“As the fathers say, the extremes from both sides are equally harmful… [We must] go on the royal path, avoiding the extremes on both sides.” (St. John Cassian)

Dominganrlt 21 June , 22 h 54 min Your means of describing the whole thing in this piece of writing is truly nice, every one be capable of effortlessly understand it, Thanks a lot. Mckinley Litmanowicz 24 June , 9 h 33 min Pleased to meet up with you. Delorascstg 28 June , 15 h 52 min viagra how many millagras should i take viagra vegetal where to get viagra samples for free. viagra malaysia Emanuelasea 28 June , 16 h 30 min where can i buy viagra in dallas grandma helps grandson viagra viagra government funding snopes.

Work in consultation with your physician or health care practitioner if you decide to give a try to over the counter pill to aid you to lose weight. viagra online malaysia Be very careful about weight loss pills you decide to try.

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 3 of 3)

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On June 20, 2013

In The Royal Path

“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

Although the editorship of The Muscovite was a short-lived career for Ivan, his relationship, assistance, financial aid and contribution to the publication of works that would spring out of his relationship with Optina Monastery began with the article on Blessed Elder Paisius.

Fr. Sergius describes for us the beginnings of the work of publishing that began with Elder Makary in the Kireyevsky’s home:

In the following year, 1846, while the Elder was visiting the Kireyevskys at their estate, he touched upon the question of the lack of spiritual books which guide one towards the active Christian life. He mentioned that he had a fair number of manuscripts of Elder Paisius’ translations of the works of the ascetic Holy Fathers, filled with spiritual understanding and power. It turned out that Natalia Petrovna Kireyevsky had preserved a few similar manuscripts as well, having received them as an inheritance from her former spiritual father, Elder Philaret of Novospassky. Then she herself raised the question – why not reveal these spiritual treasures to the world? The Elder, with his characteristic humility, remarked that he considered himself incapable of taking on such an important matter, that he had never done anything like this, that this was clearly not the will of God, etc. The Kireyevskys said that they would give a report about the matter to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and, if he blessed it, it would be necessary to begin printing the manuscripts. Then the Kireyevskys began to implore Fr. Makary to immediately write an introduction to the planned publication.

Having prayed to God, the Elder wrote the first page. On that very day the Kireyevsky’s sent a letter to Moscow, to the professor of Moscow University, S.P. Shevirev, asking him, in their own name, to obtain a blessing from the Metropolitan for the publication of the manuscripts of Elder Paisius. The Metropolitan was so kind that, not only did he give his blessing to the project; he even promised to provide them with his own personal support.¹

The following year, 1847, was the beginning of the publications of Optina Monastery, the first book being, The Life and Writings of the Moldavian Elder Paisius Velichkovsky.²

Fr. Sergius further describes the environment and interactions that permeated such a holy activity for the next fifteen years.

All work was directly guided by the Elder himself – both the preparation for the printing of the Slavonic translations of Elder Paisius (with explanatory footnotes of the unclear words and expressions) and the translation of some of these into the Russian language. He was helped by his disciples from the Skete brotherhood: Hieromonk Ambrose, Monk Juvenal (Polovtsev),³ Fr. Leonid (Kavelin)⁴ and Fr. Platon (Pokrovsky).⁵

For their work, the aforementioned people gathered daily in Elder Makary’s reception cell. Though he did not cease his usual work with the brothers and guests, visiting them at a set time at the guest house, he nevertheless played the most active part in the labor of these disciples. One may positively state that not one expression, not one word was written in a manuscript that was sent to the censor without his personal approval… Who, being attentive to himself, would not have given a few years of his life to hear what their ears heard – the Elder’s explanations of passages in the writings of the Fathers, about which none of his disciples would have dared to ask him had it not been for the work they were engaged in. And had they dared, they would have undoubtedly

received the humble answer: “I don’t know about this, it’s beyond my abilities; perhaps you’ve attained to it, but I know only: ‘Grant me, O Lord, to see my sins! Cleanse my heart,’ then you’ll understand it!”

Who of his co-workers could forget how condescendingly the Elder heard out his childish remarks and made concessions, in the hope of expressing a thought more gracefully or clearly, as long as he did not see a violation of the spiritual meaning. He would accompany his concessions with a good-natured joke: “Let it be that way – I’m not familiar with the latest literature; but after all, you’re learned people!” If a disagreement arose in understanding, the Elder immediately eliminated it, or offered his own opinion, or left such a spot completely without explanation, saying: “This is beyond us – whoever does this will understand it; but what if we put our own rotten opinion in place of his (i.e., Elder Paisius’) lofty spiritual understanding?⁶

Alongside these publishing labors, Ivan wrote two more papers which revealed the maturation of his ideas that were expressed only in part in his earlier works. In 1852 he wrote, “On the Character of European Enlightenment and its Relation to Enlightenment in Russia.” The second work was entitled, “On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy” but was published posthumously in the year of his repose, 1856. In these works he describes the deviation of the Patriarchate of Rome from the teaching of the Fathers of the first thousand years. In the briefest of summaries it can be said that the root of the problem in the Roman Church that was passed to the entire West was that of rationalism.

Ivan Kontzevitch correctly appreciates Kireyevsky’s diagnosis when he says:

The West overlooked Eastern wisdom. Its scholars mastered in detail all the ancient philosophies: Egyptian, Persian, Chinese, Hindu, etc. But the mysticism of the Orthodox East was closed to them. Russia, on the other hand, inherited from Byzantium great treasures of this spiritual wisdom contained in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Hence, Russia’s historical task was to build on the rich Byzantine heritage a new spiritual culture which would impregnate the whole world. Kireyevsky posed the problem in all its fullness. According to him, Russian philosophy was to be built on “the deep, living and pure love for wisdom of the Church Fathers, which is the embryo of the higher philosophic principles” [vol. II, p. 332, Collected Works].⁷

Kireyevsky’s thesis can be summarized thus:

This special fondness of the Roman world for the formal coherence of ideas represented a pitfall for Roman theologians even at a time when the Roman Church was a living part of the Universal Church and when the shared consciousness of the entire Orthodox world maintained a reasonable balance between all special traits. Thus, it is to be expected that after Rome’s separation this peculiarity of the Roman mind was bound to attain decisive predominance in the character of Roman theologians’ teachings. It may even be that this Roman peculiarity, this isolated rationality, this excessive inclination toward the formal coherence of ideas, had itself been one of the main reasons for Rome’s defection… What is not open to doubt is the actual pretext for defection – the new addition of a dogma to the earlier creed, an addition that, contrary to the ancient tradition and shared consciousness of the Church, was justified only by the logical deductions of the Western theologians.⁸

Fr. Seraphim Rose, elaborating on this point, says: “logicalness becomes the first test of truth and the living sources of faith second. Under this influence, Western man loses a living relationship to truth. Christianity is reduced to a system, to a human level… It is an attempt to make by human efforts something better than Christianity. Anselm’s proof of God’s existence is an example – he is ‘cleverer’ than the ancient Holy Fathers.”⁹

Amidst these accusations one must not assume that Ivan despised the West. It was quite the opposite. He clearly articulates his appreciation but with some reservation, saying:

I have no intention of writing a satire against the west. No one values more than I the conveniences of public and private life which are a result of rationalism. To speak frankly, even now I still love the west… I belong to it by education, by habit, by taste… by my disputatious turn of mind, and even by the habits of my heart.

I want to travel to Europe… And yet I know that I am only going to a graveyard; but it is a most precious graveyard, that is what it is!

For within a man’s heart are certain movements and demands of the mind… which are stronger than all the habits and tastes, more powerful than all the pleasantries of life and the benefits of outward reasonableness, without which no man, nor a people, can live… Therefore, while fully appreciating all of the separate benefits of rationalism, I think that in its final form… rationalism clearly reveals itself as a one-sided principle which is fraudulent, deceptive, and betrays.¹⁰

Ivan continues his contrast between the Roman mind with the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, saying:

For, striving for truth through introspection (umozrenie), the Eastern thinkers are concerned above all with the proper inner condition of the thinking spirit, while the Westerners are more interested in the external linking of concepts. Eastern thinkers, that they may achieve the complete truth, seek the inner wholeness of the intellect, that concentration, so to speak, of the mind’s forces, in which all the faculties of the spirit are fused into one living and exalted unity. Western philosophers, on the other hand, assume that the full truth may be achieved by the disparate forces of the mind acting automatically (samodvizhno) and in isolation. They used one faculty to understand the moral and another to grasp the aesthetic; yet a third they employ for the useful; they attempt to understand the true through abstract reason. No one faculty knows what the others are doing until the action has been completed.¹¹

Further, Ivan describes what has been handed down through the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, saying:

…Believing thought [ie. religious thought (editor’s note)] is best characterized by its attempt to gather all the separate parts of the soul into one force, to search out that inner heart of being where reason and will, feeling and conscience, the beautiful and the true, the wonderful and the desired, the just and the merciful, and all the capacity of the mind converge into one living unity, and in this way the essential human personality is restored in its primordial indivisibility.¹²

Gleason’s final analysis of Kireyevsky and his last years is quite bleak. His conclusions of failure, despair and an overall pathetic life stems more from Ivan’s inability, in Gleason’s mind, which can be partly justified, to produce a magisterial philosophy that develops his ideas in more detail with application to the common man. It is unfortunate that Gleason’s valuable work shows no awareness of Orthodox life and spirituality or an understanding of the monastic life or elders. This lack clearly hinders him from understanding Kireyevsky, especially in the later part of his life.

Gleason, concluding, says:

…Kireyevsky’s pathetic dependence on Makary and his retreat from “the world” cannot be explained solely in religious or intellectual terms. At the end of his life, Kireyevsky was obviously prey to an overmastering sense of guilt and failure. He was desperately afraid of God’s judgment, feeling himself corrupt and unclean in the deepest recesses of his being. Nothing now remained of the optimism which he had set out on his odyssey in the twenties. Slowly and inexorably it had been drained from his life.¹³

Others, misunderstanding the Orthodox life, evaluate Ivan’s life and works in a less than complimentary if not erroneous way. The following paragraphs will explain a few of these misunderstandings but also how it is that Ivan is living within the Tradition of the Church. We will see that Ivan is a “mystic” insofar as all of the theology of the Orthodox Church is “mystical theology,” born out of the ascetical life not logical deductions.¹⁴ Ivan explains the ascetical life as being “pre-conditions” for knowledge of God. He does not develop an entire philosophic system, instead his emphasis focuses on the unity of the faculties within man.

Michael Hughes in his essay on Ivan as a “mystic” offers us a glimpse into his spiritual life. It began when Ivan started to move away from Hegel, was inspired more by Schelling but found its embodiment in his spiritual father, Fr. Filaret of the Novospassky Monastery. In this context, Hughes uses the term “mystic / mystical / mysticism” as terms which explain the way by which someone comes to true knowledge. He says, in affirmation of one of Ivan’s earlier biographers,

The previous pages have put forward a number of arguments that together make it reasonable to accept Gershenzon’s characterization of Kireyevsky as a “mystic.” The first of these arguments is the argument from source. Kireyevsky’s sustained interest in the patristic writings of such figures as Isaac the Syrian shows his intimate familiarity with a tradition that, at its heart, rested on the assumption that God was to be found above all in direct personal experience and contemplation rather than dry definitions and creeds. The second argument is the argument from context. Kireyevsky’s close links with the elders of Optina Pustyn brought him close to the most important focal point in the development of the hesychast tradition [relating to the Philokalia] in nineteenth century Russia, with its characteristic emphasis on inner contemplation and the search for a direct encounter with the divine, a teaching that found striking echoes in Kireyevsky’s focus on the existential condition of the observer in the cognitive process. The third argument supporting Gershenzon’s treatment of Kireyevsky as mystic – and perhaps ultimately the most important one – rests on the character of the language he used in articles such as “New Principles” when seeking to define the conditions by which an individual could obtain the highest insights that eluded ordinary reason.¹⁵

We can see the beginning of this in 1836 when he is reading Sts. Isaac the Syrian and Maximus the Confessor. This also sheds more light on his “conversion experience” as being an experience with lasting effects that continued to inspire the rest of his life. Herein we can also trace the maturation of his thought and how he focuses his writings on the pre-conditions of the individual knowing the truth and the importance of the integration of all the faculties of man and not only his reason.

To clarify the term “mystic” we should look at Henry Lanz’s work. He correctly sees the germination of Ivan’s thought not as being a product of German idealism,¹⁶ romanticism or any type of mysticism. Instead, he rightly says, “It is simply and solely a modern continuation of a religious tradition which has been dominating Russian life since the time of St. Vladimir, and which was temporarily driven into the underworld by the violent reforms of Peter the Great and his successors.”¹⁷Therefore, Ivan is not saying something new. Instead, it is as old as Russia herself.

Ivan did not, as many of his critics note, produce that masterful, all-pervading philosophy by which society could function and from which Russian social thought could rise to new levels. Instead, as he came to focus his work more and more, it grew to be an expansion only of a foundation by which people can begin to think and function from.

