The Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism

By The Orthodox Ethos Team

What does the Orthodox Church teach and believe with regard to Catholicism? Who speaks for the Church? Which source is authoritative? The resounding answer, echoing in the heavens, is the united choir of the Holy Fathers as proclaimed in their lives and teachings. And yet, never, in the 1,000 years since the Great Schism, has this witness been c

• Language: English
• Publisher: Uncut Mountain Press
• Release date: Mar 1, 2024
• ISBN: 9781639410392

Book preview

Introduction

What is the position of the Orthodox Church with regard to Catholicism? Who are the ultimate authorities to inform us of this? Without hesitation, every Orthodox Christian looks to the Saints and the patristic consensus to answer this question. It is the diachronic voice of Holy Tradition as presented by the Saints individually and collectively in council. All contemporaries who would claim to represent the Church and provide answers to the above questions must be in agreement with, and give voice to, the choir of Holy Fathers gone before us.

Herein lies the great value of the book which you, O dear and pious reader, hold in your hands: it is the most extensive collection of lives of saints and of their writings with regard to Catholicism ever published, in any language. Herein you will find the very most authoritative answers to the foregoing questions. You will find the lives of many saints who suffered at the hands of the Latins or Latin-minded in defense of the Orthodox Faith. You will read the conclusions, decisions and proclamations of the most authoritative councils, decrees of Holy Synods, encyclicals of holy Patriarchs, and liturgical texts definitively setting forth the confession of faith of the Church vis-a-vis the cacodoxy of Papal Protestantism. Lastly, you will be introduced to the writings of our contemporary elders and other distinguished theologians from Greece, Russia, and around the world, who followed the saints and stood for Holy Orthodoxy against the soul-damaging teachings which the West, tragically, came to embrace.

A few points of clarification are in order regarding 1) historic strategies used by Papism and 2) the use of the name Roman:

1) Over the past millennium, from the separation of the papacy from the communion of the Church until today, a variety of methods have been employed to draw Orthodox Christians into submission to the Pope.

Initially, the Papacy relied on both diplomatic pressure and militaristic intimidation to seek Orthodox reunion under papal terms. For example, see Part II, Sections A-F.

After the fall of Constantinople and Roman Empire in 1453, the Papacy continued diplomatic pressures through the Ottoman Turks, along with ambassadors representing Western governments. After the founding of the Jesuit order, around the time of the Council of Trent (1545), missionary work among the Orthodox began in earnest. Deceitful proselytism was very effective in devastating Orthodox communities, even to the point of threatening the very existence of several of the eastern patriarchates.² It was a sad, but not uncommon occurrence for many bishops, and even patriarchs, to submit to Rome secretly, or sometimes even publicly.

This was the time of the rise of Uniatism (12th-19th centuries). The strategy of Uniatism eventually became one where the Latins let Orthodox dioceses and parishes operate entirely unchanged except for recognition and proclamation of the Pope as their head. This method worked to diminish Orthodox numbers all over the world. Examples of this are found in this book, in Part II, Section H and Part VI, Section B, 6.

At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Ecumenism became the chosen strategy of the Vatican. Ecumenism sought to erase borders through popularizing principles which diminish the identifying marks between Orthodoxy and heresy; i.e., they developed a new ecclesiology to effectively replace the once-universally attested exclusivist patristic ecclesiology. See Part VI, Section B, 9. This has since morphed into a global perennialist paradigm which seeks not only to blur the boundaries between truth and heresy but all religions. Fr. Seraphim Rose’s religion of the future has become the religion of the present.

2) In this book (excluding quotations), we refer to the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire as Romans or East Romans. We often deny this name to the Roman Catholics because, according to Orthodox primary sources and apologists they are neither truly Roman nor Catholic. Old Rome is sometimes a term for the city itself. Rather than Roman, many Orthodox historians (especially Greek) referred to them as Franks (since that was the barbarian tribe that became dominant in the West after the fall of the Western Empire) or Latin (referring to their language), or papal (being the heart of their heresy). In this way, the language of the book aligns with and follows the tradition of the Fathers before us who never used a changing or confusing terminology.

