BIOGRAPHY OF METROPOLITAN ANTONY

 At birth, our holy father Antony was named for St Alexis, the Man of God. Alexei Khrapovitsky was born in the village of Vatagino in the Province of Novgorod in Northern Russia on 17 March 1863. To his family and close friends, he was "Aliosha." His father, Paul, was the scion of an ancient noble family and his mother, Natalia Petrovna was from the notable Verigin family of Kharkov.

Natalia Petrovna was exceptionally well educated, and much respected for the holiness of her life. She read her prayers each day from a seventeenth century Kievan prayerbook and read the Bible aloud to her son. From his mother, Alexei Pavlovich learned to read early, and was introduced to spiritual literature, especially the stories about Optina.

At this time, Elder Ambrose, who was under the influence of St Paissy Velichkovsky, had raised the life at Optina Hermitage to a new height. Elder Ambrose had restored the practices of "mental work" and "prayer of the heart" and, while still a child, Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky became dedicated to these spiritual practices; he was to become a master of them later in life. Having discovered these patristic approaches to prayer, Alexei made a decision, while still in his pre-teen years, to enter monasticism as soon as he was old enough to do so.

Alexei developed a deep love for the ancient churches and monasteries of the Novgorod region even before he started to school. It was at this time that he began to realize the depth and power of proper Orthodox iconography and the debased nature of the corrupted western-style paintings which were appearing in newer churches and in people's homes. His family lived in the city of Novgorod and he began to serve as an altar boy. Serving with several hierarchs, and perceiving the loftiness of the hierarchical divine services, young Alexei conceived a desire to see the patriarchate reestablished in Moscow; the realization of this dream would become one of his most lasting and notable accomplishments.

At the age of six, Alexei desired to enter a church primary school, but his parents refused to allow this. Their son was exceptionally intelligent and even at this young age displayed a great ability to learn, and his parents had in mind a brilliant worldly career for him.

That year, the family moved to St Petersburg. Alexei had a deep love for the divine services, and he quickly became an altar boy in the capital city. Serving with various hierarchs over the years, he once met Archbishop Nikolai, the missionary to Japan (St Nicholas, the Enlightener of Japan). After hearing the missionary speak, Alexei developed a zeal for missionary work that never left him. He organized a group of children who saved coins and raised money to help supply the needs of the Japanese mission.

At nine years old, Alexis was years ahead of his age in education and general maturity and he was sent to secondary school (gymnasium). Because of the dry, scholastic system, students were taught by rote. They were neither taught nor encouraged to use their minds, and they were never taught to research or use reason. Teachers condescended to the students and acted more like police who watched for occasion to entrap and punish the pupils. There was considerable distrust between students and teachers. Unhappily, the students finished school with no firm convictions and many were unable to form clear, definite views. It was for this reason that so many of them would become ensnared in Marxism. Later in his life, as the Hieromonk Antony, Alexei Khrapovitsky would strive to correct this harmful defect in the seminary system in Russia.

In spite of the system, Alexei, because of his own unusual intelligence, blossomed and became a leader in the school. The other students respected him for his wisdom and peaceful nature. He was dedicated to study and created his own occasions for research and discretion, and eventually finished school as valedictorian with a gold medal.

The young man was keenly interested in the affairs of the nation, but far more so in the life of the Church. In his final year of school, he composed an entire service to Saints Cyril and Methody, which was later approved by the Holy Synod and included in the regular cycle of divine services in the Russian Church. Alexei Pavlovich also diligently attended public literary evenings. He met Dostoevsky at these gatherings and was strongly influenced by him. In turn, Dostoevsky used young Khrapovitsky as the model for the novice Aliosha in Brothers Karamazov.

During his school years, Alexei Khrapovitsky developed a strong aversion to both racial and class prejudices and distinctions — an aversion which would be demonstrated many times in the course of his life.

At the age of eighteen, Alexei Khrapovitsky completed secondary school with a gold medal for scholarly excellence. Every door to worldly advancement and success was now open to him. The scion of a wealthy, noble family, he could have pursued any career he desired. His family wanted him to enter either law school or the famous Alexandrov Lycee at the imperial town of Tsarskoe Selo, which was restricted to elite students. Either choice would have opened a brilliant future for the young man in law, politics or state affairs.

In his younger years, Alexei Khrapovitsky had yielded to his parents' wishes and entered a secular school instead of seminary. Now, however, he was adamant: he would enter the St Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy. His parents finally accepted his decision in the hopes that he would have an academic career after he completed the academy.

At this time, the St Petersburg Academy was experiencing a renaissance. Father John Yanyshev had become rector, and had brought the academy to good order, elevating not only its academic standards but its spiritual life. Yanyshev, who would later become protopresbyter of the imperial court clergy and confessor to the imperial family, was genuinely pious and Christ centred. A Slavophile, he was part of the early movement for the restoration of authentic Orthodox theology. The famous scholar and historian D.V. Bolotov, who was known throughout Europe, was professor of Church history, and the other professorships were occupied by men of high academic calibre. Most of them were from among the village clergy, and in addition to their academic excellence, they were genuinely pious, patriotic and close to the life of the Church. Their influence on Alexei would be evident throughout his life. Together with Antony Vadkovsky and others, he would carry on their struggle against scholasti-cism.

Alexei was affable and sociable, and was immediately accepted by both faculty and students. He was especially popular because, though he came from great wealth and could have chosen any privileged educational path, he had chosen the ecclesiastical academy. Moreover, his own powerful intellect, combined with a naturally humble and compassionate nature, gave him much influence in the student body.

Alexei Pavlovich became concerned with the academy's chapel and grew to love it deeply, and he convinced his wealthy relatives to endow it and supply its needs. Moreover, the young saint encouraged the students to take a more active and intimate role in the divine services. At his repeated suggestions and coaxing, the rector obtained permission to allow students to preach in the church and to teach catechism wherever they might be needed. This new freedom of creativity granted to the students produced much fruit. Alexei's own first sermon, on The Calling of Ecclesiastical Schools, attracted so much positive attention that it was published. It became clear to all that the future Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky was a "progressive" and a reformer.

During his third year at the academy, the rector, Fr John Yanyshev, was appointed to the imperial court. At the same time, Church authorities decided to tighten the secular control of the academies in Russia and the more reactionary Bishop Arseny Bryantsev was appointed as rector.

There were very few learned monastics in Russia at that time. Previous Oberprocurators of Religion in the imperial Government had attempted to reduce monasticism, to keep it far from the cities and secluded in such a way that no educated people would enter the monasteries and the monasteries themselves would have as little influence as possible in Russian society. Most of the men who entered monasticism were elderly widowers. By God's will, Archimandrite Antony Vadkovsky was assigned as inspector of the St Petersburg Academy at this same time. Kind, generous and loving, this true monk had a profound influence on the spiritual life of the academy, and led many of the students to incline toward monasticism. He had a profound affect on Khrapovitsky, to the extent that when Alexei was tonsured, he chose the name Antony in honour of his mentor. Both Antonys were reformists and many considered them somewhat radical. Khrapovitsky and Vadkovsky were often referred to as "the two Antony's," and became known for their progressive efforts to reform Russian monasticism and free the Church from state political control. Indeed, at the centre of this new spiritual blossoming under Antony Vadkovsky were Alexei (Aliosha) Khrapovitsky and his closest friend, Mikhael Gribanovsky who began their careers as his disciples. Both young men were inclined to an ascetic life and they became strugglers, while maintaining a joy in their spiritual lives which greatly influenced everyone around them. Their deep commitment to prayer, the Holy Scripture and the divine services set them apart and made them spiritual leaders among the students.

In 1885, Alexei Khrapovitsky finished the Academy at the top of his class. His family hoped that he would now become a professor or pursue some other academic career, but he announced that he intended to become a monk. So distressed were his relatives by this that a family conference was called, including even distant relatives. For days, they sought to persuade the brilliant twenty-two year old Alexei not to enter monasticism. "Why would you wish to be a monk? Why not lead a normal life?" he was asked. To this, the young ascetic responded firmly, "But why would you not wish me to become a monk? Monasticism is a natural and praiseworthy course of life and action."

Eventually the family gave up, seeing that they would never prevail. On 18 May, 1885 during the vigil for the Sunday of All Saints, Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky, was tonsured and given the name Antony, for Saint Antony the Roman. He had chosen the name Antony in honour of his mentor, Fr Antony Vadkovsky.

On 12 June, he was ordained Deacon and on 30 September, Antony was elevated to hieromonk and appointed deputy inspector of the St Petersburg Academy. The move to tighten control over the institutions and the loss of several of the older teachers who supported Fr Antony's spirit of progressive reform brought this reactionary situation to the Saint Petersburg Academy also.

Almost at once, Fr Antony came into conflict with the prevailing system. At that time, in all educational institutions, a considerable mistrust existed between students and professors. Students could not freely approach and converse with instructors, and professors treated students as remote underlings. They learned by rote memorization and were expected to be uncritical and unquestioning.

Something must be said about the catastrophe of the seminary and academy system in Imperial Russia. From the time of Tsar Peter I, a period which Russian theologian Georges Florovsky called "the three hundred year Latin captivity of Russian theology" began. Seminaries were restructured and began to teach Latin scholasticism rather than patristic Orthodox Christian theology. Indeed, classes began to be taught in Latin rather than in Russian and practically no one learned Greek. To add to the difficulty, Tsar Peter had abolished the Russian Patriarchate and replaced it with a completely uncanonical synodal system which was a department of the civil government. Over the Church itself and its hierarchs, he placed a court official called "the Oberprocurator of the Religion." This official, who had real power over the Church in Russia, was sometimes an atheist, often a secularist such as Count Dimitry Tolstoy, who held the office from 1865 until 1875. During his tenure he liquidated more than 2000 parishes in Russia and worked to curtail the influence of the Orthodox Church in Russian society. He also imposed almost total lay control over the Church and strove to introduce a radical secularisation of the Orthodox Church. In 1875, he was succeeded by the dark personality of Konstantine Pobedonostsev. This ultra-conservative reactionary halted all reform in the Church, including anything that was positive. His influence over Emperor Alexander III was most unfortunate. Indeed, the Emperor became his political disciple, and therefore a reactionary who created many of the problems faced by his son Tsar Nicholas II. This gaunt almost corps-like figure (as Pobedonostev was described by contemporaries) was the epitome of obscuratanism. He had no use for the liberation of the serfs, resisted any attempts to restore a canonical order to the Church and free it from political control and consistently argued for total autocracy and a powerful secret police apparatus. He was also virulently anti-Semitic. Pobedonostsev's concept of education for the clergy was a rigid system of blind obedience and indoctrination. In many respects, Pobedonostsev, as senator, as a member of the Council of the Empire and as Oberprocurator of Religion, helped to shape the 1905 revolution and the tragedy of 1917.

Earlier in the century, the St. Petersburg Academy had become quite progressive. Students were looking at more meaningful ways of serving their flocks when they became ordained. There were enormous problems of poverty and workers were so oppressed with long hours of hard labour with scanty wages that they were often too exhausted to attend Church. The crushing weight on them had turned many of them to alcohol as a means of temporary relief and the clergy were either indifferent to all this, or had no idea what they could to to help with it. Both in Kazan and Saint Petersburg, there was a movement among both instructors and students, supported by many priests and laity, to open the Church to a broader service of the people and to society as a whole. Before the reforms of Catherine the Great and later Tsars, the Church had actually been able to fulfil such tasks, but the imperial government had gradually crippled the ability of monasteries and dioceses to respond and help poverty stricken people or provide relief in times of famine or other natural disasters.

By 1865, under the leadership of the oberprocurator Tolstoy, the imperial government had reacted against the progressive tendencies in the academies and brought the schools more totally under the immediate control of the Oberprocurator of Religion. The educational institutions soon reverted to a dry, scholastic atmosphere in which the students were more programmed than taught. The students were treated in a very condescending and offensive manner by the professors, they were encouraged not to have "opinions," and not to use critical thinking.

Fr Antony Khrapovitsky refused to treat the students as subordinates, but treated them as brothers. He believed that professors should build a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the students, and treat them compassionately. He himself became an "older brother" to the students, a trusted and much loved friend. He never approved of student hazing or initiation activity and in general maintained a Christian way of life. The saint led and taught by his own personal example, and it proved a powerful method of instruction. The professors were not happy with Vladika Antony's approach; even the more enlightened ones were themselves prisoners of this cold, dry system.

Eventually, the rector of the academy noticed this close rapport with the students and he demanded that Fr Antony use the confidence of the students to spy out any infractions or problems and report them. Since the students freely confided in the saint, the administration wanted him to "entrap" them in failings or petty violations of rules, in order to punish them. Fr Antony firmly refused to do this. As the result of pressure and demands that he comply, Fr Antony requested a transfer. Probably out of spite, Fr Antony was transferred as a teacher to the nearly empty seminary in the half Polish city of Kholm. Fr Antony remained here for a full year. During this time, the rector of the St Petersburg Academy was himself transferred. The new rector was the saintly former inspector, now bishop, Antony Vadkovsky who generally agreed with Fr Antony's approach. The new rector quickly had his old student transferred back to St Petersburg and assigned to teach Old Testament studies. Fr Antony had mastered Hebrew as well as Greek and was eminently qualified in this field.

In 1890, Fr Antony was appointed inspector of the academy and here he began his long struggle against the dry, vapid, Western scholasticism being taught in place of the living theology of Orthodoxy. He also struggled to humanize the academy and seminary systems and have the students taught to use their minds and reason. He would endure many conflicts over this in future. More than once, the Blessed One warned the authorities, "If we do not teach the students critical thinking, they will incline toward socialism because, on the surface, it appears so positive."

Perhaps just as importantly, his life long crusade for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate began in earnest in that year — 1890. In this, Blessed Antony would eventually prove successful.

Not long after Vladika Antony took up his duties at the academy, Bishop Antony Vadkovsky was advanced to a higher office, and this was soon followed by other advancements. Because of this, he became more cautious about basic matters of reform, and began to move away from his support of the struggle of Archimandrite Antony and Fr Michael Gribanovsky toward a proper canonical order for the Russian Church. It must be remembered that, from the time of Emperor Peter I, the Russian Church had been restructured on the German Lutheran and Anglican models. The patriarchate had been abolished in order to incorporate the Russian Church into the state bureaucracy. Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky was the only clergyman of the day with the courage to speak out against this uncanonical system and advocate a restoration of the patriarchate. His friend Fr Michael Gribanovsky joined him is this struggle for some time. When Fr Michael, by then Bishop, reposed in 1898, the saint was left truly alone in the struggle. Although many of the hierarchs and clergy were sympathetic, through fear of compromising their careers, they would seldom support it openly or public- ly.

At the time, the blindly reactionary Constantine Pobedonostev was Oberprocurator of the Russian Church, and he considered the move toward a proper structure and order of the church to be just another manifestation of "free thinking," a popular movement in Europe during that era. In particular, Fr Antony was suspected of that aspect of "free-thinking" that opposed an intellectually limiting effect generated by excessive expressions of authority, a the mind numbing system of rote cognitive indoctrination which had replaced education in Russia. In fact, that aspect of the accusations against Khrapovitsky were justified. Government circles joined in the uneasy fear that restoration of the patriarchate was a harmful innovation.

Fr Antony persisted, however, convinced that the future of the Russian Church required a return to patriarchal government, a canonical structure and internal missionary work. Interestingly, two of his students at that time were two future heads of the Russian Church, Vasili Belavan, who would become the Patriarch and Martyr Tikhon and Serge Starogorodsky, who would bear such a heavy burden during some of the worst of the Communist persecutions of the church.

Archimandrite Antony loved to serve the divine services as often as possible and he preached sermons at all of them. He took preaching very seriously, considering it to be a powerful means of pastoral influence on the souls of the faithful. In teaching his students about preaching, the saint was especially interested in five points:

(1). Everything that a preacher says in a sermon, all the divine teaching that he is explaining, must enter into his own heart. He must not become only a "sounding brass or tinkling cymbal" (1Cor.13:1-2) when he preaches the Gospel, but he must speak from the fulness of his own heart.

(2). Most of the words which have a real effect on people depend on the condition of the preacher's spirit, on how sincerely his personal faith and inspiration are bound to his teaching.

(3). In preaching, a priest must understand the spiritual needs of his flock and be able to present the instruction which his flock is most in need of relative to its moral condition and situation in life.

(4). He must learn to effectively use what ever door opens to the heart of the listener. Every society, age and condition of life has its good qualities, has some sort of commonly accepted sanctity. It may be the patriotism of officers, the truth-seeking of students, the desire for higher moral struggles of idealistic youth, the uncomplaining acceptance of God's will on the part of peasants or the solicitude for the beauty of the church building by the merchants. All these inclinations can be a convenient door for the entry of edification, like gates opening to heaven.

(5). The preacher must open himself to the best natural inclinations and hopes of the listeners, just as the Apostle, speaking to the Athenians, began with a discussion of the "unknown God,' and to the Hebrews, with reference to the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Vladika Antony was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite in 1889 and appointed rector of the St Petersburg Academy. He was in this position less than a year when he was called to the ancient Russian capital, Moscow, to serve as rector of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy. At twenty seven years of age, he was the youngest person ever called to such a position. Father Antony was welcomed with joy at the Moscow Academy. His reputation for humility and compassion toward the students had become well known. His academic and theological excellence were also becoming famous in Russia.

Although he was an extraordinary theologian, the young archimandrite entered the ancient capital with humble fear and a heart aflame with a desire to dedicate all his strength to the service of the Church.

The approach of the new rector was a radical departure from the "old system" of arrogance and condescension on the part of the rectors and professors toward the students. In 1890, the time of Archimandrite Antony's arrival, spiritual life at the Moscow Academy was very low. There was much drunkenness among the students and attendance at the divine services was low. The teaching methods were dry and uninspired, and the students memorized by rote rather than actually learning. Here, as at St. Petersburg, there was no rapport or communications between pupils and professors. The faculty were stiff and remote. Father Antony began the custom of inviting students to the refectory in the evenings for tea and conversation. He did not lecture or "talk down" to the students, but strove to engage them in genuine dialogue and, above all, to ask questions. He even strove to provoke friendly debate so that the students would learn critical thinking. At first, the students were afraid or nervous about such open exchanges, but gradually, their rector won them over, the students found these evenings exciting and mentally invigorating.

Father Antony approached these problems with both zeal and compassion. By the end of the first year on the saint's rectorship drunkenness among the students had almost completely ceased and attendance at the divine services increased greatly. Vladika Antony brought about a revolution both in content and method of teaching. Here again he introduced the custom of having students take turns preaching sermons at the divine Liturgies. The educational level of the students rose dramatically and a lively interest in theology budded. All this was accomplished not only by the openness, compassion and firmness of the Blessed Antony, but also by his daily example of faith, patience, love, and a sincere monastic life. Archimandrite Antony chose to teach pastoral theology in the academy, a subject which had long been neglected, but which he considered to be pivotal for future priests. His course lectures on this subject are, to this day, the best text available on the subject. Vladika Antony was interested not only in the preaching of the gospel, but also in the quality of the relationship between the priest and his flock. The pastors, he advocated, must be concerned not only with the spiritual and moral condition of his flock, but also with their welfare and the problems facing their daily lives.

By his second year as rector students who had never thought about theology before began to be attracted to the Academy. Many who had embarked on studies for other careers switched to the Moscow Theological Academy and began to think about service to Christ. Relationships between the students and faculty and among the students themselves became more Christian, fraternal and creative. For the first time, the students began to discover the holy fathers as the darkness of scholasticism was pushed back by their great spiritual father, Archimandrite Antony Khrapovitsky. Soon, the new spiritual life and elevated level of education attracted attention all over Russia.

Serge Chetverikov, a student in the academy at this time, later wrote:

Vladika Antony's encounter with Saint John of Kronstadt at this time had a powerful effect on his life.

In 1893, St John of Kronstadt visited the Moscow Academy, and preparations for his visit were felt with deep spiritual anticipation. Suddenly, Archimandrite Antony fell very ill with symptoms that resembled cholera, and he himself describes the event and the miraculous intercessions of St John of Kronstadt:

Father Antony and Saint John of Kronstadt became personal friends after this. It was largly because of John of Kronstadt's personal endorsement of the Union of Russian Peoples that Vladika Antony accepted its presence in Volhyn when he became bishop of that diocese.

The blessed one was, however, not left in peace to continue his progressive work. In 1893, Father Antony's mentor, Metropolitan Leonty had reposed in the Lord. He was replaced by Metropolitan Sergei Lyatidevski, an ardent conservative and a theological Scholastic with an arrogant, condescending attitude toward both the students and the priests. Father Antony attempted to protect the students and the school from the Metropolitan's destructiveness, but the new hierarch responded by transferring him to Kazan in 1895.

Archimandrite Antony arrived in Kazan at the Beginning of the 1895-96 School Year. Within two months, he had entered so completely into the life of the academy that he had the respect of the professors and the love of the students. Soon, students from Moscow and other parts of Russia made every effort to transfer to the Kazan Academy.

Vladika Antony's welcoming address to the new students in September of 1899 had a profound effect on them. In it, he said:

"A certain householder planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country..."
(Mt. 21:33)

Your first consideration upon beginning the advanced level of theological study should not concern your own self-interests, but the welfare of that vineyard which is entrusted by the husbandman to the servants of the Word. We have been entrusted to do His work. When the time of the fruit draws near, He will ask us for it. If we are found to be careless labourers we shall be "miserably destroyed" and He will lease out His vineyard unto other husbandmen. This must be our first consideration, brethren, upon entering the walls of this academy; your life no longer belongs to you; from henceforth you must labour and live for the mighty work of God.

Now is this the kind of welcome which was anticipated by young people who have at last attained the coveted title of "university student" after ten years of obedience and a supervised life of younger years spent under the watchful eye of parents and teachers? Your concept of student life in the academy, in the city of Kazan, is perhaps coloured by images of freedom, of having fun, of pursuing a bold and critical examination of ancient traditions.

Quite likely some of you young men are already thinking to yourselves: "You greet us with talk of ascetic struggle and our spiritual calling. How else could we interpret your words except as presenting constraints, solitude, hovering over boring old books, and even fasting and prostrations? We have experienced enough of all that in seminary and at school. Let us have at least these next four years to explore the prerogatives of youth. In our own good time we may come to the altar with drawn and sombre faces and dedicate the remainder of our lives to ascetic labours. But for now do not deprive us of our youth; let us be young, let us experience our worldly ways and enjoy this period between our strict seminary years and the difficult life which lies ahead of us. Do not overshadow our entrance into the academy with reminders of responsibilities, of our faithfulness to the Church and to the spiritual needs of the people. Of course, these injunctions are just and the demands are appropriate, but are those different inclinations of a young heart, which so quickly fill it when it becomes free from its long confinement and enters the relative freedom of student life, so unnatural and unlawful?"

Are you so fearful, my dear young friends, of ascetic struggle, afraid of deprivations and restraints? But I have not even spoken to you of such things; and if I should begin to speak of them I would certainly not refer to them as the goal of life. They are only a means of attaining to that which is holy, exalted and eternally satisfying.

Think of those who are called by God and by nature to give physical birth, and you will be ashamed of your faintheartedness by comparison with them. Think of a young woman who has become liberated from the obedience of her youth and the oversight of her parents and become the wife of a wealthy nobleman. She sees before her the possibility of a brilliant social life and freedom, but she also prepares herself to be a mother. If she is a worthy member of the human race, her thoughts and feelings are fixed upon her children. She overcomes worldly enticements and is not grieved that in place of banquets, balls, and crowds of admirers she has to become a nursemaid, and to be constantly anxious for the welfare of her child, who may even be sickly or abnormal. All these deprivations are compensated by a joyful awareness that she is giving her life to a beloved being, that she is not simply living for herself but for another.

Now to you, beloved students of the higher knowledge of the divine and saving truth, to you is now entrusted not the life of a single child, but the spiritual nourishment, the spiritual preservation, the spiritual life of a society, of a people, and of nation. In the face of such a lofty and absorbing task, is there any place for self-love, self-pity, laziness, sensual indulgence? Of course, it is not these base feelings which filled you with misgivings upon hearing my words. Your sense of regret concerned much higher, more refined gifts of youth: an enthusiasm for ideas, the happiness of friendships, a ready acquaintance with the life of society. I would not argue that these are wonderful gifts, and you should know that the life in Christ does not exclude anything which is genuinely beautiful and exalted. He does not forbid such things to His followers. "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me," our Lord said. Only that which is foul and base is foreign to His disciples. Do not think that we wish to deprive you of the best gifts of your youth. On the contrary, we are offering you the possibility of using these gifts to far greater advantage than often happens, so that you may bring a more abundant harvest to the Lord of the vineyard.

What is youth in its relation to spiritual life? Through observation we have come to recognize three periods in a man's life when the Lord shows particular attention to the soul, showering it with gifts and effecting its renewal. This happens first of all in the childhood years which our Saviour glorified in saying "Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." At this age a human being first comes to an awareness of those lofty qualities in his nature which distinguish him as a human being; feelings of love, compassion and truthfulness are aroused within that divinely created purity and beauty of soul with which a man comes into the world. A second and more refined renewal of spiritual life occurs in the years of youth, when a person's soul, freed from the guidance first of parents and then of teachers. He enters into a different life as a more or less independent being, stepping into life a second time as it were. In this period of youth the exalted soul is keenly aware of the God-created beauty of nature; it envisions the possibility of a holy, ideal life on earth; it is drawn irresistibly to acts of love and self-sacrifice... There is a third renewal of the spirit and mind which comes to those who for a time abandoned their high calling but who never entirely lost the image of God. This renewal occurs when sickness or misfortune rouses the awareness of their approaching death and forces them to shake from their soul the deceit of sensuality and pride, those delusions which they exchanged for the holy and pure poetry of youth. This is that rebirth of wisdom and repentance experienced by some of the best representatives of our secular society who went astray in their youth but who regained this path of truth in their latter years.

May the Lord not deprive you, my dear listeners, of experiencing at least this repentant rebirth, although it lacks the strength and integrity which enrich those followers of Christ who submitted themselves to His yoke while still in their youth. One of the ancient prophets has well said: It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.

Truly, they are blessed, because they have enriched their spirit and their actions with those irreplaceable and never to be recaptured gifts. These are gifts with which God adorns the period of youth and through which every youth can, if he so desires, conquer those temptations of sensuality and self-love so commonly encountered at this stage of life. Let us examine more carefully the nature of these gifts and how they ought to be utilized in serving God and in refining one's own spirit.

A young person's soul possesses a richness of empathy, a need to express love. Left to the course of a spoiled life, this love usually turns either into sexual passion or aimless romantic fantasies which later dissolve into bitter disillusionment. If, on the other hand, a soul filled with such a richness of empathy is captured by zeal for God's truth, God's righteousness, then it will turn with love toward others similarly called by God's Providence. Within such a warm fellowship, in the lively exchange of ideas and inner reflection, the person will gain an incalculably more rich source of joy and fulness of life than that soul which is given over to carnal love. These brotherly discussions concerning the aims of life, these mutually invigorating conversations about philosophy and ethics can cause one to even forget about food and rest. They can expand the heart and fill the soul to such an extent that in the student's own awareness they give his quite ordinary surroundings an aura of rare beauty and poetry. Those who seek sensual and material pleasures cannot begin to understand this, but life itself offers this lesson. Ask older people what memories make them feel young at heart, inspire them to undertake some spiritual struggle or help them to oppose temptation. The answer is found in memories of friendships forged in student life, of inspired plans for working to improve society, of heartfelt discussions, naive perhaps but truly holy, in twilight hours or at night in the corridors of the academy or along the pathways of the academy grounds. If such people also have memories of romantic conquests and love affairs which prey upon the of recklessness youth, as a person grows older such memories become burdensome, a fact well expressed by our national poet:

The fading diversions of youthful folly
like a dim and drunken stupor
rest heavily upon me;
The regret in my heart over days gone by,
Like wine, grows stronger with time.

This same intellectual would consider himself happy indeed if in place of these burdensome memories he had enriched his soul with memories of pure and wholesome friendships of youth. What a great advantage it would be to the work of God and the building up of Christ's Church if, from their youth, the builders had delighted themselves in true friends, united in mind and heart in the study and mutual discovery of God's truth, sharing a dedication of their lives to the service of Christ.

In this, youth has all the more to gain. If in the worldly sphere it is able to take such pleasure in groundless and unfulfillable fantasies, then in the realm of spiritual life, in which sincere desire has a corresponding reality, in which, as Christ intimated, there does not exist that grievous distinction between the poetic ideal and prosaic reality, where among two or three gathered together in the name of the Lord, Christ Himself is present, youth is truly one continuous celebration. It is a stranger to vanity and free from those tormenting pangs of conscience and from that hopeless despondency and premature aging which is the fate of all those who seek only sensual pleasures.

Enough has been said for now about this first characteristic of youth. Another gift, no less seductive for that youth who chooses the wrong path in life but likewise no less beneficial for the lover of truth is defined by a vibrant love of knowledge and a pressing search for an integral and coherent world view, a search which is so much a part of the adolescent years. May God preserve us from leaving you in such a state of curiosity unfulfilled. For many this [love of knowledge and curiosity] resolves itself in a temporary cooling of faith, and in those educated in secular schools, even in a loss of faith. But this is not because our divine truth fears the light, examination and the test of reason. Rather the loss of faith occurs in those sad cases in which, through the corrupting influence of self-love and self-will, a soul has become predisposed to seeking means of stifling the conscience and freeing himself from moral obligations. If, on the other hand, this same youthful curiosity and thirst for knowledge is pure and sincere, if it does not close its ears to the inner voice of the conscience and the promptings of moral awareness, then that youthful boldness and independence of thought, rather than a hindrance, become for our young philosopher-theologian, a decided advantage often lacking in older scholars who have not taken care to preserve their minds pure and free of prejudice. Indeed, one often finds among older people a tendency to be one-sided, to be conditioned by former errors which they do not wish to admit to, or by personal animosity or friendship with advocates of some particular point of view, or simply by mental laziness.

A young person's thinking which is in the process of unfolding is free from this. If it remains cautious and preserved from high-mindedness it can always discover new, unnoticed aspects of a subject, and discover those mistakes which have become so conventional as to be accepted. Some of you might be thinking, "what you are saying may be rightly applied to every other branch of learning, but not to theology. What kind of mental work is there for independent thinking in this area where everything is already laid out, where nothing remains for one to do except simply to memorize that which is handed down in generally accepted forms? "

Unfortunately, this kind of talk is often heard in our academies. But I assure you that, quite the contrary, no branch of knowledge is in greater need of independent, creative minds than theology. Knowledgeable people are conscious of the persistent demand on the part of unbelievers and sectarians for theology to define the ethical value of our dogmatic beliefs and our canonical and symbolic structures. They seek for theology to give evidence of the link between the Symbol of Faith and Christ's Sermon on the Mount, for it to demonstrate not only the righteousness and truthfulness but the holiness of all we believe and of the system governing our spiritual lives. This is a lofty and inspiring task but it is also extremely difficult and has hardly been broached by academic inquiry. Do not think that your intellectual energy, your desire for independent study, your hope to articulate something new will not find worthy application in the field of theology. Do you know what significance theological truth has for life today? It is immeasurably greater than in previous times, at least in regard to Church life in this country. Thirty years or more ago the theologian worked for a small circle of colleagues. For the majority of people, even among the educated levels of our society, the theologians works were a luxury, not without benefit, but something which was not considered crucial to spiritual life. This is because the moral consciousness of society and obedience to the Church at that time were protected primarily by the active asceticism of its spiritual leaders, those Christian heroes whose lives were an incarnation and expression of the beauty and truth of God's revelation, who could say together with the blessed Paul: "Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ."

Our times suffer from a deficiency of such spiritual luminaries, and today the attracting power of Christianity, at least in Russian and European society, is concentrated in Christian teaching about its truth, wisdom, holiness and beauty. For this reason the work of a Christian pastor in relation to those of little faith or a weakly believing or unbelieving society is the work of a theologian and educator. That theologian who is able to explain the moral dimensions of Christian beliefs and precepts, and to demonstrate the vanity and deception of the moral foundations of opposing systems of thought, is more highly esteemed and more beloved in the eyes of society than anyone who has attained success in the secular realm.