Florovsky describes Kireyevsky as a “man of a single theme, if not a single thought.”¹⁸ This observation can be addressed by noting that Kireyevsky was not so much concerned with the development of ideas as much as he was attempting to “affirm what were the essential fundamentals of any true or desirable Weltanschauung [worldview]: integrity, conviction, faith and so on… [I]t seems clear that Kireyevsky’s concern for the construction and elaboration of a fully-developed Christian philosophy was less marked than his desire to lay down the foundations for such an exercise upon which others could be built.”¹⁹

Ivan is more than able to produce such a system. Chapman expresses it thus:

Kireyevsky could have been more precise had he wished. By all accounts he was polymathic in his reading and phenomenally cultured. He could have illustrated his points with specific references to a formidable range of examples drawn from half a dozen cultures, references which would not have been lost on the literary aristocrats who constituted his readership. Such a philosophical style was not just the result of following the European, and especially German, fashion for vague and superfluous expansiveness: precision was likely to lead a Russian intellectual into trouble with the authorities. In the event, even Kireyevsky’s consistent imprecision led to official disapproval and hostility: even after taking care to veil the references to political movements in the loosest sense, Kireyevsky found his journal Yevropeyets unacceptable to the authorities and his movements constantly under the watchful eye of the notorious “Third Section”, with its brief to report on “all events without exception.”²⁰

Although Gleason correctly notes that Kireyevsky does not develop the magisterial philosophy which Gleason believes he should have been able to, Gleason ultimately misunderstands what Ivan does do through his collaboration with Elder Makary. Gleason describes this work with Elder Makary, saying: “There is curiously little substance in Kireyevsky’s letter to Makary about the works which they were together engaged in translating and publishing. Kireyevsky largely confined himself to rather timid suggestions about the translation of certain terms in the texts. One of his concerns was to avoid terminology in any way suggestive of the language of ‘Western’ philosophical speculation.”²¹ Given the rebirth of the writing of the Fathers at this time and their translation into modern languages through St. Paisius Velichkovsky and now through Optina Monastery, a very basic need was to develop a language that is able to convey the truths set forth by these Fathers; hence the importance of terms and terminology. Sergeii Chetverikov affirms the same point saying that the goal was to develop “a faithful philosophical language, in accordance with the spiritual language of Slavic and Greek Spiritual writers.”²² This was also what St. Paisius was doing before him.²³

In his critics’ minds. Ivan clearly does not show a great command over the spiritual life. It seems as though Gleason, and others believe that he should have moved from the Elagin Salon to Optina Monastery to attain the heights of a Staretz. In reality the spiritual life that Ivan attained was not recognizable to his critics. In 1851 his friend Koshelev asks him about which Fathers of the Church he should read. Ivan replies saying,

You ask me… whom you should read first and whom later, and I have to tell you that this simple question has been difficult for me. In order that this reading be of real use, it must be in conformity with the particular nature of each person. In my case, before I had mastered what was fundamental and general, I grasped at the more lofty, proper only to him who has been tried and perfected, and I confess to you that by this arrogance I paralyzed my forces, nurturing in myself precisely that dividedness, the elimination of which is the goal of spiritual introspection.²⁴

Gleason describes this letter as an example of Kireyevsky’s “basic uncertainty” with the “intimate sense” and “methodology” of the Church Fathers.²⁵ To the contrary, we find that this is clearly no wavering when it comes to someone asking advice on reading the Fathers of the Church. As he already notes, Kireyevsky expresses the danger that he was in being caught up in reaching too high and grasping for things he was not able to understand. This is why he says that there are certain Fathers that can only be read by those who have been “tried and perfected” because we are not talking about reading something that is commonplace.

More to the point is the continuation in the letter that Gleason does not quote. In it Ivan shows discernment in noting that it takes spiritual wisdom and discernment to advise people. “More important than all the books and every kind of thinking is to find a holy Orthodox Staretz [Elder] who can become your guide, to whom you can communicate every thought and hear in reply not his private opinion – which might be more or less intelligent – but the very judgment of the Fathers.”²⁶

In the last ten years of his life, Ivan, along with his wife Natalia, would grow closer in their relationships with Optina Monastery and to Elder Makary. Ivan would spend a lot of this time with Elder Makary in his cell working on translations. Ivan’s contributions to publishing, translating and/or correcting included Sts. Isaac the Syrian, Barsanuphius the Great, Mark the Ascetic, Symeon the New Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, Thallasios, Gregory of Sinai.²⁷

In 1856, Ivan set out from Dolbino for St. Petersburg to be with his son Vasily who was taking his final examination at the Lyceum. He stopped by Moscow on his way to see his mother and brother for what would be the last time. On June 10, Ivan contracted cholera in St. Petersburg and on June 12 he died, in the arms of his son.²⁸

Eight years earlier, Alexei Khomiakov composed a few verses in honor of his friend which is a fitting tribute:

Beyond the sea of meditation

Beyond, like waves, your thoughts, your dreams:

A realm of bright illumination,

Transcendent beauty, radiance gleams.

Unfurl the sail, thou trav’ler bold,

Like the white wing of a swan;

Prepare to journey, and behold,

Before thine eyes, a new sun dawn.

Return again with precious treasure;

Bring nurture to the hungry heart,

Granting burdened souls new leisure,

Strength to weary wills impart.²⁹

Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky was buried near the Optina Monastery Cathlicon, dedicated to the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple, at the feet of Elder Leonid, the first of the Elders of Optina. Ivan was the first layperson ever to be buried in the cemetery at Optina Monastery.³⁰ Learning of this, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow noted the great honor that Optina bestowed upon her son.³¹ On his tombstone was written: “I loved wisdom and sought her out from my youth… When I perceived that I could not otherwise obtain her, except God gave her me,… I prayed unto the Lord and besought Him… For they shall see the end of the wise, and shall not understand what God in His counsel hath decreed of him” (Wisdom of Solomon).³² Later, a portrait of Ivan lying in his coffin was hung on the western wall of the reception room of Elder Makary’s cell.³³

Subdeacon Matthew Long

ENDNOTES

1 (Chetverikov), Fr. Sergius. Elder Ambrose of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997), 126-127. Fr. Leonid Kavelin notes that often Elder Makary would work on these patristic publications at the home that was prepared for him on the Dolbino estate; see Ivan M. Kontzevitch, “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”; also in Elder Macarius of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), 113 note.

2 For a list of works published at Optina, see “An Annotated Bibliography of Optina Publications” in Leonard J. Stanton’s, The Optina Pustyn Monastery in the Russian Literary Imagination: Iconic Vision in Works by Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy and Others. (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), 273.

3 Later Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilnius.

4 Later the Superior of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra and author of the biography Elder Macarius of Optina which was translated into English.

5 The confessor of Elder Ambrose and of the pilgrims to Optina.

6 Elder Ambrose of Optina, 127-130. For a brief description of the scarcity of Orthodox Patristic material at the time and the difficulty it took to have works published, see I.M. Kontzevitch, “The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1988), 273-274.

7 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevsky,” 299-300.

8 Kireyevsky, Ivan. “On the Nature of European Culture and its Relationship to Russian Culture; Letter to Count E.E. Komarovsky” quoted in Boris Jakim and Robert Bird, trans. and eds. On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader (Hudson: Lindisfarne Books, 1998), 202-203.

9 Christensen, Fr. Damascene. Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), 622.

10 Young, Fr. Alexey. A Man is His Faith: Ivan Kireyevsky and Orthodox Christianity. (St. George Information Services: Norwich, 1980), 32-33.

11 From Kireyevsky’s Collected Works as quoted in European and Muscovite, 255.

12 On Spiritual Unity, 285.

13 Gleason, Abbott. European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 293-294.

14 “Mystic” is this context is being used to accommodate an author that is describing what Ivan writes about. The Orthodox generally do not use the term “mystic” which is more of a Catholic and Far Eastern derivation. See note #17 regarding mysticism.

15 “Mysticism and Knowledge in the Philosophical Thought of Ivan Kireevsky” in Mystics Quarterly (vol. 30, no.1/2, 2004): 26. Gleason agrees with this point but adds that Kireyevsky’s emphasis on “the collective and the communal” which Gleason denies are part of the Orthodox tradition but are instead more closely related to German counterrevolutionary and anti-rationalist ideologies; see European and Muscovite, 283-284.

16 Which Lanz notes about Slavophilism generally; see Henry Lanz, “The Philosophy of Ivan Kireyevsky” in The Slavonic Review. (vol. 4, no. 12, 1926): 594.

17 Ibid., 604. In short, these “pre-conditions” are the ascetical life. This is also the explanation that Vladimir Lossky’s gives regarding “mystical theology”; see Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 7. Regarding Ivan’s understanding of the relationship between thought and the ascetical life see “The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, 279-283.

18 Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: Part II. (Belmont: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 25.

19 M.C. Chapman. “The Role of Religious Belief and Astheticism in the Philosophy of Ivan Kireyevsky” in New Zealand Slavonic Journal. (vol. 1, 1978): 37-38. See also Edie, James M. et al. Russian Philosophy: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy – The Slavophiles – The Westernizers. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1976), 1:169.

20 Ibid., 34.

21 European and Muscovite, 338, note #36.

22 Cited in On Spiritual Unity; A Slavophile Reader, 19.

23 See Elder Ambrose of Optina, 125-126.

24 European and Muscovite, 246.

25 Ibid.

26 From Ivan Kontzevitch and quoted by Fr. Alexey Young in A Man is His Faith, 17. Although seemingly unknown to Gleason, points such as this are strewn throughout the Fathers and we can say that they were known by Kireyevsky at least through the translation of St. Paisius Velichkovsky’s. See St. Paisius’ Letters in Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky: The Life and Ascetic Labors of Our Father, Elder Paisius, Archimandrite of the Holy Moldavian Monasteries of Niamets and Sekoul. Optina Version. By Schema-monk Metrophanes, trans. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. (Platina: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1976), 130-152.

27 Gleason lists and gives the dates of these publications as: The Life and Works of the Moldavian Starets Paisii Velichkovskii (1^st ed. 1847, 2^nd ed. 1848); Gleanings for Spiritual Refreshment (translations from the Fathers by Paisy Velichkovsky, 1849); Nil Sorsky, Conferences on Monastic Life (1849); Barsanuphios and John, Introduction to the Spiritual Life (1851); Twelve Sermons of Simeon the New Theologian (1852); Isaac the Syrian, Spiritual-Ascetic Sermons (1854); Abbot Dorotheos, Instructions and Letters (1856); Mark the Anchorite, Moral-Ascetic Sermons (1858); The Ladder of St. John Climacus, in several editions. (ibid. note 8, p. 337); see also Elder Ambrose of Optina, 130-133. Most of these works were financed by the Kireyevsky’s themselves; see The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia,” 273-274.

28 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”, 306.

29 Quoted in Ibid., 302.

30 After the Elder’s repose, Natalia labored to collect all his letters and, using her own money published six thick volumes. “In order to gather them she visited many monasteries and convents – there is evidence that she visited about two hundred women’s convents alone!” Elder Macarius of Optina, 287.

31 Ibid., 304. Gleason is silent as to the value of Kireyevsky being the first layperson buried at Optina Monastery. Ivan’s brother, Peter, who reposed in the following year, is buried beside him as well as his wife, Natalia. Four years later, Elder Macarius would be buried besides Elder Leonid, at whose feet Ivan was buried.

32 Elder Ambrose of Optina, 65.

33 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”, 143.

Hi, this weekend is nice in favor of me, as this time i am reading this enormous educational article here at my home. cialis Cheers a lot to the writer for that very utile report.

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 2 of 3)

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On April 11, 2013

In The Royal Path

“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

The religious climate which Ivan came into, beginning with his encounter with Fr. Filaret, is best understood by looking a generation earlier at the life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky. In so doing we will see the type of life that Ivan participated in and the significance of the role he played for future generations.

Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (1806-1856) belonged to the generation following St. Paisius Velichkovsky (1722-1794). St. Paisius’ reflection on his times can be seen in a letter he wrote later in life regarding the early years of his monasticism. To learn the monastic life, St. Paisius went to the Holy Mountain of Athos (from 1746-1763) seeking a spiritual father and an education in the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church. he describes what it was like in a letter to Archimandrite Theodosius, the Superior of the Sophroniev Hermitage in Russia:

We bought… the above-mentioned books written in the Slavonic language and regarded them as a heavenly treasure given to us freely by God. But when I had read them for a number of years with diligence, I found in very many places in them an impenetrable obscurity, and in many places I did not find even any grammatical sense, even though I read them many times with extreme labor and testing. God alone knows with what sorrow my soul was filled; and being uncertain what to do, I thought that it might be possible to correct the Slavonic books of the Fathers at least a little by comparing them with other Slavonic books.

St. Paisius (Velichkovsky)

And I began to copy out with my own hand the books of St. Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, and St. Philotheus the Sinaite, and St. Theodore of Edessa, from four copies, so that at least by bringing together something from each of the four copies I might be able to see in them the grammatical sense. But all this labor of mine was in vain; for not even in those books compiled from four copies was I able to see the complete sense of them. Then for six weeks day and night I corrected my book of St. Isaac the Syrian from another copy of it, believing the assertion of one person that the copy corresponded in all respects to the Greek text; but this labor of mine also was in vain, for in time I came to understand that I had ruined my better copy from a worse one.

And after I had suffered many times in this way, I recognized that I was laboring in vain in a supposed correction of Slavonic books by means of Slavonic ones; and I began diligently to search out the reason for such obscurity and want of grammatical sense in the books. With my infirm mind I made the discovery that there are two reasons for this: first, the inexperience of the ancient translators from Greek into Slavonic; second, the inexperience and carelessness of inexperienced copyists.¹

Not only were few works available and in an incoherent state, but in many places people had never even heard of these authors.