A brief historic explanation of how these terms became so confused in the West would be appropriate here. After the conversion of the Roman Empire to the Christian Faith and during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, the Roman identity became deeply intertwined with the Orthodox Faith while the term Greek referred to the pagans. This became firmly understood across the world. Charlemagne, in an attempt to bolster legitimacy by discrediting authentic Roman authority in Constantinople, called a council in Frankfurt in the year A.D. 794. Here, he established a diplomatic policy towards the East Romans which identified them with Greeks³ (for accepting the Seventh Ecumenical Council) and therefore idolaters.⁴ Thus, he usurped the name Roman when declaring himself a Roman Emperor and (curiously) the historic barbarian lands outside the old Western Roman Empire now became the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages. In the East, the Romans continued to call themselves Roman, as did their Muslim neighbors. Political conversation did not buy into Charlemagne’s lie and continued to call them Franks.⁵ When the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks, the Ottomans continued to call their conquered people Romans. The term Byzantine was invented roughly one hundred years after the fall of the Empire by the German historian Hieronymus Wolf in his Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ.⁶ When the modern state of Greece emerged in freedom with the overthrow of its Turkish captors, the name Byzantine became more popular in the West to avoid confusion with the term Greek (referring to Charlemagne’s lie) in the new socio-political creation of the modern Greek state with modern, European Greek people. This became official policy for Western powers with the London Protocol of January 31, 1836.⁷

We have intentionally kept our editorial comments to a minimum throughout. We believe history, a developed dogmatic consciousness on behalf of the reader, but most especially our Saints speak for themselves as to how the Orthodox Church and each Orthodox Christian ought to relate to Catholicism. May these texts guide you and many others into the patristic consensus of the Holy Orthodox Church with respect to Catholicism, so that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.⁸

The Holy Venerable Athonite Martyrs

Under The Latin-Minded Patriarch Bekkos

PART I

The Lives of Martyrs and

Confessors Against the Latins

Icon of the Yearly Menaion

A. Menaion

September 4th: New Hieromartyr GORAZD

Bishop of SLOVAKIA and the CZECH LANDS

Gorazd ⁹

This Holy New Martyr was born in 1879 in Moravia and named Matthew Pavlik. As a Roman Catholic priest, he became interested in Slav Christian origins, and the mission of Saints Constantine and Methodius in Moravia and he was among the leaders of a movement for reform within the Roman Catholic Church. When Czechoslovakia was established as a state after the First World War (1919), he was a member of a delegation sent to Rome to ask for autonomous status for the local Church and for the use of the Czech language to be permitted in the Liturgy. The Roman See turned down these proposals, whereupon about 800,000 Christians, Fr. Matthew Pavlik and other priests among them approached Bishop Dositheus of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Serbia, who was very active among Carpatho-Russians formerly united to Rome, with the request that he receive them also into the Orthodox Church. Following a visit of Bishop Dositheus to Prague in 1920, Father Matthew was converted to Orthodoxy, and a year later was consecrated Bishop for the Orthodox of Moravia and Silesia by Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia, receiving the name of Gorazd, a holy disciple of Saint Methodius (27 July). Taking these great missionaries as a pattern of pastoral labours, Bishop Gorazd did a great deal to restore Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia, despite the turning back of some of those who had been leaders of the reform movement but who found demands of the Orthodox Church too burdensome. Bishop Gorazd patiently bore criticism, false accusations, trials and tribulations of all kinds. He set up several parishes in Moravia and Bohemia and made a Czech translation of the Divine Services, which was used in the eleven Churches he founded. He published a prayer that was for the people, a Book of Needs (Trebnik) for the use of priests, a catechism and various devotional works in Czech. He enjoyed the confidence and respect of the Patriarch of Serbia and sent a large number of young men to prepare for the priesthood there.

During the Second World War, seven members of the Czech resistance who, after the assassination of the representative of the Reich, had taken refuge in the crypt of the Orthodox cathedral in Prague, were captured and executed. The two priests of the cathedral were arrested and the Nazi authorities were planning reprisals against the whole Orthodox Church. Bishop Gorazd gave himself up to the Nazis to save his priests and accepted full responsibility for what had occurred. He was arrested on the 25th of June 1942, tortured, and shot on the 4th of September, and thus he sealed the foundation of the autonomous Church of Slovakia and Czech Lands with his blood. Despite his voluntary sacrifice, the Orthodox Church was subjected to retaliation. The Churches were closed, and the priests sent to concentration camps in Germany.