We have been speaking until now about the natural, the human side of your calling, and about those gifts which your youth can bring to its advantage. But "unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it," and no gift of nature is sufficient to execute successfully the work of God if it is not joined by a cooperating grace. Natural talents can only generate positive impulses and shine forth with some good ideas. However, to create with patience and love some work of wholeness, to elaborate some scholarly undertaking or, on a more practical level, to bring a youthful dream into a living reality, or to elevate a friendship of one's youth to the level of Christian brotherly love, to the level of a long-suffering love of a teacher toward his student or of a pastor to his flock—these and similar spiritual struggles of will and thought, spiritual struggles rarely encountered in life, are possible only for those who labour not alone, not on their own strength, but with the help of Divine grace. Only such a worker can say with the Apostle: "I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was in me."

Grace is given according as one prays. Can one's youth work in favour of such spiritual struggle? Yes, and if you do not wish to trust my words, I would commend to you the words I heard more than once from our late hierarch, Archbishop Vladimir, who loved to ask young people for their prayers. "It is easier," he said, "for a young person to ascend to God in genuine prayer than it is for an older person, for the soul of a youth is less oppressed by the world than that of someone well on in years if in his youth he was not diligent in prayer."

This is perhaps the most valuable advantage of an unspoiled youth. Treasure it. If you wish to experience this period of youth at its best you must defend yourself through prayer from all those negative characteristics which commonly mark this stage of your life: dissoluteness, cynicism, and stubborn self-will which so rapidly destroy what is genuinely youthful in a young person's heart and cause him soon to become a worn-out slave of the mundane world, a stranger to the tender feelings of a young heart and to that eager love of knowledge. Unfortunately, these negative aspects mark a large number, if not a majority, of students in secular institutions. When our society was still governed by a Christian worldview, every student was an idealist, an inspired worker in the enlightenment of society, someone with a broad education. Today, our youth are more apt to give in to the slightest promptings of their sensual desires; and if they are inspired by some endeavour in the field of scholarship or social work, this usually lasts no more than a year or two. They grow to disdain their religious heritage and, as if in the name of science, even deny the dogmas of the faith. Hiding behind this denial we find not some theoretical disbelief or prejudice, but simply a moral ennui and a general heedlessness, a fearful turning away from any stirring of the conscience. And thanks to this lack of concentration, this apathy and dissoluteness, often the fruits of a lack of faith and sense of moral struggle, young people enter life not only morally weak but largely unenlightened, uneducated. Conversely, what an exemplary type of youth is produced by our theological academies among those of its students who use the gifts bestowed upon the young to work on their own moral perfection and to serve God and the Church. To give an example, Archbishop Vladimir followed such path from his student years and thereby brought great profit to the service of God and to the younger brethren. Furthermore, he was able to preserve a youthful disposition until deep old age. I'm sure that those of you who knew him will agree with this observation.

My dear friends, when you hear either the holy Word of God or our weak human tongue remind you again and again that from henceforth you belong not to yourselves but to God and the Church, do not let your hearts be seized by feelings of despondency and destructive self-pity, do not gaze enviously upon those youths who are free from such obligations and who spend their days in vain amusements; that is not youth but spiritual death and premature old age. The Lord has called us "to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you." He has entrusted us with tilling His vineyard and awaits from us fruit in its season.

Recollecting his student days in Kazan during the tenure of Archimandrite Antony, Metropolitan Meliti of Harbin wrote:

Archimandrite Antony had been elevated to bishop in September of 1897, and the services in the Academy Church had taken on a more solemn appearance. The approximately thirty clergy in the Academy almost all concelebrated on feastdays.

In the Kazan Academy, Vladika Antony taught Pastoral Theology. It was in this field above all that his gifts could be seen. By their inspiration and depth of understanding, his lectures resembled more the teaching of an elder revealing the secrets of grace-filled influence on the human soul to his students. After the lectures, the students left with a peaceful and calm spirit.

During the first years of his academic service, Fr. Antony published a short book titled Letters to Pastors. One of the students of the Academy sent his book to Bishop Theophan the Recluse from whom he received the following response: "This booklet is worthy of all attention and one must hope that someone would establish Pastoral Theology following the norm of these letters. This would be a precious find for pastors, giving them proper guidance for pastoral activity."

Vladika Antony taught that "the aim of pastorship is the action of a gradual eradication of the divisions among people, the creation of their unity in the image of the Most Holy Trinity, in agreement with the words of the Lord's high priestly prayer. This unity is completely alien to pantheism, since it does not demand the destruction of the personality, of personhood, but rather establishes and preserves it, just as God's unity is preserved in the three hypostases of the Trinity. The task of the pastor lies in serving God's plan for a gradual deification of people...." He had always been disturbed by the dichotomies created in society by racism and classism, but the crippling effects of egoism and self-centredness were also the subjects of his lectures.

Vladika considered the spirit-bearing elders to be the true pastors and images of pastorship. He wrote that "...The elder is actually the guide of the conscience. Our society reveres those pastors who are known for their knowledge and understanding as instructors of the heart. The Optina Fr. Ambrosy and Elders like him are understood in our society to be representatives of a more intelligent and undivided synergy. Before them, every person feels himself to be equal without any difference given to his status, and each renders to the elder tokens of honour more sincere than those given to the most highly exalted pastors..."

Vladika Antony himself served as an example of a true pastor and a large portion of the students of the Russian Ecclesiastical Academies made use of his spiritual instructions. By 1908, when Vladika was only forty five years old, among the number of those who had been his students there were two archbishops, thirty five bishops, a multitude of monks who were ordained priests, many of whom also later served the Church as hierarchs.

In 1899 Vladika Antony was transferred from the position of second vicar-bishop to the rank of first vicar-bishop of the Kazan Archeparchy and assigned as Bishop of Christopol. At the same time, he remained as rector of the Academy. He did not remain in this position for long. On 4 July 1900, while the students were at home during their summer holidays, a directive came from the Holy Synod appointing Vladika Antony as Bishop of Ufa and Menzel. He said farewell with grief to everyone and set out on a new direction: to serve the peasants, trappers and woodsmen of a widespread and disjointed eparchy. Vladika Antony began his first service as a ruling bishop at the young age of thirty seven, full of strength and energy, in one of the most backward and difficult eparchies in all of the Russian Empire.

The Ufa province had a population of more than 21/2 million people, of which only about 840,000 were Orthodox Christians. The remaining population was Muslim and about 100,000 were of pagan or native religions. This was an area of evident hardships. The Orthodox clergy of this region lacked training and were poorly educated. Priests often lived in abject poverty. Each of them served up to 2,500 people. Vladika found that some of these priests could barely read and write.

Upon his arrival in Ufa, Bishop Antony turned his attention to the quality of the divine services being celebrated, and more especially to the quality of preaching. In the cath-edral, as well as in other churches, properly appointed services began to be served for the first time. Earlier hierarchs had usually served solemnly in their cathedrals only on great feastdays. Vladika Antony began to serve thus every Sunday, tirelessly preaching the Gospel and giving spiritual and educational talks.

He immediately introduced a new system for the further education and training of the parish clergy. All were required to participate. Those who were completely incapable were retired. This progressive programme of upgrading the abilities of the clergy was carried out through special classes, and sometimes he gave of himself for one-on-one sessions. Vladika did not, however, focus this teaching mainly on rubrics. His primary concern was about the pastoral care of the faithful, and this dominated his programme.

He began a religious movement within the eparchy which included personal pastoral care of even the remotest areas and churches of his eparchy. Soon, attracted by the pastoral zeal of the now famous teacher and preacher of the Gospel, educated monks began to come to join Vladika Antony in his movement. Many of them were his former students, and they came to teach in the seminary. Two of them, the future Archbishop Andronik of Perm and Archbishop Varlaam of Poltava, were subsequently martyred by the Communists.

Remote Ufa soon saw countless monks, priests, officials and even hierarchs coming from all parts of Russia to visit Vladika Antony. While he was bishop there, the number of parishes almost doubled and the number of clergy vastly increased. In the non-Russian parishes, priests were assigned from those nationalities in order to teach the people in their own language. Often they were assigned as "second priest," so that they were freed from administrative duties and could concentrate on getting closer to the people.

The pious custom of meeting the New Year at midnight with a moleben followed by an inspiring instructional sermon was another popular practice which he introduced. After this, the people began to call their new bishop "Chrysostom." The people of Ufa were pleased and the church was packed with up to 300 people on New Year's eve. Christ's Nativity was celebrated at midnight, a time unheard of in a provincial town, and again the church was crammed.

Vladika Antony increased the activity of the missionary work among Muslims. He wrote Conversation of Christian with a Moslem about the Truth of the Most Holy Trinity, which was later published as a separate booklet and eventually translated into German.

Once he became established in the Ufa Eparchy, Vladika Antony was prepared to remain there until the end of his life, since his view on the union of the bishop with his flock was based on the holy canons which ordered a bishop not to transfer from one Cathedra to another. Nevertheless the Holy Synod called on him to serve another flock in the western regions of Russia.

It was during his time as Bishop of Ufa that Vladika Antony fully realised the desperate need for a movement of internal missionary work in Russia. He loved the missionaries who had travelled to Alaska, China, Korea, Japan and other places, but realised, as few others were willing to do, that the Russian people who were baptised as children were often ignorant of the faith. Many of the priests and hierarchs never or almost never preached sermons in their churches, and few of them spent useful time teaching or even drawing closer to their flocks as a father with his children. He would soon have the opportunity to set an example for all of Russia.

On 22 April 1902, a directive arrived from the Holy Synod, appointing Vladika Antony as Bishop of Volhynia and Zhitomir, and so he was transferred from the eastern regions to the western ones.

For twelve years Vladika toiled at his new cathedra and acquired a renown throughout Russia as "Archbishop Antony of Volhyn" or, as he was more popularly called, "Antony of Volhyn."

The cathedral city of the new eparchy, Zhitomir, at that time had about 100,000 people, of which about 60,000 were Jewish and more than 20,000 were Roman Catholics, and about 20,000 were Orthodox Christians. There were only ten Orthodox Churches in the city and about sixty synagogues. Indeed, one of the most notable circumstances of Vladika Antony's service in Volhyn is that the pogroms against the Jewish population ceased almost as soon as he arrived. The pogroms where something that Vladika absolutely would not tolerate and he often preached and wrote against them.

Always bold in spirit, Vladika Antony looked at the world of God and at people with eyes of faith. He did not despair in the most hopeless situations but he could see in everything the bright, hopeful possibilities. In his introductory talk at the Zhitomir Cathedral, Vladika appealed to the pastors and flocks of his new eparchy not to despair of the spiritual poverty surrounding them, but to draw upon boldness in the circumstances of the life of the common people. In his epistle to the clergy of the eparchy, he said:

In the number of parishes the Volhyn Eparchy was second only to the Kiev Eparchy. In number of church buildings, it held the first place in the whole Russian Church.

Quickly acquainting himself with the Volhyn clergy, flock, the church life, and the order and conditions in the institutions, Vladika set as his most pressing priority the reorganization of the church administration. He took decisive steps to abolish the system of bribery and the ordinary clergy sighed in relief. Those who had blackened their reputations by deeds unworthy of the clergy were removed and in their places were appointed worthy people from the number of Vladika's students in the ecclesiastical Academies. Vladika also established the position of diocesan missionary. He made every effort to prevent the pogroms against the Jewish population. On at least one occasion, he placed himself in the breach. While he was bishop in Volhyn, a mob of pogromists were marching on a local synagogue. Vladika Antony drove his carriage into the path of the surging march, placing himself between the mob and the synagogue, and censured the crowd for their intended crime. He exhorted them, "How do you dare to raise the hand against those who are related to Christ by birth, while we are related only by adoption." in a powerful sermon, delivered in the Cathedral of Zhitomir on 20 April, 1903 following the horrible pogrom in Kishenev, Vladika Antony proclaimed:

The joyous feast of reconciliation, the Resurrection of Christ, continues. We have completed the commemoration of Thomas, who was the first to confess that the risen Jesus is our true God, and we are now singing of the deeds of the myrrhbearers. We commemorate those women who did not grow weak in their faithfulness to Christ even during the terrible days when He was betrayed and put to death, and who were accounted worthy to announce his resurrection to the apostles. The apostles would enlighten the world by proclaiming the resurrection, but these holy women had first enlightened the apostles with it.

In extolling their faith, the Church calls all of us to imitate this struggle and to participate in the preaching of the resurrection. We are called upon to become so penetrated by joy in Him that we not only forget about the evil done against us by enemies, but to forgive from our hearts their hatred toward us and not only forgive them, but even love our enemies. We must now strive to embrace with love all mankind, inviting them to share with us the spiritual ecstacy of that new life revealed so clearly to us, that everlasting life filled with blessed communion with God. Now is fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah; "And everlasting joy...illness, sorrow and sighing have fled away" (Is 35:10).

The grace of Christ's resurrection shines brightly even in our corrupt age, and it shines not only on the pious but even on those who are unconcerned. During these sacred days, those who did not pray earlier now turn to prayer; even those whose hearts were hardened. We greet one another with the kiss of peace, and even the unmerciful and miserly find pleasure in showing love toward their neighbour. "Christ is risen and life springs forth" as the God-bearing voice of Chrysostom proclaims.

But amidst such comforting circumstances in our Christian life, sorrowful, shameful news reaches us that in the city of Kishenev. On the very day of Christ's resurrection, on the day of forgiveness and reconciliation, there occurred the cruel inhuman massacre of unfortunate Jews.

At the very time when in the holy temples there was being sung, "Let us embrace one another and say `brother' even to those who hate us ..." yes at that very time, outside the church walls, a drunken, beastly mob broke into Jewish homes, robbing the peaceful inhabitants and tearing human beings into pieces. They threw their bodies from windows into the streets and looted Jewish stores. A second crazed, greed filled mob rushed in to steal the clothing and jewelry from the bloodied corpses, seizing everything they could lay hand on. Like Judas, these robbers enriched themselves with silver drenched in blood — the blood of these hapless human sacrifices!

Oh God! How did your goodness endure such an insult and offence to the day of your saving passion and glorious resurrection! You endured Your terrible struggle so that we would be dead to sin and live in you (Rm.6:11), but here they cruelly and in a most beastly manner slaughtered those who are your relatives according to the flesh, who, though they did not recognise you are still dear to your heart as you said yourself not long before you suffered in the flesh, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou who killest the prophets and stone those who are sent to thee; how often have I longed to gather your children as a hen gathers its chicks under its wing, and you desired it not" (Mt. 23:37).

O brethren, I wish to make you understand this so that you would comprehend that even today the Jewish tribe is dear to God's heart, and realise that God is angered by anyone who would offend that people. Lest anyone suppose that we are selecting words from the sacred scripture with partiality, let me cite for you the words of that man whom the Jews hated above all men. This is the man whom a company of the Jews vowed neither to eat nor drink until they had killed him (Acts 23:12) - Apostle Paul.

Hearken to the words of God's spirit speaking through him "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Rm. 9:1-5).

Startling and frightening word! Did you truly write them, Paul, you who came to love Christ, who began to live in Christ as Christ lived in you? For whose sake did you consent to be separated from Christ? Was it not you, Paul, who wrote the lines preceding this verse "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rm.8:38-39). Even the angels could not have done that which you would voluntarily have done for the sake of the salvation of the Jews — those who were your enemies, your betrayers, they who beat you with whip, chained you in prison, exiled you and condemned you to death.

Behold, brethren and marvel: these words of apostle Paul are spoken concerning the Jews, even though they were opposed to Christ's faith. Lest your perplexity continue, that same apostle and martyr explaining in the following chapter, the reason for his love of the house of Israel! "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" (10:1-2)

The words are confirmed in our own day by the life of the Jews. Observe for yourselves their dedication to their law, their preservation of the Sabbath, their faithfulness to their spouses, their love of work and their love toward their children, whom they encourage toward obedience. There was a time not so long ago when Christians equalled them in all these things, but in our present corrupt and degenerate age, we must look with envy upon all these qualities of the way of life of pious Jews. In our cities, the majority of Christians no longer distinguish between the ordinary days, feastdays and fasts, but have fallen into negligence and a loose life.

It is true that there are also some like this among the Jews, but from whom did they learn such a disorderly path? Alas, from those whose forefathers confess Christ, from European and Russian nihilists who, like toads, swarm over our land, whose books and newspapers poison the air around us like the plague and cholera.

The Karaim and Talmud Jews must be respected, but woe to those nihilists who are corrupting both family and society, who sow the seed of their contagion among Russian and Polish youth, and who are the main cause of the hatred toward the descendants of the holy forefathers and prophets beloved by the Lord.

Listen as the blessed apostle further explains the reason for his warm, self-denying love toward this people; hear how he explains their unbelief and obduracy toward Christ "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy" (11:11). If the Jews had all accepted Christ's faith, then the heathens who despised the Jews would have rejected it. If the Jews had all believed, then we, brethren, would not have become Christians, but would still be worshipping Jupiter and Venus or Perun and Volass as our pagan ancestors did. Be cautious, therefore, about slandering the unbelief of the Jews; rather grieve over it and pray that the Lord may be revealed to them. Do not be at enmity with them, but respect the apostolic word about the Israelite root and the branches that broke from it "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." (11:20-21)

O Christians, fear to offend the sacred tribe. God's recompense will fall upon those evil people who have shed blood which is of the same race as the God-man, his most pure mother, theapostles and prophets. Do not suppose that this blood was sacred only in the past, but understand that even in the future reconciliation to the divine nature awaits them (2Pt.1:4), as Christ's chosen vessel further testifies, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (11:25-27).

Let the savage know that they have shown themselves to be bankrupt opponents of God's providence, persecutors of a people beloved by God (11:28).

How sinful is enmity against Jews, based on an ignorance of God's law, and how shall it be forgiven when it arises from abominable and disgraceful impulses. The robbers of the Jews did not do so as revenge for opposition to Christianity, rather they lusted for the property and possessions of others. Under the thin guise of zeal for the faith, they served the demon of covetousness. They resembled Judas who betrayed Christ with a kiss while blinded with the sickness of greed, but these murderers, hiding themselves behind Christ's name, killed His kinsmen according to the flesh in order to rob them.

When have we beheld such fanaticism? In Western Europe during the middle ages, heretics and Jews were shamefully executed, but not by mobs intent on robbing them.

How can one begin to teach people who stifle their own conscience and mercy, who snuff out all fear of God and, departing from the holy temple even on the bright day of Christ's Resurrection, a day dedicated to forgiveness and love, but which they rededicate to robbery and murder?

O believers in God and His Christ! Fear the Lord's judgment in behalf of His people. Fear to offend the inheritors of the promise. We are not empowered to judge them for their unbelief; the Lord and not we will judge. We, looking upon their zeal even though it is "not according to knowledge" (Rm.10:2) would do better to contemplate their fathers: the righteous Abraham, Isaak, Jakob, Joseph and Moses, David and Samuel and Elijah, who rose to heaven still in the flesh. Look upon Isaiah who accepted voluntary death for the faith, Daniel who stopped the mouths of beasts in a lions' den, and the Maccabbee martyrs who died with joy for the hope of the resurrection. Let us not beat, slay and rob people, but soften their hardness toward Christ and Christians by means of our own fulfilment of the law of God. Let us multiply our prayers, love, fasting and alms and our concern for those who are suffering, let us be zealous about the true essence of the faith; let our light so shine before people that they may glorify our heavenly Father and Christ. Let us overcome unbelief and impiousness among Christians first, and then concern ourselves with the Jews, "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:20-21).

The "Jewish question" in Imperial Russia is one of the most troubling and sorrowful aspects of the Empire, and indeed in Christianity itself. We recall that, while Saint Cyril of Alexandria (378-444) was a signicant theologian and Church father, he had a dark side that manifested itself in preaching sermons that incited pogroms against the Jewish community in Alexandria. Pogroms and persecution of Jews in Imperial Russia reached terrible levels in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and did not completely abate with the advent of Communism.

Vladika Antony, it is true, preached sermons against pogroms, and frequently condemned them. He considered Jews to be "beloved of God." But here, we find a dichotomy in his actions, and we cannot pass over this in silence. Berdyaev, Merezhovsky, Struve and others are certainly being vindictive and false in accusing Vladika Antony of Judaeophobia and inciting pogroms. They, together with Serge Bulgakov and others, were Marxists socialists and from the time of the condemnation of the anarchist and socialist movements, which Vladika included in his prophetic sermon of 1905, their hatred was roused toward him. They simply ignored how often he had prevented pogroms, and his powerful sermons against them. The charge of Judaeophobia was based on the cross processions which Vladika had allowed in Volhyn in the effort to reawaken people, especially Uniats, to the presence of Orthodoxy in those areas which had formerly been under the rule of the former Polish Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In part, Vladika's openness to the Union of Russian Peoples and the use of the cross processions was a reaction to the decades of attempts by these empires to "de-Russify" the citizens of Volhyn, Galich, Bukhovina and the Carpathian region and force the people into the Unia. What Vladika failed to do was to restrict these processions and insure that they did not enter purely Jewish area or villages. We do not know to what extent this took place, but the cross processions did sometimes result in unseemly actions from both sides. Sometimes some of the Jewish residents harassed cross processions, other times some of the people involved in the processions taunted the Jews. Tension became much higher after the 1905 revolution.

I do not want to suggest that Vladika Antony was without fault with regard to the anti-Semitism in Volhyn. At best he was a passive facilitator of it. Moreover, one should not be completely negative in response to the criticisms of Berdyaev and the others. Judaeophobia had been state policy in Russia since the 1600s. The early 20th century witnessed anti-Semit-ism that at times approached hysteria. In the 1903 pogrom in Kishinev, Bessarabia (Moldova) some 50,000 Jews were brutally massacred. It is difficult even to describe the imperial state repression and degradation of the Jewish population. Every manner of restricting and dehumanising legislation was passed against them. The government did little or nothing to protect them from terrorism and slaughter, and deprived them of the most basic rights. So heavy and desperate was their plight that it would have been beyond astonishing if many Jews had not joined, and in some cases led, the revolutionist movement in 1905.

As Archbishop Antony's reaction to the horrors of the revolution pushed him more toward conservatism he fell into some of the typical errors of the political right-wing in Russia. Seeing the Jewish community so much involved in the revolution, the Russian political right never stopped to consider what had motivated this and how it might have been properly resolved. Instead, the fell into reactionism and the mood among them was to add still more persecution and repression to the Jewish community. The advent of a parliament (the Duma) following the 1905 uprisings was gained by force and fear, not by an awakening to reality and an enlightenment. It did not go nearly far enough to prevent the great Civil War and victory of Communism. Like the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia was destroyed primarily by its own rulers and governing bodies.

Vladika Antony, with his great moral authority and the sincere love that people had for him, could have done much to ease this violent anti-Semitism, but he did not. Instead, he began to identify the Jewish communities with nihilism, anarchy and socialism. The legitimate complaints and aspiration of the Jewish population would never be addressed. Moreover, it was clearly demonstrated in 1917 that many of the Jewish complaints were shared by a broad spectrum of Russian society.

Vladika was keenly aware of the divisions in Russian society and the weaknesses in the ministry of the Russian Orthodox Church. He responded to these in a progressive manner and with fervour. One is left to puzzle over why, with his powerful denunciations of the pogroms and the fact that more than once he had condemned hatred of the Jews, he did not recognize and strive to do more about the actual problems. Eventually, in 1907, the Holy Synod did take steps to curb anti-Semitic rhetoric among Church leaders. Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow and many other hierarch were censured and reprimanded. Archbishop Antony Khrapovitsky was not among them. He was, however, directed to take steps against the Judaeophobic ranting coming from Hieromonk Isidor, editor of the Pochaev Listok. He should have done so long before and on his own initiative. The social attitudes which Vladika Antony developed after the 1905 revolution form the saddest and darkest part of his life story. This does not detract from his status as a Church father or from his ultimate sanctity. The fact remains that he was on the middle ground between the two schools of intellectuals at the time. On the left were the Marxists socialists Nikolai Berdyaev, P.B.Struve, Merezhovsky, Serge Bulgakov, Alexander Kerensky and others. The flirtation of most of these members of the intelligentsia with Marxism was short-lived, although Kerensky and several others remained ardent socialists. As the more religious members of this group became more firmly followers of the Western Gnostic philosopher Jakob Boehme (1574-1624), they drifted out of Marxism and into the Solovievan cult of the divine sophia. Together with Pavel Florensky, they began to call themselves "neo-Christians."

On the ultra-right were Alexander Dubrovin, Nikolai Markov, the Shakavskoys, Vostorgod and particularly Pavel Krushevan and secret police chief Protopopov. These latter created dangerous political trends which included an even more radical anti-Semitism and repression of all who were advocating more democracy and social justice, as well as the political left. While the extreme anti-Semetic political movement of Krushevan and others began to weaken after 1907, its virus continued to infect the atmosphere of pre-revolutionist Russia. The Civil War and the Bolshevist victory would see a continuation of anti-Semitism under the Communist government. It was no longer part of the state law, but the Jews continued to suffer.

Vladika Antony continued to warn against enamourment with the promises of the Socialist and Communist movements. Because of this he became subject to more and more personal attacks from the Socialist newspapers. N.A. Berdyaev, Merezhkovsky, P.B. Struve, also criticised Vladika for his loyalty to the Tsar.

To the accusation of Judaeophobia made against him by the Socialists, Archbishop Antony responded:

In fact, what really troubled these members of the intelligentsia, many, if not most, of whom were republicans and anti-monarchists, was Vladika Antony's steadfast devotion to Tsar Nicholas II. Perhaps this great hierarch and spiritual giant saw something in the Tsar that others missed, but his loyalty and love for the Tsar never waned. His error was not his loyalty but his support for autocracy against the concept of a democratic constitutional monarchy. Before the anarchy of 1905, he might have supported such an idea.

Antony Khrapovitsky preached against the pogroms, but he seems not to have attempted to influence the government to intervene and put and end to them

One must say a word specifically about the development of the Pogroms in Western Ukraine (Volhyn, Galich, Bukhovina and the Carpathian region, which had been occupied by the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Judaeophobia in this region developed from sources other than the Russian Imperial government. The Roman Catholic Church had developed the "Unia," a decoy jurisdiction that imitated the Orthodox Church in all external manifestations while maintaining all the errors of Rome in doctrine and teaching. This Eastern rite Catholic organisation, directed primarily by the Jesuit order in much of the area, had introduced the Latin doctrine that the Jews were all guilty of being "Christ killers." This is something that could become a doctrine in the Catholic Church because of the Augustinian doctrine of "Original Sin," which taught that sin could be genetic, that is, everyone born inherits the guilt of Adam's sin. Consequently, subsequent generations of Jews could inherit the guilt of those who had demanded the crucifixion of Christ. To be sure, Russians themselves were not innocent in the pogroms, but the Polish and Austrian occupations had exacerbated the tension by taking away the Orthodox churches in many towns and placing Jewish landlords over them. The Orthodox population often had to rent their own church from a Jewish landlord, appointed by the Roman Catholic officials in order to degrade and humiliate the Orthodox. Over several generations this naturally developed a feeling of animosity in the simple Orthodox peasants. Alas, the peasants and even some of the more educated Ukrainians and Russians turned Judaeophobia into an intense and virulent superstitions. The Imperial government made matters worse by incorporating anti-Semitism into civil law and, in many ways, encouraging this this social sickness.

While it is "politically incorrect" to say it, many of the Jews themselves were not innocent in creating the animosities. Several of the wealthier ones were part of the cartels that controlled prices on grain and other commodities, and often set them much higher than was reasonable. It is also true that many in the Jewish population had ridiculed the Cross processions and Paschal processions at Orthodox Churches. The outdoor processions and Theophany blessing of the waters were sometimes referred to as "psychological pogroms," and there were cases of harassment during the Paschal processions. Every outdoor actvity of the Orthodox communities was branded a "pogrom." This does not mean that one may exonerate the Russian and Ukrainian populations. Many of them certainly had developed a racist hatred of Jews and freely participated in actual pogroms. These pogroms were similar to the ones in the United States during that era. Although Jews and synagogues were often the target in the Southern states in America, the pogroms were mostly against African-Americans, and involved many murders without conscience. Racism is a form of apostasy because it refuses to recognise that God created all of mankind, and that all human beings are in the image and likeness of God.

Vladika Antony strove the reconcile these disparate forces. He genuinely considered the Jews to be beloved by God but was not willing to put an end to such normal Orthodox practices and the processions and outdoor blessing of water.

In addition to this problem, their had been very strenuous efforts on the part of both Polish and Austrian officials to alienate the Russian and Rusin populations in this Western region from Russia. The double aggression against both the Orthodox Church and the Russian nation had resulted in the creation of an organisation called The Union of Russian People, an organisation strongly supported by Saint John of Kronstadt, who was himself a member. Because many monastics had been in the resistance against the propaganda and attempts at permanently separating the area from Russia and forcing the population to become Roman Catholic, Catholic officials and Polish overlords had labelled them "the black hundred" (because the monks wore black cassocks). The Union of Russian People was dedicated to educating the population and resisting the separatist movements. At least some of them had indeed been involved in pogroms, but the extent cannot be known for certain because the propaganda war in this region made accurate knowledge of such issues confused and exaggerated. Pogroms were certainly not part of their policy.

We know that Vladika Antony inherited these problems when he came into Volhyn, and that he attempted to insure that the Union of Russian People served a positive purpose both as a force for unity among the peoples of Rus', and as a charity and relief organisation. Saint John of Kronstadt had great influence on Vladika and, indeed, throughout all of Russia. Neither Saint John of Kronstadt nor Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky were Judeaophobes or anti-Semitic, although neither of them was completely without fault in this area. The accusation of Judeophobia was levelled at the orgainisation itself by the leftwing intelligentsia and others, and we cannot suggest that there was no substance to the accusations. Matters were not nearly so clear and concrete in Western Russia at that time. Church life in the eparchy was on a decline. Catholic propaganda kept intensifying and on a parallel to it, sectarianism was developing. There was no missionary work in the eparchy and there wasn't even an eparchial missionary before the arrival of Vladika Antony. Meanwhile, Zhitomir was a centre for Catholic activity in the southwestern regions of Russia. At the time, the two Roman Catholic bishops in the city were renowned for their education and pious way of life. The work would have seemed hopeless to many and any other archpastor would have thrown his hands up in despair, but such was not Vladika Antony. His activity here was especially fruitful. He established and re-invigorated seminaries and church schools, and brought about a rebirth of the monastic spirit.

Pochaev and the Saint Job Publising House

His most lasting work in Volhyn, aside from his own writings, was the establishment of the printing brotherhood of St Job of Pochaev at the ancient Pochaev Monastery.

Before the appointment of Vladika Antony to the Volhyn Cathedra, the Pochaev Lavra had borne only a purely provincial significance. The spiritual life of the Lavra was not at a high level. It was an idiorhythmic monastery, where monks were even allowed to eat meat. On Vladika's recommendation, a new superior was appointed to the Lavra, his pupil, Archimandrite Ambrosy, who had received his monastic training at one of the best Russian Monasteries, the Glinsk Hermitage, under the guidance of experienced elders. During the tenure of Vladika Antony, the Pochaev Lavra had been quickly transformed. Soon, in its rules and length of divine services, and in the behaviour among the brethren, it differed little from the strict coenobitic monasteries. Near the Lavra, for lovers of silence, there were built three sketes: the Holy Spirit, Zagaetsky, and St. George.

The sacred relics of St. Job of Pochaev were, by the intercessions of Vladika Antony, solemnly carried over from underneath the church, and placed in a beautiful casket in the church for the people's veneration. Vladika managed to have the Holy Synod permit the establishment of the Feast of the Uncovering of the Relics of St. Job on 28 August.

Vladika Antony spent a significant part of the year in the Lavra. He was present there for major feasts, serving the appointed services and giving homilies. With the coming to life of the spiritual regime in the Lavra, the number of pilgrims began to grow, bringing up to several tens of thousands to the monastery.