…I had all the more earnest intent to seek out, with pain of heart, the Greek patristic books, in hope of correcting the Slavonic books from them; and having searched many times in many places, I could not find them. Then I went to the Great skete of the Lavra, St. Anne’s, and to Kapsokalyvia, and to the skete of Vatopedi, St. Demetrius’, and to other lavras and monasteries, everywhere asking learned

people, and the eldest and most experienced confessors and venerable monks, for the patristic books by name; nowhere, however was I able to obtain such books, but from everyone I received the same set answer, that “not only have we not known such books up to now, but we have never heard of the names of such Saints.” Having received such a reply God knows into what perplexity I fell, discerning that in such a holy place, chosen by God for the quiet and silent habitation of monks, where many great and perfect Saints had lived, I was unable not only to obtain these holy books which I so desired, but even to hear the names of those Saints from any one; and therefore I fell into not a little sorrow over this.²

This is a sketch of the beginnings of St. Paisius’ monastic life. It would continue to be a life of meticulous translating, copying and laboring over a correct translation of the Greek and the formation of an ascetical terminology previously lacking in the Slavonic language.³ In 1905, in the Niamets Monastery, the monastery of his repose, was housed some 300 manuscripts that were from the time of St. Paisius and 44 of them were in his own handwriting.⁴ Not only did he become a diligent translator but also a great teacher of monastics. In one source we find that near the end of his life St. Paisius had seven hundred disciples gathered around him at the Niamets monastery. Another source indicates a thousand.⁵

The works that St. Paisius was translating and disseminating contained “basic” teaching of the Fathers. At this time even the monks on the Holy Mountain were unfamiliar with these writings, and the saints who wrote them. One would agree with St. Macarius of Corinth (1731-1805) that, “Paisius had prepared the groundwork.”⁶ Concerning the need for such elementary education, it was also obvious to other contemporaries of St. Paisius. “St. Macarius, himself aware of the times and being a teacher and a pastor in the world, knew well that Orthodox people desperately needed their own basic Orthodox sources. We can clearly see this in the case of their contemporary, St. Cosmas of Aitolia [1714-1779], who abandoned everything and went to preach the basics of Christian faith.”⁷

St. Paisius had a broad influence on Russian and Athonite writers but for the purposes of this present work we will focus only on a few of the Russian ones. In the Optina Edition of St. Paisius’ life we find that his influence and work was spread through: “Metropolitan Gabriel in Petersburg; Metropolitan Platon (who personally wrote to him) in Moscow; and Metropolitan Philaret in Kiev.”⁸ Metropolitan Gabriel in Petersburg received a translation of the Philokalia from Elder Paisius and brought it to Petersburg. This Metropolitan had a particular method to verify the translations. He brought the work to a group of scholars at the seminary of St. Alexander Nevsky:

To them he entrusted the translation, because in this work was required not only a precise knowledge of the Greek language, but also a faithful and experienced understanding of spiritual life. Those who labored in the comparison of the translation of this book with the Greek original, according to the Metropolitan’s instructions, were obliged to constantly take counsel concerning all necessary corrections with spiritual elders who had actual experience in conducting their spiritual lives in accordance with this exalted teaching set forth in the Philokalia. These elders with whom they were to consult were: Elder Nazarius, Abbot of Valaam monastery; Hieromonk Philaret, who originally had been summoned by Metropolitan Gabriel from Sarov monastery to come to Petersburg (and later became the renowned elder of Spassky Monastery in Moscow and spiritual father of the philosopher Ivan V. Kireyevsky and his wife Natalia); and also Athanasius, who brought into Russia the Greek original of the Philokalia. The Metropolitan would say to the learned translators, “Although they do not know the Greek language as well as you, they know better than you from experience the spiritual truths which cannot be understood by book-learning alone. Therefore they can understand better than you the meaning of the instructions contained in this book.”⁹

Ivan’s story begins again with his spiritual father being involved in the translation of the Philokalia. Ivan was not involved in any translation work with this venerable Elder but the previous information is intended to reveal the kind of spiritual father he was. Ivan’s translation work began later with another renowned Elder, Makary of Optina. After his marriage in 1834, Ivan spent the next twelve years at the homestead in Dolbino. Kontzevitch notes that,

After Kireyevsky’s wedding and during the next twelve years of his life in Dolbino… This quiet life in the village seemed to one ill-disposed “biographer” like some kind of sleep or inactivity. But these years were not lost for Kireyevsky – they passed in spiritual and mental self-deepening. If in his young years he believed in European progress and was a Westernizer (while being editor of The European), now he drastically changed his worldview. Ivan Vasilievich became himself: that “Kireyevsky” whose image is stamped on the history of our spiritual culture. The years spent in studying scientific books broadened his knowledge.¹⁰

Fr. Georges Florovsky, in agreement, writes, “From one standpoint he might seem an unsuccessful, subdued and superfluous man, and in reality his social activity did not meet with success. Yet by passing through a period of inner construction he became self-contained, and through an ascetic effort, not through disillusionment.”¹¹

When Ivan came under the spiritual guidance of Elder Philaret of the Spassky Monastery after receiving the gift of Fr. Philaret’s pectoral cross, his position towards the Church changed from being disinterested to taking an active interest in becoming acquainted with the writings of the Fathers.¹²Under Fr. Philaret’s influence Ivan began reading Sts. Isaac the Syrian and Maximus the Confessor and was taught by him as someone who had experienced these writings.¹³

Alexei Khomiakov

Unable to find an outlet for his work following the repression of his journal, Ivan continued to meet with his closest friends discussing the West and Russia’s past, present and future. In 1839 we see a further development of Ivan’s ideas in his discussions with Alexei Khomiakov. He was acquainted with Alexei in the mid- 1820’s and became closer to him from 1833 on.

Khomiakov was part of the “Literary Aristocracy” as was Kireyevsky and also contributed articles to The European. A frequent patron of the Elagin Salon, Khomiakov is described by some as one of the first Slavophiles. “‘I knew Khomiakov for thirty-seven years,’ Koshelev wrote late in life, ‘and his fundamental convictions of 1823 had not altered in 1860’.”¹⁴ Gleason describes Khomiakov as haing an “extraordinary consistent character,” and as one who seemed “to have sprung from the earth.”¹⁵

Koshelev describes the conversations between the two men which began before Kireyevsky was married, writing, “There took place endless conversations and arguments beginning in the evening and ending at three, four or even five or six in the morning. There was hammered out and developed that Orthodox-Russian way of thinking, whose soul and prime mover was Khomiakov.”¹⁶ Here too were also many discussions of Church Fathers.¹⁷

In 1839, an article written by Kireyevsky was an essay entitled, “In Answer to Khomiakov.” “It was subsequently circulated in manuscript and created considerable stir in Moscow literary and social circles.”¹⁸ This essay regarding the development of European society, including its causes reveals that his views had matured since his writing The Nineteenth Century.

The Nineteenth Century was the core of the first issue of his journal, The European. Twelve years after The Nineteenth Century first appeared; Herzen reread the article and noted in his diary, “Ivan Kireyevsky’s article is remarkable. He anticipated the contemporary direction of Europe itself; what a healthy, powerful intelligence, what talent, style…”¹⁹ Gleason further noted that at the time of the release of this first issue, “with the exception of poetry, the content of the journal – Heine, Börne, Menzel, Villemain, et al. – flowed from Kireyevsky’s central idea of the ‘new era’ in Europe and European literature. They – and he with them – were in fact the new era itself.”²⁰

Gleason compares In Answer to Khomiakov, with Ivan’s earlier work, The Nineteenth Century, saying that in both works, Kireyevsky believed the bases of European culture to be i) the pagan classical world, ii) the barbarian tribes which destroyed it and iii) Christianity. In The Nineteenth Century he describes the third element as the “the Christian religion”; in Answer it became “Roman religion.”²¹ Kireyevsky says,

This classical world of ancient paganism, which is not part of Russia’s heritage… is essentially the triumph of man’s formal reason over everything inside and outside of it – pure, naked reason, based upon itself, recognizing nothing higher than or beyond itself, and manifesting itself in two particular aspects – that of formal abstractness and that of abstract sensuality. The effect of classicism upon European culture had to be of this same character.²²

Developing this thought, Ivan wrote to Khomiakov the following year explaining himself further, saying,

The development of “abstract reason” in men and nations had been accompanied by a decline in will and feeling. “My thought is this,” he wrote, “that logical sense (soznanie), which translates the deed into the word, life into a formula, does not grasp the object fully, and annihilates its action on the soul.” We mistake the blueprint of the house for the structure itself, he went on; living as we do under the yoke of logic, we ought at least to recognize that it is not the “summit of knowledge.”²³

We may note here that in the time between these two articles being written (1836 and 1839) Ivan’s view of the differing “Christianities” is becoming apparent. He begins to describe more the deviation from traditional Christianity in the West that followed the Schism. He will further elaborate on this point later in life.

In 1844, Ivan would emerge back in the public sphere through a new journal called The Muscovite. He took over its editorship and had been friends for some time with those who had previously managed it. Ivan expressed his thoughts regarding the acceptance of this editorial position saying,

The time has now come when the expression of my deepest convictions will be possible and not without value. It seems to me probable that in our time, when Western literature does not present anything in particular to dominate the intelligence, no particular principle which does not contain contradictions, no sort of conviction in which even its advocates believe – now, that is to say, the hour has come when our Orthodox principle of spiritual and intellectual life can find sympathy with our so-called educated public, which has hitherto lived in the belief in Western systems.²⁴

Portrait of Elder Makary of Optina

While Ivan was the editor of The Muscovite it included many poems, translations, tales and contributions by him but also a homily by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow²⁵ and a piece by Elder Makary in 1845. It was suggested to Elder Makary that he publish an article for the journal, and, as Fr. Sergius Chetverikov notes, “The Elder accepted this suggestion with gratitude and answered that if it would be possible and convenient, he wished to submit the biography of Elder Paisius [Velichkovsky].” Fr. Sergius continues, saying,

Since Ivan Vasiliviech shared Fr. Makary’s opinion about the services rendered by the Blessed Elder Paisius to all Orthodox monastics and to Slavonic literature in general (by confirming its use of ascetical terminology) he agreed with pleasure to the proposal to enhance the pages of the journal with this article. It was published in the twelfth issue of The Muscovite for 1845 and was adorned with a portrait of Elder Paisius.²⁶

There were to be only three issues of The Muscovite under Ivan’s guidance after which he retired back to Dolbino due to ill health.

Late 1845 to late 1846 proved to be one of the most difficult and blessed years of Ivan’s life. It was filled with deaths but also with a close relationship to Elder Makary. In late November, 1845 a close friend of the family died from tuberculosis, Dimitri Valuev who was then twenty-five years old. He had lived for a time with the Kireyevsky-Elagin’s in the house at the Red Gates in Moscow (which housed the Elagin Salon). On December 3, Alexander Turgenev died, who was Ivan’s Paris correspondent and a close friend of his uncle. Early in 1846, Ivan’s stepfather, Aleksei Elagin died of a stroke. A few months later Ivan buried his young daughter, Ekaterina. Near the end of the year, Ivan’s close friend, the poet, Nikolai Mikhailovitch Iazykov also died. “This year,” he wrote to his brother Peter, “I have been through the most agonizing time, coupled with the most uninterrupted misfortunes, to the point that when I bore my poor Katiusha into the church it was in fact almost easy, by comparison with other feelings.”²⁷

In 1842, eight years after their marriage, Fr. Filaret reposed. During his final days, while Fr. Filaret was dying, Ivan would sit up with him through the entire night.²⁸ After Fr. Filaret’s death, Ivan and Natalia both would start to spend more time at Optina Monastery.²⁹

19th century photo of Optina Monastery

Since 1833, Natalia had been visiting Optina Monastery and had been acquainted with Elders Leonid and Makary. Later she became the spiritual daughter of Elder Makary.³⁰ After Fr. Filaret’s death, both the Kireyevsky’s became very close to Elder Makary. At their request, the Elder often visited them on their Dolbino estate and they also even built a cell for him on their estate in the orchard.³¹ Natalia says that it was in 1846 that Ivan became closer to Elder Makary as described through the following events:

Ivan Vasilievich knew little of [Elder Makary] until 1846. In March of that year the Elder was with us in Dolbino and Ivan Vasilievich first confessed to him. He wrote Father for the first time from Moscow at the end of October, 1846, telling me: “I have written to Father, asking him many questions which are important to me; I purposely didn’t tell you about this because I feared that out of love for him you would somehow or another write to him. I am anxiously awaiting his reply. I am aware that it will be difficult for him to answer me.”

I thanked Ivan Vasilievich for having told me that he had decided to write to the Elder, and I was convinced that Ivan Vasilievich would get a stunning response from the Elder. An hour had not passed when two letters were brought from the post office in the Elder’s handwriting – one addressed to me, the other to Ivan Vasilievich. Without opening it, he asked me: “What does this mean? [Fr. Makary] has never written to me before!” After he read the letter, his face changed and he said: “Amazing! Stunning! How can this be? In this letter are the answers to all my questions which I had only just now sent.”³²

To be continued..

–Subdeacon Matthew

ENDNOTES

¹Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky: The Life and Ascetic Labors of Our Father, Elder Paisius, Archimandrite of the Holy Moldavian Monasteries of Niamets and Sekoul. Optina Version. By Schema-monk Metrophanes, trans. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. (Platina: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1976), 78-81. Twenty years after Paisius’ repose his biography was written, though not finished, by monk Mytrofan. In this biography, he too details “these wretched and terrible times when monasticism had degenerated to the last and was visible only in outward from.” He further describes how Paisius was alone in his endeavors with no human instructor, only the grace of God. see “The Life of Paisij Velyckovs’kyj,” trans. by J.M.E. Featherstone in Harvard Library of Early Ukranian Literature. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 4:146-147.

²Ibid., 81.

³Fr. Sergius Chetverikov. Elder Ambrose of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997), 126. See also, Bishop Seraphim Joanta, Romania: Its Hesychast Tradition and Culture. (Wildwood: St. Xenia Skete, 1992), 143-151.

⁴Ibid., 196.

⁵“The Life of Paisij Velyckovs’kyj,” 4: xiii, note 1.

⁶Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, 92.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, 96.

⁹Ibid., 237.

¹⁰Ivan Kontzevitch, “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan Kireyevsky,” in Elder Macarius of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), 295.

¹¹Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: Part II. (Belmont: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 26.

¹²Kontzevitch says that Ivan was never an “unbeliever” noting that Ivan wrote to his sister in the 1880’s encouraging her to read the Gospels. The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevsky, 294.

¹³Masaryk and Lazareva both date this reading of the Fathers at 1936; see, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia: Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, 2 vols., Eden and Cedar Paul, trans. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1919), 241 and Lazareva, “Zhizneopisanie” [“Biography”], introduction to I.V. Kireyevsky, Razum na puti k Istine [Reason on the Path to Truth].( Moscow: “Pravilo very,” 2002), XXXVI.

¹⁴Abbott Gleason, European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 144.

¹⁵Ibid., 143.

¹⁶Ibid.

¹⁷“[Khomiakov] was said to have discussed the works of St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem for hours with Kireevsky,” Archimandrite Luke (Murianka), “Aleksei Khomiakov: A Study of the Interplay of Piety and Theology”: 32, at http://www.jordanville.org/files/Articles/A_Study_of_the_Interplay_of_Piety_and_Theology.pdf, accessed on February 25, 2013.

¹⁸European and Muscovite, 156.

¹⁹Ibid., 104.

²⁰Ibid.

