findings of his Head, Feb. 24 and May 25)

We magnify thee,+ O John the baptizer of the Saviour,+ and we honor the severing (finding)+ of thine all-precious head.
—Selected Psalm: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord; in His commandments shall he greatly delight (Ps. 111:1).

Common for Services of the Most Holy Theotokos

Meet it is to magnify Thee, O Theotokos, more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim.

 

Or this one:

We magnify Thee,+ O Most Holy Virgin,+ God-chosen Maiden,+ and we honor thy Holy Icon,+ whereby Thou dost gush forth healings+ for those who hasten to it with faith.
—Selected Psalm: Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness (131:1).

Common for the Holy Bodiless Hosts

We magnify you,+ Archangels and Angels and all the Hosts,+ the Cherubim and Seraphim,+ who glorify the Lord.

Or: For Archangel Michael and the other Bodiless Ones

We magnify Thee,+ O Archangel of God Michael,+ and you, O holy Archangels, Angels, Principalities, Powers, Thrones, Dominions, Hosts, Cherubim, and dread Seraphim,+ who glorify the Lord.
—Selected Psalm: I will confess Thee, O Lord, with my whole heart (9:1).

Common of Apostles

We magnify thee,+ O Apostle of Christ (Name),+ and we honor thy pains and labors,+ whereby thou hast labored+ in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ.
—Selected Psalm: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Ps. 18:1).

Common of Martyrs

We magnify thee,+ O holy Martyr (Name),+ and we honor thy precious sufferings,+ which thou didst endure for Christ.
—Selected Psalm: Our God is refuge and strength, a helper in afflictions which mightily befall us (Ps. 45:1).

Common of Hierarchs (also Prophets, Hieromartyrs, and all others for whom there is no special Magnification)

We magnify thee,+ O holy Hierarch (Prophet, Hieromartyr) (Name),+ and we honor thy holy memory,+ for thou dost pray for us+ to Christ our God.
—Selected Psalm: Hear this, all ye nations; give ear, all ye that inhabit the world (Ps. 48:1).

Common of Monastic Saints

We glorify thee,+ O holy Father (Name),+ and we honor thy holy memory,+ instructor of monks+ and converser with Angels.
—Selected Psalm: With patience I waited patiently for the Lord, and He was attentive unto me, and He hearkened unto my supplication (39:1).

Common of Holy Unmercenaries

We magnify you,+ O glorious Wonderworkers (Names),+ and we honor your precious sufferings+ which ye did endure for Christ.
—Selected Psalm: Our God is refuge and strength, a helper in afflictions which mightily befall us (Ps. 45:1).

Common of Fools for Christ's Sake

We glorify thee,+ O holy righteous (Name),+ and we honor thy holy memory,+ for thou dost pray for us+ to Christ our God.
—Selected Psalm: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord; in His commandments shall he greatly delight (Ps. 111:1).

Common of Holy Nuns

We glorify thee,+ O holy Mother (Name),+ and we honor thy holy memory,+ for thou dost pray for us+ to Christ our God.
—Selected Psalm: With patience I waited patiently for the Lord, and He was attentive unto me, and He hearkened unto my supplication (39:1).

Holy Great Prince Vladimir (July 15)

We magnify thee,+ O holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir,+ and we honor thy holy memory,+ thou didst trample down the idols+ and enlighten with baptism the whole Russian land.
—Selected Psalm: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Ps. 18:1).

Holy Prophet Elias (July 20)

We magnify thee,+ O holy Prophet Elias the glorious,+ and we honor thy fiery ascent+ in the flesh into heaven.
—Selected Psalm: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord; in His commandments shall he greatly delight (Ps. 111:1).

St. Joasaph, Prince of India (Nov. 19)

We glorify thee,+ O holy Father Joasaph,+ and we honor thy pains and labors,+ whereby thou didst labor+ in confessing Christ.
—Selected Psalm: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord; in His commandments shall he greatly delight (Ps. 111:1).


Next: The Great Doxology.