The brethren of the Lavra deeply honoured their reformer and father. This love is evident from an address composed by the monks of the Lavra on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of his service as a hierarch:

The main Lavra Church had been designed by the Catholics and services in it had to be held while facing west. Vladika Antony decided to build, in the monastery courtyard, a huge church in honour of the Holy Trinity, a copy of the Trinity Sobor at the Trinity-Sergiev Lavra, but twice its size. The Sobor was warm, designated for entire services and it could hold up to 2,000 people. It was solemnly dedicated on 9 January 1912. The newly built Sobor was nicknamed "the Antony church."

Busy with cares for establishing the moral and religious influence of the Pochaev Lavra, Vladika Antony turned his attention to the fact that the text of the services to the Pochaev Saints was unsatisfactory. Having decided to write new services, Vladika left for the Lavra in winter. He led the life of an ordinary monk, rising at midnight, attending all services, and conversing with the elders of the monastery. In the hours free from divine services he wrote, with fasting and prayer, a service and Akathist to the Pochaev Theotokos the first winter and the second winter to Saint Job. These services are remarkable for their simplicity, depth of content, and they breathe with a heavenly inspiration. They were published and began to be used throughout the Russian Church.

The Pochaev Lavra had been idiorhythmic for a long time and it was difficult to at once change the rule to a coenobitic one, although Vladika Antony always had this in mind. To this end, he offered Archimandrite Vitaly to organize in the Lavra a printing brotherhood based on a coenobitic life, so that it would enter into the composition of the Lavra. The entire brotherhood of the Lavra totalled up to 360 persons, and the printing brotherhood together with its students and workers totalled up to 150 persons. Being a part of it was completely voluntary. At first, then, the 150 monks entered the strict coenobitic life, and this reached out to the others without any compulsion. Archimandrite Vitaly showed himself to be an example of strict ascetic life and unceasing toil for the national-missionary and educational work. The Lavra printing press soon turned into one of the largest publishing houses in Russia.

Bishop Antony paid special attention to the serving of the correct services. In Great Lent he served each Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and, beginning with Lazarus Saturday to Thomas Sunday he served every day. He preached sermons on the Gospel at each liturgy.

In the cathedral church he built a basement chapel in honour of St. Anastasia of Rome, in which was placed a specially built silver case with relics of St. Anastasia. Vladika Antony made 13 June a celebration in honour of the Holy Martyr in order to attract Orthodox people away from visiting Catholic services in honour of Antony of Padua on that day.

A lengthy Polish influence was reflected in the clergy of the Volhyn area. For the most part they were cold and distant from the flock and did not serve them as a necessary moral example. He strove to encourage the clergy to develop a sincere love for and closeness to their flocks. Moreover, he set the example for this himself.

Vladika Antony was deeply concerned about the negative relationship between so many of the hierarchs and priest and the faithful. He saw how the world so deeply influenced the young people, while the clergy had little contact with them and even less influence in their lives. Many times he wrote to the Holy Synod about this, but was never heeded.

Not by words alone but also by his example, Vladika Antony was a model of a truly "good shepherd." He opened the doors of his archiepiscopal residence to all and everyone at all times. He said of himself, "I am the peasant's hierarch, not a lordly one, nor am I a Polish one, but your Russian bishop whose doors are always open." He received with love and kindness everyone who turned to him, and this opened the hearts of the people to him. The clergy felt in him a true father, wise and a self-denying guide and thus willingly strengthened their struggle.

In order to achieve a closeness with the people and with his flock, Vladika Antony appealed to the pastors first of all to give birth to a spiritual life within themselves. One must penetrate into the words of prayer with piety, the blessed one taught. He addressed a problem which is, alas, all to common in our own 21st century North America. The desire of those who refuse to be penetrated with the spiritual treasure of the divine services and traditional piety. Rather than learn the spiritual power of the divine services and be transformed by it, they wish to reshape both the divine services and the architecture of the church to suit their own undisciplined, self-centred passions. Vladika Antony addressed such problems with these words:

"First of all you will see with amazement that all our divine services contain in themselves with every stikhira, with every Psalm, no other content but precisely answers to these questions of the spirit, answers given by God to the soul, which is ailing in the struggle with passions. They comfort it by the recalling of the miracles of the Saviour and His saints and by the promises of God's grace-filled help. When you grasp this, you will change the all too common degraded relationship toward Orthodox services: you will shame your earlier haughty relationship to the divine service discipline, to the prostrations given by the typikon, fasts, vigilance; you will become alien the desire to fill the services with the newest self-willed novelties, with the grossness of Italian music...

...In returning to the Orthodox services the wealth of its content and the simplicity of its form, you will see with amazement how quickly the zeal of the people will grow in it and at the same time, how quickly your personal pastoral authority will rise in the eyes of the people ... And, if you desire that your words be indelibly inscribed in the hearts of the people, then take the Lives of the Saints and the Prologue...and strive to confirm every truth, every rule of virtue by the example of the saints..."

Vladika Antony paid attention to the fasting of the parishioners. In one of his epistles he remarks that "...in the Western regions, the commandments of the Apostles and the rules of the Holy Church are not fulfilled, and people do not strengthen themselves by prayer and fasting before confession and the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, but approach them unworthily right from their worldly affairs..."

In 1906, Vladika Antony began the reestablishment of an ancient Volhynian holy place, the basilica church in the city of Ovruch. The rebuilding of the church was completed in 1911. Academician Shchusier was its builder and the church was in the style of the 11th century creating a strong impression. The interior was decorated with appropriate iconography. Archbishop Antony was particular about the iconography. He did not think it beneficial to criticise icons that had been venerated by the simple people for a long time. Instead he wrote and spoke about correct iconography and admired the way the Old Believers had preserved a more canonical style of icons. In one of his epistles to iconographers instructing them not to paint kneeling figures, he wrote the following:

It is an axiom of contemporary art that art demands historical truth but, it is constantly violated in this detail of religious art: we often see, in pictures depicting the Gospel history or the lives of saints, figures which are kneeling and, moreover, sometimes on one knee, even with palms pressed together. There was nothing even similar to this in either Hebrew or Orthodox Christian life up to the 18th century, when such poses began to be practised in our society in imitation of the Latins amongst whom they were accepted long ago. The ancient Hebrews and Orthodox Christians never knelt, but prayed either standing or else prostrating with face to the floor (see: Canons of the Ecumenical Councils; 91st Canon of St Basil the Great). Old Believers and Greeks [until the Episcopalianisation of the Church began in North America] have never knelt, and at the exclamation of the deacon: "Again and again on bended knee, let us pray to the Lord!" they prostrate themselves face down, and, in the Old Believers expression, "press the face to the leaf."

The term expressed in Divine Scripture and Divine Service books, "bending the knees" does not signify standing on the knees, but precisely signifies prostrating face down, with the head and knees bent to the floor.

Thus, in the Gospel according to Luke, we read, "...and Himself went away from them about a stone's throw and, bending the knee, prayed, saying..." (22:41), and in Matthew's Gospel, the same event is stated thus: "...and going away a little, He fell upon His face on the ground and prayed saying..." (26:39).

In those instances where mention is made of kneeling, in the western, Latin manner, the Gospel uses a different expression: "...and they stood on their knees...and mocked Him" (Mt.27:29), or: "...they kept kneeling in homage to Him" (Mk.15:19). Let us note, incidentally, that the Old Beliervers, in censuring the contemporary custom of standing on the knees, always cite this offensive similarity to the Roman soldiers who had mocked the Saviour.

This is why you will not encounter a single kneeling figure in a single old ikon. Only a priest who is reading a prayer from a book before a prostrate congregation (as on Holy Trinity Day) may raise his body and head; but in the service of Holy Pentecost, we are directed to bring prayers, "with bended neck and knees", from which it is evident that the Old Believer manner of lying face down more correctly corresponds to the service. The same must be said about bended knees at the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts, at the singing of "Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee..." when the congregation is instructed to bend the knees.

Judge for yourselves how unpleasant it is for an informed worshipper to see on ikons, as for example in the Moscow Church of the Saviour, St Dimitry of the Don in the pose of a contemporary horse-guard, on one knee before St Serge, or ikons of the Annunciation in which the Most Holy Virgin and the Angel are kneeling before each other... and sometimes even with Latin entwined fingers or palms pressed together, pointing upward or outward [as, for example, in the famous "praying hands" picture]. Such absurd versions are encountered in Latin pictures of the Meeting, the Adoration of the Magi, etc. Orthodox Christians, when praying, place their hands cross-like on the breast, or raise them upward in the form of a crucifixion.

Artists might be interested to know the psychology of this difference between Orthodox and western worship. I think that it is defined by the general ethos of both cultures. The East (Hebrew and Christian) built its worship of God on the idea of our culpability before God and of the contrition of one's sinful unworthiness before the Divine Holiness. To be pious, according to the understanding of ancient Hebrews and Orthodox Christians, means first of all to be humble, to debase one's pride, a condition without which, the Lord rejects all struggles of restraint and mercifulness (Mt.6:1-6).

Bowing the head in repeated reverences from the waist, or the complete prostration of the body with the head on the floor, expresses in itself precisely such a disposition in one who is praying and yielding himself, as one who is culpable, wholly into obedience under the authority of God

The Western religious consciousness, on the contrary, does not separate itself from its inherent juridical tint, and has the character of a concordat with God, as is denoted in the Latin word "religion", i.e., bond. There the worshippers do not like to lower their heads to the ground, but willingly stand on the knees (kneel) as if lessening their stature before the mentally present Divinity: confessing Him to be pre-eminent before themselves, recognizing their weakeness (in a physical sense) in comparison with Him, but with the preservation of personal ambition. In connection with a similar character of religious self-consciousness, the West evolved understandings, quite absurd from a truly Christian point of view, such as: noble pride, noble self-love. Our Holy Fathers spoke only about demon pride.

Though brief, this historical and psychological summary, will explain why, on ikons (or pictures) from Scriptural or Church history, one must never portray a kneeling figure.

Having completed the construction of the church, Vladika Antony established a women's monastic community headed by Abbess Paula, upon whom was laid the task of caring for and preserving it. Tsar Nicholas II came for the consecration, a solemn event which brought many thousands of pilgrims from all over the Volhynian Eparchy.
Vladika Antony also restored the ancient Mstislav Sobor in Vladimiro-Volhynia.

The All-Russian Missionary Conference, held at Kiev in 1908-09 was predominantly influenced by Vladika Antony, and its conclusions and decisions were far-reaching and radical The Synod and Emperor, however, refused to apply them, and in their place, they introduced wavering, indecisive half-measures which were too limp and too late. It is noteworthy that, at the Conference, Vladika Antony was strongly opposed by a group of "Christian Socialists." Some significant members of the clergy advocated this move toward socialism. They endorsed the Personalism of Mikhailovsky and the social revolutionists, even though they had carried out violent pogroms against the Jews and other acts of terrorism. This group targeted Archbishop Antony Khrapovitsky primarily because the radical reforms he advocated were both patristic and pastoral. He held that the faithful and the clergy must be educated in Traditional Orthodox Christianity and worship, whereas the Christian Socialists group advocated social and civil action to establish a form of socialism in Russia. Education and missionary work for them was using the Church as a means of rousing social and civil action against the government. As it was, Vladika Antony, being deeply concerned about the divisions and splits in Russian society, advocated a different approach to them. He dominated the conference and, as mentioned above, led in formulating extensive and far-reaching reforms in the Church, first and foremost the reestablishment of the Patriarchate. Many of those who opposed Vladika at this conference would later be found creating the Renovationist or "Living Church" schism against Patriarch Saint Tikhon.

Vladika Antony remained a prophet whose voice was crying in the wilderness. He was called to the centre of Church administration when a solution had to be found to a serious question which was coming to a head, but the Synodal administration, fearing the clear, decisive measures which he suggested, and offended by his sharp criticisms about the realities of conditions, pushed him aside and kept him away from the centre of the administration, sending him to the Volhynia and Kharkov cathedras. He was never allowed into the Russian heartland where he could have been of great value. Indeed, even though it was predominantly through his personal efforts that the celebration of the Glorification of Russian Saints was resumed, he was never allowed to attend a single glorification service. Out of sheer malice, he was not invited to them by the Synod. Perhaps the main reason for this was that the Tsar and the Oberprocurator of Religion had announced that there were enough saints in the calendar and that there would be no further glorification of saints. Vladika Antony was not satisfied with this and, by long and arduous struggle, lectures, sermons and letters, he managed to have the pronouncement overturned.

After the Kiev missionary conference, he was seldom called to attend the Church Congresses (Sobors).

Soon after the Kiev missionary conference, he published his second appeal to the clergy on the importance of keeping the fasts, in which he writes that the epistle about fasting "...had a good effect. In the churches of Zhitomir, and in many village churches, from Clean Monday to the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the churches were daily filled with people who piously listened to the holy services and the Prayers for Holy Communion which, until then, they had not known."

In his pastoral talk in 1910, Vladika pointed out to the clergy the danger they encounter in serving the divine services. He cited examples when a priest "...teaches the people not to be interested in the service, but in his own personality. He makes himself not the leader of prayer, but only an actor. Some priests omit some of the readings and chanting of Psalms with the aim of being the centre of attention to the people. This is the delusion of vainglory. Another delusion is extreme pietism and a kind of extreme clericalism which creates an individualism in prayer on the part of the priest. The one serving looks upon public services as if they existed only for himself. They and others change the essence of the services into the commemoration of the living and the dead. Some read the Canons for Holy Communion privately in the altar, while not knowing which Canon is being read on the kliros."

Vladika Antony paid special attention to missionary work among the Orthodox Christians, to help restore a knowledge of the faith and an understanding of the divine services. Above all, he focussed on the quality of the preaching of the Gospel. He appointed two diocesan missionaries in the Volhyn Eparchy to visit parishes and teach. In the episcopal residence, a large hall was built, holding up to 1,000 people. In this hall from the middle of September to the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and then after Theophany to the Feast of Holy Pascha, there were held lectures on religious-moral themes and discussions about missionary and educational questions. At the lectures, which were given by clergy selected by Vladika, there usually were from 500 to 800 people present. When Vladika himself spoke or when there were discussions with representatives of Old Believers or conversations with sectarians, there were even more than 1,000 people, so that the hall was overfilled.

In the villages and towns, a powerful missionary tool was the Cross processions organized by the Pochaev Lavra under the guidance of Archimandrite Vitaly (Maximenko) and by the missionaries from Zhitomir. Usually several thousand peasants took part in the Cross processions which were accompanied by divine services and chanting, missionary talks, and the handing out of leaflets and missionary literature. The intent was to reinvigorate the spirit of the faithful and draw them back into participation in worship. In this region, which had been previously conquered by the former Polish-Lithuanian Empire and partly by the Austrian Empire, manifestations of the Orthodox faith had been heavily persecuted and curtailed. It was now necessary to make the faithful feel that they could safely participate once more.

While filling the lack of priests, Vladika Antony strove to attract suitable laymen into the clergy. For this purpose he created a pastoral school named for Father John of Kronstadt. The way of life of the school approached, as much as possible, that of a monastery. Vladika Antony felt that all priests should learn how to struggle with their own passions and inner problems before they could truly help others to struggle with theirs. Only with such spiritual preparation could a priest hope to attain to a sincere co-suffering love for his flock. In fact, seminary training in Russia at that time generally followed the Latin/Protestant mode of technical preparation, without any real thought for the spiritual preparation of the clergy. They might be able to serve the divine services with military precision, but could do little to help people with real problems and the struggle with the passions. They served as performers of liturgies, but not as healers of souls. It was another instance of Vladika becoming unpopular with the central administration that he constantly argued for a complete overhaul of the seminary and spiritual academy educational systems. He argued that not only should the students be taught critical thinking, but they must be brought into a life of spiritual struggle and growth, in addition to his already known concern about preaching and knowledge of the Scripture. In his seminaries and training school there were daily prayers, participation in the fulfilling of the daily cycle of divine services, the reading of lives of the saints at mealtime, and fasting in all four lenten periods. There was regular confession and guidance in prayer and inner struggle with the passions. The course was set for three years ("the time of a monastic trial," i.e., the period of time one remained a novice training for monasticism). There had grown up a perception in Russia that if one wanted to pursue spiritual growth, one became a monastic while clergy who would be married priests were simply not trained in spiritual life. This left them not well equipped to help members of their flock with deep spiritual and personal issues. In the institutions in Vladika's diocese, all the teachers were priests and the students wore cassocks. In a few years this institution began to flourish.

At that time in Russia there was no special school for educating the lower clergy, the readers, subdeacons and deacons. Vladika Antony received permission from the Holy Synod to open a two-year school for readers, deacons, subdeacons and Church school teachers, as well as those who taught the faith in elementary schools. This school was opened in 1911 near the Pochaev Lavra. Through Vladika Antony's persistent efforts, similar schools were opened in other eparchys, modelled after this school.

Vladika was also concerned about the way people approached confession. Often, they gave no thought and made no preparation for confession, but muttered a few words simply in order to receive the priest's prayer and approach Holy Communion.

Eventually, Vladika's efforts bore fruit. Both the clergy and the faithful in many places of the eparchy were renewed in prayer and fasting. They began to take seriously a meaningful preparation for confession and Holy Communion.

The prayers before Holy Communion began to be read in the parishes, whereas previously the people had not even before been aware of their existence. Little by little, the blessed one was able to restore proper preparation for Communion. He also achieved another of his goals: he got the priests to serve the divine services more slowly and clearly so that each word of the services could be heard. He strove to accomplish the same thing with the Church singing, to purge it of the theatrics of many of the choir directors (especially those who fancied themselves composers), and restore pious, worshipful singing. Vladika Antony especially loved the compunctious congregational singing of the Carpatho-Russians and Rusins.

Vladika Antony paid much attention to the matter of the education of the lay people. At the head of all the church-parish schools of his eparchy, he placed one of the inspired students of Professor S. A. Rachinsky. In order to raise the spiritual level of the teachers, Vladika transferred the school for church leaders, which prepared future teachers, from Zhitomir to the Trinity Dermansky Monastery. The students were thus exposed to a churchly, ordered atmosphere. At the head of the school he placed one of his students, Archimandrite Pachomy (Kedrov), who subsequently became Archbishop of Chernigov and suffered martyrdom from the Bolsheviks. Thanks to such fruitful measures, the once insignificant number of church-parish schools of the Volhyn Eparchy reached 1,600, more than double the average number of schools in other eparchys. He argued to the central administration that such schools were urgently necessary, and that they should consist in more than mere catechisms. Again, little attention was paid to his arguments about the separation between the people and the clergy, and the lack of knowledge and understanding of the faith on the part of the laity. 

Vladika Antony had always been popular with the progressive elements in Russian society. This included many of the younger hierarchs, a sizeable number of which had been his students. Even among some of the most liberal intellectuals, he was respected and admired. Vladika had often condemned racism and classism, had sought to make both Church leaders and the government more open to the people. He had not only strongly condemned the pogroms against the Jews, but was concerned about the conditions of ordinary peasants and workers. Although he loved Tsar Nicholas and was unshakeably loyal to him, he once warned that there existed a division between the throne and the people, just as he had warned the central administration of the Russian Church of such a breach between the Church and the people.

The 1905 revolution so shocked him by its savageness and lust for blood, and by its anarchy, that he began to take a change in direction regarding many issues. He had always been a patriot, but now he intensified this with a stronger support for the Tsar and a longing to see order and peace restored in the nation. He had predicted a revolution long before this, but when it came, it horrified him to the degree that he became more conservative in his outlook. Yet he was still deeply troubled by the separation he knew was there between the Sovereign and much of Russian society. Unfortunately he himself miscalculated the need for democratic initiatives and reforms and indeed, came to the opposite conclusion from the 1905 revolution and anarchist movement. Why we did not see hierarchs condemning the government for the events of Bloody Sunday in 1905, however, remains an unsettling mystery. It was that even, more than anything else that took place in 1905, that gave the Communists their base and made their victory in the Civil War inevitable.

Among the views that Vladika Antony did not change was his desire to see the patriarchate restored and the civil authorities withdraw from interference in the life of the Church.

As the revolutionary movement intensified, Vladika Antony, despite his popularity amidst the most progressive elements in society, strengthened his condemnations of the "Free-Thinking Movement" of the anarchist and nihilists, and began to speak more often about the significance of the Tsarist authority for Russia, seeing in the anti-monarchist sentiments the collapse of Russia itself. In the heat of the revolution, on 21 October 1905, in the Zhitomir cathedral Vladika Antony gave a prophetic sermon about the Russian revolution and the catastrophe that lay ahead.

The Christian Socialist or "Neo-Christian" movement among the intelligentsia in Russia was certainly not the only spiritual difficulty of the 19th and early 20th century in Russia. The theosophical movement had become strong and spiritualism was quite popular. There were even incidences of hierarchs and high government officials participating in seances. All these issues weighed heavily upon the heart of the beloved hiearch, and the nihilism and anarchy of 1905 caused him deep distress.

On 20 February 1905, while in St. Petersburg, Vladika Antony gave a prophetic sermon in St. Isaak's Cathedral "On the Dread Judgement and Contemporary Events." In this sermon, he appealed to the people to pray that the Lord "...not allow the simple Russian people to become infected with society's drifting confusion, that the people continue to clearly understand who their enemies are and who their friends are, that they always preserve their dedication to the Emperor as the only higher authority friendly to them." He prophetically warned that in their wavering, the people would become the most unfortunate of all peoples, enslaved not by former overbearing landowners, but by the enemies of the bases of their thousand-year Christian life so sacred and dear to them." They would become controlled by brutal and cruel enemies who would begin by removing the study jof the Faith from schools, and end by destroying churches and casting out the relics of God's saints, slaughtering the clergy and believing people.

This prophetic sermon of Vladika Antony, given in the capital, attracted much attention and brought forth a storm of objections from the socialist press. With an accusatory article against Vladika, Dimitry Merezhkovsky, who had gained a well deserved literary reputation, accused Vladika Antony of poisoning the simple Russian people against the Russian intelligentsia. Other critical articles appeared by Berdyaev, Struve, and others. Merezhovsky considered himself to be a mystical prophet of a religious revolution (as he publicly declared). An ardent Freemason, he affiliated himself with various spiritualist and mystical movements across Russia. One of the founders of a movement called "The God Seekers," and "Spiritual Christians," he was criticised for "psychological extremism" by critics of his writings. He was associated for some time with the "mystical anarchism" of George Chulkov. Merezhovsky would later become one of the influences on the St. Serge Academy in Paris, where he died in 1941. This branch of the intellegentsia were primarily "Christian socialists" who desired the continued subjugation of the Church to the state, and the change of the state into a socialist republic. Many of the intelligentsia were members of masonic lodges and strove for the masonic concept of a "new world order." While they certainly had many positive and beneficial ideas, they were too strident to be open to productive dialogue. In the end, they helped to create a situation in Russia from which they themselves had to flee.

It is a curious irony in the shifting sands of social development that the appearance of Freemasonry in Russia helps shed light on the work and passion of Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky. The masonic lodge was deeply embedded in the rise of the Russian intelligentsia.

Peter I had transformed the Russian state, introducing a professional bureaucracy and advancement based on merit rather than position in the nobility. The old aristocracy, however, had held it position by means of service to the tsar. The aristocrats had become ingrained with the concept of service, and they often suffered a great deal personally for the sake of this service. Their own freedoms were curtailed and their military and civil obligations were often burdensome in the extreme. When Peter I deprived the aristocracy of this role of service, the members of this class sought elsewhere for purpose and meaning to their positions. The more enlightened younger members of this old nobility turned their energies to other pursuits which would lead eventually to the formation of the "intelligentsia" in Russia. This rising corps of intellectuals, inspired by Hegel's concept of history as evolution and by other Western philosophers such as Schelling. The Hegelians, led by Nikolai Stankovich, Alexander Herzen (the founder of Russian Socialism), the nihilist anarchist Mikahil Bakunin and political activist Vissarion Belensky, were opposed to monarchy and attracted to Western European culture. Many of the Hegelians became Marxists. The followers of Schelling, on the other hand, tended to be patriotic, even nationalistic. They were inclined to support the autacracy. Many of the Slavophiles belonged to this school. Paradoxically, Soloviev was also attracted to Schelling.

Among many of the younger memebers of the old nobility, the tradition of service was rechanelled into a desire to educate the peasants and workers, the "common people," instilling in them a sense of self-worth and personhood.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Church was not a viable instrument for such enterprises, although there had been a movement in this direction in the Spiritual Academies in the earlier part of the 19th century, particularly in Kazan and Saint Petersburn. As mentioned before, the Church itself had been merged into the state bureaucracy and was in many ways crippled by the imperial state. It could not function in any independent way, and was hampered from carrying out its actual mission. Priests were poorly educated in an atmosphere if desiccated scholasticism. Not only the peasantry, but much of the mercantile and town classes were infected with superstitions that masqueraded as faith. Elaborate and abstract ritual clouded the divine Liturgy and served as a replacement for knowledge and understanding. Many members of the old nobility, now disconnected from the emperor, turned their attention to the ordinary citizens, seeking an anchor, and some means of manifesting their orientation toward service. While much of this attitude was romantic and utopian, the more responsible members of this developing corps of intellectuals sincerely sought to reach out to and unite with the peasants and workers. When the Masonic Lodge appeared in the late 1700s, it seemed an ideal vehicle for fulfilling this vision. Much of the intelligensia became alienated from the Orthodox Church and sought out Western philosophies such as "Free Thinking," the Gnostic mysticism of Jacob Boehm and the tenets of the Masonic Lodge, as spiritual and intellectual bases for their new direction.

Vladika Antony was keenly aware of these problems within the Russian Church. He clearly understood that, so long as the Church was tied to the state bureacracy, it was crippled. Only during the tenure of the great metropolitan St. Philaret of Moscow (+1867) had the Russian Church gained some measure of breathing space from the stiffling atmosphere of the heavy state apparatus.

While, before 1905, Vladika Antony was considered a progressive, and was himself part of the intellectual ferment in Russia, he now turned to a different path in reaction to the new circumstances.

Vladika Antony lived in two often conflicting ideological worlds. He was a progressive thinker who had a keen awareness of the era in which he lived. He strove to modernise the educational system, particularly in the seminaries and academies and he was painfully aware of the degeneration within the Church and the alienation of the clergy from the faithful.

Nevertheless, emotionally, he was "pre-Petrine." Like so many Slavophiles or pan-slavists, he held the image of a pre-Petrine "Holy Rus'" in which a God-anointed tsar ruled the nation as an extended household, a patrimony rather than a nation-state. The tsar was the "little father of Rus'" and the Patriarch the holy father of the Church. Intellectually, he was deeply connected to the modern world of the newly dawned 20th century. Emotionally, he appears to have lived in the world of Michael and Philaret Romanov — the tsar and Patriarch who had emerged from The Time of Troubles. Indeed, he seems to have linked the 1905 rebellion with The Time of Troubles, from which only an autocratic tsar could redeem Russia. After 1905, this emotional side of Vladika seems to have dominated the matrix of his intellectual terms of reference, as it did with a whole group of the Russian intellectuals. Ideas and concepts from the West that could have served Russia well at this time unsettled them and roused their suspicions. The development of Russian intellectualism does not appear to have prepared many of the Russian thinkers to clearly distinguish the genuinely progressive and creative from the radical and destructive. Both the left and the right made poor choices in this regard.

On 6 May 1906, Vladika, for his work for the benefit of the Church, was elevated to the rank of Archbishop. In that same year, by the decision of the Holy Synod, he became a member of the State Council. He was, however, still seldom called to Saint Petersburg unless there was a very serious problem to be dealt with. Unfortunately, the higher authorities did not recognise or grasp the most serious problems in Russia.

Vladika was deeply concerned about the tearing apart of Russia and divisions appearing in the peoples of Russia. He was also distressed by the advantage being taken of the common people in times of famine or shortages. For this reason, though perhaps with less wisdom, he did not object when the Pochaev Lavra fostered the "Union of Russian Peoples," uniting as many people as possible, almost two million civil and social activists all across Russia. This Union established several central storehouses for the needy. During a famine it brought from Chelyabinsk seventy-five rail cars of cheap flour, and by that compelled the cartels to lower the price by 18 kopecks per poad, thus breaking their profiteering syndicate. This, of course, benefitted all the citizens, Orthodox, Jews and Polish Catholics alike. The grateful people and village clergy in Volhyn turned to Archimandrite Vitaly for guidance and recommendations about who should be elected to the newly established Duma (parliament). Most of the people had little education and did not understand the matter of the elections, nor did most of them know what the Duma (parliament) might be, but since the Union of Russian Peoples had shown them such great benefit, only the candidates recommended by Father Vitaly were elected and entered the Duma. This angered the liberal Cadet Party, and they labelled him "the dictator of the south-western area." Few people would have voted for the Cadet Party in any case, as they had done nothing at all for anyone, but were full of meaningless promises. Looking back, with the advantage of knowledge about events that had not yet occurred, it would have been better had Vladika Antony curtailed Fr Vitaly's attempts to influence politics in this manner. One might also wish that he had taken upon himself to silence the radical anti-Semite, Fr Iliodore, editor of the Pochaev News.Vladika did not dismiss him until 1907, when he sent him away to Saratov.

Soon after the consecration of the restorations in Ovruch, Vladika was called to St. Petersburg for a regular session of the Synod. On 30 October 1911, in the Annunciation Church of the Synodal Podvorya, while Vladika was serving, Trifonov, a mentally unstable former student of the Kazan Spiritual Academy in Kazan, made an attempt on the life of Vladika Antony. While Vladika was censing the church, he pushed some people aside and rushed at Vladika with a naval dagger, and had already raised his arm to strike a blow, but a pilgrim standing nearby, a person of large size, grabbed him around the body. The dagger slid along the vestments, striking a metallic button on the great omophor and wounded Vladika Antony's left arm.

At his trial, Trifonov announced that he doubted in the existence of God and decided to test his doubts by trying to kill the best hierarch in Russia so that, if God truly existed, He would save His servant. His choice fell upon Archbishop Antony. The attempted murder was not successful and he now returned again to the faith. The student was held in jail, but Vladika Antony visited him several times, comforted him and obtained his release, securing employment for him. Many people visited Vladika on the day after the attempt on his life and he received about two-hundred telegrams of sympathy. Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem telegraphed: "We raise thanksgiving to God for the preservation of your precious life, so necessary for the good of the Orthodox Church. Damian."

Vladika Antony was steadfastly opposed to anarchy, not only as a monarchist, but also from a pastoral and humanist point of view. His public opposition to nihilism and anarchy created a strong hostility toward him by all those groups.

Various anarchist committees wrote to Vladika informing him that he was sentenced to death. An Italian anarchist newspaper sent him a printed death sentence. He replied to them: "I ask you, sirs, not to threaten me, but if you like, kill me when it pleases you, since my doors are always open. I never have any kind of guard, and it would be much better to die than to have to see your iniquities."

The outstanding gift, the deep knowledge, the clear mind of Vladika Antony and his self-denying activity for the Church and the nation could not but attract the attention of the Church and government circles of Russia, and the question arose why such a hierarch does not stand in the centre of Russian Church life. Several times the question arose about appointing him to one of the Russian Metropolatinates, but each time this appointment had been put aside.

During the uprisings in 1905, when Russian society felt a need for a firm, uncompromising hierarch at the Cathedral of the capital, it was recommended that Vladika Antony be transferred from Volhyn to St. Petersburg. This matter was so completely decided that Metropolitan Antony (Vadkovsky), the current hierarch, had informed Vladika Antony about his impending transfer to the capital city. Vladika Antony, however, was a strict advocate of canonical order in matters of the Church administration. He considered the removal of a ruling hierarch by the civil authorities to be an anti-canonical act. He openly stated this and declined the office. Vladika Antony was very much opposed to the government's control of the Church, both because it was uncanonical and because the Church could, thereby, be manipulated for political and diplomatic purposes. While he could have cordial relations with the Oberprocurator of the Church, he was anxious to see the office abolished and replaced with the restoration of the Patriarchate. Vladika was also wary of the fact that several members of the Imperial court and government would have liked to be rid of Vadkovsky, whom they considered to be too liberal.