²¹Ibid., 162.

²²Ibid, quoted from Kireyevsky’s Collected Works.

²³Ibid, endnote #19.

²⁴European and Muscovite, 189.

²⁵Ibid., 190.

²⁶Elder Ambrose of Optina, 126-127.

²⁷From Barsukov’s, Zhizn’ Pogodina, VIII, 487, as noted in European and Muscovite, 223.

²⁸Ibid. 237.

²⁹“The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan Kireyevsky,” 297.

³⁰Ibid., 305.

³¹Elder Ambrose of Optina, 125.

³²Ibid., 305-306.

A swab test involves taking a specimen from a site such as the vagina or cervix. cialis 20mg price in malaysia A vaginal swab can be collected by your doctor, or if you prefer you can swab yourself your doctor can instruct you on what to do.

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 1 of 3)

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On February 22, 2013

In The Royal Path

Sermon on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On November 5, 2012

In Sermons, The Royal Path

Delivered in Christ the Savior Church on 11/4/2012

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Mikhailovich Andreyevsky

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On October 9, 2012

In The Royal Path

“On December 30, 1976, reposed an outstanding churchman and statesman, doctor of psychiatry, pedagogue, lecturer, publicist and author of a series of theological textbooks,” states the introductory line in the Memoriam published in Orthodox Life, about Professor Ivan M. Andreyevsky. He is mentioned often as one of the shining lights of Orthodox theology. His name is often heard together with Archbishop Averky Taushev, Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko, the philosopher Archimandrite Constantine Zaitsev Professor I.M Kontzevitch, Nicholas Talberg, and the theologian Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.[1]

Ivan Mikhailovich Andreyevsky was born on March 14, 1894 in St. Petersburg. His father was of Russian descent and his mother, German.[2] He was one of five children, the oldest being his sister, the poetess Maria Shkapskaya. He was raised in a pious family who were poor but seemed to live in relative comfort. Ivan’s mother suffered from paralysis and his father retired early due to mental illness.[3] Ivan entered into a period of “rebellion” during his years of secondary schooling which began in St. Petersburg. It is said that in 1912 in the Wideman Gymnasia, which Ivan attended, a revolutionary group had been discovered and after this Ivan stopped attending that school. The participants of this group were taken under the protection of a millionaire and sent to study in Switzerland.[4] Later, his sister Maria was caught distributing illegal Socialist revolutionary literature when she was in medical school and was imprisoned. Fr. Seraphim (Rose) notes, “The beginning of [Andreyevsky’s] intellectual and spiritual path… is clear: he was an unchurchly, deadly-serious, revolutionary-minded youth…”[5]

Ivan finished secondary schooling in Switzerland and then went on to study at the Sorbonne in Paris from 1912 – 1914 where he completed his studies in the Department of Philosophy. Of this period he says, “In 1914 I was a young student of the Philosophy Department of the Sorbonne, and I had the right of attending lectures at the College-de-France. There I listened to Lalande and Bergson… Bergson lectured with inspiration, improvised,

Henri-Luois Bergson, 1927

thought out loud, created on the lecture platform, and ruled the minds of the young generation, especially of Russians. I was among the latter.”[6]

At this stage of Ivan’s intellectual development the editors of The Orthodox Word note that, “the philosophy of Bergson did not leave a deep trace on the mature world-view of Andreyevsky; it was, rather, an important stage in his assimilation of the best of modern ‘wisdom,’ which enabled him later to be a brilliant apologist for the higher wisdom of Orthodoxy.”[7] Andreyevsky admits that Bergson was responsible for drawing his attention to an even more mature philosopher. He says, “Once, after one of his inspired lectures, brilliant in form, Bergson asked those who surrounded him in the corridor: who, in their opinion, was the most remarkable thinker in the world at the present time? Seeing the perplexity of his listeners, he clearly and distinctly said: ‘It is a modest Russian philosopher, Askoldov by name.’ It was extremely flattering for me, a Russian student, to hear such an opinion about a Russian philosopher; but to my shame I had to acknowledge that I heard the name Askoldov then for the first time and knew absolutely nothing about him.”[8]

After finishing his studies in Paris, Ivan returned to St. Petersburg to study psychiatry at the Psikhonevropatologicheskii Institute, now called the St. Petersburg V.M. Bekhterev Psychoneurological Research Institute, where he graduated in 1918. He had decided to study psychiatry after being “aroused by the depth of the human soul” through his reading of the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky.[9] He then went on to enroll at the University of St. Petersburg where he would study Literature and Philology and at the same time work as a doctor at the Nikolaevsky Military Hospital during the civil war.

Sergei Alexeev Askoldov

It was at the University of St. Petersburg was, it has been said, that Ivan had “the most important event in his intellectual life.”[10] Here he met up with S. A. Askoldov. Fr. Seraphim explains this influence and resulting impressions, saying, “The nature of the influence of Askoldov upon [Andreyevsky] cannot be understood by reference to the pitiable academic world of today, which is oriented to the passing down of fragmented knowledge and opinions and not a wholeness of world-view. ‘For the first time after Bergson,’ writes [Andreyevsky], ‘I experienced the spiritual awe of contact with a man of genius. I felt that I had found, at last, a real teacher.’ ‘I learned from him true philosophizing.’ Askoldov taught him much about philosophy and introduced him to his own philosopher friends… but more importantly, [Andreyevsky] absorbed from his teacher a whole attitude of mind and soul which was just what he needed for his own further intellectual and spiritual growth. ‘Everything I came to know of what Askoldov had written produced on me an exceptionally powerful impression, because it directly and clearly answered to the deepest questions of my spirit.’

“Askoldov had a constant ‘will for righteousness and truth… Intellectual dishonesty always evoked in him an explosion of dissatisfaction.’ [Andreyevsky] himself inherited from his teacher this intellectual uprightness that could not tolerate the slightest dishonesty or fakery, whether in philosophy or church life.”[11] However, their relationship was not purely intellectual.Andreyevsky notes a very impressionable moment of their lives together during World War II when, “the two were together in a small wooden house and had nowhere to flee during a fierce bombardment. Andreyev was astonished when Askoldov, in the absence of a priest, asked permission to confess his sins to him in the face of death. ‘I will never forget this confession: a more sincere repentance would be difficult to imagine.’”[12]

In 1922 Andreyevsky accepted a professorial position at the Petersburg University but was dismissed due to his conflict with the university’s Communist ideology. He then obtained a position as a teacher of literature at a

Ivan and Elena in Jordanville

local high school. In 1924, he was working as a psychiatrist at the Nikolaevsky Military Hospital and during this time he began to take pastoral theology courses that were offered in Petrograd under the tutelage of Father Theodore Andreyev. “After the martyric death of Fr. Theodore Andreyev, Ivan… took care of his wife and daughter Zoya, eventually marrying his best friend’s wife [Elena Sosnovskaya] and even taking his last name as a pseudonym… Thus he was able to help the widow and become a loving father to his stepdaughter [Maria Ivanovna, b. Dec. 19, 1936 d. June 25, 1985], who later in America became a scholar, [poet and writer] in her own right.”[13]

He studied in Petrograd from 1924 to 1928. In 1926, from the professors that he engaged with, as well as the students, the “Brotherhood of St. Seraphim” was formed. At this time his intellect was maturing. Where before he would write papers as requirements for his course work, now he was in a tight-knit group who had the same vision as he. Together they would now write and speak on those issue of the most pressing importance to the group. He notes: “Bergson, Lossky, Askoldov: these are the three stages of my philosophical development – philosophical, but not religious. On the latter path I had entirely different teachers: Bishop Theophan the Recluse, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, the Optina Elders, and the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt – and then the Philocalia, and, in general, Orthodox patristic literature. With Optina elder Nectarius I engaged in a long correspondence, and with Elder Dositheus I was in personal contact. Twice I had had personal contact with Father John of Kronstadt also. Being taught by them the strictly Orthodox spiritual method (if one can thus express oneself), I made it secure by means of unforgettable impressions of visits to remarkable Russian monasteries (Valaam, Solovki, the Kiev Caves Lavra, Sarov, Diveyevo, Optina Monastery, and others). As a result, the choice became clear to me between the conservative Orthodoxy of Father John of Kronstadt and the ‘modernized’ Orthodoxy of V. Soloviev and his school. Without wavering, I chose the former path.”[14]

St. Seraphim digging the canal around the Diveyevo Convent

The benefits of this “securing” of Orthodoxy he speaks of later on in life in an article entitled The Psychology and Psychopathology of Old Age saying, “A great consolation in all sorrows of life in mature years, and especially in old age, is the religious feeling that has been preserved. This consolation can give a quiet, calm old age and help one to calmly accept death as a sleep in the hope that eternal life exists in another better world.”[15]

To what he had been learning Ivan began to “secure” this by making his first pilgrimage: to Diveyevo. There was a “rule” at the Diveyevo Convent, given by St. Seraphim himself, which was to be performed by the pilgrims who visited. The canal around the Convent was to be walked around, with prayer rope in hand, and the prayers to be said were “Virgin Theotokos” one hundred and fifty times, the “Our Father” one hundred and fifty times, then one was to pray for all of one’s relatives and acquaintances, both living and dead. After this, one was to state one’s most heartfelt, most necessary desire which would then be fulfilled without fail.[16]

With prayer rope in hand, Ivan walked around the canal, performing the St. Seraphim “rule.” He recalls, “I intended to ask for many things, both material and spiritual, but when, at the end of the third circuit of the ditch, I had performed the entire rule and wanted to express my heartfelt desires, something miraculous took place, obviously through the great mercy of St. Seraphim. I was suddenly seized by a very special, spiritual, quiet, warm and fragrant joy; an undoubting conviction of my whole being of God’s existence, and of an absolutely real, prayerful communion with Him. It became completely obvious and clear to me that a petition for anything earthly would be tantamount to the prayer: ‘Lord, leave me and deprive me of Thy wondrous gift…’

“And within me, I fervently said to the Lord, ‘Lord, do not give me anything; take away from me all my earthly prosperity, only do not deprive me of the joy of communion with Thee, or, if it is possible to preserve it forever in one’s life, then give me a heartfelt memory, give me the means of preserving till death the memory of this present blessed moment of awareness of thy Holy Spirit.’”[17]

Sarov Monastery, 1910

Summarizing his pilgrimage to Sarov, Ivan says, “My whole life changed after my pilgrimage to Sarov Monastery. The Lord took from me, in accordance with my prayer at the [canal], all earthly goods, but preserved forever within me, the memory of that moment when, by His limitless mercy, by the mercy of the Most Holy Mother of God and by the prayers of St. Seraphim, I, a sinner, had the completely undeserved honor to experience within me the quiet, joyful, good, and fragrant breathing of the Lord’s Holy Spirit.’[18] And so, in 1926, we see Ivan at the height of his intellectual as well as spiritual maturity and in the following year the trials began. He even noted this development of himself, in describing his life to his students, saying, “these years of his intellectual and spiritual formation as his full growth from “body” (science, medicine) to “soul” (literature, philosophy) to “spirit” (theology, true Orthodoxy), using the three-fold division of the human personality discussed by St. Seraphim, Bishop Theophan the Recluse and many other Father’s, on the basis of St. Paul (I Cor. 2:14-15, etc.)[19]

In 1927 Metropolitan Sergius issued his infamous “Declaration.” Andreyev was one of many to be chosen to be part of a delegation in order to persuade Metropolitan Sergius to abandon the Declaration. He noted, “The Metropolitan received us out of order. Finding the reason why we had come, he reaffirmed everything written in the Declaration, and in answer to our convictions called us ‘counter-revolutionaries’ and ‘schismatics.’ Not taking his blessing, we left without obtaining anything.”[20] Soon after, those who did not accept the Declaration saw their churches closed and were imprisoned. Andreyev too was imprisoned, and spent three of his five years of imprisonment at Solovki, from 1929-1931. There is much written about his work at Solovki as a doctor for the inmates treating epidemics of typhoid and scurvy. Many are the stories of the priests and bishops he met and with whom he participated in the Divine services secretly. He writes about the “churches” that were established in the prison camp by the inmates who knew that if they were caught that would be tortured and shot.

Solovki Monastery

“At Solovki we had several secret Catacomb ‘churches,’ but our ‘favorites’ were two: the ‘Cathedral Church’ of the Holy Trinity, and the church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. The first was a small clearing in the midst of a dense forest in the direction of the ‘Savvaty’ Assignment area. The dome of this church was the sky. The walls were the birch forest. The church of St. Nicholas was located in the deep forest towards the ‘Muksolm’ Assignment area. It was a thicket naturally formed by seven large spruces. Most frequently the secret services were conducted here, in the church of St. Nicholas. In the ‘Holy Trinity Cathedral’ services were conducted only in the summer, on great feasts and, with special solemnity, on the Day of Pentecost. But sometimes, depending on circumstances, doubly secret services were also celebrated in other places. Thus, for example, on Great Thursday of 1929, the service of the reading of the Twelve Gospels was celebrated in our physicians’ cell in the 10^th company. Vladika Victor and Fr. Nicholas came to us, as if for disinfection. Then, catacomb-style, they served the church service with the door bolted.”[21]

Of his work at Solovki, he writes, “In the year 1929, in the frightful concentration camp of Solovki, beginning with the end of winter there was a great increase of scurvy, and towards spring out of 18,000 prisoners of the fourth division of the camp (the division that occupied the island of Solovki itself), the number of those afflicted reached 5000. I, as an imprisoned physician, was offered, apart from my usual work, to take upon myself the supervision of one of the new scurvy barracks for 300 prisoners.

“When I came to this barracks I was met by a young Jewish orderly with a very handsome, lively face. He turned out to be a 4^th-year medical student. To have such a qualified helper was a great rarity and an immense help.

New Martyr Alexander Jacobson (+1930) commemorated on September 8

Alexander Yakovlevich Jacobson (such was his name) went around the whole barracks with me and showed me all the patients. Concerning each one, he told me in detail his diagnosis and the characteristic traits of the disease. The patients were all in a very serious condition. Rotting and pussing gums afflicted with the sores of scurvy gangrene, an immense swelling of the joints, bleeding from scurvy in the form of blue spots in the extremities – were what came first to the eyes at a hasty examination. At a more thorough examination many of them turned out to have serious complications in the inner organs: hemorrhagic nephritis, pleuritis and pericarditis, serious afflictions of the eyes, and so forth. From the explanations of the orderly I understood that he knew precisely what was what in the symptomatology of diseases, and he made correct diagnoses and prognoses.”[22]

After serving his time Ivan was deprived of the right to work and had to find employment in various psychiatric clinics in small cities which lasted until the beginning of World War II. During this time he was also a member of the Catacomb Church whose members and hierarchy he had met while at Solovki. In 1944, after the War he moved to Germany where he made contact with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and regarded Metropolitan Anastassy as a friend and instructor.

Ivan in the seminary classroom, 1950’s

In 1950 he moved to Jordanville where he accepted a professorial position at Holy Trinity Seminary where he was to teach for the next twenty-one years. While there he not only lectured, but wrote several books including: A Short Survey of the History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to the Present Times (1952), A Short Conspectus for a Course of Lectures in Psychology (1960), Orthodox Christian Apologetics (1965), Orthodox-Christian Moral Theology (1966), and A Survey of the History of Russian Literature of the 19^th Century (1968).[23] Apart from these books he also authored numerous articles.

Ivan was also active outside of the church in scholarly and scientific societies. He was director and lecturer on medical subjects at the Pirogov Society which was an organization for Russian physician in the United States. He also gave lectures at the Pushkin literary society. But his most beloved work was with the St. Vladimir Society which aimed at building St. Vladimir’s Memorial Church in Cassville, New Jersey. He was also editor for the St. Vladimir calendar which printed many philosophical and theological articles in defense of true Orthodoxy and documented the origin and history of the Catacomb Church in Russia.[24]

The end of his life was to come from a cruel blow from the modern world. As he was riding in an elevator in New York City, he was attacked. The injuries he suffered during the attack proved fatal and he remained mostly unconscious for a month before reposing on December 30, 1976.

Recalling the value of the life and work of Ivan Andreyev, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) notes, we must “strive to understand these giants who have now all but departed, leaving all would-be defenders of Orthodoxy in a very precarious position against the increasingly subtle temptations of an anti-Christian age. Without a broadening and deepening of our Orthodox world-view, without absorbing at least something of the genuine Orthodox teaching of the great men who have handed down Orthodoxy to us – we will scarcely survive.”[25]

[1] See Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), 181, 252 and 855.

[2] Neil Cornwell, Reference Guide to Russian Literature (London: Fritz Dearborn Publishers, 1998), 730.

[3] Ibid.

[4] I.M. Andreyev, 57.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “The Path of Prof. S. A. Askoldov,” Orthodox Way (1955) as translated in I.M. Andreyev, 57.

[7] I.M. Andreyev, 58.

[8] “The Path of Askoldov,” 58.

[9] I.M. Andreyev, 59.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “The Path of Askoldov,” 61.

[13] I.M. Andreyev, Orthodox Apologetic Theology (Platina: St. herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), 25n. For a short biography on Maria Ivanovna see http://www.st-tatiana.ru/text/32422.html.

[14] Ibid., 62.

[15] I.M. Andreyev, 103.

[16] Ivan M. Andreyev, “A Journey to Sarov and Diveyevo,” trans. Seraphim F. Englehardt, Orthodox Life (March-April, 1982): 30-31.

[17] Ibid., 31.

[18] Ibid., 34.

[19] I.M. Andreyev, 63. Fr. Seraphim clarifies this expression of Ivan’s saying, “By ‘spirit,’ of course, is not meant a separate component of man’s nature, as some heretics have taught, but only the higher part of the soul, where contact with God and the spiritual world is opened up, as opposed to the lower part of the soul, which is occupied with the normal human pursuits of art and science, philosophy and culture. The awareness – in first-hand experience – of this critical distinction between soul and spirit was later to give to his teaching a depth and preciseness which few philosophers and thinkers attain. Ibid., 63-64.

[20] Ivan Anderyev, Russia’s Catacomb Saints: Lives of the New Martyrs (Platina, Saint Herman of Alaska Press, 1982).48.

[21] Ibid., 65.

[22] Ibid., 69.

[23] R. Polchaninov, “In Memoriam: Prof. Ivan M. Andreyevsky,” Orthodox Life (March-April, 1977): 49.

[24] I.M. Andreyev, 97.

[25] I.M. Andreyev, 67.

Ivan and Fr. Adrian (Rymarenko) Spring, 1960

Articles by Ivan Andreyev

“On the Principles of Orthodox Monarchy.” Orthodox Way (1951) in Russian.

“Christianity and Bolshevism.” St. Vladimir Calendar (1955) in Russian.

“The Path of Prof. A.S. Askoldov.” Orthodox Way (1955) in Russian.

“On the Character of Scientific-Athiestic Propaganda in Soviet Russia.” Orthodox Way (1956) in Russian.

“On St. John of Kronstadt.” Orthodox Way (1958) in Russian.

“On the Orthodox Christian Moral Upbringing of Pre-school Children.” Orthodox Way (1959) in Russian.

“The Excommunication of Leo Tolstoy from the Orthodox Church.” Orthodox Life (May-June, 1961): 17-32.

“Concerning the Revelation of the Ikon of the Reigning Mother of God.” Orthodox Life (July-August, 1962): 4-8.

“Documents of the Catacomb Church: The Catacomb Church.” The Orthodox Word (May-June, 1970): 144-149.

“Martyrology of the Communist Yoke: Bishop Maxim of Serpukhov.” The Orthodox Word (May-June, 1970): 150-164.

“The Psychology and Psychopathology of Old Age.” St. Vladimir’s Calendar (1970). in Russian.

“On the Imperial Martyrs and the need for the Russian People to Repent for their Regicide and Apostasy.” St. Vladimir Calendar (1972) in Russian.

“A Jewish Confessor of the Orthodox Christian Faith.” Orthodox Life (January-February, 1977): 13-18.

“The Cross of Christ, 3^rd Sunday in Lent” @ http://www.hermitage-journal.org/2011/03/cross-of-christ-3rd-sunday-in-lent.html

“St. Seraphim of Sarov: Teacher of Compunction and Joy.” Orthodox Life (March-April, 1982): 7-16.

“A Journey to Sarov and Diveyevo in 1926.” Orthodox Life (March-April): 25-34.

“Christian Truth and Scientific Knowledge.” Orthodox Way (1961) in Russian.

“Weep!” Orthodox Life (March-April, 1993): 38-42.

Prof. Andreyev and Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev), 1959

Books by Ivan Andreyev

Catacomb Church in Soviet Russia. 1947.

Icon of All Saints Who Shone Forth in the Russian Land. Munich, 1948.

The Position of the Church in Soviet Russia. New York, 1951 (publishing house unknown).

A Brief Review of the History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to the Present Day. New York, 1952 (publishing house unknown).

A Brief Summary of Lectures on Psychology. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1960.

Psychiatric Expertism in Soviet Russia. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1960.

Orthodox Christian Moral Theology. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1966.

Outlines of the History of Russian Literature in the 19^th Century. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1968.

Russia’s Catacomb Saints. Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1982. (Prof. Andreyev did not write the whole book but only the first 104 pages [six chapters]. Much of the rest he contributed with his own personal records or verifying others’ accounts).

Orthodox Apologetic Theology. Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995.

Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? Wildwood: Monastery Press, 2000.

Ivan Andreyev

Articles about Ivan Andreyev

Polchaninov, R. “In Memoriam: Prof. Ivan M. Andreyevsky.” Orthodox Life (March-April, 1977): 48-50.

Editors. “I.M. Andreyev, 1894 – December 17-30, 1976: True Orthodox Convert from the Russian Intelligentsia.” The Orthodox Word (March-April, 1977): 55-67 97-103. (This article is the same one that was used to introduce the author in “Russia’s Catacomb Saints” and “Orthodox Apologetic Theology,” with minor changes.)

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Archbishop Andrew of Rockland

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On October 9, 2012

In The Royal Path

Born Adrian Rymarenko, on March 15/28, 1893, he was raised in a wealthy and pious family in the town of Romny, Poltava province, Ukraine. He recollects,

“I grew up in a pious family… I was surrounded by that Orthodox way of life which for generations had been created by Holy Russia. In our family, life proceeded according to the church calendar, according to the yearly church cycle. Feast days were as it were the signposts of life. At home there were constant Divine services, and not only molebens, but all-night vigils also.

“… When I remember those years there inevitably rises before me an unforgettable picture: early morning, it’s still dark. I have only just woken up and I see in front of the icons, half-illumined by a lampada, my mother. She prays for a long time. But a still stronger impression was made on me by the early-morning Divine services, to which our mother often took us and to which we went no matter what the weather, autumn or winter! After these Divine services one always felt a kind of extraordinary inspiration, a kind of quiet joy.”[1]

He recalls that this way of life was not only characteristic of his family but of all society around him. Following the Revolution of 1905 all this changed. He says that peoples’ joy was now replaced with “disillusionment and desolation.” During this time he attended the St. Petersburg Polytechnical Institute and studied engineering where those all-pervading feelings of despair started to affect him. During this time he found his soul to cry out: “I cannot.” He says,

“I felt that I could not live as people around me were living. I felt that I was lacking that life, the Orthodox way of life, which had surrounded me in my childhood and youth, that lightness of heart which I felt. I had the impression that I had been deprived of the air which I had breathed.”[2] From this moment on he started to seek out ways to revive this in his life.

This new life was given to him in the person of Archpriest John Egorov who was the leader of a student group. He spent five years under the tutelage of this Archpriest and found opened up to him the “elemental reality of the life of Christ’s Church by which Holy Russia lived.”[3] Of this “elemental reality” which was imparted to him, he says, “I understood that the Divine services are not merely a ritual, but in them are revealed the dogmas of the faith. They are the foundations of man’s reception of Divinity. Then, the examination and study of the works of the Fathers of the Church and the Patrisitic writings revealed to me the paths of life. When I had gone through the whole course taught by Fr. John, I had literall come back to life. I sensed the elemental power of Orthodoxy, I sensed the breath of life which it gave. I understood in what this life consisted.”[4]

After this time he went to Optina where he met the Elder, Anatoly the Younger in 1921. At this time Eugenia Grigorievna was now in his life and she had gone to Optina before him to resolve questions about their marriage
and his priesthood. Fr. Anatoly blessed both of these decisions and later in the summer Adrian came to ask more questions about the same subjects.

Matushka Eugenia Rymarenko was the daughter of prominent landowners in the province of Poltava. She studied in St. Petersburg and later transferred to Moscow. She had slowly moved away from the Church but after the death of her parents and her experiences connected with the Revolution she returned to the city of Romny, in the province of Poltava. There she met her future husband who had given her several religious books and inspired her to go to Optina. In recalling her first visit to Optina Monastery, she said: “Why I went to Fr. Anatoly at that time, I do not know. I had almost no understanding of eldership. I had only read Lodyzensky’s Trilogy: Higher Consciousness, Light Invisible and Dark Forces and Sergei Nilus’ book On the Bank of God’s River. Actually I wanted to visit the elder in order to get a look at him and hear from him some prediction of the future… Instead of a prediction of the future, I experienced joyful moments of repentance, and an unusual, peaceful state of mind and submission to the will of God. I was so won over by Batyushka that later, it was enough just to think of him in order to acquire a peaceful, bright state of mind.”[5]He describes his first meeting with the Elder thusly: “I arrived at Optina on the day of SS. Peter and Paul at 6 o’clock in the morning, and stayed at the guest-house with the wonderful Monk Theodulus. He told Fr. Eustignius, Fr. Anatolius’ cell-attendant, that I had come. Batyushka immediately sent for me and blessed me to come to him after the Liturgy. Vladyka Micah celebrated the Liturgy. The service in the church of the Entrance was triumphant, and after the service I immediately went to Batyushka. There was a whole crowd of people around Batyushka’s house. They were mainly nuns. I was immediately let through and went to the Elder… He was friendly and affectionate. In one moment I completely forgot about what I had only just seen: through his questions the whole of my life was handed over to him. The conversation was mainly about my inner life. We talked about my pastorship. Feeling my unworthiness, I asked the Elder to forbid me to think of the priesthood, to which he, just like Elder Nectarius later, said to me: ‘Accept the priesthood without fail, otherwise you will suffer.’ When Batyushka asked me about my life, he suddenly said to me: ‘Go to the holy things in the holy corner.’ There he began to read the prayers of confession, and I thought that I would do confession, but Batyushka summarized everything that I had said, I confirmed my sinfulness, and he read the prayer of absolution. This was for me an unexpected prayer, I felt that I was reborn.”[6]In 1921, Fr. Adrian began his pastoral duties in his native Romny at the Church of Alexander Nevsky. One of his parishioners describes this time of being surrounded by social unrest and the closing of churches. He says that Fr. Adrian served with feeling and that his sermons ignited the hearts of their listeners. Even though churches and monasteries were being closed this church was being filled with people. In no other church was there found such a spiritual life and devotion.[7]In 1926 the church in Romney was closed and Fr. Adrian was sent to Kiev where he was “under surveillance.” He says that at the beginning of this time there was very difficult but then he became close to a group of “pastor-ascetics” whom he described as his instructors and friends. In them he found the same preservation of that which he had longed for from back in his childhood. “All of them gave up their lives for what was already in my heart.”[8] And they literally did. “With these clergy there went to prison, exile and death thousands of their flocks, who wanted to live in God and with God. On my shoulders lay the heavy responsibility of continuing the work of the martyred ascetics…”[9]After the repose of Elder Anatoly of Optina Matushka Eugenia and Fr. Adrian became the spiritual daughter of Elder Nektary of Optina. They came often to visit and stay for weeks with the Elder. The Elder would often tell Matushka, “[Fr. Adrian] is full of Orthodoxy… I rejoice that [Fr. Adrian] is fully Orthodox,” and often spoke of him “with such affection.” Matushka had more time to stay due to Fr. Adrian’s responsibilities in the parish. She would often read to the Elder as well as write correspondence for him and copy various passages from books.