As 1912 dawned, a new problem arose, which had to be faced by the Russian Church. In the Caucasus region, a new heresy arose which quickly spread to Mount Athos. The heresy concerned the name or names of God. We will not discuss the details of this heresy here, but it appears to have been based both on the Islamic veneration of the 99 names of God, which may very well have influenced the origins of the heresy in the Caucasus area, and Khlystism. It also had much in common with the neo-pagan idea that the name of a god contained the essence of that god. The sect called Khlyst believed that if they gave a holy name to a person, the person became that god or saint whose name had been given to him. Thus, they had a drunken peasant whom they worshipped as Christ, and another who was supposedly Michael the Archangel because they had officially given him that name. This concept had some similarity to the Hindu Prana-prastistha in which the essence of the deity enters into a statue and the god represented actually inhabits it. This matter was complicated still more by the fact that this heresy also presupposed that the name of God referred only to His essence and not to His uncreated Energies. The Greek Church quickly condemned this teaching when it reached Mount Athos, but it continued to spead among the Russian monks, creating disturbances, divisions, rebellion and even violent actions. Archbishop Antony Khrapovitsky lead the exposing and critique of this heresy. It had become so serious that, in the end, more than 1000 monks were removed from Mount Athos because they had formed a sect around the "worship of the holy name."

Vladika Antony had a negative view of the way the prayer rope and the Jesus Prayer were being used by many, and felt that the misuse of it was somehow connected to the "holy name" heresy. So often not only monastics, but lay people, sought to obtain "complete union with God" and visions of the uncreated light, simply by passing a sufficient number of knots under their thumb. He also distrusted the way many writers in Russia understood the works of St. Gregory Palamas. Vladika Antony certainly understood prayer as a means of acquiring divine grace, and of beginning to cooperate with it, but he did not see it as being primarily a means for obtaining visions. The Jesus Prayer might be used, he asserted, primarily as a means of bringing the heart to repentance, for this had a moral value. A vision of the uncreated light, he held, is a gift of grace given by God to those who are able to bear it. To seek that gift above repentance did not seem to him to offer any concrete moral value. Moreover, the practice itself often became a mechanical exercise which was carried out in place of prayer, rather than as a sincere form of prayer. While some, such as Archimandrite Kyprian Kern, would fault Vladika Antony for wanting to examine the moral value of prayer, hesychastic prayer without a focus on repentance, and thus on a moral value, has very often led monastics, and lay people as well, into destructive delusions. Many "elders" in our own time give impossible prayer rules to married lay people who are raising families with both husband and wife working full time. They demand so many "knots" and prostrations of these people that they can only fulfil them by neglecting their children and household duties. The children become embittered by this, and the marriage itself becomes strained to the breaking point in many cases. Passing large numbers of knots under the thumb, even with the words of the Jesus Prayer, is not actually prayer, it is only the counting of knots and falling into pride at having counted a sufficient number of them. One might as well kick a thousand cans as to "say a thousand knots." With sufficient sleep deprivation, little enough food and water and a mechanical repetion of knots, it is certain that one will have some kind of visions, but so will Canadian Indians who go into the forest on their own for a "dreamquest," or Australian aboriginals who go on into a trance for "dreamtime." Hesychasm has a practical aspect which should not be reduced down to mere mysticism. The vision of the uncreated light came to Saint Symeon the Theologian in quite a different manner. God's grace is freely given to the soul that is able to bear it. Above all, gifts of grace come to those who have deeply and sincerely repented, and the Jesus Prayer and the prayer rope can help bring one to such deep repentance that gifts of grace are possible to one. But this is precisely the sort of moral value that both Ametistov and Kern ridicule.

There is another great value in the Jesus Prayer and the use of the prayer rope. The struggle with one's own internal suffering is well served by the prayer of the guarding of the mind. The prayer rope presents a means of focus and concen-tration so that one can turn the Jesus Prayer upon the passions that are causing this suffering. Passion means "suffering," not "sin." We are often led into sin by the passions through the very bitterness of the inner suffering that they create. Using the Jesus Prayer and the prayer rope to deal with this inner human suffering and the purification of the heart is of great benefit and has true moral value. Swinging knots in the hopes of having a vision or just passing so many knots under the thumb as part of an irrational prayer rule can lead to spiritual delusion, but it has little value in and of itself.

After the death of Vladika's great mentor and teacher Metropolitan Antony (Vadkovsky) in 1912, the question of who should occupy the capital's Cathedra arose again. The Oberprocurator of the Synod, V.K. Sabler suggested to the Emperor that Vladika Antony be the candidate.

At the very first meeting with Oberprocurator V.K. Sabler, Vladika Antony replied that even though the cathedra was now vacant, he did not wish to be transferred to Saint Petersburg because of the condition of Church life in the capital. He again voiced his view that the Synodal system and the lay Oberprocurator were completely uncanonical. Then Sabler suggested a compromise. "We will transfer Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow to St. Petersburg with the rank of chief member of the Holy Synod, and we will appoint you to Moscow." Vladika replied that he would be happy to go to Moscow once the cathedra was canonically vacant.

The Emperor argued against this suggestion and denied the mandate to transfer Archbishop Antony to Moscow as Metropolitan. It seems that at about this time, Vladika Antony had voiced the opinion that there had developed a detachment between the Tsar and the common people in the Empire. He had openly suggested that the Tsar should take steps to heal this split in Russian society. The Tsar would not hear such advice again until January of 1917. Sir George Buchanan, the British ambassador to Russia warned Tsar Nicholas that he must act quickly to regain the confidence of his people. Sir George warned that the Minster of Interior, Alexander Protopopov, had brought the Empire to the brink of ruin. Sir George remarked later that Tsar Nicholas appeared completely puzzled by these remarks. He had no concept of what was actually going on in Russia. Neither to Vladika Antony nor to Sir George would the Emperor pay heed. Following this conversation with Sir George, the Emperor simply left the capital and returned to his sorrowfully mismanaged battlefront headquarters.

Nevertheless, even after the Tsar had turned down his advancement, Vladika Antony continued to try to rouse patriotism toward both the nation and the Emperor. After 1905, he had become even more deeply concerned about the fault zones in Russian society and he had become more adamant in critiqing them and arguing for solutions to them. In fact, he had become totally supportive of the Tsar's autocracy.

In fact, it turned out that the Emperor's advisors did not like Vladika Antony. They did not want to deal with his uncompromising character in working with him in the State Council. They had already had experience with him in this capacity. Vladika had not spared them and members of the Imperial Court, but had more than once accused them for their misuse of their high position. He, too, had grave concerns about Interior Minister Protopopov, who was also in charge of the secret police in the Empire. It is truly unfortunate that the appointment of this remarkable hierarch to Moscow, so necessary to Russia, did not occur.

An outstanding feature of Vladika Antony was his impartiality. He was not afraid to speak forthrightly even to the powerful of this world. If some matter touched upon the choice between the commands of his conscience and flattery, Vladika always remained faithful to the voice of his conscience.

During the Romanov tricentenery celebrations in 1913, on Forgiveness Sunday, the Emperor gave a state banquet for the higher representatives of the empire and foreign guests. To receive an invitation to this event was a great honour. Vladika Antony was fervently devoted to the Emperor, nevertheless he did not consider it possible to leave a divine service even for the sake of a such an important historical event. In vain did Vladika Antony's student and friend, Archbishop Serge (Starogorodosky) of Finland, one of his closest colleagues, try to persuade him to go to the palace. He warned that no one would understand him, and that his refusal would be interpreted as an offensive reprisal for the refusal to appoint him to Moscow. But no coercing helped. Vladika Antony replied that if he would leave the divine service at the beginning of Great Lent for the sake of a dinner, and one that would not observe the lenten day, then he would begin to despise himself.

Once Vladika was visited by two grand duchesses accompanied by a general. The general, in presenting Vladika to the grand duchess said, "Here is the Vladika-Archbishop who is, in our Russia, the main zealot for the reestablishing of the Patriarchal throne."

"No, Baron," Vladika stopped him, "not I alone, but the entire Russian Orthodox Church desires and prays about the reestablishment of its canonical organization."

"But do you not think, Vladika, that the Patriarch would diminish the Tsar's glory?" replied the general.

"No," Vladika Antony replied sharply. "Baron, it would be good for you not to repeat such folly. In the contemporary condition of our Russian society and its relationship to the Church, not only would the Patriarch not eclipse the Tsar, but he would not even eclipse the lowest lackey in the court!"

The high guests were distressed by these words and soon left the archbishop's reception room. Vladika Antony was one of the very few leaders in Russia with a clear grasp of spiritual conditions in the Empire.

In connection with the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanovs, Vladika Antony had worked hard to have Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch invited to the jubilee festivities. He found ready support for this on the part of Oberprocurator Sabler. On 20 February 1913 the Patriarch arrived in St. Petersburg. A solemn greeting was organized for him in the Russian capital. At the station he was greeted by Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg, and with a throng of clergy. Directly from the station the Patriarch went to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. At the gate of the Lavra he was greeted by the monastic brotherhood with Archbishop Antony who gave the following speech:

"Most blessed and Holy Patriarch! Blessed is this day when the Russian Orthodox hierarchy and flock were made worthy to gaze with their own eyes upon the successor to the Apostolic throne of Antioch, the great city of God and Patriarch of all the East. More than 200 years have passed since our Church was deprived of its premier pastor, and about 250 years since the higher guardians of Ecumenical Orthodoxy, the Eastern Patriarchs, last visited our land. Then, in the days of our Holy antiquity, the Russian people with great enthusiasm and contrition bowed their heads before the blessing hand of the Eastern Patriarchs, from year to year visiting our northern boundary of Christ's Church. With deep contrition and ecstasy we gaze upon you, we children of the sad contemporaries, and with deep clarity we see in you the incarnation of the entire Church of Christ, for you head its highest peaks..."

At the concluding words of his greeting speech, Vladika Antony made a full prostration before the Patriarch and then, standing up, he kissed him on the hands and cheeks.

The days that Patriarch Gregory spent in Russia were considered by Vladika Antony as the best days of his life. In one of his articles he wrote, describing these memorable days: "Patriarch Gregory, by his influence and charming personality, elicited the striving of Russian people to reestablish our Patriarchate to the point of an open request which was taken to heart by the unforgettable Tsar Nicholas II."

Another vital church matter over which Vladika Antony's heart ached was the matter of the rebirth of Orthodoxy amongst the Russian population of Austro-Hungary. The Hungarian government and the Uniat clergy tried with all their might to stop the return of the Carpatho-Russians to the bosom of the Orthodox Church.

In order to examine the condition of the Orthodox faithful in these regions, Vladika took a journey, under the guise of an Archimandrite, to Bukovina. The impressions that Vladika brought from this trip were not comforting. Nevertheless he did not cease his care for the spiritual nourishment of these regions.

Vladika Antony struggled with the Unia through the printed word and in his sermons he often turned to this theme. With all his strength he strove to overturn the incorrect understanding of the Unia. The Uniate clergy had been propagating the idea that the Unia was Orthodox, but only commemorated the Pope. With great sorrow and pain he said: "They cannot accept in any way that simple truth that the Unia is a full entry into the Roman Catholic Church, with an acknowledgement of the Orthodox Church as schismatic, with an acknowledgement of all the Latin saints and with a condemnation of the Orthodox saints as being outside the true church and schismatics..."

With the decisiveness characteristic of him, Vladika Antony spread the true view of the Unia in his sermons, epistles, talks, and then he presented it in a special brochure, Conversation of an Orthodox Priest with a Uniate One about the Errors of the Latins and Uniate Greek-Catholics. This brochure was first published by the Pochaev Lavra and then later appeared in its second edition in the emigration.

Vladika Antony also worked hard in order to establish in the Russia an Orthodox understanding of Roman Catholicism. Among the Russian intelligentsia and in the Church circles of the Synodal period of the Russian Church, the view was widely spread that Roman Catholicism was one of the branches of Christianity which, as V.S. Soloviev taught, towards the end of time it must unite into a simple Christianity with the other supposed branches, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They made the preposterous claim that this is what the Holy Church was praying for in the Liturgy with the litany, "For the good estate of the holy churches of God, and for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord."

The correct view of Catholicism as an apostasy had been diminished by the Holy Synod under the pressure of Emperor Peter I and with the blessing of his favourite, the protestantizing Metropolitan Theodore Prokopovich.

Vladika Antony knew very well that the Catholic influence in the ranks of the Russian clergy was carried on through the ecclesiastical seminaries. "We lost the correct view because those guides by which we studied in school and which comprise the content of our theological study, both dogmatic and moral, are borrowed from the Roman Catholics and Protestants. The only consolation we have had is that we have not fallen into the direct errors of the heterodox, errors known to all and condemned by the authority of the Church ..."

Seeing the crippled condition of Church life in occupied Carpatho-Rus', Vladika Antony turned to the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III with the request that he accept the Orthodox Galicians and Carpatho Russians under his omoforian, since the Russian Synod, because of political motives, could not do so. The Patriarch willingly agreed and appointed Vladika Antony as his Exarch of Galicia and Carpatho Rus'. The Galicians often, after finishing their field work, regardless of the great hindrances to crossing the border, sometimes with a direct danger of their lives, made pilgrimages in large groups to the Pochaev Lavra. Many Carpatho-Russians, Rusins and Galicians entered the Volhynian Ecclesiastical Seminary.

Under the influence of these measures, the Orthodox movement in these regions began to spread. This elicited repression on the part of the Austro-Hungarian government which strove to crush this movement. The persecution grew and soon Vladika had to step forth to defend the persecuted Christians. In August 1913, he published a "Circular Epistle" in which he vividly depicted all the ills and persecutions of the Orthodox population of the Western regions. In enumerating various cases of the mockery of the Orthodox, Vladika also cited this example of the firmness of the persecuted, and the cruelty of the persecutors: "Young virgins who had gathered together in order to save their souls in fasting and prayer, were stripped in winter and driven into a frigid lake, like the 40 Martyrs of Sevaste, after which several of them died. This is how our Russians are tormented in Hungary and Austria in broad daylight in our enlightened age..."

When massive arrests and tortures of the Orthodox began and a trial of ninety four Orthodox Christians took place in Siget, Vladika Antony composed a special prayer and petition in the litany which were read in all the churches of the Volhynian Eparchy during the entire time of the process, which continued for two months.

His was the sole voice in defence of the persecuted Orthodox population. Not one other voice either in Russia or in all Europe was heard.

The Austro-Hungarian political circles, in accord with instructions from the Vatican, undertook decisive measures to crush the beginning of the massive return to Orthodoxy by the Carpatho-Russians and Galicians. They began diplomatic pressure in St. Petersburg in order to remove the main culprit of that movement, Archbishop Antony of Volhyn.

As a result of this diplomatic offensive, on 20 May 1914, a directive issued by His Imperial Majesty arrived, removing Archbishop Antony from Volhynia and transferring him to the office of Archbishop of Kharkov. Such was the political control over the Church in Russia. The Tsar was adamant. This time, Vladika Antony had no choice but to go. The Tsar had commanded.

On Saturday, 31 May 1914, the new Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrka arrived in Kharkov and entered his Cathedra. The city of Kharkov was much larger than Zhitomir. It had more than 200,000 Russian inhabitants. Again, the blessed one set to work upgrading the celebration of the divine services, providing a better education for the clergy and laity alike, and above all, continuing his prophetic warnings about the future of Russia.

In the Kharkov Eparchy there were five men's and five women's monasteries. Among the men's monasteries, the Holy Mountain Dormition Hermitage, situated on the shore of the North Dansa River, was famous for its ascetics. It had more than six hundred monks. Its monastic rule was strict and unwaveringly observed. Not far from it, in the "Holy Place" Skete, wheere hermits lived, leading a solitary life, and among them were cave dwellers, men of a spiritually lofty life.

Vladika was interested in all the aspects of the life of his monasteries and aided them to prosper in all ways. He did not leave the parish clergy without attention, demanding from them zealous service to the faithful of Christ's Church, and he published various explanations concerning divine service rules and pastoral activity. As usual, he gave great attention to the preaching of the Gospel.

The complete fulfilling of the typikon was a basic requirement of Vladika Antony for his cathedral. In his new eparchy, the first thing he did was to correct a series of liturgical changes, corrections which significantly beautified the church services. He instructed that all the stikheras, as much as possible, be sung rather than read, but that in any case they not be omitted. In this way, the faithful would be taught both the Old Testament prophecies about Christ and their New Testament fulfilment, and the teachings of the holy fathers would penetrate the worshippers.

On the eves of Sundays and feastdays in the cathedral church there were served vigils with litiyas and blessing of loaves, usually lasting from 6 to 11 o'clock in the evening. On Great Saturday the liturgy began in the afternoon and ended about 6 P.M. On the Eves of Nativity and Theophany the morning service began at midnight, which attracted many worshippers.

Conscious of the circumstances of life for the parishioners, Vladika did not require that the parish churches follow a strict application of the typikon, leaving the parish priests to define the order and length of their divine services according to local conditions.

The clergy, observing their new archpastor's zeal for the church's beauty, began to serve the divine services more carefully and more according to the typikon.

Vladika's gestures of love and deep compassion soon attracted the hearts of his subordinates to him because they felt in him more of a loving father than a strict superior.

Young people elicited a special love and care in Vladika Antony. Students from ecclesiastical academies who would pass though Kharkov used the archbishop's residence as their own. At first it was the Volhynians who began to drop in, since they knew Vladika already. They began to bring their friends with them. And soon there appeared even those who knew Vladika only by stories about him. Vladika received all of them with great joy, offering them lodging and food, and even money. And in the evenings, after he had finished matters of the eparchy, he would invite all into his dining room and spend time with them in edifying talks, deep into the night.

Often people from both church and civil society from other cities and provinces would come to Kharkov. Among them, the first place was occupied by his former students now in priestly orders, who continued to consider themselves as his spiritual children.

One often read that one or another visiting hierarch was serving in the Protection Monastery or in the cathedral. They were all received by Vladika Antony not only with love, but also with honour as his co-brother even though he might have remembered them yet as young seminarians. Vladika was completely alien to all vainglory and feigned grandeur and he amazed everyone by his personal simplicity.

The beginning of the First World War found Vladika Antony in the Kharkov Cathedra. Here again the greatness of his soul became apparent. He did everything in order to strengthen the people in the struggle to free the Serbian brethren who were being invaded by Austria. He personally blessed military regiments setting out to the front, he served molebens, gave inspired sermons, and made speeches to encourage them all.

In this difficult time of history, Vladika Antony helped the people in both word and deed. He visited all the hospitals, visiting and comforting the wounded. He donated money for the building of new hospitals and he called upon his flock to do the same. Wonderfully fluent in several foreign languages, he conversed with captive German soldiers, trying to comfort them and pour love and peace into their hearts.

On 14 October 1914, Vladika Antony issued a special epistle "To The Christ-loving Soldiers," wishing to more clearly define to the Russian people the aims of the war and to inspire the Russian soldiers. Vladika understood the necessity of defending the nation but he did not want men to fight with hatred or malice. This epistle was put out by Vladika two months after the beginning of the war. He expected that a similar epistle would follow in the name of the Russian Church; but when he became convinced that it was not going to appear, he published his own address praising and encouraging the soldiers.

The Kharkov Eparchy soon became filled with refugees who came from Galicia, Volhynia, and Kholm. They came here intentionally, as they knew of Vladika Antony's care for their area now being destroyed by the German and Austrian invasions. Vladika strove to do all he could to assist the arrivals and to ease their situation, showing in all this his sincere love. The monastics he placed in the monasteries of the Kharkov Eparchy, while married priests were given over to parishes at the first opportunity. The other people were offered work. This tireless work of Vladika in a difficult time for Russia did not pass unnoticed. In May 1915, Vladika Antony was awarded the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky with which came the following grammata:

"Your Archpastoral service has always been gifted with zealousness for the glory and elevation of the Holy Orthodox Church and with tireless caring for the guarding and inviolability of its rules and traditions, and the purity of its teaching. Your distinguished theological erudition, broad scholarship, sincerity, and kindness in relationship to the faithful has brought you the trust and respect not only preeminently among the flock entrusted in you, but also throughout the entire Russian Orthodox Church. In the place of your former service, in the Volhynian Eparchy, your name is connected with the raising of the religious consciousness and national self-knowledge of the population of this vast eparchy. Your name will always be remembered in Volhynia, both for the re-establishment of the ancient Obrucha Church, and also for the erection of the huge church in the Pochaev Lavra. And now in the time of trials endured by our Fatherland, we see with comfort that even on the Cathedra of the Kharkov Saints you have not ceased your cares about Volhynia and the Orthodox Galicians who are close to your heart, having shown their numerous orphans, made unfortunate by the horrors of war, fatherly feelings of love and good care..."

In 1916, the ending of the war already seemed to be decided, and everyone saw clearly that Germany was spending its last energy, and that victory was soon to come. The Holy Synod was already deliberating the question of to whom Constantinople would belong and, if it entered into the Russian Empire, what was to be done with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Opinions were expressed that he should be left with the title of Exarch of Constantinople, with submission to the Holy Synod, just as this happened with the Georgian Catholikos previously.

Vladika Antony was invited to the discussion of these questions, although he was hardly ever called to the Holy Synod. He was horrified by these suggestions. That the uncanonical Synodal system should be extended, and that such arrogance could be shown toward an ancient patriarchate astonished him. He reacted sharply. He reminded them of the need to re-establish the Russian patriarchate, not undermine an ancient patriarchal see. In any case, Vladika Antony had negative premonitions about the near future. No one cared to hear about them. Meanwhile, they concerned themselves with matters that were not nearly so important. During the war, the slogan "banish Turkey from Europe" arose. Vladika Antony did not like it. "I am not pleased with the slogan, `Banish the Turks from Europe.'... With what moral value does this geographic understanding coincide?..." As for the freeing of the Orthodox East Vladika Antony had hoped that the allies "...would unite today's free Greece with Constantinople under the secular authority of a Greek ruler, and under the spiritual authority of the Greek Patriarch. By this we could thank the Hellenic people that they had once freed us from slavery to the devil and led God's children into freedom, having made us Christians. The Patriarch must remain as pastor over his numerous eparchys of free Greece..."

These dreams of Vladika Antony turned out not to have come about, although they were close to realization according to developing events.

In 1916 the Serbs were deprived of their own homeland. Part of them found refuge in Europe, while a part ended up in Russia. That year Bishop Varnava, the future Patriarch of Serbia, and a former student of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy arrived in Russia. When Vladika Antony found out about the arrival of the refugee bishop, he asked him to come to Kharkov to be his guest. A few years earlier as Archbishop of Volhynia he received in Pochaev the Serbian Metropolitan Dimitry, also a future Patriarch. No one supposed then that both Serbian hierarchs, future Patriarchs would enter into the history of the Russian Church as guardians of its wholeness and independence at a time when the Russian people fell into a situation similar to the one that the Serbs found themselves in.

Arriving in Kharkov in January 1917, Bishop Varnava gave a lecture at the Zemsky Hall. He described all the misfortunes the Serbian people were experiencing, misfortunes no less than they had had to endure under the Turkish yoke. In fervent words the preacher expressed the hope of his people that the moment will arrive when all the Serbs will unite into one state and "...then the Serbian nation will not forget what was done for it by its brotherly Russia in the heavy days of its slavery, and will preserve forever a deep gratitude to the Russian brethren. Unbreakable ties of brotherly love manifested in times of woe, unite both nations. ... And for you, Vladika, for all that you have done for the South Slavs, especially for the youth studying in Russia, in the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch, into whose composition I had entered as a bishop of an eparchy subject to the Constantinople throne, and in the name of the Serbian Church in which I am now, I consider you to be a great archhierarch of the Russian Church," concluded Bishop Varnova, and he bowed deeply to Vladika Antony.

The wish did not abase the Serbian people. In the following year the enemy was defeated and the destroyed parts of Serbia were freed, and a state was formed, including in itself not only Serbs but other South Slav peoples, soon to be known as Yugoslavia.

Vladika Antony suffered in his soul for the brother Serbs and all the South Slavs, sensitively treating everything that concerned other Orthodox Christians, independent of their nationality. He was truly an "Ecumenical Hierarch," caring for the good of the entire Ecumenical Church.

Few expected the events which now occurred, overturning Russian life. War, internal uprisings, the abdication of the Tsar on 2 March 1917, and the transfer of authority to the Provisional Government, were not long in coming.

On the Sunday of the Veneration of the Cross on 5 March 1917, when the first Sunday divine service was to be held without the commemoration of the Tsar and the Imperial Family, Vladika Antony was serving in the Dormition Cathedral. Many went there to hear what Vladika Antony would say now, after the revolution.

At the usual time, at the end of the Liturgy Vladika stepped out to give a sermon:

The archbishop's words created a stupefying impression. It was as if a bucket of cold water had been dashed upon the crowd, heated by the revolution. "Knowledgable" workers of the revolution, who had come in large numbers to hear the first sermon of the hierarch after the revolution could not contain their displeasure. Cries of "Arrest him" were heard when Vladika was seen leaving the cathedral. An insolent arm stretched out to seize Vladika by the collar of the coat at the moment when he sat down in the carriage. Vladika sat down peacefully and left for the Holy Protection Monastery.

Many people changed their previous political views or else concealed them, but Vladika Antony remained the same "Antony of Volhyn" as all Russia knew him before the revolution.

On the walls of his archpastoral quarters, the Royal portraits remained as before, though they had vanished not only from public places, but even from private homes in view of the danger which threatened those accused of being "counter-revolutionaries."

Pascha of 1917 was approaching. In previous years the hierarch's quarters was full of wellwishers from all levels of society who considered it their duty to greet the hierarch. Now there was only a tight circle of Vladika's admirers who were not afraid to go there.

On Saturday of Bright Week Vladika served in the cathedral church and at the end of the liturgy, before passing out the antidoran, he gave a sermon on the words of Christ:

The sermon was fully understood by all those who heard it.

The new authorities did not wish to endure the fearless hierarch in the city any longer and in the middle of April Vladika received a warrant expelling him from Kharkov and ordering him to leave within three days. This decree brought about great agitation in the city. In the cathedral square and in the Protection Monastery throngs of people began to gather. They began to openly protest against Vladika's departure and proclaimed that the Orthodox Christians had to defend their hierarch. The authorities realised that the people were adamant, and for the first time the revolutionary authorities in Kharkov were compelled to retreat before the demand of the people. The new authorities allowed Vladika Antony to remain in Kharkov another five days. However, the revolutionists, and especially the Bolsheviks, were determined to eventually put an end to Vladika Antony completely.

On the eve of his departure from Kharkov, Vladika gave his farewell word to the Kharkov flock in the Church of the Protection Monastery. He spoke of the importance of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, called upon everyone to know the Church Canons. Vladika raised the book of Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Ecumenical and Local Councils and of the Holy fathers, and advised each person to obtain a copy of this book in the monastery shop. "Truth is found in it, it is the voice of the Church," he said.

The authorities would not allow Vladika Antony to choose the Holy Mountain Monastery of the Kharkov Province as his place of retirement so Vladika made use of an offer from the Archbishop of Finland, Serge (Starogorodsky) to settle in Valaam Monastery.

In Valaam he was received with great honour and love. Here Vladika showed his unhypocritical monastic humility. When Bishop Seraphim (Lukianov) offered him the hierarch's quarters, Vladika refused. He preferred to occupy a very modest cell with the most meagre furnishings. He had come from Kharkov as a refugee, having almost nothing with him and without a penny. The Abbot of the monastery offered Vladika full support but he did not accept it. He behaved not as a hierarch but as a monk. He attended all four daily services, always arose at 2:30 A.M. and went to the Midnight Service, never missing a single service. He would go to church and stand there in a monastic mantia, never having a staff, and in his free time he was always occupied with literary works. Here he wrote his famous work The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith, and the profoundly Orthodox chapter, "The Dogma of Redemption." When he served, he gave edifying homilies, which were especially valued by the Valaam monks. In Valaam Vladika Antony felt himself to be in his own atmosphere, and the oppressing mood with which he had departed from Kharkov began to fade. Constant prayer, full services, good monastic chanting, the Valaam forests and inlets, communicating with monks, all this acted very favourably on him.

At that time, preparation for the All-Russian Council was being carried out with great energy. According to the rules for the convening of the Council, only ruling hierarchs could take part in it. Thus Vladika Antony, as a retired hierarch, would remain outside the events for which he had prepared himself all his life.

Russian monasticism, which he loved so deeply, saved the situation. At the Monastic Assembly, they elected the delegates to the Council who would represent monasticism. Archbishop Antony was unanimously elected and so too was Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), a student of Vladika Antony.

A delegation of Russian monks came to Valaam in order to convince Vladika Antony to be present at the Council in the capacity of the representative of Russian monasticism. They said, "There will be a Council in Russia and a major historical event will occur in the Russian Church. Almost all the bishops will gather, many priests, monks, laymen, but you will not be there. We cannot imagine you not being at the Council, that the Council will not hear your authoritative voice. We have always hoped on you as our leader and pillar of the Church, and many others think that in Russia. They cannot conceive of a Council without your participation."

After much wavering, he finally agreed to go to the Council, although unwillingly.

Meanwhile, the assembly meeting of the Kharkov Eparchy unanimously once again chose Vladika Antony as their archpastor. The authorities who had announced themselves as "the people's authority," had to humble themselves before those very people and agree to this choice.

The people of Kharkov met their beloved Vladika with a triumphal procession. A throng of clergy, a forest of Church banners and crosses, and crowds of people surrounded the Archbishop at the station as he left the train.

At the cathedral Vladika gave a greeting word:

When the All-Russian Council was finally assembled in 1917, the orientation of the delegates ranged from ultra- conservative to the ultra-liberal Renovationists. There were also present members of the movement of "Neo-Christians" and Christian Socialists. In the middle between these extremes stood Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky. Around him gathered the younger bishops, the students and others who recognized the urgent need for measured and well thought out changes. Above all, there was a need to restore the patriarchate. Vladika Antony realized that restoring the canonical order of church life had to be the basis for any forward movement. He had struggled for years to convince the Holy Synod and government officials of the need for a deep and far reaching internal mission to re-educate the clergy, bring about proper discipline in their ranks and restore a proper loving relationship between the clergy and the laity. Above all, following the spiritually disastrous 19th century, Vladika Antony understood the profound need for the re-churching of the Russian people. His long labour of bringing Russian theology out of the darkness of the juridical and legalistic malaise of Western Scholasticism had begun to produce results, and this council was critical to this progress. It could either drag the Russian Church back into the "Latin captivity of Russian theology" or slide it beyond liberal Protestantism into the socialist renovationist catastrophe. It would be many of these leftist and "neo-Christian" intellectuals and secularist philosophers, in exile in Paris, who would later found the St Serge Academy and cause much grief and theological mischief in the Russian Orthodox community abroad, mischief that still haunts the Orthodox Church in America. The ultra-conservatives were just as strongly opposed to the restoration of the Patriarchate.

The council convened on 15 August, 1917, on the feastday of the Dormition Cathedral, under the darkening shadow of World War I and the Bolshevik civil war. The opening formalities took place in the ancient Dormition Cathedral where so much of Russia's spiritual history had unfolded.

From the beginning it was evident that Vladika Antony had the support of the majority, for the questions that arose were examined in the light of canonical tradition without the bias of extreme conservatism.

On 28 September, the council approved a resolution made by Vladika Antony, condemning the destruction and murder taking place throughout Russia under the Communist insurrection. The Communists took note of this and marked Vladika for extermination. The Civil War between the Socialists of Kerensky and the Communists (Bolsheviks) of Lenin was heading toward its end, and the battles between the Communist forces and the White Army were intensifying. The Socialists fled to Paris, never actually acknowleding the catastrophe they had unleashed.

One of the main points that Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky had stressed, not only during the years of his episcopacy, but even as rector of seminaries, was preaching. Vladika led the discussions about this subject. He presented a substantial report on this matter because many priests and hierarchs never gave sermons during the divine services. According to Vladika Antony, the preaching of the Gospel was a primary obligation of the priesthood. "It is necessary, at every Divine Liturgy to preach a sermon on the Gospel and Apostle reading of the day. Priests should never refer to themselves in sermons, nor use stories about themselves as do the Stundists [Protestants], but must focus their sermons on Jesus Christ, salvation and the Scripture narratives. We should be faithful to the understanding of Scripture given to us by the holy fathers. In every case, we should strive to relate the words of Christ and all the Scripture to the lives and experiences of the people we are speaking to. In this way, the Scripture becomes alive and meaningful to them."

In substantiating the obligation to regularly preach careful Orthodox sermons, Vladika Antony cited the 19th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the prayers of ordination and the 58th Canon of the Holy Apostles. He urged the clergy to read the lives of the saints and the Synaxarion in order to help them prepare their sermons.

Vladika Antony had long tried to give rebirth to the concept of co-suffering love in the Church. He realised that many people were turned away from the Orthodox Church by arrogance, coldness and rudeness on the part of both priests and hierarchs alike; it is true that in many cases, people actually despised and loathed the parish priests. This was demonstrated in the most horrible way during the Bolshevik Civil War when many villagers murdered their local clergy. Vladika Antony enjoined all clergy to strive to have and exhibit a genuine love for their flocks.

The crowning achievement of both this council and the efforts of Vladika Antony to have canonical order restored in the Russian Church was the re-establishment of the Patriarchate.

Vladika Antony held public debates with the opponents to the restoration of the patriarchate and some of them changed their view and began to support the election of a new patriarch.

"If a rail carriage is placed properly on the rails, two people can push it and make it move ahead. If, however, the carriage is set on the ties rather than the rails, even a large group of athletes can neither push or pull it along." He argued that when the Church is not functioning by canonical norms, even the most pious men of genius cannot move it forward. Thus many of our best teachers and hierarchs never were allowed the opportunity to contribute to the welfare and rebuilding of the Russian Church. Out of envy, many of them were sent to the provinces, others retired. Such were Theophan the Recluse, Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, Metropolitan Gabriel and others of the best minds in the Church."

The system chosen for electing a patriarch was complex. There would be three candidates chosen by three separate votes. The names of the three candidates would then be placed on the Holy Table, and the lot would be drawn by a selected monastic. When the votes were cast, Vladika Antony had the highest number of votes, 101. Archbishop Kirill received 27 votes and Metropolitan Tikhon, 23. Other candidates shared the few remaining votes. After the rather complex procedure was finished, the candidates were Vladika Antony, Archbishop Arseny and Metropolitan Tikhon. When the lot was drawn, it fell to Metropolitan Tikhon to become Patriarch in the face of the most tragic and bloody era in the history of Russia.

The council continued for several weeks time, during which the debates about the patriarchate and the election were taking place. At this same time, the Bolsheviks were fighting intense and bloody battles against the Provisional Government in the streets of Petrograd and Moscow. On 25 October, 1917, the Bolsheviks overpowered the last of Kerensky's socialists and firmly seized power.

Somehow, by God's will, the council continued, though under great stress and duress. On 21 November, 1917, the feast of the "Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple," Patriarch Tikhon was enthroned in the ancient Dormition Cathedral, the first patriarch on the throne since 1700, 217 years before.

After his own elevation Patriarch Tikhon asked that the five eldest hierarchs be elevated to Metropolitan. Archbishop Antony was among them.

The hierarchs who were participating in the council returned to their own cathedrals for the feast of Christ's Nativity. By the end of the feast, the situation in the civil war had deteriorated to such a degree that many could not return to Moscow. Nevertheless, the council struggled on. Metropolitan Antony served in both Kharkov, his own see, and in Kiev during the season and then managed to return to Moscow and the council. This second session lasted until Holy Week of 1918. Again the hierarchs returned to their own cathedrals for Holy Pascha. After Pascha, it was impossible for Vladika Antony to return to Moscow for the third session of the council.

By this time, the Germans were in control in Ukraine and the Bolsheviks reached an agreement with the Germans to send hierarchs from South Russia who were at the Moscow Council, to Ukraine. These hierarchs, among them Archbishop Anastassy of Kishinev, were shipped off in filthy cattle cars. Not until they reached the border of Ukraine were they given an actual rail coach and decent food. They stopped in Orsha, then in Voronezh and finally arrived in Kharkov on Lazarus Saturday, where they remained with Metropolitan Antony until Pascha.

Soon after Pascha, a council was called in Kiev to elect a successor to the martyred Metropolitan Vladimir. Metropolitan Antony was elected by a huge majority, but departure from Kharkov was not to be uneventful. The people of Kharkov were deeply grieved at the thought of losing their beloved shepherd. Petitions were signed and parish councils sent telegrams to Patriarch Tikhon begging him not to confirm Vladika Antony's transfer to Kiev. When the Patriarch did confirm Antony as Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich, a large group of citizens vowed to hide the horses and carriages of the Metropolitan and bar the gates of the city so that he could not leave. In the end, they had to relent and with great sorrow allow their beloved Vladika to depart. Still, delegates from the parishes of Kharkov accompanied Metropolitan Antony to Kiev and told the officials there with what deep love and sadness they handed him over to the Cathedral of Kiev. Even after the final victory of the Bolsheviks and the establishment of Communist rule, the parishes of Kharkov continued to celebrate his namesday, 3 August, with a solemn Moleben.

Metropolitan Antony was aware that the situation in Kiev was grave. Just before he departed to Kiev, he received a letter from his admirers in Ukraine, saying; "We are calling you to the cross, to a crown of thorns, to suffering. For God's sake, do not refuse, but take pity on us."

Vladika had at first been hesitant to leave his flock in Kharkov but, as he later recalled with tears, he thought of Galicia with its forsaken Rusins and Uniates. "I remembered Galicia and agreed to go."

There were three groups who participated in the Council in Kiev. The Nationalists wanted to declare the Ukrainian Church to be autocephalous with no concern for canonical order or the welfare of the Church. The second wanted simply to preserve the old order. The most numerous were concerned with proper canonical order and wished to develop an autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church recognizing the Patriarch of Moscow as the canonical head. This latter group prevailed, and Patriarch Tikhon approved. Thus Vladika Antony became the first Metropolitan of the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The extreme nationalists were furious. They went into schism and created a body known throughout the Orthodox world as the "self-consecrated schism". A group of disgruntled priests performed an artificial ritual of elevating one of their own to bishop.

At that time, Ukraine was ruled by the Germans through a collaborating Hetman. Vladika Antony was so deeply respected that among the many who came to him for spiritual counsel, there were even German generals. They were impressed with Vladika's fluent and excellent command of the German language.

The turmoil and troubles in Ukraine notwithstanding, Vladika was able to reawaken a strong Christian movement in Kiev. Together with the rank of Metropolitan of Kiev, he also became Archimandrite of the Kiev Caves Lavra. There he organized pastoral training courses for the clergy. In the refectory church he conducted daily spiritual and theological talks every evening. These were open to laity and clergy alike. Under Metropolitan Antony the Kiev Council continued with laymen participating.

The ultra-nationalists continued to pressure Metropolitan Antony to enter into schism from the Patriarchate. It made no difference to them that they would thus segregate themselves from the whole Orthodox Church and be in communion with no one. They cared not a bit for canonical order and sound judgment. Vladika refused to even discuss the matter and the rest of the hierarchs supported him in this.

In December of 1918 the paramilitary forces of the ultra-nationalist warlord Simon Petliura entered Kiev and the Hetman fell. Understanding the danger, Metropolitan Antony convened a second meeting of all the hierarchs in Kiev. Together they resolved to hold firm to the decisions of the Council of Kiev. Each bishop gave a written oath to uphold this. Almost immediately after the synod meeting, Metropolitan Antony and Archbishop Evlogy of Volhyn were arrested. They were placed under heavy guard in a hotel in Kiev. The hotel was ringed with soldiers, and a troop of mounted cavalry periodically appeared to disperse the protesting crowds that gathered to demand the release of their beloved Metropolitan.

Late one night after a crowd had been driven away, Metropolitan Antony and Archbishop Evlogy were placed in a closed motor car and driven under heavy guard to the railway station. Here they were pushed into a prison coach and taken to Tarnopol in Galicia where they were imprisoned in an unheated and rundown hotel. After a week in these miserable quarters, the two hierarchs were imprisoned in a small room in the Uniate monastery in Bachach.

The faithful in Kiev were completely distraught. Earlier the Bolsheviks had martyred Metropolitan Vladimir, now the most beloved hierarch in the nation was taken from them and dark rumours began to circulate that he had been killed. In Odessa, Metropolitan Platon heard that Vladika Antony had been killed. He wept, and a pannikhida (memorial service) was served for Vladika. He gave a beautiful and deeply touching eulogy to the supposedly slain Metropolitan. Soon, memorial services for Metropolitan Antony were being served in many other places.

Eventually the Metropolitan managed to send a letter to Kiev assuring the people that he was still alive and asking that someone bring changes of clothing for the two imprisoned hierarchs.

Vladika Antony busied himself with writing. The priests who arrived from Kiev with clothing and other things for the two prisoners reported that they found Metropolitan Antony joyous and full of kindness. During this imprisonment, Vladika Antony wrote a Concordance to the Works of Dostoevsky depending entirely on his memory. He also produced his "Examination of the Catechism" and several akathists and services to saints. The revision of the Catechism was especially important. In 1823, the Holy Synod had asked the Metropolitan of Moscow Saint Philaret to produce a newer version of the Catechism in more contemporary Russian. Most of the catechisms that were used in Russia were either in Latin or Church Slavonic. Metropolitan Philaret's revision of the Catechism depended heavily on the scholastic and Latinized writings of Peter Mohila and Lavrenty Zizany, and Uniate sources. Vladika Antony had long intended to produce a revision of this himself, and now he had time to work on it.

Archbishop Evlogy had become melancholy and Vladika Antony finally convinced him to begin writing his memoirs so that the time would not weigh so heavily upon him. It is thanks to this that we have the details of their ordeal.

This narrow confinement continued for five months. Meanwhile, Bishop Nikodim, later martyred by the Bolsheviks, led a movement to free the two hierarchs. Petliura remained unmoved.

Meanwhile the situation in Ukraine changed radically. Petliura's troops suffered one defeat after another and soon Polish troops occupied Galicia and the Bolsheviks occupied Kiev. Ironically, or more likely by God's will, Vladika's arrest and imprisonment saved his life.

On the feast of the Holy Trinity, Polish officers arrived at Buchach and ordered the prisoners to prepare for immediate departure to the Monastery of Zhisko.

The two hierarchs suffered much during this journey. The soldiers cursed and swore at the two, using the most vile language. They pulled their beards and took away their eyeglasses. At one point some of the soldiers decided to execute them and would have done so had not some officers arrived in time to help.

Toward evening the prisoners arrived at Stanislavov where they spent two days. From here they went on to Lvov where again they spent two days and were then taken to Cracow. In Cracow the authorities decided to submit Vladika Antony and Archbishop Evlogy to a humiliating encounter with Cardinal Prince Sapega. When they arrived at the Cardinal's palace, their eyes met with a solid mass of black cassocks. Roman Catholic priests, monks and seminarians had gathered to see the degradation of the famous "schismatics".

"We waited for a long time," recalled Archbishop Evlogy. "Finally the doors opened and, accompanied by a large, sumptuous suite including generals and bishops, the Cardinal swished in. He was small, elegant and had a pompous deportment. He glared at us provokingly with a haughty gaze. `Your names are well known, but they are surrounded by hatred', he began, exaggerating each word. `You are to be held under guard so that the crowds do not tear you to pieces.'

"Following this introduction we sat down at a table and began a conversation with him, Metropolitan Antony in Latin and I in Polish.`We voluntarily gave ourselves into the hands of the Poles and hoped for their magnanimity,' said Vladika Antony, `but we have been treated like criminals. In the Caucasus we have a wild brigand tribe of robbers called the Ingush. If anyone voluntarily places themselves under their protection, that person is sacred for them. The Poles, however, have not been that way toward us.'

"The bishops blushed in alarm and generals fidgeted. `What is this? What is this? What are Ingush?' The elegant cardinal gave a signal to rise and all arose. From a distance he bowed to us. The `audience' had ended. We were returned to the monastery."

In August, 1919, Kiev was liberated from the Bolsheviks by the volunteer army. The Orthodox Church and Kievan civil society exerted the most energetic pressure to get the governments of the Entente to influence Poland and compel the release of Metropolitan Antony and those with him. At length, they were set free.

The road back to Kiev would be arduous. It took the party across Bukovina, Iasi, Galatia and Constantinople. The two hierarchs were in Constantinople only briefly before sailing to Novorossisk in Crimea. From there Metropolitan Antony set out for Kiev.

Vladika arrived in Kiev on 7 September, 1919. He was greeted by a great celebration throughout the whole city. Vladika Antony served the Liturgy in the Divine Wisdom Cathedral and then a thanksgiving Moleben with a Cross procession in Sophia Square. The square was lined with great crowds of people and rows of soldiers. Following the Moleben. Vladika walked along the rows of the faithful showering all with holy water, while everyone sang the troparion, "Save O Lord Thy people..." As the bells rang joyfully, all returned into the cathedral.

Meanwhile in Russia the civil war continued. Many had hoped that with the liberation of Kiev, the Bolsheviks would be defeated and a period of rebirth might begin. Such hopes were not to be realised.

Daily life in Kiev flowed on. Vladika Antony lived in the Lavra of the Caves. Here he received all those who wished to see him. He treated everyone with tea. Metropolitan Flavian remarked:

"Vladika Antony had a constant caravansary. Hierarchs, archimandrites, generals, monks, students, the elderly, and youth came for tea. Each one felt as if he was in his own home. Vladika had enough kindness for everyone. His samovar was double sized and, like a factory, it was always steaming. His assistants were kept busy serving glasses of tea. Debates and theological discussions took place until late. At about one o'clock in the morning, Vladika would give the order to prepare places for the guests to sleep. Then everyone would leave, each one taking a blessing from Vladika. Metropolitan Antony himself would go to his study and deal with reports, papers and matters of the Metropolitanate until 3 A.M. By 8 A.M. Vladika was again on his feet and about the tasks of the day. While he often missed meals himself, he was concerned about others. God forbid that any visitor might leave not having been fed and comforted."

At 8:30 A.M. the secretary would come to Vladika's office with more reports and paperwork for him to act upon. He would pore over the accounts to see how much aid could be given to poor seminarians who had appealed to him. Vladika Antony was generous to a fault. He would give money to anyone who asked. On one occasion his secretary caught him giving money to a man who was known to drink heavily. When he was told, "Holy Vladika, why did you give money to him? He will only drink it all away." He replied peacefully, "I know that, but once he has spent all the money on drink, having misrepresented why he wanted it, perhaps his conscience will trouble him and he will repent and stop drinking. He would have found the money some other way, become drunk and then convinced himself that he had become drunk because he was so disappointed at the lack of love and help from the hierarchs."

A number of students related how they had been brought to repentance and saved precisely through such love and trust on the part of Vladika Antony.

Vladika Antony did not care for money. When he received his allowance at the beginning of each month, it was all gone by that evening. He had distributed it to those in need and those who asked. Vladika never had more than one pair of boots and he always wore a battered old cassock and ryassa. Sometimes an admirer would purchase a new cassock for him, but he always knew a priest who needed it and gave it to him. Vladika did not like for anyone to spend money on clothing or vestments for him. He preferred that the money be given to those in need. He instructed people, "If you give clothing to the poor, do not give old, worn out clothing. Give them something new; give them the best that you can."

One never saw Vladika sitting idly. He was always working at something. After he had seen the petitioners who came to him, he worked on the immense correspondence that came to him. He would answer everyone so that no one felt ignored. It did not matter if the letter was from a prince or from a simple peasant. He would not however read a letter that was not signed. If a letter contained slanders or complaints about someone else, Vladika would simply tear it up and throw it away. Vladika did not consider newspapers trustworthy and did not read them.

On one occasion, the spiritual court had to suspend a certain priest for misconduct. It was October of 1919. On the feast of the Protection of the Theotokos, Metropolitan Antony served the feast and then set out for the school. Suddenly a large crowd of agitated people surrounded Vladika and began to demand that he rescind the suspension of the priest. It was clear that many in the crowd were Bolsheviks who cared nothing about the matter but simply wanted to create trouble. Vladika replied, "If it appears that your priest was maligned, we will have an inquiry and all will be clear. If it turns out that your priest was falsely accused, he will be back with you soon."

The crowd had, however, been propagandised and they began to shout and make demands. At length some of them cried out, "If you do not allow him to serve immediately, we will not let you go from here." So far from being intimidated, Vladika straightened himself up, fixed a stern gaze on the crowd and loudly responded, "Oho, so now you are threatening me. That was all that was wanting. Well listen to me. Do not think that I am afraid of death. I tell you that without a trial and inquiry, I will not depart from the decision that has been taken by one iota. If you wish to execute me, I am at your service. See, there is a tree from which you can hang me; you can begin."

All was suddenly quiet. The crowd fell silent and all that could be heard was a woman weeping. The agitators were stupefied and did not know what to do so the crowd began to dissolve. The saint peacefully walked on to the school.

A Moleben was served and everyone had just sat down for a meal when there was a telephone call with the news that Kiev would shortly be turned over to the Bolsheviks. "Well, let it be so," Vladika calmly reacted. "We will remain here until the Bolsheviks arrive, and accept whatever God grants..."

Soon everyone was imploring the Metropolitan to leave Kiev because they all knew that the Bolsheviks would not leave him alive. "I will go nowhere for now," Vladika said, "If I am to die, then I am to die. Why should I be going somewhere."

Meanwhile, the volunteer army managed to turn the Bolsheviks back once more, and Kiev was safe for the time being. However, because the north was completely under the control of the Bolsheviks and communication with the patriarch and synod was no longer possible, a group of hierarchs had created a Higher Church Administration for the South, in Novocherkassk. Vladika received an urgent appeal to come for a council meeting because there were urgent matters that had to be dealt with. Shortly after Metropolitan Antony arrived in Novocherkassk, word came that Kiev had fallen to the Bolsheviks and that he could no longer return there. Once more, his life had been saved by providence.

The Higher Church Administration sent Vladika Antony to Ekaterinodar in the Eparchy of Kuban. This was the centre of the White Army under General Denikin, and was soon to become the seat of the Higher Church Administration. Since Metropolitan Antony was the senior hierarch present, he became the chairman. Here, Vladika had to receive huge crowds of refugees and visitors. The stormy sea of the Civil War washed the shattered fragments of the Russian Empire to the shores of Ekaterinodar. Somehow, each fragment found its way to the residence of the beloved metropolitan. Everyone, regardless of rank or political disposition, found a calm haven in Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky.

To him came peasants and students, princes and hierarchs, including Archbishop George, who had been driven out of Minsk by the Communists and Archimandrite Tikhon Troitsky, who would later become Archbishop of San Francisco. Vladika's boundless love and hospitality was dramatically revealed on the day that Metropolitan Pitirim of Saint Petersburg arrived with Prince Zhevakhov. Metropolitan Pitirim had bitterly opposed Vladika Antony, especially during the Moscow Council which restored the patriarchate. He was a strong supporter of the old noncanonical Synodal system. On many occasions he had displayed an open enmity toward Vladika Antony. Nevertheless, when the two refugees arrived, Vladika Antony treated them with great kindness. He gave his office over to Metropolitan Pitirim, and when the latter fell ill with a severe asthma attack, Vladika arranged for him to be cared for day and night.

Archimandrite Theodosy, who had been assigned to care for the ailing refugee later recalled, "Vladika Pitirim became so meek and mild, like a child. He looked at me with childlike eyes and asked about all that was taking place. He spoke about his life, about his former grandeur and about his own errors. He said, among other things, `O my God, how I have sinned before God in being offensive toward Vladika Antony. Previously I caused so much evil toward him, and I never thought that I would come to him to die. One can only look with awe at Vladika Antony's good natured forgiveness and kindness. When we were coming to Ekaterinodar, I was sure that Vladika Antony would not even allow me to cross his threshold, but he greeted me as if I was his own father. May the Lord save him,' and then he wept".

As winter drew nigh, it became cold, the first frosts came and cold winds began to blow. Metropolitan Pitirim's condition became worse and in November he peacefully died. Metropolitan Antony and Bishop Sergei (Lavrov) served his funeral.

Shortly after Metropolitan Pitirim's funeral, the evacuation of Ekaterinodar began. Vladika Antony refused to go. Daily, friends, hierarchs and various delegates arrived to beg him to leave. Still he refused. At length the Higher Church Administration evacuated to Novorossisk. Still, Vladika did not want to go, but when he was forcefully reminded of his obligation as Chairman of the Higher Church Administration, he grudgingly agreed to go.

Even in Novorossisk, it was not possible for the administration to take root. Gun shots were heard nearer and nearer to the city. Evacuation abroad had already begun, but this time Metropolitan Antony was unmoveable. He categorically refused to go. There was no way to persuade him, and it was clear that he had chosen to die on his own native soil, for the Bolsheviks would certainly have made a celebration of executing him. In the end, with the aid of his faithful attendant, Archimandrite Theodosy, a clever deception was created in order to trick Vladika into leaving. It was to involve the Greeks living in the city and the Greek ships which had arrived to evacuate them. Since there had been no news from the rest of Europe for a long time, and Greece was still at war with Turkey, a feasible deception was created. Archimandrite Theodosy relates the incident for us:

"A terrible confusion enveloped Novorossisk. On the wharf a great mass of people, horses and every imaginable type of freight was prepared for evacuation. It was impossible to go from the wharf into the city. The entire city was noise and chaos as each person rushed to board a ship...On 12 March, everything in the governor's quarters was packed and sent to the wharf, and everyone left. Only Vladika Antony and the deputy governor remained behind. As the guns came closer, Colonel Ametisov arrived to arrange which ship Vladika would depart on, but he absolutely refused to go. He said that it made no difference where he must die. Then, Archpriest G. Lomoko went to the Greeks and told them everything about Vladika, that he refused to leave, but would be torn to pieces if he remained. Together with the Greeks, a cunning plan was devised.

"Three Greeks came to Vladika and claimed that the Greeks had retaken Constantinople and the Divine Wisdom Church [Agia Sofia] `Vladika, please come and serve a thanksgiving service for all of us Greeks on board the Elevzik. A cross will be erected at Aghia Sophia today.' Vladika gave thanks to God, crossed himself many times, and joyously agreed to come and serve the Moleben. He had desired the liberation since his early years and he liked the Greeks very much because of their strength in the faith. A hospital vehicle was found, and Father Lomako whispered in my ear, `Take the rest of his things'.

"I understood that we would not be returning and I hurriedly grabbed some suitcases. Father Lomako went with us. As we arrived at the sea, a transport boat was waiting for us. We sat down in the boat and the Greek sailors immediately pushed off. Shortly we came to a beautiful passenger ship. Vladika was given a double room and the rest of us three and four bed rooms in first class. We settled in and understood that we were to wait while the Greeks gathered for the service, then we heard the anchor being pulled up. I stepped out on deck and could see that we were already heading out to sea.

"Vladika asked why no one was saying anything about the Moleben. Then Father Lomako explained everything. Only then did Vladika realize that he had been abducted and delivered from certain death.

"Shells were falling in Novorossisk and the city was filled with their whistling sound and explosions. Our ship was the last one to leave. In the streets of Novorossisk people were being shot to death and some of the inhabitants were even being hanged.

"We could not debark in Constantinople because of a quarantine. For the feast of the Annunciation, the refugees were already in Athens. Metropolitan Antony served the Paschal service with the Archbishop of Athens. Many clergy and the King were present. On Thomas Sunday, he served alone and gave a sermon in Russian while Archimandrite Chrysostom translated into Greek. After the sermon, Vladika was practically carried in arms back into the altar where everyone kissed his hands from both sides."

After Thomas Sunday, Vladika asked permission to retire to Mount Athos, but this was not permitted. Instead, they organized a meeting of the Academy of Sciences where papers were to be read about his works. All the hierarchs, many clergy and seminarians were present for the event.

After several days, the Greek government allotted 15,000 drachmas to Vladika. Following the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers, Vladika Antony was allowed to visit Mount Athos. He remained for five months in the midst of the monasticism which was so dear to his heart.

On 5 September, a telegram arrived from General Wrangel asking Metropolitan Antony to come to Crimea to administer the Church there. Vladika dutifully went, but he would not be long on his home soil. Forty days after he arrived in Sevastopol, he was compelled to leave his native land forever. The retreating White Army had no choice but to flee. Seventy-five years of blood, violence and darkness settled over Russia. On 6/19 November, 1920, under the command of General Peter Nikolaevich Wrangel, 125 ships carrying about 150,000 people arrived in Constantinople. Metropolitan Antony was among them. There were also many of Russia's writers and intellectuals whom the Communists had marked for death. At least 27,000 women and children were on board as well as a large number of soldiers of the White Army.

 Metropolitan Antony had a deep respect for the much suffering Greek Church and at first he considered it appropriate that all activity of the Higher Church Administration should cease, and that the Russians in exile should place themselves in the care of the Greek Church which was the local canonical body. However, the situation with the Russians outside Russia was not so simple and direct. Thousands were now in China, others in Czechoslovakia, still others in Western Europe and in Yugoslavia as well as in Australia, Canada and America. All these were cut off from the Moscow Patriarchate and needed care. Moreover, the Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople was in no position to give spiritual care to this far flung diaspora. The "destruction of Asia Minor" and the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and Cappadocian Greeks was about to begin and the Greek Patriarchate would only barely survive.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople itself urged the Russians to care for themselves and with the accord and blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Higher Church Administration continued to look after the Russian exiles and emigres even in the Greek land. The Ecumenical Patriarchate cited Canon 39 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in instructing the Russian hierarchs to care for their own people in exile.

On 6/19 November 1920, the first meeting of the Higher Church Administration to take place outside Russia, convened on board the ship "Grand Prince Alexander Mihailovich". Present under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Antony were Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Kherson and Odessa (later Metropolitan of America), the erratic and neurotic Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, who had introduced Rasputin into the Imperial Family, and Bishop Veniamin of Sevastopol. It was decreed that the Higher Church Administration would continue to exercise spiritual care and authority for all refugees in all countries where the Church could not have direct communication with the Patriarch of Moscow. It was understood that this would be a temporary state of affairs until free and unimpeded access to the patriarchate could be restored.

After this meeting, Metropolitan Antony, determined to follow proper order, went to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to present the details of the meeting which had taken place in his territory. Vladika Antony was well known and highly respected throughout the Orthodox world. He was known to be zealous for proper canonical order. The Patriarchal Synod under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Dorotheos, the deputy to the patriarch, discussed the matter of the Russian diaspora at some length. In the end, on 22 December, 1920, Patriarchal Decree number 9084 directed that "Russian hierarchs are given leave to fulfil for Russian Orthodox refugees all that is required by the Church and faith for them."

After the quarantine, the hierarchs were able to leave the ship and move into Constantinople. Metropolitan Antony found refuge with Archbishop Anastassy of Kishinev who had two small rooms in the attic of the consul house. Vladika Antony lived here for three months until his departure to Serbia in February of 1921.

Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch who was a great admirer and friend of Vladika, invited him to come and live in Syria and continue his writing. A delegation from the Vatican Nuncio (ambassador) in Constantinople offered the Metropolitan support worthy of his high rank until he was able to return to Russia. Vladika declined all offers. He replied that he preferred to share the fate of all the ordinary Russian refugees.

This was the beginning of the immigration of some three million Russian refugees who settled in every quarter of the earth. All turned to the Higher Church Administration and Metropolitan Antony for consolation and spiritual sustenance. They had lost everything — homeland, families, homes, and possessions and the Church was their only solace.

Soon makeshift churches began to spring up across Europe, in cities, refugee camps and in the countryside. Tents, lean-tos, wood sheds, tiny rooms in various buildings were all equipped with home made liturgical furnishings. In Asia, the same thing was taking place. There were large Russian churches in major cities in China, particularly along the routes of the southern spur of the Trans-Siberian Railway, and the embassy church in Seoul, Korea, which was used also by the Korean converts, provided spiritual homes for many. In other areas, however, the same makeshift churches sprang up. In Australia, South America, in Canada and in America, the local hierarchs, clergy and laity were all cut off from the patriarchate in Moscow. They all turned to the Higher Church Administration for leadership, international representation, ordained clergy and guidance. It was clearly necessary to form a fixed centre and standing Synod to deal with all these situations. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad slowly became established.

Realizing the enormity of this situation, Patriarch Varnava of Serbia offered the Patriarchal centre at Sremski-Karlovtsi (Karlovats) to Metropolitan Antony as a seat for the Russian Higher Church Administration. No one thought that this organization would last for decades, all still hoped for the ultimate defeat of the Bolsheviks.

On 5 February, 1920, some Russian hierarchs had arrived in Serbia, having been evacuated from Novorossisk. They were Archbishop Evlogy, future Metropolitan of Paris, Bishop Gabriel of Chelyabinsk, Bishop Mitrophan of Suma and Bishop Appolinary, subsequently Archbishop of America. In the spring of 1921, Metropolitan Antony arrived and shortly after, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Bishop Michael of Alexandrovsk, Bishop Veniaminov of Sevastopol, Bishop Theophan of Kursk, Bishop Sergei of Chernomorya and Bishop Germogen of Ekaterinoslav.

On 8/21 November, 1921, in Sremski-Karlovtsi (Karlovats), the first general assembly of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia took place. Under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Antony, 101 members gathered of whom 11 were Russian hierarchs and two were Serbian bishops. The council lasted for eleven days and debated many important issues facing the diaspora.

It was in the epistles and letters that were drafted at the end of this congress that the first pains of discord and future schism appeared. There was bound to be some controversy. Some of the hierarchs had seen the reestablishment of the patriarchate as a form of separation of Church and State, but not a loss of patriotism and loyalty, while others envisioned it in every shade in between. Some of the refugees had been among those opposed to the restoration of the patriarchate. If the Imperial family was still alive, no one knew where they were or their fate. Even those with a most simple patriotism wanted to show support for them; others felt that even if the Tsar did not survive, or if rumours that the family had been executed were true, some expression of loyalty to the ruling dynasty should be expressed.

Although he has some reservations about the exact wording, Metropolitan Antony remembered the "Time of Troubles" and the way in which the Church under Patriarch Germogen had helped to bring order from the bloody chaos that came with the end of the ancient Rurik dynasty. If it was true, as all had heard, that Tsar Nicholas and his family had been executed, there could be the same sort of discord following a defeat of the Communist forces. No one imagined at that time that the Bolshevik's new Communist authority would last for seven decades.

Nevertheless, with the advantage of hindsight, one can suggest that Vladika Antony and others made a serious error by including in their decree a section about the restoration of the imperial house. No doubt they had in mind a more peaceful restoration of Russia after the expected fall of Communism, but the decree created huge problems both for the Church Abroad and for the Patriarchate itself. In this case, the council of Metropolitan Evlogy was the most sound. He did not want any entanglement of the church in the political affairs relating to the Russian state. Metropolitan Antony was a patriot and a monarchist. The horrors, mass murders and senseless destruction and violence of the Russian Civil War far outstripped the excesses of the 1905 revolution, and Vladika was so horrified by all that took place that he became reactionary. He could not help expressing his love and support for the monarchy and for the House of Romanov. Nor could he have fully understood the methods and agenda of the Communists. All of the hierarchs knew for certain that the Communist Bolsheviks were militant atheists and that they planned to destroy the Church, obliterate faith and establish a harsh dictatorship.

From the point of view of patriotism and integrity, Metropolitan Antony was correct. In terms of the delicacy of the circumstances and necessary diplomacy and caution, Metropolitan Evlogy was correct. Sadly, the disagreement over this matter left a strained relationship between the two old friends. The relationship was made worse by the fact that Metropolitan Evlogy had become surrounded by emigres comprised of leftist writers, socialists and members of the Gnostic-theosophical Solovievan Brotherhood. All these were anti-monarchist and many of them had been opposed to the restoration of the patriarchate. As well, a number of them had become thoroughly sectarian. Metropolitan Evlogy had a weak personality and was easily manipulated by this group.

Archbishop Evlogy went back home. It would become evident later that he had some sort of communication with the Soviet authorities. It was impossible to communicate with the patriarch except through the Soviet government.