Elder Nektary of Optina

During his time in Kiev, Fr Adrian says that God had mercy on him and spared him from prison but this was only at the present time. In 1929 he was imprisoned for a short term then released and continued his priestly duties, though much more cautiously due to being closely monitored by the government.

As the Revolution in Russia progressed and Optina was slowly being liquidated Fr. Nektary was evicted from the monastery and came to live in a home in the village of Holmische in Briansky Province with a widower and his two boys. Here Matushka and Fr. Adrian would visit often until the Elder’s repose. For this Matushka would not be there but the Elder told her that Fr. Adrian would be and he was. Fr. Adrian left at two o’clock in the morning and, after much difficulty, arrived at four in the afternoon on April 29, 1928 on the day of the Elder’s repose. After his arrival, Fr. Adrian was present to read the Psalter for the Elder while he lay on his bed. As others were helping in assisting to turn the Elder in his bed icons of the Great-martyr Panteleimon and Saint Seraphim were brought from the reception room. One young lady said to the Elder, “Batyushka, bless Father Adrian with this.” With difficulty Batyushka reached out his hand, took the icon and put it on Father Adrian’s head. Then Father Adrian asked Batyushka to bless his whole family with the icon of Saint Seraphim. Shortly thereafter the Elder became unconscious. In her recollections of Elder Nektary, Matushka Eugenia says that when the Elder’s condition changed, “Father Adrian saw that Batiuhka indeed was dying. He read the Canon for the Departure of the Soul; Batyushka was still alive. Falling on his knees, Father Adrian pressed himself to him, to his back under his mantle. Batyushka was still breathing for a little while, but his breaths became fewer and fewer. Seeing that Batyushka was dying, Father Adrian rose from his knees and covered him with the epitrachalion. After a few minutes Batyushka passed away. It was 8:30 on the evening of April 29, 1928.”[10]

While serving the flock in Kiev the Soviets were soon to invade and Fr. Adrian and those who were close to him fled to Germany where he was made Rector of the Resurrection Cathedral in Berlin. Here they faced constant bombings but nonetheless the Divine services were held every day in the cathedral. From here the small group was evacuated to the south of Germany in Würtemberg. Here, as in Berlin, a small group of people would gather, under Fr. Adrian’s guidance and a church was built and they immediately began to perform the Divine services, in each place building the Orthodox way of life which was surrounded by the confusion of a foreign land. About these communities that would grow up in Kiev, in Berlin and now in Würtemberg Fr. Adrian says, “Many at first looked on us as naïve people who did not live in accordance with the times. But we lived, we lived in God. Little by little attitudes towards us changed. Pilgrimages began. People who had come to the depths of despair acquired amongst us peace of soul and a quiet joy, and went away enlightened and in peace.”[11]

The next move was now to be to America. In 1949, Fr Adrian came with a small group of Russia immigrants and settled one hour north of New York City in Nayack in Rockland County. In the Fall of the same year, Archbishop Vitaly of Jordanville and Archbishop Nikon asked that Fr. Adrian establish a women’s monastery to gather together nuns that had been scattered throughout the Diaspora and to establish the Orthodox way of life in this remote area. Fr. Adrian says that not only nuns but a significant number of the thousand displaced persons from Europe, came to settle around the monastery and became a large Orthodox family.[12]

Ivan Andreyev and Fr. Adrian (Rymarenko) in front of Novo-Diveevo cemetery. Spring, 1960

Regarding this new settlement, Fr Adrian said, “It is not yet enough to establish a monastic life; one must preserve it. For there is always the danger that life can be converted into a hothouse, a greenhouse, where it will be supported by artificial warmth, and as soon as the source of warmth ceases to operate, life will perish.

“Therefore there must be a constant source of life. Just as the earth and its vital juices constantly nourish vegetation, so our life also must be ceaselessly nourished by that elemental power which the Church of Christ gives, which is incarnated in the Orthodox way of life, in the Divine services, in fasting, in prayer, in vigils, in all that which embodies our Holy Russia. This is the elemental power which places in the mouth of the man who is leaving his earthly existence the last words, ‘Into Thy hands I commend my spirit’, and gives him the possibility to depart into eternal existence with the name of Christ.”[13]

Eugenia Grigorievna Rymarenko(1963)

In 1968, Matushka Eugenia reposed in the Lord and in 1973, Fr. Adrian was elevated to the dignity of Archbishop. As an Archbishop, Vladyka Andrew continued to live in Novo Diveyevo. He was the spiritual father of Metropolitan Philaret, and counseled many other members of the Church, both Russian and English-speaking.[14]

“The last day in the life of Vladyka Andrew was the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. The weather was hot. He received Communion reverently, as he did on all Sundays and feastdays. He was very weak, and lay down surrounded by the people most devoted to him, waiting for the long-awaited hour.

“Every day he listened to three akathists: the first, to the Vladimir icon of the Mother of God, was read by Mother Nonna, the second, to St. Nicholas, was read at midday, and the third, to St. Seraphim, was read in the evening. He listened to all the services through a microphone that was connected to the church.

“In the evening, towards the end of Matins, Vladyka was praying with particular fervor to the Mother of God. He took out an icon that had been given to him by his mother and which he always carried. On this day he prayed before it with special intensity, with all his might. This was felt by everybody.

“Blood started to flow. His son and Fr. Alexander were worried. Brother Michael began to read the akathist to the Vladimir icon. Then Vladyka called everyone to say goodbye to them and to give them his last blessing. He said that he was dying and asked everyone to pray for him. And then he began fervently to cry out: ‘Most Holy Mother of God, save me!’ with other prayers. When a cold sweat came out on his face, he cried: ‘I am dead!’ and became white as snow.

“Fr. Alexander ran into the neighboring room to get hold of his epitrachelion – the same under which Elder Nectarius had died fifty years before. But Vladyka Andrew had already left this world.

“It was 11 p.m. on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the same day on which Vladyka had entered Optina for the first time.”[15]

The authors of The Orthodox Word wrote an article about Archbishop Andrew in 1975 describing him as a “living link with the Holy Fathers”[16] a term used to describe that tradition which is the teaching of the Church throughout history that is embodied by certain grace-filled individuals. This article describes Archbishop Andrew’s contribution to the larger Orthodox world as a guide to “how to survive as an Orthodox Christian in the anti-Christian 20^th century.”[17] Interesting to note is that it is not his homilies, or of books written but is instead his whole life. It is noted that he suffered much, in various countries, during war times, in prisons and exile. Others have gone through the same, especially during this period of time but their results have been fruitless. With Archbishop Andrew wherever he was a “close-knit Orthodox community” always formed around him. These authors attribute it to the presence of a “conscious Orthodox philosophy of life.”[18] This philosophy, not being an abstract systematization but instead a life lived by Archbishop Andrew is summarized in five points.

1) Orthodoxy is not merely a ritual, belief or pattern of behavior. Instead it is an “elemental power or reality which transforms a man and gives him the strength to live in the most difficult and tormenting conditions, and prepares him to depart with peace into eternal life.”[19]

2) The essence of the Orthodox life is “godliness” (piety) which is deeper then merely right doctrine. It is the entrance of God into every aspect of life.

3) This attitude produces the “Orthodox way of life” which is not so much outward customs or behaviors but the whole of the “conscious spiritual struggle of the man for whom the Church and its laws are the center of everything he does and thinks. The shared, conscious experience of this way of life, centered on the daily Divine services, produces the genuine Orthodox community, with its feelings of lightness, joy and inward quietness.”[20]

4) “Without a constant and conscious spiritual struggle even the best Orthodox life or community can become a ‘hothouse,’ an artificial Orthodox atmosphere in which the manifestations of Orthodox life are merely ‘enjoyed’ or taken for granted while the soul remains unchanged, being relaxed and comfortable instead of tense in the struggle for salvation.”[21]

[1] Vladimir Moss: Orthodox Christianity Author, s.v. “The Golden Chain: The Lives of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Archbishop John of San Francisco, Archbishop Joasaph of Canada, Archbishop Andrew of Rockland and Metropolitan Philaret of New York” (by Vladimir Moss), http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/300_THE_GOLDEN_CHAIN.pdf.

[2] Archbishop Andrew of Nove-Diveevo, The One Thing Needful. (Liberty, TN: St. John of Krondstat Press, 1991), 6.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 6-7.

[5] Matushka Eugenia Rymarenko, Reminiscences: Recollections about Elder Nektary of Optina. Mary Crockwell trans. (Jordanville, NY: Printshop of St. Job of Pochaev, 1993), 5.

[6] The Golden Chain.

[7] Википедии — свободной энциклопедии s.v. “Андрей (Рымаренкоhttp://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C0%ED%E4%F0%E5%E9_(%D0%FB%EC%E0%F0%E5%ED%EA%EE)

[8] The One Thing Needful, 7.

[9] The Golden Chain.

[10] Matushka Eugenia Rymarenko, Reminiscences: Recollections about Elder Nektary of Optina. Mary Crockwell trans. (Jordanville, NY: Printshop of St. Job of Pochaev, 1993), 40.

[11] The Golden Chain.

[12] The One Thing Needful, 9.

[13] Ibid., 9-10.

[14] The Golden Chain.

[15] Ibid.

[16] The Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, “Our Living Links with the Holy Fathers: Archbishop Andrew of New Diveyevo,” The Orthodox Word July-August (1975): 135.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 136.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 136-137.

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On August 11, 2012

In The Royal Path

Helen Yurievna Kartsova was born on April 13/26, 1893 in Smolensk in the Smolensk Oblast in Russia that is 220 miles southwest of Moscow.[1] Her father, Yuri Sergeyevich Kartsov, was a graduate from the faculty of law at the local university and entered a career of assistant ambassador in Constantinople. Later he became the Russian Consul in Mesopotamia, England and Belgium. He finished his profession as a State Councilor and political correspondent for various periodicals. He was a writer and always kept a journal.

Helen and her mother Sophia

Helen Yurievna’s mother was Sophia Mikhailovna who died in 1901 from cancer. Before Helen was born, Sophia went to visit St. John of Kronstadt who told her that she was going to give birth to a daughter who would be a special blessing to her.[2] Helen would always say that those eight years were the happiest of her life. Sophia later gave birth to another daughter, Tatiana. Helen remarks that her mother’s health was weak and that she was a “God-loving and God-fearing woman.”[3] On their estate, Sophia had a chapel built dedicated to the Icon of the Savior Not Made by Hands under which a vault was built and here she was laid to rest. Helen recalled that on top of one of the cupolas was a large glass cross which “lit up like a flame in the rays of the setting sun.”[4]

After the death of her mother, Helen, being eight years old, was sent to her aunt in Tsarskoe Selo where she lived until the age of fifteen. Tsarskoe Selo was a town where the nobility visited often and the imperial family stayed at one of two palaces: “Catherine Palace” or “Alexander Palace.” It is located twenty-four miles south of St. Petersburg and is today part of the town called Pushkin. Her aunt was Helen Alexandrovna Ozerova who was from an affluent family and was well educated. She dedicated herself to philanthropic works. She was the president of the Red Cross society and over saw the nursing school. She was often visited by Empress Maria Fyodorovna, the mother of Tsar Nicholas II. Her aunt soon married Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus whom Helen would speak of later on in her life saying that he had been a major influence in her life. After Sergei Alexandrovich’s conversion he was led to Sarov and to the Diveyevo Convent where he was providentially given the notes of Nicholas Motovilov, wherein there were the notes on the acquisition of the Holy Spirit about which St. Seraphim of Sarov had spoken to Nicholas.[5] By the time he had married Helen Alexandrovna he had already been well established in a literary career. He had published two works: Greatness in Small Things and Concerning Antichrist which were an immediate sensation winning the praise of the “simple believers but the exasperation of the liberals.”[6]Helen Alexandrovna and Sergei Alexandrovich would later go on to live in the “Leontiev House” just outside the walls of the Optina Monastery. They would live there for five years over which time Sergei was entrusted with the keys to the Optina Archives and in this period he produced three more books.

Helen and Sergei Nilus

Writing about the influence of the Niluses on Helen, Agafia Prince writes, “Helen’s association with the Niluses became intellectually and spiritually fruitful even though she returned to her father when they married. The Nilus’ closeness to the Optina Elders, and Sergei Nilus’ discovery of St. Seraphim’s conversation with Motovilov, marked the development of her soul and set her disposition in the depths of the fully Orthodox riverbed…”[7]

After living at the “Leontiev House” for five years the Nilus’s moved to another home on the bank of Lake Valdayskoye in the Novgorod district. Here Helen would come to visit her aunt and uncle. Once while visiting, Helen was relating to her aunt how she had been tormented by visions of demons since she was a child. Her aunt brought her to the Valdai Iveron Monastery where she met Elder Laurence II. Helen Yurievna recalled to the elder these visions she had. He explained to her that the ability to see the other world was a gift from God but only for those who have the strength to bear it. She replied that she was scared of falling into despair because of it and that she hoped to be released from it. The elder prayed on his knees for three hours regarding this situation. He returned and said to her that she would never see demons again.[8]

Between the ages of fifteen and seventeen Helen Yurievna would meet one of the Optina Elders for the first time, Anatole. She describes their first meeting thusly:

“The Niluses wrote to me that Elder Anatole was preparing to go to St. Petersburg and would stay with the merchant Usov. All three of us – my brother, my sister and I – set out for the Usovs on the appointed day. The merchant Usov was a well-known philanthropist who lived in obedience to the Optina Elders, although living in the world. When we entered the Usovs’ home we saw an enormous line of people who had come to receive the Elder’s blessing. The line went up to the Usovs’ rooms and through the halls and rooms of their house. Everyone was waiting for the Elder to come out…

Helen as a young lady

“Soon Fr. Anatole himself appeared and began to bless those present, saying a few words to each one. The Elder, in outward appearance, was quite similar to the icon of St. Seraphim: the same loving, humble look. This was humility personified, and such love as is inexplicable in words. One must see it – but to express it in words is impossible! When we had been walking to the Usovs my brother and sister had declared that they needed only the Elder’s blessing. But I had told them that I would very much like to have a talk with him.