The Communist Soviet government was not long in responding to the declaration of the Sremski-Karlovtsi Synod. Immediately after the synodal meeting, early in 1922 Patriarch Dimitry of Serbia received a laudatory letter from Patriarch Tikhon. In it, Patriarch Tikhon profusely thanked the Serbian Patriarch and Church for their loving support of the Russians outside Russia and for facilitating the Synod Abroad and its work.

Then, unexpectedly in the summer of 1922, Metropolitan Antony and Metropolitan Evlogy, who was now in Paris, received decrees numbered 348 and 349. These two decrees which have been quite controversial proved to be the first attempt of the Soviet government to divide and neutralize the Russian community abroad.

In the decrees, there was a condemnation of the Russian clergy and laity abroad and the Synod of Sremsky-Karlovtsi for advocating the restoration of the Romanov dynasty and for their appeal to the Geneva Convention. The decree read in part:

"In view of the fact that the Russian Church Administration has been lured into the realm of political pronouncements and since the Russian parishes abroad have been entrusted to the care of Metropolitan Evlogy, who is resident in Germany, the Higher Church Administration is abolished"

Immediately upon receiving the decree, Metropolitan Evlogy wrote to Vladika Antony:

"This decree astounded me by its unexpectedness and stuns one by the terrible strife it could bring into the life of the Church. It has undoubtedly been issued under pressure from the Bolsheviks. I do not accept or acknowledge any obligatory authority in this document, even though it could in fact have been signed by the Patriarch. This document has a political nature and not an ecclesiastical one. Outside the boundaries of the Soviet State, it has no significance for any one anywhere."

Indeed a member of the Patriarchal Synod and close assistant to Patriarch Tikhon gives us a testimony of what had taken place. Protopresbyter Vasili Vinogradov related that the Patriarch and members of the Holy Synod were placed under house arrest under great duress. The Soviet government demanded that the Patriarch and Holy Synod condemn, defrock and excommunicate the hierarchs and clergy abroad. The Patriarch and administration had refused. When the Soviet authorities threatened to begin executing all the clergy in the Moscow district, the patriarchate agreed to sign what was obviously a compromise version of the decree.

It is evident from his letter to Metropolitan Antony that Metropolitan Evlogy fully understood that the decree had been issued under threats and duress from the Communist government. Nevertheless, the leftist intelligentsia, members of the Solovievan Brotherhood, followers of the Sophianist heresy and others of the emigre community in Paris, began to agitate Metropolitan Evlogy to take advantage of the decree and create a division in the Russian Church Abroad. Perhaps, however, there is often too harsh a response to the actions of Metropolitan Evlogy. In fact, the decision of the convocation in Sremski-Karlovtsi was too political. The Higher Church Administration abroad did become too closely tied to the political monarchist movements. One can make all manner of judgements in retrospect, but they are seldom of use. In an era when we have instant communications and satellite broadcast it may be easy to judge what people living in a different era "should have known." They could not have known the details of what was going on in the Soviet Union, nor could anyone be certain whether the correspondence and news they were receiving from Moscow was authentic and who it was actually coming from. Nor did the synod that met in Karlovats that year understand the Communist institution and how it worked. We can, in hindsight assert that much that was done in the Church in exile in those days was in error and that some of their actions were not wisely chosen. Emotions ran high and sometime trumped diplomacy. Critics on both sides of these questions have often been too shrill and too absolute in their judgments. Metropolitan Evlogy's most educated and active constituency in Paris consisted in anti-monarchist, leftwing activists. It would have been difficult for him not to have been influenced by them. At the same time, these same activists had as part of their agenda the secularisation of the Church and the introduction of various clearly heretical teachings. Bulgakov had fallen into the heresy of Sophianism and Berdyaev drifted into Origenism and panthe-ism. The matter of the St. Serge Academy is Paris will be discussed later. The council that met in Sremski-Karlovtsi (Karlovats) in 1921-22, on the other hand, was far too dominated by ultra-rightwing monarchists whose agenda was more political than spiritual. With such volatility, the ensuing situation was unavoidable. In retrospect, the attachment of the Synod abroad to the monarchist agenda was a serious error. In the unfolding of history all hereditary autocracies had begun to disappear. The First World War ended with the overthrow of the last four such autocracies in Europe, those of Austria, Germany, Russia and Turkey. The imperial age was in its twilight and the only thing that could have saved the dynasty in Russia would have been a move into a sincere constitutional monarchy with a legitimate parliament. It may not even have been possible. The air was still muggy with the stale breath of Pobedonostsev, and the anarchists, nihilists and radical republicans had been determined to prevent such a solution.

Meanwhile, it is undeniable that Metropolitan Antony's reaction to the directives (ukazes) from Moscow vindicated his personal motivations and desires. The vast majority of the Russian hierarchs, clergy and laity from Europe to China remained faithful to the Higher Church Administration in Sremsky-Karlovtsi. When it became clear that Metropolitan Evlogy's departure was inevitable, Metropolitan Antony declared that he did not want to be a stone on the path to a peaceful solution. He resolved to fulfil his long standing dream to retire to Mount Athos and take on the Great Schema. In fact, Vladika Antony had taken this decision shortly after receiving the decree abolishing the Higher Church Administration. He knew Metropolitan Evlogy well enough to know that personal power and position were important to him. For his own part, Vladika Antony was willing to step aside for Metropolitan Evlogy if it might help foster a peaceful solution. Life in the Russian Monastery on Mount Athos seemed to him to be both desirable and joyous. This event in the life of Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky was described by his beloved student and co-ascetic, Father John Maximovich (Saint John of San Francisco):

"In 1922, several months after the selection of the members of Russian Hierarchal Synod Abroad, its president, Metropolitan Antony of Kiev and Halich, firmly resolved to withdraw from ecclesiastical affairs and go in retirement to Mount Athos, where he would receive the Great Schema. He kept his decision a secret until permission to enter Mount Athos was received and the Metropolitan had begun to prepare for his departure. The Russian faithful in Belgrade became highly distressed.

On 15 December on the Old Calendar, a large group of people, headed by the senior `church sister' of the Sisterhood of Mary, Princess Maria Alexandrovna Svyatopolk-Mirsky, set out to the Patriarchate in Belgrade where Metropolitan Antony was staying at that time. They petitioned him in the name of the Russian parish of Belgrade not to abandon them. They took with them the wonderworking Kursk icon of the Theotokos.

When they arrived at the patriarchate, the delegation went to Patriarch Dimitry to ask for his help. The Patriarch replied that he had already striven with Metropolitan Antony to convince him to remain, but in vain. `He does not want to hear about that and has absolutely resolved to go.'

When the delegation entered the room occupied by Metropolitan Antony, he reverenced the wonderworking icon, but he reproached those who had brought it for having brought such a holy thing without sufficient cause. `It is of no use to try to convince me,' he said. `I stand unwavering like Boris Godunov, and have firmly resolved to go to Athos and no arguments will change my decision'.

For a long time the people begged Vladika not to withdraw from leadership of the Church, but the Metropolitan was not persuaded. Then, princess M.A.Svyatopolk-Mirsky pointed to the wonderworking icon and exclaimed, `If you will not listen to us Vladika, we believe that the Theotokos herself will not allow, and you will not go away.'

Reaffirming his decision, Metropolitan Antony continued his preparation for departure as soon as the delegation had departed. In preparation to completely leave all civil activity and leave this world, he wrote letters to Grand Princes Kirill Vladimirovich and Nikolai Nikolaevich with the request that they assemble to obtain their family's advice and resolve all the discord that had arisen. He wrote to Metropolitan Evlogy telling him that after his departure he, being next in seniority, should assume the responsibility of chairman of the Synod of Bishops, replacing him.

A few days later, Metropolitan Antony returned to Sremsky-Karlovtsi to his permanent residence, to set matters in order and complete his preparation, and return to Belgrade for the Nativity. He intended to serve in the Russian church in Belgrade on the first two days [of the feast], and on the second day of Nativity to depart for Athos. Having ordered his affairs in Sremsky-Karlovtsi, bid farewell to Maximian, the vicar-bishop and the students of the Karlovtsi Theological Faculty, Metropolitan Antony departed intending never to return. Two days before the Nativity of Christ, he arrived at 7 o'clock in Belgrade.

Upon arriving at the patriarchate, Metropolitan Antony was handed an express packet from Mount Athos. Archimandrite Misail of Saint Panteleimon's Monastery informed him that in view of some local disturbances, the Athonite government had revoked the permission it had granted for him to come. Vladika was astonished by this news. Most of all, he was amazed that the new decision had been sent on the very same day that the people begged him, in front of the wonderworking icon of the Theotokos, not to leave his flock. The words of Princess Svyatopolk-Mirsky had been fulfilled, If you will not listen to us, Vladika, we believe that the Theotokos herself will not allow, and you will not go away.

At first Metropolitan Antony did not know how to respond and he told no one of the news he had received. Only his aide, Father Theodosy, was aware of it, and he had discreetly informed some of the people closest to Vladika.

Confused about what to do next, he went to Patriarch Dimitry and informed him of the letter he had received. `We did not desire your departure,' replied the patriarch, `so keep living here with us.'

Only on the Nativity, while serving at the Russian church which was still the chapel of the Birth of the Theotokos, the barracks chapel in the Serbian Church of Evangelist Mark, did Metropolitan Antony announce, at the end of his sermon, that his fervent desire to completely leave the world could not be fulfilled. Submitting to God's will, he would remain with his flock. His words were met with great joy..."

In essence, however, the Higher Church Authority Abroad ceased to exist in that form. In its place, of necessity, there was formed a Synod of Bishops for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Truly, it was providential that the blessed one had not departed. He was much needed at this time. In the first half of May, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon was arrested by the Bolsheviks. Renewed persecutions against the Church in Russia arose with even greater ferocity than before. The process of confiscating church valuables and land and buildings had begun. At the same time, the Soviet sponsored "Living Church" schism was being given some of the parish churches of the patriarchate, causing division and distress among the faithful. In the midst of all this, Vladika Antony was broken hearted to learn that his old friend and former student Metropolitan Sergei Starogorodsky had departed from the Orthodox Church and hoined himself to the secret police sponsored "Living Church" schism.

During all these fateful events in the homeland, there resounded the voice of the archpastor, cosuffering for his Church and the patriarch and defending them.

As soon as Vladika Antony got word of the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon and the formation of the "Living Church", he instituted the following measures:

The Higher Church Administration Abroad made a fervent appeal to all the heads of Orthodox Churches and heterodox denominations. They besought their aid about the violence against the patriarch. Only the Pope in Rome did not receive an appeal because it had become well known that he was attempting to make use of the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church for the advancement of militant Catholicism. The appeal had been composed by Metropolitan Antony himself. An appeal for help was also sent out to the governments of many nations.

In response to these appeals for the defense of Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Antony received a letter from the French government informing him that they had discussed the matter with other governments. The French, Belgian, British, Italian and American governments had agreed to act in concert with strenuous efforts to save Patriarch Tikhon. The Ministry of External Affairs of Czechoslovakia replied that they too had commenced steps to help Patriarch Tikhon. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Swiss Protestant Church and many others agreed to exert whatever means they could to help. The Eastern Patriarchs together with Archbishop Cyril of Cyprus and Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens released a joint declaration about the matter. Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch wrote a personal letter to Vladika Antony in which he expressed his profound grief over the cruel persecutions against the Church in Russia. Archbishop Chrysostom of Greece also issued an epistle condemning the "Living Church" schism.

The Soviet government had scheduled a trial of Patriarch Tikhon for mid-May of 1923. This was the era of the "show trials" in the Soviet Union, and everyone put on trial was pre-convicted and usually sentenced to death or exile in the far North. However, on 8 May, the government of Great Britain sent an ultimatum to the Soviet Government, over the signature of Lord Curzon, composed in the strongest language. The British Ambassador, Mr Hudson, delivered the document in which Lord Curzon wrote, "The nation in which faith is persecuted and the servants of the Church are crucified must be excluded from the company of civilized nations."

In fact, this ultimatum was presented in the name of all the great powers. The Soviet government was, at that time, too weak to come into open conflict with the super powers of the world. In the end, all the nations that had established relations with the Soviet Union let it be known that if the trial proceeded, they would recall their representatives and terminate relations with the Soviets. By the end of June, 1923, the Bolsheviks were compelled to set Patriarch Tikhon free. In exchange for his freedom, however, His Holiness was compelled to release a public epistle in which he declared that he was not an enemy of the Soviet authority. As soon as Saint Tikhon was released from prison, Metropolitan Sergei Starogorodsky, who had entered the Renovationist schism of the "Living Church," returned to the patriarchate, repented before the Patriarch and asked to be received back into the Church.

When the content of this epistle reached the diaspora it created confusion. Vladika Antony at once came to the defence of the beleaguered patriarch and reaffirmed his authority. Vladika wrote in the press: "We are of the unwavering conviction that the Holy Patriarch outwardly reconciled himself with the Soviet power, not in order to preserve his own life and personal well-being, which he was already deprived of from the time of the Bolshevik rising...but for the general benefit of the Church".

As events unfolded, we become more and more convinced that it was God's will for Tikhon to serve in Soviet Russia and Antony to serve the diaspora. Had the actual vote carried and Vladika Antony become patriarch, even the Provisional Government, let alone the Bolsheviks, might have had him executed quickly. As it turned out, Vladika's service was vital in this era. He became the main defender of Patriarch Tikhon outside the Soviet Union and helped save him from execution, as we mentioned above. Sadly, we must also say that Vladika Antony also helped Patriarch Tikhon in the face of outrageous attacks from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

One might like to think that the Papal delusions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were an affectation of only the last few occupants of the office. However, the degeneration of the Ecumenical Patriarchate began long before the twenty-first century. A prime example would be the forcing of the Bulgarian Orthodox community into what is called "ethno-phelitism." In the 1870s, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church came to realise that, in order to preserve and advance the faith in Bulgaria, there was an urgent need to replace Greek in the Liturgy with Bulgarian, free the Bulgarian Church from the predations of the Greek Patriarchate in the Phanar in Constantinople and establish a Bulgarian hierarchy and Bulgarian priests in every parish. At the time, the Ecumenical Patriarch was in essence an official of the Ottoman Empire, responsible to the pacification of Orthodox Communities within the Empire, which might otherwise think of liberation. Compounding the problem, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was far more interested in maintaining power, control and revenue than in the welfare of Orthodoxy in various countries. Thus, the Bulgarian Church was literally forced into an untenable situation by the intransigence and power seeking of the Ecumenical Patriarchate under Anthimos IV. Ironically, the Bulgarian Church was accused of ethno-phyletism for wanting to give proper pastoral care to its flock, while the Ecumenical Patriarch was actually guity of etho-phyletism for placing Hellenism above the faith in Bulgaria.

It might have come as no surprise, therefore, that in 1924, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios of sorrowful memory arrogated to himself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the autocephalous Russian Church. What is shocking is the manner in which he did so and the position that he took with regard to the Holy Confessor Saint Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

As soon as the Bolsheviks had won the Russian Civil War, they began to seek ways to destroy the Orthodox Christian Church. The spiritual presence and reputation for holiness of Patriarch Tikhon was a great hindrance to this objective. The Soviet Government set about to create division in the Church in Russia. Before the Russian civil war, there existed in Russia groups of clergy and intelligentsia who wanted to secularise the Church. For the most part, the members of these groups fostered the idea of Christian socialism. They had opposed the idea of restoring canonical order in the Russian Church and the restoration of the patriarchate. They were more inclined to maintain an improper relationship with the State, and most of them wanted a more secular and Protestant type ecclesiology. While many of them had fled to Paris, a significant number had remained in Russia.

In about 1920, the Communist government appointed an officer of the secret police (at that time called the GPU), Commandant Tuchkov, to bring these groups together and form a counter-church called "The Living Church." Known as "Renovationists," this group would introduce a secularised and socialist oriented church body in opposition to the Moscow Patriarchate. On 1 June, 1924 the following announcement, published in the official Soviet newspaper Izvestia, rocked the Russian Church both inside the Soviet Union and abroad Russia:

Archimandrite Vasilios (official representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople) announced in Moscow that the Ecumenical Patriarch has dismissed the former Patriarch Tikhon. This decision is a result of several councils of the Eastern Patriarchs, and particularly at the request of the Serbian Patriarch. At the same time, the Patriarch of Constantinople is sending to Moscow an authoritative commission of eminent Eastern hierarchs to investigate matters of the Russian Orthodox Church....Concurrently, the Ecumenical Patriarch has acknowledged the Synod of the Russian Church [the "Living Church" Renovationists] as the official governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, and has forbidden those hierarchs who have fled from Russia into emigration, led by Antony Khrapovitsky, to perform divine services. All those hierarchs are to be prosecuted,"

This information was mixed with lies. There had been no such councils and the Patriarch of Serbia most certainly never made such a request. The Ecumenical Patriarch had acted unilaterally and fully acquiesed to the lies. He had no authority to act in such a way, but had arrogated it to himself. Meletios was a Freemason and a secularist. He had endeavoured to secularise the Greek Church and to aggrandize the office of Ecumenical Patriarch, much as successive Patriarchs of Constantinople have sought to elevate themselves to an Eastern Papacy. While he had acted alone, the Ecumenical Patriarch expended some energy attempting to convince the other three Eastern Patriarchs, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, to support his decision.

Eventually, Greek Patriarch Gregory VII did send a special commission to Russia to attempt to convince Saint Tikhon to accept and abide by the decision of Constantinople. Saint Tikhon responded to this, writing to Gregory VII:

"In the instructions to the members of this commission, one of the main points is the desire of Your Holiness that I, the Patriarch of All Russia, `for the sake of the unity of those in schism and of the flock' sacrifice myself and immediately withdraw from administering the Church, as becomes a true and loving pastor who cares for the salvation of many. At the same time [you demand] that the patriarchship be abrogated, even if temporarily [and you assert] that it was formed in completely abnormal circumstances at the beginning of the civil war, and you consider its [existence] to be a significant hindrance to the re-establishment of peace and unity.

"When we read these protocols, we were not a little disturbed and astonished that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has interjected and meddled in the internal life and affairs of the autocephalous Russian Church."

Certainly part of the reason for Constantinople's anti-canonical interference in the affairs of the Russian Church was the prideful arrogance that had seized the Ecumenical throne and infected successive patriarchs of the city. Anthimos, Meletios, Gregory and their successors did not want to see the Moscow Patriarchate restored because they were aware of its potential importance and understood that their pretensions of a Papal style political hegemony in the Orthodox world would be challenged by its existence. This alone, however cannot explain why the Patriarchs of Constantinople would go so far as to support the militantly atheist government's ploy against the lawful Patriarch of Moscow. The lust for power and the lack of human conscience had to have been enormous in the Phanar. More than this, Meletios Metaxakos and Gregory VII could hardly be called "Orthodox." Meletios in particular, who was an active Freemason, was openly sympathetic to the secularisation of the Church and the innovations of the schismatic "Living Church" renovationists. Indeed, he and successive Ecumenical Patriarchs would try to force many of these very same innovations onto the whole Church.

As soon as Metropolitan Antony found out about this uncanonical commission sent to Russia he immediately ad-dressed a "Sorrowful Epistle" to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

"...because of the physical constraints that prevent our Russian patriarch from raising his voice, I, the humble Kievan Metropolitan, being, by decision of the Great All-Russian Sobor of 1917-18, and the ascent of all 32 Russian hierarchs abroad, second after him, have the heavy responsibility to filially call the attention of your holiness to the illegality of the acts of your predecessors Kyr Meletios and Kyr Gregory.

"Up until this time, from the days of my youth, I have raised my voice only for the praise of the Eastern [Patriarchs] and the Ecumenical Patriarchs in particular...However, I am not a papist and I well remember that in addition to the great bishops of the Church such as Paul the Confessor, Gregory the Theologian and others, there were also many [who were] internal enemies of the Church, heretics and even heresiarchs such as Macedonios, Nestorios, Sergios and [others]. It is to their path of disobedience to the Holy Church and her canons that the last two predecessors of your holiness were inclined.

"It is only from the time of the devious [so-called] Pan-Orthodox Congress of former Patriarch Meletios (who dared to give such a name to a gathering of from four to six hierarchs and a few priests and laymen, without any participation of the three Eastern Patriarchs)—from the time of that anti-Orthodox congress there began an anti-Church vandalism which put forth much that the Church has, with heavy anathemas, forbidden. As examples [the congress enacted] married bishops, second marriages for priests, the abolishing of the fasts...."

Also enacted in Constantinople was the unilateral change of the calendar without the consent of the whole Church, thus fracturing the liturgical harmony and unity of the Orthodox Church. While the calendar change was improper and harmed the unity of the Church, Vladika did not consider it a reason for any to break communion with those hierarchs who accepted it. The other innovations, however, were unacceptable.

Since Metropolitan Antony had great moral authority in the Orthodox East, he became a stumbling block to many renovationists and secularisers within the Orthodox world. He became the voice of the Church's conscience, unceasingly reminding all of the immutability of the holy canons and Sacred Tradition. His zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy compelled him to speak out even before the heads of other Churches. Those who would distort the life of the Church had to reckon with him. In 1924, Vladika Antony decided that it was necessary for him to visit the three Eastern Patriarchs to discuss these matters with them. By this time, his defence of Patriarch Tikhon and his accusations had created a deep dissatisfaction and negative relationship toward him on the part of Constantinople. Thus in April of 1924, when Metropolitan Antony stopped at Mount Athos the Ecumenical Patriarch attempted to prevent him from leaving the Holy Mountain. On 8 May, Vladika received a letter form Constantinople informing him that he was not permitted to depart from Mount Athos and that he was forbidden from visiting the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria without the express permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch. On 14 June, Vladika informed the Phanar (the Patriarchal offices in Constantinople) that he was departing from Athos. He then began his plans and agenda for visiting the Eastern patriarchs.

Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Patriarch sent a directive demanding that Patriarch Dimitry of Serbia close down the Russian Synod of Bishops in Sremsky-Karlovtsi (Karlovats). The Serbian Patriarch bluntly reminded the Ecumenical Patriarch that he had neither rights nor authority to interfere in the affairs of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch then addressed a directive to Archbishop Anastassy of Kishenev (second in rank to Metropolitan Antony) and to Archbishop Alexander (Nemolovsky) in America commanding them to cease commemorating Patriarch Tikhon, to cease criticising the Soviet Government and to recognise the Soviet authority. He also commanded them to stop serving the Divine Liturgy until they received express permission from him to do so. These arrogant but impotent words fell on deaf ears.

All this took place while Metropolitan Antony was on Mount Athos. At the time, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava was serving as temporary chairman of the Synod of Bishops in Metropolitan Antony's absence. Fearful that Vladika Antony might end up fulfilling his long-time desire to retire to Athos, take the great schema and remain there, the Synod of Bishops asked Archbishop Theophan to send him an urgent message about the situation. Archbishop Theophan transmitted the following message to Vladika Antony on Mount Athos"

"In view of the strengthened campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia and abroad, raised by the Bolsheviks with the complete complicity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it is necessary to have the active leadership of a highly authoritative hierarch at such a critical time. We are urgently asking that His Eminence Metropolitan Antony, for the benefit of the Church, hasten his departure to Palestine and, at the fulfilling of the mission entrusted to him, return to Sremski-Karlovtsy at the speediest time possible..."

On 9 June, Vladika Antony arrived in Alexandria where he was warmly received by Patriarch Photios. From there he went on to Jerusalem where his friend, Patriarch Damian received him cordially. Vladika stayed in the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and brought it into good order. In the Holy Land he discussed the anti-canonical activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its support for the Soviet Government. From Jerusalem he travelled to Damascus to visit his old friend Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch. Everywhere he received pledges of support for Patriarch Tikhon.

Finally, on 2 October, 1924, exhausted from his long journey, Metropolitan Antony returned to Sremski-Karlovtsi. Despite his age and exhaustion, the Fourth Sobor was held the day after his return in order for him to report on his meetings. At this sobor, all three metropolitans were present — Antony, Platon and Evlogy. In addition two archbishops and nine bishops took part in person and sixteen other bishops sent briefs.

It was at this sobor that Metropolitan Evlogy became a decisive factor in disunity. He wanted to participate in the Synod but did not want to acknowledge that it had any authority. When the Sobor voted to rescind the autonomous status of the Western European Metropolitanate, Evlogy made a loud demonstration of storming out of the room.

It was at this time that Metropolitan Evlogy entered into a relationship with the American YMCA, a liberal Protestant organisation. With their help, the St Serge Institute was established in Paris. The Synod had not only every right, but a clear obligation, to ask Metropolitan Evlogy for the curriculum, study plans, rules and list of teaching staff for this theological institute. He refused to give it to them. He may never had read it himself. It turned out that not one of the professors of the Russian Ecclesiastical Academies who were in exile was invited to teach. Instead, the teachers were all chosen from among the secularist theological liberals and Christian socialist elements. They were supported by representatives of the YMCA. Indeed, the YMCA representatives demanded the right to select teachers for the institute in return for their financial support. They chose people who were beneficial to them. In this way, the brilliant, but eclectic "neo-Christian" Serge Bulgakov, an advocate of the Sophianist heresy became professor of dogmatics, V. Zenkovsky the Protestantizing president of the Russian branch of the YMCA, taught philosophy while the secularist A.V.Kartashev, former Minister of Cults in the socialist Provisional Government, lectured in Russian Church history. Supporting Metropolitan Evlogy were the socialist and ultra liberal intelligentsia, including Struve, Miliukov and Socialist Party leader Alexander Kerensky (who had been head of the Provisional Government). Also supporting St Serge Institute was the editor of the left wing journal of Free Thinking theology and philosophy, Gerson. Other teachers included the Origenist pantheist Nikolai Berdyaev and liberal philosopher Fedotov. To call Berdyaev and many of the others "Orthodox" would be to stretch the definition beyond reason and reality.

There were three major problems at the academy. The first was the selection of Protestant or Protestant oriented teachers for a number of the classes. At the same time, many of the teachers and supporters of the academy who had come from Russia were secularists who wanted to introduce a form of secularism and several of the innovations of the "Living Church" schism into the Russian Church outside of Russia. Of great concern was the introduction of the Sophianists heresy into the teaching at St. Serge Academy. The "new-Christians," which included Pavel Florensky, were really seeking to create a new Christianity which would use Orthodoxy as a base for a Platonistic syncretism, with the introduction of the heresy of Sophianism into the syncretistic mixture. Most of the philosphers in this melieu were members of the Solovievan brotherhood (the cult of the divine sophia).***

Many of these innovations would find their way to North America later and create a degeneration if the structure, understanding and integrity of the Liturgical cycle. It was natural for Metropolitan Antony and other members of the Synod to oppose such corruptions, and this earned them the hatred and enmity of many of the leftwing intelligentsia in Paris and later in America. The separation of the Church in Canada and America became inevitable because many Orthodox Christians in both Canada and America were no longer a "diaspora," but had become native in the countries they had chosen as their homes. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia did not, at that point, even consider itself a "diaspora," but rather a unit of the Russian Church which was temporarily in exile. It was actually necessary for the Church in North America to continue along its own path.

From its beginning until 1926, the Higher Church Administration Abroad had peacefully established parishes and dioceses in the new locations where Russian refugees and exiles found themselves, something that was completely impossible for the beleaguered Patriarchate of Moscow to do. Moreover, the care and spiritual welfare of long established parishes and dioceses in Alaska, America, Canada and Western Europe was ministered to by the Synod Abroad. Under Metropolitan Antony's leadership the Synod had also rallied to the defence of Patriarch Tikhon and the church inside Russia. Ministering to the Church in China was, in itself, a daunting task. Metropolitan Antony personally chose the remarkable man of prayer, Father John Maximovich for this formidable task. Like Zaccheus, the new Vladika John was "small of stature," but he was a spiritual giant and an amazing man of faith. Consecrated and sent to Shanghai, a city that would be forever linked to his name, Bishop John was a poor theologian in the doctrinal sense, but a man whose prayer life and faith gave him a boldness and courage to be a shepher of his flock in a living image of Christ and the apostles.

The Synod Abroad also became a bulwark against the anti-canonical, pro-Soviet activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Satan found an opening for himself in 1926, however, and a severe discord began in that year. On 12 June, the Sobor of the hierarchs abroad was convened with eleven hierarchs in attendance, and sixteen submitting their briefs and written responses to the questions on the agenda.

At the first session of the Sobor, Metropolitan Evlogy sought to subvert the agenda. He was concerned about the discussion of the general administration of the Church outside of Russia and wanted to change its place and significance in the agenda. He knew full well that there were serious questions about the administration and conditions of his metropolitanate. The gathered hierarchs voted twelve to one against the changes. After he lost this vote, and not wishing to have irregularities and problems of his eparchy discussed, Metropolitan Evlogy announced that he would no longer participate in the Higher Church Administration Outside Russia, and quickly departed from Sremsky-Karlovtsi. This was the beginning of the schism in the Russian Church outside Russia. The tragedy of this split was exacerbated by the fact that it occurred during a progressively barbaric attack against the Church in the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks were arresting more and more of the hierarchs and clergy. Many were tortured and executed, others were sent to prison camps, often in the Arctic regions. So many hierarchs were arrested, imprisoned or killed that the vicar Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) became temporary head of the Church. Surprisingly, in the midst of all these arrests, imprisonments and murders, Archbishop Serge (Starogorodsky) was suddenly released from prison and given the right to live in Moscow in freedom. The faithful were quite suspicious of his sudden freedom and still more cautious when he was allowed, as the senior hierarch in freedom, to assume the office of locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne. They could not forget how quickly he had abandoned the Orthodox Church and Patriarch Tikhon and joined himself to the secret police sponsored "Living Church." Soon, the reason for his unexpected release and freedom of action became clear.

We will not judge Metropolitan Serge's actions and decrees following his questionable liberation by the Soviet government. His actual motives can be known only by himself and by God. What is clear is that no hierarch or clergyman outside Soviet Russia could possibly accept or abide by his demands. He may not have written the decrees himself and he may have sincerely believed that his actions were the only possible means for saving the physical integrity of the Church in Russia. Nevertheless, when he demanded that all hierarchs and clergy declare loyalty to the Soviet State, he must have realized that some of the states in which these men lived might have considered such a declaration to be a form of treason. Perhaps he had no expectation that the hierarchs abroad would abide by such a decree. In hindsight, it might have been better for all those outside of Soviet Russia to have simply ignored the pronouncements from Moscow and just carried on with their pastoral labours. However, demands of the Russian community outside Russia made other actions inevitable. What made the matter even more complex was the fact that Metropolitan Sergei made public declarations that there was no persecution of the Church in Soviet Russia, when everyone knew very well that the persecution had reached new levels of violence and murder. Moreover, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, even though under arrest and a sentence of "exile for life," was the actual locum tenens of the patriarchate, and he had not even been consulted about Metropolitan Sergei's actions. Accepting the possibility that Metropolitan Sergei was taking his actions and making his declarations, convinced that no other course would preserve the physical integrity of the Church, we must also accept that the Russian Church outside of Russia could not have responded in any other way than it did. Suffice it to say that all this was exceptionally heavy on Vladika Antony. Metropolitan Sergei had been his student and also a close friend. While Metropolitan Evlogy was content to accept the pronouncements of Sergei, the community in Paris were not, and even Evlogy was forced to respond in a negative way to the decrees of Metropolitan Sergei.

Metropolitan Sergei was not only under enormous pressure for all sides in the Soviet Union, but the Communist authority also threatened him that it would execute all of the more than 100 hierarchs it held under arrest is he did not accede to signing the infamous declaration of loyalty to the Soviet state and demand that all hierarchs outside Russia do the same. Again, one should not be in haste to judge the motives of Metropolitan Sergei. In all likelihood, he never expected the hierarchs outside of Russia to comply with his directive, but at least he could say to the Soviet authorities that he had issued it but had no means to enforce it. The hierarchs outside Russia could maintain loyalty to the countries in which they lived, and continue to protest the persecution of the Church in Russia. I do wish to offer my own view that Metropolitan  Serge was a "moral martyr" who sacrificed himself for the sake of the physical integrity of the Church and the preservation of the Church structure in Russia.