“When our turn came, the Elder blessed my brother and sister, but to me he said, ‘Didn’t you want to have a talk with me? I can’t right now-come in the evening.’ The elder had comprehended my fervent wish, although I had not expressed it in words! In the evening I once again went back to the Usovs. Many people were sitting and waiting their turn to be received by the Elder. The members of the Usov family began to reproach the people who were sitting in their home for excessively burdening the weak and sick Elder. He received people all night long without a break. His legs were covered with sores and he was suffering from a hernia; he was barely alive. I began to feel ashamed for taking up the Elder’s time and left without seeing him.

“However, I now think that if the clairvoyant Elder had told me to come I should not have left, but should have waited to be received… To this day I have preserved an icon of St. Nicholas, my heavenly protector, which Elder Anatole sent to me through my aunt in 1907.”[9]

Yuri Kartsov, 1882

At the age of seventeen Helen Yurievna’s father sent her to live with his sister. This would turn out to be a very heavy trial for her as her aunt’s husband was mentally ill. Often he would beat her until she bled and would run after her. Her aunt was unable to help her as she was often abused also. Once, while running from her uncle, Helen Yurievna jumped through a window onto the street and ran off as far as she could go. She ended up near an unfamiliar church into which she entered. She fell to her knees and with many tears cried out in prayer asking the saints whose icons were in the church to help her. After her grief subsided she promised the saints in front of whom she prayed that she would especially honor them if she was delivered from these trials. Later she found out that one of these saints was St. Mitrophan of Voronezh and later in life she would make a special trip to his relics in front of which she had a moleben served.[10]

St. Mitrophan of Voronezh

While continuing to live with her aunt and uncle, Helen was diagnosed with tuberculosis and she was sent to the south of France for treatment. This saved her from dying but she would suffer from a certain form of asthma for the rest her life due to the damage to her lungs.

She returned to live with her aunt and uncle after her treatments were finished and found her uncle paralyzed and blind. She had to learn to take care of the whole household despite now being physically weak. Near the same time a large cathedral was being built and Bishop Mitrophan of Astrakhan visited the church community to talk about the new plans. He stayed with Helen Yurievna and the family while visiting. About the visit she says, “Being totally blind, my uncle sensed the Bishop’s entrance, began to sob, and extended his hands for a blessing. The Bishop blessed him straightway. Three days later my uncle died. The bishop served a Pannikhida for the reposed.”[11]

Naturally monasticism was close to Helen Yurievna’s heart as her aunt Helen Alexandrovna and her husband lived just outside the walls of Optina and Helen Alexandrovna’s sister, Olga Alexandrova, later became a nun and was elevated to be Abbess Sophia of the Virovskim Zaraysk Convent. When Helen Yurievna was twenty-four years old she visited the Pokrovsky (Protection) Convent in Kiev and spent time with Abbess Sophia (Grineva) who was close in spirit to the Niluses. At the end of her life Helen wrote the Abbess’s biography. In this biography Helen describes how at this moment in her life she had decided to become a monastic.[12] Due to the activities of the revolution at that time Helen was not able to enter the monastery. Over ten years later Helen Yurievna would continue to remain close to many monastics and monasteries. She was even encouraged to take charge of nuns from a destroyed convent when the nun who had wanted to was removed by the civil authorites at the time. The nuns and the clergy of Pochaev where the convent was located encouraged her in this. She had decided to accept. After going home to pack up her suitcase, she received a telegram from her father asking her to come to Paris with him and her brother. She had thought that her brother may have been suicidal at that time and therefore declined to take charge of the nuns and went to live in Paris. She says, here we made our nest; I served and worked for a living.”[13] Later her father moved on to Nice and Helen Yurievna would send him money. While in France, Helen kept close contact with Archbishop Theophan of Poltava who was at this time living in reclusion in caves near Ambois. Later in life in 1988, Helen once had a vision of Vladyka Theophan after which she wrote this troparion:

Theophan of Poltava

Troparion, Tone 3

Defender of the right belief in Christ’s redemption, * thou

Didst endure afflictions and death in exile, * O holy father,

Hierarch Theophan, * pray to Christ God to save our souls.[14]

Helen’s desire for monasticism remained strong. When she was younger she had a friend who had now become a nun and was then elevated to the rank of Abbess. The abbess founded a convent and had been asking Helen if she was going to come and be a nun. At that time the Metropolitan was Eulogius and he insisted that she do so. The day that she was appointed to join the convent came and she wrote about it saying:

“After the All-night Vigil to St. John the Theologian I was supposed to give my monastic vows. But when they were singing the doxology to St. John a threatening voice (in my heart) said that if I would dare to do it I would never have God’s help. This was said to me very sternly, as an order. When I was still unmarried I heard orders given to me in my head several times.”[15]

Helen and Ivan, 1935

At the same time there was a poor student named Ivan, studying at the Sorbonne (University of Paris) who was living in the attic of the St. Sergius Theological Institute. His mother was a devoted spiritual daughter of Elder Nektary (she later became a nun). Ivan himself had been to Optina and spent his life being guided by its Elders. It was on his Name Day that he and Helen met and they decided that they should marry and did so in June of 1935[16]. They were married by Fr. Basil Shoustin who was serving in Algiers at the time but married them in Africa. He was a spiritual son of the Optina Elder Barsanuphius which is why they went to him. While Helen and Ivan chose the married life one should not view this as a lessening of their zeal as evidenced in the story of their honeymoon.[17]

Ivan had studied and graduated as an electrical engineer and now was finished with theological degree at St. Sergius Theogical Academy. After finishing school, Ivan and Helen went to live in the south of France where Ivan helped to bring electricity to remote villages. During his studies, Ivan was preparing to write a trilogy of books: firstly, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia; secondly, Elder Paisius and His Disciples; and thirdly, Optina Monastery and its Era. While in France, Ivan finished the first work with much assistance from his wife. As he was busy with his engineering job during the day, Helen would scour the libraries of Paris doing research for his works. “For the publishing of the book they had to sell their possessions and do the proofreading themselves at the print shop in order to be able to pay off the printers.”[18]

Helen at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY with Fr. Ambrose Konovalov, a disciple of the Optina Elders

In 1952, Ivan accepted the position of Chair of Patrology at the Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY.[19] That year “they were almost penniless; practically all they had to their name were boxes of their newly-published book.”[20] They moved into the town of Jordanville, and then in 1954 they moved to San Francisco to live in the basement apartment of Ivan’s brother, who was soon to be Bishop Nektary of Seattle.

In San Francisco, the Kontzevitches were to befriend a young, aspiring monk by the name of Gleb Pomoshensky, the future Fr. Herman. He was under the spiritual tutelage of Ivan’s brother Bishop Nektary. Gleb’s impressions of Ivan and Helen were noted thusly: “[Ivan] sought to pass on [Optina’s] legacy through his writing, combining careful, honest scholarship with a firsthand knowledge of saints. It was he who first identified the essence of Christian eldership as a continuation of the prophetic ministry of the ancient Church…

“Professor Kontzevitch’s wife was no less of a rarity. Like her husband, Helen had known saints and martyrs in Russia… Although she took no credit for it, she actually did a lion’s share of the work for her husband’s books, doing research while he was working as an engineer for their livelihood. She was a strong-willed woman, quite open in expressing her views… They were dignified, refined, highly cultured people…”[21]

While living in San Francisco, Ivan and Helen would have a profound effect on the future Frs. Herman (Podmoshensky) and Seraphim (Rose). In time the fathers were to consider

Frs. Herman and Seraphim

themselves their spiritual heirs.[22] During this time, Helen also worked with Ivan to produce the work The Sources of the Spiritual Catastrophe of Leo Tolstoy which they published in 1962.[23] She also contributed many articles to The Orthodox Word and later assisted in the compilation of Russia’s Catacomb Saints.[24]

Helen’s first contact with Gleb was while he was living in Jordanville and attending Holy Trinity Seminary. He had written an article about Elder Macarius of Optina, and Ivan and Helen had both written to him about it. When in 1964 Gleb and Eugene opened up their bookstore on Geary Boulevard called Orthodox Books and Icons, Helen was working with Gleb writing articles for a Russian newspaper aimed at awakening interest in spiritual literature.[25]

Although Ivan would repose in 1965, Helen would outlive him by twenty-four years. His funeral service was celebrated by three bishops (Archbishop John Maximovitch, Bishop Nektary, and Bishop Savva) and six other clergymen.[26] Following Ivan’s death, Helen sank into despair until Gleb would take her from her home in Berkeley, California and move her in with his mother in Monterey. He had covered the walls of her room with portraits of the Optina Elders. With his encouragement she slowly came back to herself and started to write and to finish work that her husband had started but was unable to finish. “Helen eventually produced a series of priceless works: the lives of St. Seraphim of Sarov[27], New Martyr Schema-Abbess Sophia of Kiev (whom she had known in Russia),[28] her uncle Sergei Nilus,[29] and many other righteous men and women who otherwise would have been lost to history. She and Gleb even managed to complete Professor Kontzevitch’s Trilogy, publishing material for the second and third volumes together in one book, Optina Monastery and Its Era.”[30]

Abbott Herman writes, “Helen Yurievna lived out her final years in California. One of her most prominent admirers was the now reposed Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)… From the very beginning of the Brotherhood’s magazine, The Orthodox Word, she participated closely, having known English well from her childhood. She submitted articles and comments. Every week she sent detailed letters, like an “Amma,” closely following the spiritual development of the Brotherhood. She was able to transmit to the young scholar her love for Patristic Orthodoxy and the spirit of Optina monasticism. Over the course of many years, she made notes about her life at our request.”[31]

Helen reposed on March 6, 1989. Of her funeral, Abbot Herman says, “At her funeral there were many who saw her off to the next world, the world she loved so much. But among the clergy that served not a single word could be found to say over her grave, about precisely whom it was that they were seeing off. How odd! It was just as if they were burying some wandering stranger, unknown to the representatives of the Orthodox Church…

“At the same time, this is understandable. She was an exceptional person. She did not try to please “those having temporal authority,” but always looked at the essence of a matter from a spiritual point of view – objectively, and not small – mindedly, not prosaically or narrowly. Such original righteous ones are few in our time. Few there are as well who are able to understand and identify them. But we thank the Lord God that our paths crossed, and that we had the good fortune to know such a vivid representative of Holy Russia.”[32]

[1] Other sources say she was born in St. Petersburg. See Abbot Herman, “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch: Righteous Orthodox Writer.” In The Orthodox Word (No. 209, 1999): 270 and “About the Author” by the nuns at St. Xenia Skete in Helen Kontzevitch, Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance (Wildwood: St. Xenia Skete, 2004), 7.

[2] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 275.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] This work can be found in Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, “A Wonderful Revelation to the World,” in St. Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography (Blanco: New Sarov Press, 1994), 167-207.

[6] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 277.

[7] Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance, 11.

[8] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 281. Elder Nektary of Optina spoke on the same matter when a young lady came to him whose roommate had this same “sense” as Helen. He said, “But neither of you should be afraid. Guard yourselves with the sign of the Cross and pay no attention to it… It’s hereditary in her family. Formerly among the inhabitants of Kiev and Gomel, such an ability existed in many families, and still remains in certain families. It’s not evoked, either by spiritual podvigs or by falls; it’s not an obsession, but just an innate attribute of the soul.” I.M. Kontzevitch. Elder Nektary of Optina (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1998), 425.

[9] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 283-284.

[10] Ibid., 285.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 291.

[13] Ibid., 293.

[14] Helen Kontzevitch, “A Martyr for Traditional, Patristic Orthodoxy,” The Orthodox Word (No. 138, 1988): 60.

[15] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 293.

[16] Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance, 10.

[17] There are three sources where there are discrepancies in the details of the events. One source says, “Their honeymoon was spent in Greece. Ivan went to Mt. Athos, while Helen, having received the fourteen-volume set of the History of the Church by Metropolitan Macarius as a wedding gift, settled down to read it at the border of Athos.” (Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance, 10). Another source says, “As a wedding present to themselves, they bought a twelve-volume set of the Lives of the Saints by St. Demetrius of Rostov, and obtained visas for making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Due to emigration laws, however, Helen was unable to leave. So as not to waste his wedding vacation, Ivan Michailovich, with the blessing of his wife, went alone to Mount Athos. This was how they spent their ‘honeymoon’.” (Kontzevitch, I.M. The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia (St. Herman of Alsaka Brotherhood: Platina, 1988), 335. A third source says, “The first thing they did was to buy the twelve volumes of the Lives of the Saints and obtain visas for visiting the Holy Land. But it happened that his wife was unable to leave. So as not to waste his ‘wedding vacation,’ he decided to go to Mt. Athos alone. But the boat on which he was to sail on a certain day was unexpectedly sold, and the money for the ticket was refunded; there were no other boats.” (“The Definition of Eldership: In Memoriam Ivan M. Kontzevitch 1965-1980.” In The Orthodox Word (No. 95, 1980): 283).

[18] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 298.

[19] The nuns from St. Xenia’s Skete in Wildwood, Calif., say that it was in 1953, cf. Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance, 10. The St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood say that it was in 1952, cf. The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, 341.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood: Platina, 2003), 217-218.

[22] Ibid.

[23] This work has not been translated into English.

[24] Ivan Andreyev. Russia’s Catacomb Saints: Lives of the New Martyrs. (St. Herman of Alaska Press: Platina, 1982).

[25] Ibid., 283.

[26] Frs. Seraphim and Herman, “Our Links with the Holy Fathers: The Definition of Eldership; In Memoriam: Ivan M. Kontzevitch,” The Orthodox Word (1980), 290.

[27] Saint Seraphim Wonderworker of Sarov and His Spiritual Inheritance (St. Xenia Skete: Wildwood, 2004).

[28] Helen Kontzevitch. “Martyrology of the Communist Yoke: Abbess Sophia of Kiev,” The Orthodox Word (July-August, 1974): 160-169.

[29] None of her translations of his work has been translated in full into English. Translations of parts of his work can be found throughout the series on the Elders of Optina.

[30] Ibid., 320. This work has not been translated into English yet.

[31] “Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch,” 272.

[32] Ibid,273.