During these years, Metropolitan Antony maintained a close and warm relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church. Successive archbishops and the Church of England must be credited with providing great help and comfort to the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. This connection formed the bases of a relationship that was continued in earnest by the revered Metroplitan Antony Bloom in later decades of the 20th century.

 THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION DEBATES

****

n his daily pastoral life, the beloved Vladika Antony continued to be the good shepherd and father to his flock. Filled with compassion, generosity and kindness, he continued to receive all who wished to see him. As his health waned, those around him sought to protect him from his over burdened labours. His attendant, Fr. Theodosy recalls that on one occasion, he had left his boots in the office area to dry out. When he came back for them they were gone. He complained to Metropolitan Antony that someone had evidently stolen his boots. When Metropolitan Antony heard where they had been left, he made a full prostration to Fr. Theodosy and asked his forgiveness. "Forgive me, Father Theodosy. I thought they were mine and I gave them to someone who came wearing worn-out boots." The secretary of the Synod, the priest George Grabbe (later Bishop Gregory) related two typical stories to us. Metropolitan Antony was very trusting. He generally took people at their word and did not question them. Once, Fr. Grabbe saw a known alcoholic coming out of the Metropolitan's office counting some money. "I was very upset and went into Vladika's office. In a stern tone I asked him, `Vladika, why did you give that man money? He drinks heavily and he will only spend it on alcohol.' `No, this is not true. I asked him if he drank and he said no. You must be mistaken.'" "On one occasion, when Vladika Antony had already almost completely lost the ability to walk, and was in a lot of pain, he was being driven in a carriage to church. A person came alongside his carriage and asked for money. Since Vladika did not have any money with him, he took out his pocket watch and gave it to the man, with a blessing." That was Vladika Antony Khrapovitsky, that was the heart and soul of this great hierarch and great human being.

There were yet more sorrows to come. In 1929, the Soviet Army in the far east invaded northern China and occupied the area in which thousands of Russian refugees had settled. A massive slaughter of the refugees followed. The Soviets tracked down refugees and even those Russians who had lived in China before the civil war and revolution had taken place. Many were tortured, massacred or forcibly returned to Soviet Russia. Metropolitan Antony wrote letters to the heads of state of many nations begging for their intervention to save these hapless victims. This time, there was no response. Other matters were occupying the nations. The extermination continued unabated. No one knows how many thousands of men, women and children were killed. Nothing was done to save them.

As the decade shifted into the 1930s even more terrible news came from the Soviet Union. Still greater persecutions arose against the Church, and then the forced collectivisation began. Farmers were slaughtered and their land taken over by the state. In order to shatter all resistance in the heavily agricultural Ukraine, an artificial famine was created. The Soviet army systematically seized not only the grain that was stored, but also impounded all the seed grain that had been reserved for the planting of the next crops. When there was no harvest in the subsequent years, the state propaganda machine blamed the "greedy farmers with their privately owned fields." From eight to ten million people starved to death in Ukraine during this artificial famine. In the end, all the farm land was confiscated and merged into state owned collective farms, which in all the years they existed never produced sufficient grain.

Filled with unspeakable grief and sorrow over the fate of the people in Russia and Ukraine, Metropolitan Antony continued to rouse protests in the West. The Anglican Church in particular was supportive of these protests, and their involvement over the following decades proved immensely helpful. As the Soviet Union increased in military and nuclear power, it became less and less possible for other nations to intervene or to help the Russian Church and the people. Metropolitan Antony, for all his wisdom and lovingkindness, began to write with more and more anxiety and bitterness. Often he expressed himself in ways that would have been better not done. He was aware of how many innocent civilians were being butchered, sent to their deaths in horrible Siberian work camps, rotting in prisons and starving to death. The massacres of the Russian refugees in China weighed heavily upon his heart. He wrote letters which, while filled with compassion and deep concern for the suffering people, also included passages which were extreme and uncharacteristic. In the end, nothing could be done. The Soviet Union had become a powerful military force in the world, and would enter the nuclear age not long after World War II. The West was not in a position to help, and even if the were, nations such as America had, since World War I, turned inward and become more isolationist. The Stalinist purges raged, and still more people disappeared into the Gulags and death camps. Lavrenty Beria, the head of state security in the Soviet Union made a sport of torturing people to death and ruining the lives of others. Vladika continued to write plaintive letters but there was no action, and eventually not even responses.

Despite his great patriotism and love of the Romanov dynasty, Vladika once gave a sermon in which he said that there may never again be an Imperial Russia, or even a free Russian state. He cautioned his listeners that, while they dreamed of a new Tsar to punish the enemy and dreamed of returning to a re-born Russia, this might never be possible, but "there is another homeland to which you must return even though few desire to. You must all return to the earth from which we were taken, and it for this that all should prepare themselves rather than dreaming of returning to a new Russia."

Metropolitan Antony's illness began in 1927, immediately after the discord in the Russian Church abroad. The reason for his illness was his profound moral sufferings for the Russian Church and people, both inside Russia and abroad. He later remarked, "My suffering for Russia is becoming unbearable for me."

By 1934, Metropolitan Antony was physically exhausted and broken hearted over the fate of his people. He realised that his life was coming to an end, and he turned even more deeply into his inner life of prayer and repentance. More and more, he was seen to weep during the divine services and during his own prayers. In 1935 Vladika had been ordained for fifty years. Patriarch Varnava of Serbia and several other hierarchs decided to arrange a special banquet marking this jubilee. When the celebration took place, there were delegates from the Eastern Patriarchates as well as from the Russian Diaspora in other lands. The speeches delivered at this event by Metropolitan Elias of Lebanon and by Patriarch Varnava of Serbia summed up all the others.

Metropolitan Elias, in the name of the Patriarchate of Antioch, addressed Vladika with these words:

To his, Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, who openly considered Vladika Antony to be a great father of the Church, added:

Toward the end of 1934, Vladika had commented to a close friend that grief and sorrow over the fate of the Russian people and the Russian Church had completely exhausted him. His health began to fail and by 1935, he could no longer walk or even stand. He had to be carried into the church and helped to stand for Holy Communion, but still he would never miss a divine service, and he always gave a sermon.

Vladika concentrated more and more on his inner life and almost completely cut himself off from the affairs of the world. In 1936, with great effort, he participated in all the cycle of Paschal services. After Pascha, he began in earnest to prepare for his departure from this world.

P.S. Lapukhin, who recorded excerpts from Vladika's sermons tells us that Vladika Antony's talks "were always interrupted with tears of tender mercy before those images and truths of life in Christ which were being revealed in his spirit at the given moment. Sometimes it seemed that he could not control his peaceful tears. He would then speak on the same theme, slightly changing the narration. Then he would weep again as if he could not gaze enough on these images and contemplations of the truths of faith, the mercy of God, love, repentance and the spiritual rebirth of a person." Lapukhin's diary from this era gives us a picture of the last days of this great hierarch and Church father.

In his sermons and talks it was not so much his thoughts that were so dear to us as it was what his soul so evidently lived by, having acquired the grace of the Holy Spirit. His heart lived and confirmed a grace-filled life and [revealed] the life of a soul which participated in the life of sanctity.

One time in May of 1936, we spoke with Vladika about the onset of old age and how it makes it difficult to express one's thoughts and feelings. We remarked about how there is a fading of the vividness of images and words for their expression, but that this does not impede the spiritual life or mean that it is diminishing.

At this, Vladika, who in the last while, had spoken less, became animated and replied that this is absolutely true. Spiritual life, he told us, not only does not weaken, but in fact it becomes stronger and more clear. He added, `it only becomes more difficult to express it.'

It is for just this reason that Vladika's last sermons were so valuable for us. Overcoming his weakness, he still spoke to us and partially revealed his soul and his inner spiritual life.

There were three themes that were particularly repeated in the sermons given by Vladika from the feast of Holy Pascha up to his last one on 15/28 July, 1936: the joy of Christ's resurrection, the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and repentance and tender mercy. From Holy Pascha to Holy Spirit Day he spoke mostly about the resurrection.

On Thomas Sunday he said that faith in the resurrection is the crown and touchstone of faith. "A Christian differs from a non-Christian by faith in the resurrection. It is possible to meet people who are prepared to be enraptured with the love and forgiveness of Christ and believe in His divine authority, but have not connected themselves with [the fact that], by His own power and will, He broke the bonds of death. Their faith will not be full or true. The image of our faith in the resurrection is Apostle Thomas. It is not possible to oppose him and his blessed unbelief, as the Church hymn puts it, to the other apostles. All of them had received news of the resurrection with disbelief. Only John alone at once believed in the resurrection. Thomas' unbelief was the result of neither stubbornness nor bitterness of heart. His response to the other apostles is better understood as a passionate desire to have a substantiated faith. he did not want a faith which was cloudy and unclear."

On the following Sunday, the Sunday of the Myrrhbearing women, Vladika said that: "The greeting `Christ is Risen' is repeated for forty days because this is the greatest and most joyous event....Holy Pascha is the most joyous day and our soul rushes forth to be united with everyone in this joy `let us embrace one another and call even those who hate us brethren'...the Orthodox, especially the Russians strive to spread this feeling of joy to other peoples."

This idea was evidently especially dear to Vladika. Tears streamed from his eyes as he repeated various phrases from the Paschal prayers.

On 4/17 May, Vladika remarked that the Paschal prayers were ending. Usually, he said, they rejoice for one or two days, but the pious are exultant for all the forty days up to Ascension. "It is necessary to strive to gradually expand this sacred period of life. With proper care it is possible for one to become capable of rejoicing not just for one or two days, but at first for a week, then for all forty days, and then for a whole lifetime.

"Such was Saint Seraphim of Sarov whose life was lived in a state of Paschal joy. At all times of the year, he greeted people with the words, Christ is Risen, and give them the Paschal kiss. The very aim and meaning of life is to be constantly in such a state of mind. Too often amongst us the ecstasy of the first days quickly withers away and the heart begins to cool. Yet the glimmer of the joy of Holy Pascha remains for a long time and the heart trembles when it hears the singing of the Christ is Risen. Where else could one find such consolation in life if there was no joyous singing of Christ is Risen?

"Saint Seraphim of Sarov lived a heavenly life already here on earth'. Everything that hinders the glorification of Pascha must be put aside with joy so that one might return again to the remembrance of the tender mercy which visited our soul on the day of Holy Pascha..."

On Holy Spirit Day, Vladika said..."Fire from fire — this is the grace of the Holy Spirit which, like a fire, consumes all that is not useful so that only pure gold remains. Everyone who touches this fire feels its burning. But everyone who touches the fire of sin also experiences a burning. In this sense the fire of sin and the Holy Fire have something in common. A person begins to burn with whichever fire he has touched. The holy fathers burned with the flame of the Holy Fire. It is not for us to have the contemplation of such a fire, such an abundance of divine grace which the righteous ones assimilated to such a degree that the Holy Fire burned in their hearts. Nevertheless, even we have moments of tender mercy when our hearts begin to burn with Holy Fire. In the measure that these moments occur more often, gradually this [Holy] Fire becomes ours. We commune of it when we partake of Holy Communion and during fervent prayer. At such times we experience a longing such as Apostle Peter had during the transfiguration when he said, — It is good for us to be here; if Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles: one for Thee, one for Moses and one for Elias. He longed to remain in this frame of mind so that the divine fire would never depart from him. We ask the same thing when we pray `Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me...'

`The Holy Spirit is turned away from an unrepentant sinful soul. If anyone conquers envy in themselves, he is on the path to salvation. If anyone repents and repents again when he sins again so that he becomes accustomed to repenting, he already has one foot in paradise. For salvation one needs neither wealth nor intelligence, but the fire which must be kept kindled in one's heart. All the wisdom and great service of the holy fathers consist in this, that they taught how to acquire the Holy Spirit: I have desired thy commandments, therefore I opened my mouth and cried out seeking they Spirit. If one does not delight in those commandments, if one complains against God, then his soul cannot be touched and blessed and he cannot value those moments of tender mercy. The Holy Spirit always abides close to us and if we turn to It, It will stretch for a hand to help us as we pray `come and abide in us and cleanse us of all impurity.'

On 27 May/7 June, Vladika again spoke on repentance. He told us that we experience various feelings while preparing to receive Holy Communion. "It is the same for those who receive more often and those who receive less often, or even only once a year. Who is the more pleasing to God, the one who approaches seldom, the one who approaches often, the one who approaches more fervently? I cannot say that we who come to Communion often have a full measure of that which the soul thirsts for. It thirsts for that tender mercy, but even in our old age it is so simple to receive it. The soul requires it but the mind is distracted. We can pray —O Lord, grant me the grace-filled gift of humility, for I alone can only bring repentance. Those who try to force themselves to have such humble tenderness before communing the Holy Gifts are not acting correctly; this is not the path to salvation. It is not correct to try to force oneself to have such feelings, rather it is necessary to bring true repentance."

On 2/15 June, 1936, Vladika again spoke to us about the Holy Mystery of Communion. "The help of divine grace is especially needed by a person when he draws near to the Holy Mysteries. How often have pious people wept that before receiving Holy Communion they were suddenly attacked by feelings of anger and impure thoughts...This is why the Church accompanies Communion with prayers, in order to protect the faithful from such attacks...But do not become confused or fall into fears, for where sin abounds, grace doth much more abound. There is no need to become confused, because these attacks are not a sin but only a temptation. Just as near Holy Pascha the devil always strives to create confusion and strife, so also before Communion he seeks to create unpleasantness in order to confuse the soul and rouse it to sin..."

In his homily on 15/28 June, Vladika Antony once more spoke about Holy Communion, opening up his soul to us as he was deeply moved by this great mystery. He spoke of Communion and of the power of faith. His soul was clearly aflame with a profound and fervent faith. "Sometimes people ask, `why do we not see many miracles.' This is not true, for we see them often. Each Resurrection day [i.e., Sunday], we see how people come up for Holy Communion, and it must be said that often lay people receive with greater reverence than to the clergy. For the clergy, who receive of necessity, this great miracle and Mystery sometimes pales in their consciousness. Even the pious, however, do not receive with such depth of feeling as they do on Holy Thursday, or as a convert does in approaching Communion for the first time.

"Two great mysteries are indissolubly bound together: Holy Communion and repentance. The strength of repentance defines the degree of reverence for Holy Communion. The truly repentant are bathed in tears. They do not squeeze out a few tears, but such tears pour forth... These tears are understood to be natural so that those who are weeping so are not startled. The truly righteous were so transfigured by this that their faces shone. This is the consequence of great faith...."

In the homily of 13/26 July, Vladika Antony said that if we Commune worthily, then salvation has already come to us. One must prepare for Holy Communion. In these days, Russian people are in a more repentant mood [because of the catastrophe in Russia]. A sense of repentance, even self-reproach predominates. He reminded us, however, of the joyous prayers of praise the fill the Liturgy, and of the great spiritual joy of Holy Pascha.

Then, on 15/28 July, came Vladika's last sermon. One could not remember Vladika having wept so. His loving tears flowed without restraint. In order to give even a little sense of how he spoke, we interrupt our account with ellipses in those places where the flow of tears prevented him from speaking. It was impossible to listen to this last sermon of Vladika with out emotion. He told us:

This last sermon of Vladika Antony was like a testimony to all the Russians abroad, a testimony about repentant weeping. Only repentant tears can return us to our crucified homeland. In this last sermon Vladika spoke with such tenderness about this most important reality.

Even with his rapidly failing health, Vladika has continued to be present at all services on Sundays and feastdays, receiving Communion regularly, and always giving an edifying sermon. On Sunday, 2 August, 1936, the feat of Prophet Elias, Vladika was present as always. At the end of the liturgy, the choir, following the usual order, sang the "Blessed be the name of the Lord henceforth and forever more" and then stopped, expecting Vladika's sermon. Vladika turned to the congregation and said, "The blessing of the Lord be upon you through His grace and love for mankind, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages." He paused, and then after a short while added, "Amen." Then Vladika said, "Brethren, there will be no sermon. I seem to have become weak." These were the last words spoken in church by the great archpastor and preacher. He immediately returned to his cell.

Soon after Vladika Antony had returned to his cell, it was discovered that his temperature was 38.4
E. He lay down on his bed and his strength gradually departed from him. Streams of pilgrims came to his bedside to receive a last blessing. On Sunday, 9 August, following the Divine Liturgy, all the clergy in Sremsky-Karlovtsi came with a cross procession, bearing the Holy Gifts, to Vladika's cell. He joyously received Holy Communion. Members of the Russian colony in Serbia began to gather outside Vladika's cell, weeping in grief, to bid farewell to their great archpastor and father, who had taught them and become so much a part of their lives.

On this day, also, Patriarch Varnava came from Belgrade to visit Vladika. From that time on Archbishop Anastassy, who had arrived with the Patriarch, remained by the bedside of Metropolitan Antony, in prayer.

On the following morning, Vladika Antony's temperature was up to 40.8 degrees. At 9 o'clock in the evening, he opened his eyes for a moment, and the closed them forever. His breathing became intermittent. At his bedside were Patriarch Varnava, Archbishop Germogen, Archbishop Anastassy, Archimandrite Theodosy and a few others who were close to him. All were joined in prayer. Just as they finished the prayers, Vladika yielded up his last breath and fell asleep in the Lord at 9:20 P.M. on 28/10 August 1936.

All those present were amazed by the peaceful radiance that shone from Vladika's face as he departed from this earthly life.

The Holy Mystery of Christian burial was served, with a funeral liturgy, in the patriarchal cathedral in Belgrade on 13 August. Patriarch Varnava, together with seven hierarchs and twenty priests, concelebrated the service. In his eulogy, which was interrupted by his own tears, Patriarch Varnava said:

Before us are the earthly remains of that great man who tirelessly laboured in Christ's vineyard all of his life. The name of Metropolitan Antony is inseparably linked to the vast period of development and spiritual recovery in the Russian Church and among the Russian people. It is linked also to the development of Russian theological thought and spiritual literature.

I have already had occasion to say, and I now say it again, that Metropolitan Antony must be held as an equal with the great hierarchs of the first centuries of Christianity...He was like a book open to everyone, a teacher who spoke for the sake of his brethren and neighbours. The treasury of his heart was even more amazing than the wealth of his mind. He was truly a good shepherd whose heart was enlarged for everyone; who comforted and consoled multitudes of people by the warmth of his love. As one who truly loves, as the Apostle said, he never exalted himself or became agitated, nor envied. He did not think evil, but endured all things with longsuffering. He never despaired of anyone, but was ready for forgive seventy-seven times seven. He wept with those who were weeping and rejoiced with those who were rejoicing, counting their blessings as his own. He was a true ascetic with a fervent spirit, who made us understand the true meaning and beauty of monasticism. He raised a whole company of monastics. He was a strong defender of Holy Rus', which he always carried in his heart, and for which he was willing to lay down his own soul. With his ceaseless self-denying pastoral and teaching activity he left a profound and indelible imprint on the history of our Church and opened up a new, creative epoch of theological thought that will forever preserve his name...

O beloved First Hierarch and father, look down now upon your orphaned flock, upon this lively vineyard which you have planted and raised by your wise and loving hand. Look after it and nourish it until you lead it into the heavenly pasture where you are not contemplating the brilliance of the Most Holy Trinity, which you glorified with you ascetic life and inspired theological voice. Amen."

The sacred relics of Vladika Antony were laid to rest in the crypt of the Russian Chapel in the "New Cemetery" in Belgrade, making it a shrine for faithful and believing pilgrims until the end of the present age.

Glory and honour to this great hierarch and true holy father of the Church, both now and in the age to come. Amen.

As a wellspring of theology, O righteous Antony, thou hast poured forth knowledge unto salvation, and as by thy words we have been given understanding, so also by thy prayers may our souls be saved.

By faith thou didst lead thy people through the Red Sea, rightly dividing the word of truth. As one equal with the ancient fathers, we beseech thee, O Antony, do thou ever intercede for those who celebrate thy sacred memory.

ENDNOTES:
 

APPENDIX 1

On the New False Teaching, the Deifying Name,

and the "Apology" of Antony Bulatovich

Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky

Hieroschemamonk Antony Bulatovich's booklet differs significantly from Schemamonk Ilarion's book, Na Gorakh Kavkaza, in the defence of which it is written. Schemamonk Ilarion had as his primary intention to praise the "Jesus Prayer" and to convince his contemporary ascetics to practise this monastic activity, which is so often neglected today. This intention is altogether praiseworthy. Everything that has been written by the fathers on the Jesus Prayer is beneficial, as Christians should be reminded. Those monks who would want to lessen the significance of the Jesus Prayer and all other spiritual activities passed down by the fathers are worthy of reproach. Nonetheless, a correct undertaking does not stand in need of incorrect means, and the patristic tradition of the Jesus Prayer has sufficient sound reasons in its favour so that one need not resort to superstitious arguments. Unfortunately the Elder Ilarion did not avoid this and he added his own sophistries to the many patristic and salvific reflections on the benefit and meaning of the Jesus Prayer. He took it into his mind to argue that the name of Jesus is God Himself.

As evidence for such a notion he cites the words of Father John of Kronstadt on the close connection between the name and the person to which it refers, be this the name of God, angels, holy saints, or even simply any person. From these words [of Fr. John], however, only one conclusion can follow: that the name of Jesus is as close to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ as is every other of His names, and as the name of each person is to that person. No one would assert that, if I were to call upon the name of my absent friend, that my friend himself will be here with me [because his name is present]. If, however, he hears my summons, then he will either come or not come to me, but both he and I will understand that he himself is other, that his pronounced name is other. However in Schemamonk Ilarion's book, contrary to Father John of Kronstadt — which both he and Antony Bulatovich cite erroneously — Divine dignity is attributed, of all the Lord's names, only to the name Jesus. In Bulatovich's book, however, it is attributed to the names of God in general, and not only to specific names of God. In his desire to defend Ilarion's superstitious teaching, Bulatovich went so far as to completely change it, because in all the excerpts from Father Ilarion one can not find a single one which would indicate the primacy of the name of Jesus over the other appellations of our Lord.

One asks why it was necessary for Schemamonk Ilarion to spread his superstition. The answer to this is discomforting. His teaching is connected with a profound disparagement of all rules of prayer apart from the Jesus Prayer. He asserts that those perfected in it do not stand in need of the reading of the Psalter, Matins, Vespers, and other books of prayer, and cites as evidence this saying of Saints Kallistos and Ignatios. [Their words] however, have precisely the opposite meaning. Here one needs to add the caveat that in Ilarion's book, and even more-so in Bulatovich's book, nearly all the Biblical and patristic sayings are cited with misconstrued interpretations and frequently even misconstrued expositions. Thus, the saying of Ignatios and Kallistos reads: "while practising the Jesus Prayer, never neglect your rule." The author of the book thinks that in Slavonic, as in Russian, a double negative strengthens the negation and understand this saying like this: "those who practise the Jesus Prayer may neglect their rule." Let him open the Okhtoecos and read the third resurrectional exaspostilarion: "for Christ is risen, may no one not believe." If these words were thus construed in a Russian phrase, then they would read as: "may no one believe in the resurrection of Christ," but in Slavonic, as in Greek, a double negation is an affirmation, and the words of the Okhtoecos preclude disbelief in Christ's resurrection, and call all to believe in it. In the same way the words of Ignatios and Kallistos forbid one to replace or abbreviate the normal monastic rule for the sake of the Jesus Prayer, and these words must be translated into Russian as follows: "those practising the Jesus Prayer should not neglect the monastic rule."

God forbid that they neglect it, we would add, because such a monk would inevitably fall into spiritual deception (plani; prelest). The latter is a particular danger for Ilarion's followers, inasmuch as this Elder explains that only in the first steps of this prayerful activity does the ascetic repeat the Jesus Prayer orally and fully. Later, having become perfected in it, he himself becomes greater than all petition and only glorifies Jesus by pronouncing His name: "Jesus Christ," or even simply "Jesus." Ascending even higher in the spiritual life, he does not even have need to pronounce this word, but guards it in his heart, as a constant property of the heart.

In such a case, what does a contemporary monk practise? He does not go to church, he does not read the church services, psalms, and prayers. He simply bears in his heart the name of Jesus. Does he not risk simply forgetting all his monasticism and, remaining in idleness and negligence, justifying his worldliness in that he bears in his heart the name of Jesus? Or that he reached such a level that a fall is impossible? It is wrong to think this way! Saint Macarius the Great witnesses "that some fathers reached such a level of perfection that they performed miracles, but later, having become negligent, fell." A fall is also possible for great pillars of asceticism. If, however, they are in obedience to the monastic rule, then the cause of the fall is easily revealed as negligence or weariness in prayer, or in irritation at accepting holy obediences. But if the ascetic already considers prayer and obedience not to be necessary for him, then he is a law unto himself and every temptation that seems good to him he considers to be divinely-inspired. Following Schemamonk Ilarion, he is convinced, that along with the name of Jesus the Hypostatic God is present. Could God mistakenly tolerate something negative in His chosen vessel? Of course not, and therefore everything that seems lawful to him becomes lawful for him. This is also the conclusion of the doctrine of the Khlysts. "Trust the spirit," they say, and the spirit abides in the hearts of these spiritual Christians, as they consider themselves to be because of the life of fasting and chastity which characterises them at the beginning of their enthusiasm. Later, they are seduced by the thought that everything that comes from their heart comes from the Holy Spirit. They then begin, during their rites, to pay attention to that which their soul desires to "illuminate" them. If their soul is filled with the desire for fornication, then they must believe that it is the Holy Spirit that has inspired this unclean desire. Then, abhorring the undefiled marital bed, during their rituals they first give themselves up to frenzied [sexual] mingling, and later do the same thing without ritual. Therefore, it was not without reason that we at Russki Inok cautioned the readers of Ilarion's book that it, labouring under the delusion of the ascetic's superstitious fabrications, leads one to the precipice of Khylstism. We know from Elders of elevated spiritual life that Ilarion himself, against the prohibition of the superior of Novo-Afonsky [New Athos Monastery], abandoned the holy monastery and obedience and made himself a desert-dweller on his own.

Unfortunately our time is a time of marked strengthening of Khylstism in both the Russian people and Russian society. Complete faithlessness has come full cycle. It has become terrifying for people to live outside of communion with heaven, but to come close to it by the narrow path, through the path of Christ seems, to the corrupt and the sinful, to be beyond their strength . Therefore they fabricate for themselves others paths for growing near to the divinity: sectarianism, magnetism, neo-Buddhism, but particularly khlystism, which is, unfortunately, a Russian phenomenon that is not new. Khylsts, under the name of Johnites, chrikovites, koloskovism, stefanism, innokentyites, have filled both capitals and Ukraine, east and west, both the trans-Volga and Siberia. They have penetrated many monasteries: the Nikov Hermitage, the Pskov, Suzdal, Poldolsk and Olonets monasteries, and others.

Not long ago many people of little faith in society at least respected the moral teachings of Christianity, but were dubious of the teaching about miracles. Today, however, the opposite is the case. Those same people who have little faith in the reality of miracles are ready to accept every fabricated miracle of swindlers and tricksters, provided that it weakens the significance of the commandments of God about prayer, obedience, and self restraint. They greedily fall upon everything that departs from the strict teaching of the Church, accepting all that promises growing close to the divinity without Orthodox Christian piety and without being adorned with morality. This is why so many have seized upon Ilarion's teaching: one from blind zeal and stubbornness, another from laziness, delighted by the idea they will soon reach such a level of perfection that they will not have to stand through church services or read any prayers or the Holy Scripture, but will only "bear in their heart the name of Jesus."

The dishonesty of Ilarion and his followers, and especially that of Antony Bulatovich, is exposed by the fact that, not being satisfied with establishing their own doctrine, they attack those who disagree with them, intimidating them and their audience and readers with their proclamations, accusing them of denying the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, of refuting the Jesus Prayer and all spiritual activity, of extolling their scholarly learnedness in place of spiritual experience, and so forth.

To this we answer that we recognize the Divinity of Jesus Christ, highly esteem the Jesus Prayer, and do not pride ourselves in our learnedness, but place it lower than spiritual experience. We do not, however, see spiritual experience in Schemamonk Ilarion's book, rather we see self-deceiving dreams, and we find spiritual experience even less in Bulatovich's book, but find their only logomachy and scholasticism, but without hard logic, without knowledge of the Holy Scripture and without an understanding of the Greek language that he cites.

Ilarion's book, which we read in October 1912, has the advantage over Bulatovich's book and his printed proclamations in that it contains fewer conscious lies and conscious distortions of texts of Holy Scripture and the holy fathers, and less intimidation of all those who disagree with the author by accusing them of godlessness and heresy. Not long before the publication of his book Ilarion himself doubted the correctness of his thoughts that the name of Jesus is God Himself. He wrote to an Athonite spiritual father about this in a letter in which he recognized that he had not found this teaching either in Holy Scripture or in the fathers. He asked the spiritual father for his critique of this new teaching (cf., Russki Inok 1912, no 15, pp. 62-63). The Elder answered him disapprovingly. But alas, the very thought that he had created a new dogma enticed the deluded schemamonk: he fell into what is often called the "Elders' deception." We have great respect for monastic elders and experienced desert hesychasts and have always striven to put monk-students under their guidance. Having at various times served in three academies, we brought monks who were studying together with elders of the monasteries of Valaam, Optina, Sedmiozersky, and this bringing together of the academy with elders has become firmly established, glory to God, to this day. Nevertheless, it is impossible to remain silent about that deliberate temptation or deception which Elders undergo who are negligent about perfection. Everyone has particular temptations: young people are tempted by fornication, old people by profit-seeking, bishops by pride and vainglory, and Elders are tempted to invent their own rules [ustavy] to immortalize their memory in a monastery. Therefore, in one monastery a certain prayer will be added to the rule in memory of an elder, and in another they will take off their klobuks at the priest's first exclamation at the Liturgy, and in a third they will make a full prostration at the exclamation "holy things are for the holy," and so on. In so doing they were concerned about their own glory, about their memory, and thought themselves similar to the ancient Liturgists who established the order of Divine Services. In this they are already in complete deception.

However, like Macedonius, Eutechius, and Nestorius, those who, like the Elder Ilarion, strive to immortalize their memory by thinking up new dogmas, will create a memory for themselves that will not be effaced until the Lord's second coming, but this memory will be joined not with blessings, but with perdition.

And behold the bitter fruits of such fame. The best Athonite monasteries have become places of fights, maiming, rebellion against the abbot, and uprisings against the Church. The name "Russian" has become synonymous with heresy on Mount Athos, and now a complete expulsion of our compatriots is possible. Everyone that was unruly, obstinate, ambitious, and mercenary has jumped at this new thoughtless dogma and without even much thought about it, they have been glad for the opportunity to "reject authority, and revile the glorious ones" (Jude 1:8), seizing for themselves the position of superior and pilfering the monastery treasury. All of this took place at St. Andrew's Skete and to some degree in the Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Athos. If Schemamonk Ilarion had not thought up new dogmas but had only collected patristic thoughts about the Jesus Prayer and admonished readers to save themselves under the direction of the holy fathers, then his book would not have been circulated so widely and his name would not have been repeated by so many mouths. In fact, he is far behind the notable heretics of old, for although their dogmas were false the were at least comprehensible. Ilarion and Bulatovich have put forward notions that resemble the ravings of mad men, as the Ecumenical Patriarch and the patriarchal synod rightly declared.

Indeed, can one, without renouncing Christianity or reason, repeat their absurd affirmation that, as it were, the name of Jesus is God? We recognize that the name of Jesus is holy, bestowed by God and proclaimed by an Angel, a name given to the God-Man at His incarnation, but to confuse the name with God Himself – is this not the height of madness? What is God? God is Spirit, eternal, all-good, omniscient, omnipresent, and so forth, one in essence, but three in Hypostases. Does this mean that the name of Jesus is neither a word, nor a name, but a spirit omnipresent, good, and three in hypostases? Who, apart from one deprived of reason, would repeat such an absurdity? Or do they say that this name is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and the God-Man Himself? In that case let them recognize another absurdity, that this name is co-eternal with the Father, born of Him before the ages, incarnate, crucified, and resurrected. Has there ever been a heresy that has led to such insane conclusions?