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers : St. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verey

By Fr. Jonah Campbell

On June 20, 2012

In The Royal Path

The Life of New Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Verey

Commemorated on December 15 / 28 (date of his martyric repose) and on April 27 / May 10 (date of his glorification)

Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky), 1923

On December 15/28, 2011 an historically significant event happened here in our God-preserved town of Wayne, West Virginia at the Hermitage of the Holy Cross. For the first time ever, the services for St. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verey were celebrated in English. Up to this time the services were not available in Emglish but after being commissioned by the Hermitage, Reader Isaac Lambersten translated them into English. These services were lead by His Grace, Bishop George and co-served by several other clergy from the monastery and from around our Eastern diocese. Also in attendance were various of the faithful and the staff from the Diocesean Media Office who recorded the services and made them available for us on the diocesean website (eadiocese.org).

In light of such an historic event we offer the life of this monk, pedagogue, teacher and martyr.

The New Martyr Hilarion (Vladimir Alexeyevich Troitsky in the world) was born the son of a priest on September 13, 1886, in the village of Lipitsa, in the Kashira district of Tula province.

( L to R ) Mother, Vladimir, Priest Alexey, and Dimitry

As a child, Vladimir was absorbed by the life of the church and he took part in its services and sung in the choir. When the time for studying came he showed himself to be an excellent student. At the age of five, Vladimir took his three-year-old brother by the hand and headed off for Moscow to go to school. This was about a 130 mile walk Northward. When his brother began to tire from fatigue and started to cry, Vladimir said to him, “Well, then, remain uneducated.”

Vladimir was an exceptional student in all of his studies as can be noted by the many works he produced as a cleric and also the many awards and honors he received during the time of his studies. After finishing seminary he entered the Moscow Theological Academy and graduated with honors in 1910. He remained at the Academy with a professorial scholarship.

In 1913 he was also appointed Inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy and Professor of Holy Scripture – New Testament Studies. In this same year, in fulfilling his fervent desire to serve God, he received the monastic tonsure in the Skete of the Paraclete of the Holy Trinity – St. Sergius Lavra and received the name Hilarion. About two months later he was ordained a hieromonk and shortly thereafter was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite.

He never once doubted this vocation in life. Prior to taking monastic vows he wrote to his relatives, “I am stepping on this road with joy and jubilation.” From this time onward the Divine Liturgy was to become the center of his life. It is said of his serving: “Hilarion conducted the Holy Liturgy with great beauty and solemnity. There was something so superior, lofty and wonderful in the way he read the Gospel, pronounced the acclamations and prayers. He gave all of himself to the service, putting his heart and soul into it, as if it were the principal task of his life.”

In 1917 Archimandrite Hilarion participated in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and there lectured on the

Vladimir, teacher at the Moscow Theologcal Academy

topic of “Why Restore the Patriarchate?” After his participation in this council his renown spread beyond the academy and he was elected to the position of the Patriarch’s secretary and chief consultant on theological questions. In February of this same year, the first of a series of revolutions began, in which the Tsar was removed from power and a provisional government installed. It was the beginnings of persecutions for the Russian Orthodox Church. Because of Archimandrite Hilarion’s proximity and relationship to Patriarch Tikhon he was imprisoned in Butyrskaya for two months.

In 1920 Archimandrite Hilarion was elevated to the rank of the Bishop of Verey, vicar of the Moscow diocese. At the Patriarchial address, His Holiness praised the steadfastness and firmness of the newly-elected’s confession and faith. Bishop Hilarion responded by expressing his deep understanding of the current state of the Church and its future. By this time the blood of hundreds of martyrs had already been spilled and the future held much more suffering as the new hierarch foresaw. He said, “the Church is unshakable and finely adorned with purple and fine linen, the blood of the martyrs. We know from the history of the Church and we see with our eyes in the present times that the Church triumphs when she suffers. The power of the state has gone against the Church and the Church has given more martyrs than she has traitors.” Bishop Hilarion felt that it was in God’s Providence to raise him to this Episcopal ministry at such an awesome and glorious moment. He came willingly to this position knowing full well that it was going to be a path to martyrdom.

As the Bishop of Verey he would live in the Sretensky Monastery. Over the next year he was to serve the Divine Liturgy 142 times, about the same All-Night Vigils and deliver 330 homilies. Word of him spread quickly

Archimandrite Hilarion, 1917

and he was to be named “Hilarion the Great” for his mind and steadfastness in the faith.

His contemporaries painted a very colorful picture of him. As Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga (+1995) notes, “[He was] young, full of cheerfulness, well-educated, an excellent preacher, orator, singer, and a brilliant polemicist – always natural, sincere and open. He was physically very strong, tall and broad-shouldered, with thick, reddish hair and a clear bright face. He was the people’s favorite.”

Bishop, Hilarion would participate in many meeting with the renovationist “Living Church” and, later on, those involved in the Gregorian schism. As the Soviet power grew to torment and persecute the Church more, he found himself in court on numerous occasions with outlandish accusations and charges brought against him in an attempt to silence him and put him in prison. Before he was able to even complete his second year as Bishop he was sent to exile in Archangelsk for one year. On his return to the Epsicopal See, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon took a close interest in him and made him Archbishop. His responsibilities increased, and he continued to engage in serious talk relating to the order of life for the Church in the Soviet times.

During these perilous times, Sretensky monastery was taken over by renovationists. Metropolitan John describes to us the

Sretensky Monastery as it looks today

strength of this great Hierarch’s moral fiber and courage. He says, “[Archbishop Hilarion] became a threat to the renovationists and was inseparable from Patriarch Tikhon in their eyes. On the evening of June 22 / July 5, 1923, Vladyka Hilarion served an All-night Vigil for the feast of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God at the Sretensky Monastery, which had been taken over by the renovationists. Vladyka threw out the renovationists and re-consecrated the cathedral with the full rite of consecration, and thus returned the monastery to the Church. The next day, patriarch Tikhon served in the monastery. The Divine Services lasted all day, not ending until six p.m. Patriarch Tikhon appointed Archbishop Hilarion as Superior of Sretensky monastery. The renovationist leader, Metropolitan Antonin (Granovsky), wrote against the Patriarch and Archbishop Hilarion with inexpressible hatred, accusing them unceremoniously of being counter-revolutionaries. “‘Tikhon and Hilarion,’ he wrote, ‘have produced “grace-filled,” suffocating gases against the revolution, and the revolution has armed itself not only against the Tikhonites, but against the whole Church, as against a band of conspirators. Hilarion goes around sprinkling churches after the renovationists. He walks brazenly into these churches… Tikhon and Hilarion are guilty before the revolution, vexers of the Church of God, and can offer no good deeds to excuse themselves’.”

Archbishop Hilarion (center) at Solovki

In November of the same year Vladyka Hilarion was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. He was taken first to the prison camp in Kem and then to Solovki. The prison camp at Solovki was originally a monastery but was turned into a prison camp by the Bolsheviks upon their rise to power. It would come to be the prison where most of the Bishops were sent. Upon entry to the Solovki barracks after seeing the camp and the food he said, “We won’t get out of here alive.”

In the torturous conditions of Solovki what came to the surface in this eminent Hierarch was the monastic virtues that he had cultivated since childhood, and qualities of the soul that he gained through his ascetic labors. Those who suffered alongside of him were witnesses of his “total monastic non-acquisitiveness, deep simplicity, true humility, and childlike meekness.” Much is said about his humor and general cheerfulness.

“At the Philemonov fishery,” one eyewitness related,” four and a half miles from the Solovki [prison] and main camp, on the shores of the small White Sea Bay, Archbishop Hilarion and I, along with two other bishops and a few priests (all prisoners), were net-makers and fishermen. Archbishop Hilarion loved to talk about this work of ours using a rearrangement of the words of the sticheron for Pentecost: ‘All things are given by the Holy Spirit: before, fishermen became theologians, and now it’s the opposite – theologians have become fishermen’.”

Another account relates how, “one day a group of clergy was robbed upon arrival, and the fathers were very upset. One of the

Archbishop Hilarion at Solovki, 1929

prisoners said to them in jest that this is how they were being taught non-acquisitiveness. Vladyka was very elated by that remark. One exile lost his boots twice in a row, and walked around the camp in torn galoshes. Archbishop Hilarion was brought unfeigned merriness looking at him, and that is how he encouraged good humor in the other prisoners.”

Apart from his wit and general cheerfulness many other virtues became apparent to those who were imprisoned with him. As one author notes, “Behind this ordinary exterior of joy and seeming worldliness, one could gradually begin to see childlike purity, vast spiritual experience, kindness and mercy, his sweet indifference to material goods, his true faith, authentic piety, and lofty moral perfection – not to mention intellectual strength combined with strength and clarity of conviction.” It was said that many times he was insulted and he did not even realize it. He was even able to view the Soviet authorities with “guileless eyes.”

Another story is told which further underlines these qualities in this holy hierarch:

“A sudden violent storm hurled out into the open sea a boat containing several prison inmates and the camp’s most malevolent guard. The guard’s name was Suhov. The prisoners and soldiers gathered on shore were convinced there was no hope for the boat’s survival.

“Peering through a pair of binoculars they could see how there, in the distance, a small black spec kept reemerging and then disappearing again… The people were fighting the elements, but the odds were against them. And the elemental forces of nature were gaining the upper hand.

“’In that icy broil you couldn’t be expected to get away from the shore, let alone escape from that vortex!’ said one of the security officers, wiping the binocular glass with a handkerchief. ‘That’s it. Our Suhov is done for!’

“’Well, that is really up to our Lord,’ a quiet but resonant and powerful voice suddenly spoke forth. Everyone turned round to face a stocky fisherman with a graying beard. “Who will join me, in the name of God, in rescuing those human souls?” he continued just as quietly and forcefully, his gaze traveling ‘round the entire group. Father Spiridon, you, Father Tikhon, and these two… That’s good. Drag the launch to the sea.”

“No,” the special service officer with the binoculars suddenly broke out. “I can’t allow it! I can’t let you go out into open sea without guards and permission from superiors!”

“The boss, he’s out there, perishing in the sea,” replied the fisherman, referring to the guard Suhov. “While we aren’t rejecting a guarded escort – why don’t you climb into the boat with us, Comrade Konev?”

The officer at once drew his shoulders in and silently moved further away from the shoreline.

“Well, the Lord be with us!” said the fisherman and got into the launch. He stood at the steering wheel — and very slowly, plowing through the icy barrage, the boat began to move away from the shore.

Twilight fell. On its heels came a cold, windy night. However, nobody left the quay: people would go off to warm themselves, only to come back later. There was something bigger than them all that united them at that moment which removed all the barriers between them. Even the special task officer with the binoculars. People spoke in muted whispers and whispered their prayers to God. They believed, and at the same time were torn by doubts. However they all realized that without God’s will the sea wouln’t ease its hold on its victims.

In the morning the sun chased away the mists shrouding the beach. And at that point everyone saw the boat returning… It contained not four but nine people. And then everyone gathered on the quay, — monks, prisoners, guards, — all crossed themselves and went down on their knees.

“A Miracle, indeed! The Lord has saved them!” came cries from the crowd.

“Yes, it was the Lord!” said the brave fisherman, dragging out of the boat the exhausted Suhov – dreaded by all the inmates.”

Solovki Monastery, located 150km below the Arctic Circle, as it looks today

Nearing the end of his prison term, Archbishop Hilarion was sent to the prison camp in Yaroslavl. Here his term was extended by three more years and he was sent back to Solovki. In Yaroslavl he had more freedom and even was able to read and write more. He received guests and was able to travel at times and met with many people. Some had approached him to bring him over to the side of the renovationists and even tried to persuade him by offering him freedom from the prison camps. This was attempted multiple times. His response remained steadfastly the same. In these times he was able to convince many not to break off communion and to keep the church whole by not encouraging schisms.

In 1929 he was sent to live in Alma-Ata in Central Asia for three more years. On the journey to Almat-Ata, being housed from one prison to the next on the way, he was robbed several times. At one prison he arrived wearing only a long shirt, was swarming with parasites and he had contracted louse-borne typhus. Shortly thereafter, on December 15/28, 1929 this confessor of Christ gave up his pure soul into the hands of God where there is no pain, no sorrow, nor sighing but life everlasting.

Holy Hieromartyr Hilarion, pray to God for us!

O Hilarion, warrior of Christ, glory and boast of the Church of Russia,thou didst confess Christ before the perishing world, hast made the Church steadfast by thy blood, and having acquired divine understanding, hast proclaimed unto the faithful: Without the Church there is no salvation!

Troparion, Tone IV

Bibliography

Metropolitan John (Snychev) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, Nun Cornelia (trans.). “Pravoslavie.ru” The Life of Holy Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Verey. N.p., 09/05/2011. Web. 19 Jan 2012. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/33316.htm.

Natalia Shumova. “The Voice of Russia.” Reverend Hilarion Troitsky. N.p., 14/12/2007. Web. 19 Jan 2012. http://english.ruvr.ru/2007/12/14/168105.html.

“Open Orthodox Encyclopedia”. “Древо.” Hilarion (Troitsky). N.p., 24/07/2011. Web. 19 Jan 2012. http://drevo-info.ru/articles/8302.html.

St. John the Baptist Convent in Moscow. “John-the Forerunner Monastery.” Martyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Verey. N.p., 2012. Web. 19 Jan 2012. http://www.ioannpredtecha.ru/docs/18.htm.

A Parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia located in Wayne, WV

Category: The Royal Path Page 1 of 2

Class I: The Way of the Spirit by Archimandrite Aimilianos (Fr. Jonah Presenting)

Optina Monastery and the Righteous Transmission of Tradition – a series

Preface

Elder Moses

Elder Anthony

Conclusion

A Note of Thanks

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 3 of 3)

“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 2 of 3)

“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (part 1 of 3)

Sermon on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Ivan Mikhailovich Andreyevsky

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Archbishop Andrew of Rockland

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers: Helen Yurievna Kontzevitch

Modern Orthodox Saints and Holy Fathers & Mothers : St. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verey

The Life of New Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Verey

Commemorated on December 15 / 28 (date of his martyric repose) and on April 27 / May 10 (date of his glorification)