Meanwhile Father Antony Bulatovich boldly announces that this teaching is contained in both the New and the Old Testaments, that it is in our divine services, and in the writings of the fathers. He does not himself believe what he writes, but only desires to have the means for rebellion in the Athonite monasteries. This writer forgot that Ilarion himself recognizes the novelty of this teaching, and has entered the furthest labyrinth of superstition, judging his teacher to be incorrect in that he [Bulatovich] recognizes the name Jesus as equal in honour with all the other names of the Lord, whereas Ilarion ascribes supernatural power only to the name "Jesus."

But for all that, this imitator of the new false teaching has spread it much more skilfully than had the originator, for many have surpassed him in cunning and insolence and ability to attract and intimidate simpleminded Russian monks. Therefore he, above all else, invented a name for his accusers [imiabortsem — "name opposers]. [He] made noise everywhere in newspapers and in his proclamations, which were sent to all the monasteries, that the only people not in agreement with him are heretics, whom he gave the illiterate nickname "imebortsem." [He did] not even know that the name expressed in this word should be taken from the genitive case, as for instance "imenoslovnoe" and not "imeslovnoe." Bulatovich's extreme ignorance is demonstrated on every page of his book, whenever he is forced to have dealings with grammar, philosophy, or theology. However, Antony Bulatovich, knows that Russian monks are little accustomed to investigate teachings of faith and will consider as heretics those to whom that name has been attached, especially if this is done boldly and under the appearance of zeal for the faith. [For this reason,] before undertaking to give an account of his thought he first dedicates many pages to reviling those who will not agree with him and accuses the opponents of his new heresy of teachings that are entirely foreign to them. He asserts that, for example, that Archbishop Antony and the monk Khrisanthos spoke against mental prayer (p. 3). [He asserts] that they "deny as essential in the prayer of the mind-in-the-heart, the confining of the mind in the word calling upon the name of the Lord" (p. 9, does this mean that they recognize the prayer itself?). He applies [to them] the prophecy of Malachi: "may your blessings be cursed" (p. 20), and the retribution, that befell the Jews that blasphemed the name of the Lord (p. 146) and so forth. The credulous reader, the unlettered monk, is already prepared to believe that the writer (i.e., Bulatovich) is indeed a defender of the holy faith from godless blasphemers who deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

However, no matter how absurd any sort of heresy might be, if it has the appearance of increasing the greatness of God, many people will be ready to accept it. That is why the country which more than any other had zeal for piety and asceticism, Egypt, was completely attracted to the heresy of Eutechius and to this day remains in the knots of his false doctrine, in the knots of Monophysitism. Every Christian values faith in Jesus Christ as God equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Eutychius himself desiring, as it were, to honour Christ even more, began to teach that His Divine essence swallowed up in Him his human essence and that He is now only God, and those who denied this he called Nestorians, Arians, godless, and other names. It is no wonder that this heresy drew in the anchorites and people of Egypt and Ethiopia and that to this day they despise the Orthodox as having diminished the honour of the Son of God. The Latins have managed to seduce the westerns nations with a similar imaginary piety, having fabricated in recent times a false doctrine about the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos from Joachim and Anna, and they castigate those who do not agree with this impiety, i.e., the Orthodox, as "enemies of the Theotokos." It is no surprise that many former Ukrainian theologians, accustomed to reading Latin books, accepted this teaching as if it was a glorification of the Most Holy Virgin. Even some of the Russian Old Believers living in Austria introduced this false doctrine into their books, and now Muscovite schismatics defend it in missionary conversations. All heresy spreads with the same success when it appears to elevate our various points of faith more than is indicated in church doctrine, while at the same time practising an impudent battle against the defenders of the latter, applying to them names of former heretics and ascribing to them various godless opinions which they never shared. However, the dishonest devices of the writings of Antony Bulatovich are not limited to this: they distinguish themselves in the way that, citing on every page of his book words of Holy Scripture or the holy fathers and, being unable to produce a single citation that actually supports his absurd heresy, he cites the fathers only partially, omitting what does not please him, and after every text he writes in parentheses "listen to this, this is what is being said here" and then offers a fraudulent interpretation that is entirely foreign to the thought of the sacred words. The ill-informed reader is prepared to think that the author is continuing to cite the Patristic or Biblical words. Sometimes he prints Patristic citations is such a way that they are confused with his own commentary, and it is impossible to distinguish, for instance, where the words of St. Athanasius the Great end (p. 107) and where the words of Antony Bulatovich begin. For instance, St Athanasius writes that several people, chosen by God, were called "christ" that is, "anointed," apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, but that they were not The Christ but were only prefigurations of Him. Fr. Bulatovich adds from his own part that there are people named Jesus who were not "true Jesuses," but adds this in such a way that the reader thinks that they are the words of St. Athanasius, inasmuch as he does not include ending quotation marks in his commentary, but simply writes "p. 374" (in the alleged works of St. Athanasius).

If it were clear to the reader that these words are not those of St. Athanasius, but of Antony Bulatovich, then he would understand the falsity of this interpretation. The word "anointed" (christ), attributed to David and other chosen ones is not a proper name but rather an indication of a calling (a rank, as it were), which God gave to kings and prophets. The name of Jesus, however, is a proper name, and no other name or title indicated Jesus the Son of Sirach, Jesus the Son of Jozadek, or Jesus in the New Testament, and there are several named Jesus (Joshua) on Athos.

Truth does not stand in need of such impermissible devices or forgeries of the words of the holy fathers, but Antony Bulatovich needed such falsification in order that, by such a deception, he could escape the vexing demonstration of his denouncers.

It we desired to put forward every example of the author's entirely arbitrary interpretations that contradict the sense of Revelation, then one would need to rewrite his entire book, for there are several on every page. Pick up this book and look over the more characteristic forgeries of the thought of sacred words: they are on pages 7, 9, 10, 20, 23, 29, 31, 38, 53, 85, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 101, 109, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, 139, 141, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 159, 166, 169, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 180, 181, and 183. Many of the indicated pages have two or three false interpretations, and this book has only 189 pages. Sometimes our author finds his thoughts about the names of God in citations from Holy Scripture, where this word is not at all present. See pages 6 and 7, 11, 20, 27, 33, 143.

The author does, however, at one point admit that this doctrine is entirely foreign to Divine Revelation. Filling the pages of his book with borrowed interpretations of the Old Testament and sensing the complete lack of correspondence of this with the word of God, he makes a proviso: "but perhaps someone will object to us: you are creating a doctrines (and this objection would be entirely justified!), for where in the holy fathers is it said that the Son of God is the Name of God? It has already been said, we have already cited above the words of the Prophet Isaiah, who called the Son of God by the name of God (Is 30:27). Let us seek [says Bulatovich] to demonstrate even more clearly that under the name ‘Word of God' is assumed the Name of God." The author further cites several passages from the fathers in which the Son of God, as in the beginning of the first Gospel reading, is named the Word, but nowhere and never is He called the "name of God." The words of the Prophet Isaiah, entirely misrepresented here by Bulatovich, read as follows: "Behold the name of the Lord comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; His lips are full of indignation, and His tongue is like a devouring fire," and further. Here the wrath of God against the enemies of Israel is being spoken of, and the name of God is used in the same sense as the "glory of God," that is, simply in place of the word "God." The Old Testament prophets rarely dared to speak directly about revelations of God, and instead of this dreadful word employed descriptive expressions like "the name of God, the glory of God, the Lamb of God"; this is known to everyone, even to the youngest seminarian, but Bulatovich, having filled his book with all such expressions, which one can very easily pick out from the alphabetical Biblical dictionary (published by "Stranik"), acts with them in the same way that the ancient half-pagan Gnostics acted with the words of the Bible "ages, ages of ages, in all ages." The word has no special significance whatsoever apart from an indication of the eternity of God's being and Christ's kingdom; however, the Gnostics attributed to the word "age" – in Greek, aeon – a certain divine significance. These compiled an entire history and hierarchy of these aeons, dividing them into evil and good, and recognizing the Son of God as the main aeon. They created whole fables about these, in which consisted their absurd faith in place of the faith defined in our Symbol. And what of it? They based each of their fabrications on words of the prophets or apostles in which they used the word "age," in Greek aeon, so that to argue with these vain men was not very easy.

Antony Bulatovich employs a similar approach in order to turn an entirely applied meaning of "name" into God. His subterfuges are so far-fetched and artificial that it is impossible to trust their honesty. He himself, it goes without saying, does not believe his own verbal tricks and he even contradicts himself, as we have seen, recognizing that the reader might reproach him for fabricating new dogmas foreign to the Bible and the fathers.

Just how far from the truth his references to St. Gregory of Thessaloniki [Palamas] are can be seen from the explanation of another respondant, who demonstrates that Bulatovich distorted the Orthodox doctrine of Palamas, inasmuch as his first anathema is directed against those who recognize the energy of God not as divine but as God Himself, that is, who identify it [the energy] with the essence of God. Why has Fr. Bulatovich done all this? Why has he brought so many sins and divisions into the Athonite brotherhood? Why did he dishonour and expel the Abbot of the St. Andrew Skete, Fr. Ieronim? Or did he not know the 121st rule of the Nomocanon, which says of a monk who dishonours the Abbot, even justifiably: "may he be cursed, for he is separated from the Holy Trinity and has gone to the place of Judas"? Alas, one is forced to accept the thought that Fr. Bulatovich's intended purpose was precisely dissension and expulsion while compiling his erroneous books, full of clear distortions of sacred words and known to be full of false interpretations of them.

However, in order to verify his possibly more honest conviction, let us pose the question as follows: perhaps Bulatovich has been so carried away by that which he has received from Schema-monk Ilarion and by his own reworked idea that for its sake he decided to garble passages from the Bible and fathers.

His doctrine consists of the following positions. In God not only His Essence is divine, but His energy as well; the energy is every word of God and every action; the name of God is also His energy (energy means will or power); it follows, according to Bulatovich's words, that the name of God and every word of God is not only divine, but is God Himself. This is allegedly the teaching of St. Gregory of Thessaloniki. In actual fact the teaching of Saint Gregory condemns those who speak in this manner, as did the Barlaamites,* opponents of St. Gregory, who requires that one call the energy of God not God, but rather divine and to refer to it, not as God but as "divine" or "Divineness" (theotis, and not thos. This excerpt is distorted by Fr. Bultatovich on p. 106).

Let us return now to Bulatovich's very doctrine: to what is he leading his blind followers? He says on page 5 that the word of God on Mt Tabor, that is, calling Jesus the "Beloved Son," and the rest, is also God Himself, as a verbal action of God; in like manner every God-revealed truth, addressed to people by the Holy Spirit is God, for they are the verbal action of the Divinity. Our author repeats this absurdity more than once: see pages 22, 23, 26, 101, and 106, where it is openly said that every word of God "is God immutable, existing and living," and even cites St. Symeon the New Theologian on p. 107, where nothing of the sort is said. Fr. Bulatovich even more frequently repeats a passage from St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, as usual completely distorting its thought. Here are the words of St. Tikhon: "the great name of God includes within itself His Divine attributes, incommunicable to any creature, but to Himself alone, such as: consubstantiality, eternity, omnipotence, goodness, wisdom, omnipresence, omniscience, righteousness, holiness, truth, spiritual essence, etc." Then our author, in his dishonest habit, cries out: "listen to what the holy God-pleaser says, that the Name of God is spiritual essence, and not an abstract idea." The God-pleaser says nothing of the sort, just as he does not say that the name of God is allegedly itself omnipresent, omniscient, etc.: he says that the word "God" includes in itself the thought of all the attributes of God, of His righteousness, His spirituality, etc., but is not at all righteousness itself, or spirituality itself. Our author simply distorted the thought of the patristic sayings, changing the accusative case of the word: spiritual essence to the nominative. St. Tikhon here enumerates all the attributes of God taken from the Catechism (Spirit, eternal, all-righteous, omniscient, omnipresent, etc) And he affirms that when we mention the name of God, we should express a pious faith in the Divine attributes, which are revealed in the holy Gospel and other books of revelation. Therefore, Fr. Bulatovich several times falsely accuses St. Tikhon entirely erroneously, as if he considered the name of God to be a spiritual essence.

Let us return, however to the question of what is the fundamental thoughtlessness or the fundamental falsity of Fr. Bulatovich? In that the energy of the Divinity or the will of the Divinity is not that which the Lord did or the words that He pronounced. The energy and will of the Divinity have divineness (although without being God), but the works of the Divine energy and of the Divine will are not the same as the energy of God: Divine activity may be called God's energy, but God's words and God's creation – these are works of Divine activity, of Divine energy, and not energy itself. It is this that Fr. Bulatovich, overlooked in his ignorance, or which he, in his cunning desired to overlook. If every word spoken by God and every one of His actions is God Himself, then it follows that everything seen by and tangible to us is God, and that is, pagan pantheism (and not "panteistism," as Fr Bulatovich expresses it in his ignorance, repeating the misprint in Russki Inok). Fr. Bulatovich affirms this absurdity without any shame he says that every word spoken on Mt Tabor is God. It follows that the word "hear" is God and the word "whom" is God. The Saviour denounced contemporary moralistic Jews, saying to them "serpents, generation of vipers." Does it follow that serpents and vipers are God? According to Bulatovich, this is certainly the case, doubly so, inasmuch as the serpent, and the hedgehog, and the rabbit are created by God, and are the activity of the Divinity and does it not follow that these animals are also God? Hindu pantheists, incidentally, teach this, and worship as gods crocodiles and apes and cats. Could it be that Fr. Bulatovich desire to draw Athonite monks to such insanity? What led him to this point: ignorance or cunning? He has no small share of ignorance. What sort of thoughtlessness does he commit, for instance, in stating "The Lord revealed Himself with the namesake of His name on the cross"? Who is not the namesake of his own name? This is like saying "wooden wood" or "oily oil." One could say that the Lord revealed Himself as identical with the content of His name, as "Saviour" (although this occurred not only in the hour of crucifixion, but in all the days of His earthly life. But to say "the namesake of the name" is to speak without any sense. Further, on p. 10, the author applies the Trisagion to the Person of Jesus Christ; but the Armenians were expelled for this, and the holy Church teaches us to apply this hymn to the Most-Holy Trinity. Simply put, Fr. Bulatovich is very poorly versed in both theology and grammar. Even if he was totally illiterate however it would seem impossible for him to affirm and thrust upon the fathers such absurdity, as he has, asserting that every word and action of God is God Himself.

Sometimes Fr. Bulatovich himself looks on his absurd invention and tries to correct it, but he is unable to accomplish this. On p. 41 he says "However, these divine attributes – consubstantiality, eternity, spiritual essence, etc. – we do not ascribe to the letter, with which we express Divine truth, but only to the very word of truth." What then? For a word itself consists of letters and sounds. "Therefore," Fr. Bulatovich continues, "when we speak about the name of God, having in mind the essence of the Name itself, by which we name God, then we say that the Name of God is God Himself; but when we have in mind the letters and sounds by which we orally express the truth about God and the Name of God, then we say that God participates in His Name" (cf. pp. 78, 79, 88, and also p. 101). What does the author wish to express in this incomprehensible phrase? Does he wish to say something or simply to confuse, to obscure the thought of his credulous teacher, so that he, reading these lines, would say: "Well, glory to God, here we are deifying neither sounds nor letters, but something else that I cannot understand." Indeed no one can understand, we would add, because it is impossible to understand such nonsense. Logic distinguishes the essence of a thing from its phenomenon (although this, too, is rather vague), and a natural scientist would tell you that sounds are something audible, but that their essence is a vibration of the air and its impact on our eardrums; lightening is a visible phenomenon, but its essence is the release of electrical energy or power.

But what is the difference between a name and the idea or essence of a name? Any educated person would offer the response that the idea of a name is its thought (for instance, the name "Andrew" contains within itself the idea of manliness, and the name "Agapia," the idea of love), and the essence of the name is understood to be that person to whom it is assigned. But Fr. Bulatovich does not wish even to hear such answers. He is indignant with those who "dare to equate the divinity of the name of God with the simple idea of God and who see in the name of God nothing but sounds" (p. 152).

Perhaps, in the end, Fr. Bulatovich equates the wonder-working power of the name of God with the devout feeling of the person at prayer, for whom the Lord who is invoked, settles in his heart? No, he alleges that the name of God maintains its wonder-working power even when pronounced unconsciously. See, for instance, p. 89 of his book: "Even if you call upon the name of the Lord Jesus unconsciously, you will nonetheless have Him [present] in His name with all His divine attributes." What does it mean to say that one will have Him? We try to understand our new philosopher, but he again repeats: "although you call upon Him as a man, nonetheless you will have in the name of Jesus all of God." [or the whole fulness of God]

In other passages, equal to this in their absurdity, Fr. Bulatovich ascribes wonder-working power to the name of Jesus alone, as a sound, even without the prayerful entreaty of the one pronouncing it; distorting, as is his custom, the words of Christ. Fr. Bulatovich puts the following promise in Christ's mouth: "When, after the resurrection from the dead, I send to you the Comforter, then you will no longer call upon Me, that is, you will not be in need of My intercession, but it will be enough for you to ask in My Name, in order to receive that which you desire from the Father. As such, He here demonstrates the power of His Name, inasmuch as one will neither see nor ask of Him Himself, but will only name His name. It will do such deeds" (p. 44.). The Lord did not teach the Apostles and never spoke such things. He said: "I will see you again" and "In that day you will ask nothing of me" [Jn 16: 22-23]. Fr. Bulatovich boldly asserts "to question" [voprosite] (in Slavonic) is here in place of "to ask" [poprosite], but in so doing he tricks the simpleminded reader, for the Lord continued the discourse with the following words: "Truly, truly I say to you, if any one ask anything of the Father, He will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have asked nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full" (Jn 16: 23-24).

May one think that Fr. Bulatovich is mistaken through ignorance, or is one forced to the conclusion that he is an ignorant deceiver? For the moment, it is left to the reader to decide. Bulatovich simply mocks the reader: announcing that it is not the sounds and words themselves that have divine power, but only its idea. It follows from Bulatovich's falsified saying of the Lord (cf. p. 46) that even an unconscious and prayer-less pronunciation of His name is wonder-working. But our author, in other places in his book, either forgets about his fabrication of a magical significance of the name of God, or thinks that the reader has forgotten about it. After the introduction of some patristic sayings, it is clear that we must call upon the name of God with a prayer united in faith and zeal.

He cites the words of Chrysostom as follows: "We have a spiritual exorcism: the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of the cross… If many have pronounced this exorcism without however receiving healing, then this was because of their lack of faith, and not from the powerlessness of the pronounced name." This thought is continued in the author's exposition of the further words of St. John Chrysostom on the remainder of p. 60 of his book; the same thoughts are found on pp. 64 and 66 in excerpts from Sts. Diadokhos, John of the Ladder and Gregory of Sinai, the Elder Paisy Velichkovsky (p. 77), and Fr. John of Kronstadt (p. 81). All these excerpts witness that the Jesus Prayer and every calling upon His name is salvific only under the condition of devout faith, unceasing prayer, humble-mindedness, and fasting. Under the influence of these correct thoughts, Fr. Bulatovich himself utters the following on p. 69: "without heartfelt feeling the practice of the Jesus Prayer and of lifeless prayer may be called sinful."

This correct wisdom, however, is not long remembered by the author in the continuation of his book. In any case, it does not seem occur to him, for as we have already seen, in the same place, (on pp. 14 and 15,) he attempts to demonstrate that the name of God pronounced without faith shows wonder-working power. On p. 19, after some cited words of Kallistos, he quotes the words of Scripture: "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10: 9-10); here again we see the necessity of heartfelt faith when calling upon the name of the Lord. However, in the third chapter the author forgets all this and indignantly says that "the imebortsy [name deniers] deny the evident truth in the Holy Scripture that miracles were performed by the divine power of the name of God and dare to assert that it was not by the power of the divine name [alone] that these miracle were performed, but by God Himself, and that the name of the Lord served only to call upon God as an intermediary power" (42). He especially likes to cite the healing of the lame man in the third chapter of Acts and, in particular, the words of the Apostle: "His name has made this man strong whom you see and know" (cf., esp. p. 7); but, in continuing his false and heretical method, does not complete the passage, which reads further, "and the faith which is through Him has given the man this perfect health and in the presence of you all" (verse 16).

One sees how hard it is for Fr. Bulatovich to part from the world-view of the Khylsts, according to whom words, acting magically in distinction from faith and virtue, lead us to the Divinity. In actual fact, if the name of Christ, called upon independently of faith and piety, could work miracles, then that about which we read in Acts would never have occurred: "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that cloths or belts were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, ‘I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.' Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?' And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded" (19: 11-16).

You see, the apostles' items, touched with faith, although without calling upon the name of God, served for healing, but the unworthy calling upon the name of the Lord did not achieve any benefit. Our author asserts, entirely wrongly, that the Lord and the Apostles performed miracles only by the name of God. It is true that frequently both the Lord said only: "I command you, I tell you", ( without any name), and the Apostles said: in the name "of the Lord Jesus Christ I say to you," etc. But the Lord also frequently performed miracles in silence (walking on the water, the healing of the woman with an issue of blood, the healing of Malchus' ear, the miraculous catch of the fish, and many others), so too did the holy Apostles perform healings and miracles without always pronouncing the Lord's name. Sometimes they did so in silence or pronouncing other words. Such were the exposing of Ananias and Sapphira, the healing of Saul, where the name of Jesus Christ was not used by Ananias (9:17), and similarly, the healing of Aneas by Peter. This contradicts the absurd affirmation of Fr. Bulatovich on p. 42, which we have cited above. Similarly the resurrection of Tabitha, the healing of Elymas' blindness by Paul (13:11), and the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands upon the newly-baptized Ephesians (19:6). Paul's immunity to the viper is another example. None of these events are compatible with Fr. Bulatovich's superstitious doctrine about the magical significance of the name of God and that all words and acts of God are God. This last false teaching relates him with the Buddhists, and Hindus and the previous ones with Kabbalists, While contradicting the words of Divine Scripture with every step, he strengthens his superstition with the teaching of Kabbalism which, not being able to deny the miracles of Christ and not wishing to accept faith in Him as God, ascribe His miraculous power to the magical action of the name of God, claiming that He stole it from somewhere. Our author dedicates pages 99 and 100 of his book to a description of such Kabbalistic superstitions.

We will not specifically examine the most absurd of all the absurd chapters of Fr. Bulatovich's book, the one in which he attempts to interpret all our divine services and the entire Psalter as expressions of faith that the name of God is God. There is not one single such saying in our services, or in the Psalter, or in St. Athanasius' commentary on it. Of course our divine services, as with all words of prayer, are a constant calling upon God, and this naturally makes frequent use of His name. However it should be noted that in the Lord's Prayer as it was given to us by the Lord, unmasks Bulatovich for there is no naming of God as "God", or "Lord", or any of the other Hebrew names of God, so beloved by our new philosopher. Suffice it to say that the majority of our hymns, prayers, and exclamations are formed from passages from the Psalms and prophetic hymns, and therefore one can sometimes find in them expressions specifically expressions from the Hebrew scripture: "the name of God" and "the name of the Lord" in place simply of "God" or "Lord." The reader versed in the Psalter who looks through the excerpts from the divine services in Bulatovich's book will be assured that nearly all, or even all, the cited excerpts from our divine services are borrowed from the sacred books of the Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament.

Let us ask, in the conclusion of our analysis of Bulatovich's book: Is there in the fathers even a single expression that supports this book's teaching that the name of God is allegedly God Himself? Not a single one. In order to render its author silent, let us examine those few passages that might appear to be such to the unwary reader.

On p. 35 the words of the Blessed Theophylact are cited, in which he explains the equality of the apostolic expression "to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ" with Christ's commandment to "baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The Blessed Theophylact writes: "The Holy Church conceives of the indivisible Holy Trinity; thus following the unity of the three Persons in essence, those baptized in the name of Christ are baptized in the Trinity, inasmuch as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indivisible in essence. If the name Father (in St. Theophylact, "of the Father") were not God, and the name of the Son were not God, and if the name of the Holy Spirit were not God, then it would follow to baptize in the name of the God Jesus Christ, or only in the Son. But he, Peter, says: in the name of Jesus Christ, knowing that the name Jesus (not "Jesus," but "of Jesus") is God, equal to the Name of the Father and the Name of the Holy Spirit." This passage from St. Theophylact is meant as an explanation: the name of Jesus Christ signifies the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, and therefore it would be equivalent to baptize in the name of either the Holy Trinity or in the name of Jesus Christ. This is not at all what Fr. Bulatovich is doing in reworking the words of this holy Father.

I would add from myself that, the Apostle Peter baptized these people, as well as all the others, in accord with Christ's commandment expressed in these words: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," but in this discourse he did not explain these words to them, which they would have been able to understand, in the fulness of it.

The second passage upon which Antony Bulatovich so falsely puts hope belongs to St. Gregory the Sinaite: "Prayer is the preaching of the Apostles, immediate faith, active love, knowledge of God, the joy of Jesus, and what more may one say? Prayer is God, acting all in all, for which Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one activity, all acting in Christ Jesus."

This is a poetic expression in which the word "is" takes the place of saying "is ranked," "is nourished," "attains," etc. A similar turn is found throughout ecclesiastical poetry: "Jesus, all-miraculous, amazement of angels; Jesus, all-glorified, strength of kings; Jesus, all-pure, chastity of virgins." Does it follow that one can say that the chastity of the righteous is not a condition of the soul, strengthened by grace, but is itself God – Jesus? In like manner one would not say that the strength of pious kings is given by Christ and not mock one who said that the battle power of the king is not a condition of his reign, strengthened by Christ's power, but rather Jesus Christ Himself? Is not this passage on prayer exactly the same? Prayer is one of the subjects of apostolic teaching and the fruit of the sincere adoption by the believing heart of a Christian, By prayer one attains immediate, that is, living, faith and active love and the knowledge of God, This is both the fruit of the source of knowledge for those being perfected; our prayer is the joy of Jesus Christ, and our joy for Jesus Christ. Warm, grace-filled prayer gives us God, acting in us, not only in the Holy Spirit, who, according to the Apostle, teaches what one should pray for (Rom 8:26), not of the Holy Spirit alone, but the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in full, for the actions of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are one action. There is no deification of prayer here and no support for the newly-minted superstition, for here it is not said that prayer is God, but neither that God acting in us, "giving prayer to the one who is praying," as it is said in the scriptural song of St. Hannah,which is sung in our canons (I Kings 2:9).

The lies that Bulatovich has contrived are those swept away like cobwebs. He has served the glorious name of Jesus in his evil-pursuit as corruptly as have the Jesuits who have given His name in the wickedness of their extraneous earthly ends.

If we were to attempt to expose every one of Bulatovich's absurd thoughts which contradict the teachings of faith and healthy thought, there would be no end to this examination. One question remains: what led him to such a mental quagmire: a passion for false thought combined with obstinacy, or extraneous vainglorious ends? As much as one would like to give an affirmative response [i.e. to find some excuse for] the first part of the question and a negative one to the second, it is very difficult to do so. His judgments are too absurd and uneducated to believe in the sincerity of his errors. If we add to this his furious agitation, his incitement of the brothers of several monasteries, his crude disobedience to the great authority of that holy and spiritual man, the late Ecumenical Patriarch, Joachim III, then an even more sorrowful answer suggests itself. For he spread the rumour among the simple and childishly credulous Athonites that the Great Patriarch was allegedly bribed, that his letter was spurious, not signed by him.

In the present time the newly-elected Patriarch Germanos and the entire Holy Synod of the Great Church have unanimously affirmed the condemnation of Bulatovich's book with its new teaching as well as Schema-monk Ilarion, and excommunicated all those who hold this teaching. They have pointedly agreed with that which the late Patriarch Joachim III of blessed memory had already done. May God grant that reason and conscience awake in the founders and followers of this new superstition and that they will show repentance for their errors and for causing stormy scandals and monastic rebellion in the monasteries of Holy Athos. They could [through repentance] demonstrate that they were not evil deceivers who "walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion" (Jude 1:11), but rather repentant sons of the Heavenly Father, Who is ready to say of them: "this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found" (Lk 15:24).

 

APPENDIX 3

LETTERS OF ST. ANTONY KHRAPOVITSKY TO

THE MONK THEODOSY ON MOUNT ATHOS.

3

That the change of the Calendar does not constitute a heresy or a cause to break communion with the hierarchs who use the "new calendar." On the near impossibility of having a valid Pan-Orthodox Council.

 

12 October, 1926

Honoured and beloved Batiushka Fr Theodosy!

Today I read your letter with love and praise for your zealousness. Truly, one or perhaps two of your writings were lost in the post, so that only from today's letter did I come to understand that you are troubled precisely about the calendar.

I reply to the question directly placed by you. For, as is well known to you, Canons 13, 14, 15 of the First and Second Council speak of separating oneself from a bishop or patriarch after his condemnation by a council, but not by the personal judgment of the one who is separating himself. That Canon (15) which states that a clergyman is worthy not of condemnation, but praise, who ceases a union with him [a hierarch] due to some heresy condemned by the holy councils or the fathers ...."When he preaches a heresy publicly and teaches it openly in the church." But this, glory to God, neither Patriarch Vasilios, nor Chrysostom have done yet. To the contrary, they insist on the preservation of the established Paschalion, since only it, and not the Julian [calendar] style itself, is guarded by the anathema of the councils. It is true that Patriarch Jeremiah in the 15th century and his successor in the 1800s placed an anathema on the style itself. This condemnation, however, (1) concerns only their contemporaries and (2) does not spread to [i.e. condemn] those who do not threaten to cease communion with him [that is, the hierarchs who have switched to the new calendar] to which only the abusers of the canonical Paschalion are subjected. Moreover (this must be noted in any case) the main concern about the day of Pascha is contained [in the declaration] that it be celebrated on one and the same day in the entire universe by all Christians (i.e. Orthodox Christians). It is true that my co-brethren and I are in no way sympathetic to the new style and to modernism, but we ask the Athonite fathers not to rush with the writing of an epistle (Romans Ch. 14).

Concerning our readiness to go to a Constantinople Council, do not grieve. Of course, there will be no council but even if there would be, and if we go, then as St Flavian who had found himself at a robber-council, we shall preserve the truth, while the apostates we will subject to an anathema. But, until such time as they have not said the last word, until all the Church at an ecumenical council has repeated the anathema of Patriarch Jeremiah, one must keep aloof ...., so that we ourselves are not deprived of salvation, and while straining out a mosquito, we do not swallow a camel.

I ask you, holy father, for your prayers. You yourself know that it is sorrowful amongst us. Your well-wisher,

Metropolitan Antony

P.S. Today I found out about the sudden death and place of burial of my last brother Alexander (7 September). Pray for his soul.

ENDNOTES:

1. Vasilios II, Patriarch of Constantinople, ascended the throne in 1925. Archbishop Chrysostom (Papadopoulos), introduced the new style in the Greek Church in March, 1924.

2. Before his tonsure into the Great Schema, Father Hieroschemamonk Theodosy bore the name Theophan.

3. This refers to Archbishop Theophan (Bystrov) of Poltava, (1872-1940). He was a former rector of the St Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy. It was he who introduced Rasputin to the Imperial Family. Theophan of Poltava had a history of psychotic hallucination, which increased as he grew older. He was a defender of scholasticism, and became a harsh critic of St. Antony Khrapovitsky because of the latter's struggle against scholasticism. Theophan was an active member of the Synod of Bishops of the "Temporary Church Administration Abroad" until 1927. In the last decade of his life he left all activity and retired to a hermitage in France, where he lived in a state of agitated delusion, guarded by Doberman dogs against imaginary assassins.

4. Again, the reference is to Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and his fellow companion Bishop Seraphim (Sobolov) of Boguchar, who had lived together with Archbishop Theophan in Bulgaria and had directed the Russian Orthodox communities there. Ordained in 1919, he died on 26 February, 1950.

5. Patriarch of Constantinople from 1925. Phanar is a small distict of Istanbul (Constantinople) where the patriarchate is located.

6. At that time preparations were taking place for the convening of an Eighth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The council which did not take place threatened to be severely reforming.