September 5th: Hieromartyr ATHANASIUS,

Abbot of the Monastery of St. Symeon the Stylite at BREST-LITOVSK

St. Athanasius, a staunch defender of Orthodoxy and opponent of the Roman Catholic effort to convert the Orthodox, was born in 1596 which coincided with the year of the false union of Brest-Litovsk arranged between Rome and some Russian bishops for those Orthodox living under Polish rule in Lithuania to come under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome. Born to a Lithuanian nobleman of limited wealth, he was a tutor in his early life to wealthy Polish families. He understood the Polish, Latin, Greek and Russian languages, and read many theological writings in addition to the holy fathers.

In 1627, recognizing the futility of this vain, earthly world, he became a monk at the Monastery of Khutyn near Orsha in Little Russia. This monastery, along with several others, were located on the private lands of noble families and leaders, and so were independent of the influence of the Polish occupying forces. By tradition, the monastery was deeply committed to the preservation of Orthodoxy, so that it was able to offer a great encouragement to the Orthodox people in the face of Roman Catholic propaganda¹⁰ in order to resist the onslaught of heretical, Latin teachings.¹¹

He was sent to several other monasteries, being ordained to the priesthood at Vilna. He wound up at the Kupyatitsk Monastery, a monastery in need of restoration, as deputy. Metropolitan Peter Moghila tasked him with restoring the monastery and after a divine revelation from the Mother of God, St. Athanasius set out on a journey to receive support from the Tsar for rebuilding the Orthodox church, which he obtained. Two years later, following the death of the igumen of the monastery of St. Symeon the Stylite in Brest-Litovsk, he was appointed Abbot there. "From then on, he was to be a resolute and tireless fighter against Roman proselytism, clothed in Orthodox rites and customs known as the Unia. For the next eight years, by prayer, preaching and through his writings, the Saint devoted all his strength to refuting the false Union, and to bringing back to the holy sheepfold of Christ those who had strayed."¹² First, he republished all the documents regarding the false union and the anathemas and writings which opposed it. He personally presented the apologetics in the churches. He immersed his flock in Orthodox doctrine and published educational materials including the writings of the holy Fathers.

The Orthodox population were being harshly persecuted by the Polish occupational forces, Jesuits, and Polish colonizers to convert the Orthodox and St. Athanasius petitioned the King of Poland, Vladislav IV, for relief. The king issued a decree, however, enforcement of it was ignored. Even worse, some of the Orthodox leaders, fearful of their own safety, sought to limit his efforts.

"It is difficult for us to express the conditions under which Orthodox Christians suffered in Uniate territory. And to a great measure, the minds and senses of the Orthodox were stunned with disbelief at the actions of the Latins, for the atrocities which they wrought against the faithful were truly beyond the comprehension of the Orthodox….

Western notions of human vengeance and earthly punishments in connection with the Church are utterly alien to Orthodoxy. All these things were rendered the more shocking because those committing the atrocities professed the name Christian. The Orthodox were slaughtered indiscriminately at times and it was not uncommon that, while it was crowded with worshippers on a feast day, the doors of an Orthodox church would be barricaded from the outside and the building set fire, recalling the ancient martyrdoms under the first pagan Rome.¹³

As time progressed, a dearth of clergy and a lack of spiritual education among the younger priests created a vacuum of spiritual ministry. In addition, some of the wealthier Orthodox "sold themselves to the Unia for financial and social advantages."¹⁴ Faced with increasing opposition and a lack of similar-minded courageous faithful, he prayed to the Mother of God before the wonder-working icon of Kupyatitsk and when he said the words free us from all troubles, he heard the response "Oh, Athanasius! Complain to the Seim¹⁵ through My icon and Kupyatitsk cross and demand of the king that the irreligious Unia be forever abolished and the Orthodox Church be left in peace. And warn them that otherwise God’s wrath is inevitable."¹⁶

In 1643, he went again to the Seim to appeal for relief from the persecution of the Orthodox. The king was moved and granted elementary human rights to them. But St. Athanasius was attacked by Orthodox leaders and accused of insanity, as their financial and social interests were in jeopardy. He was deprived of his abbotship, defrocked from the priesthood and taken to Kiev for mental examination where he was found to be of sound mind. Thus being vindicated, he returned to the Brest-Simeonov Monastery to his abbotship and priesthood, resuming his ecclesiastical duties.

While the Latin persecution had abated for a short while, it resumed, so he petitioned the king again but was imprisoned, although he managed to submit another petition to the Seim while still incarcerated in 1645. During this time, Metropolitan Peter Moghila,¹⁷ his ardent supporter, reposed. He was released in 1647 and returned to St. Simeon Monastery, but in 1648 the Latin Unia redoubled their persecutions with such brute force and bloodshed that it resulted in a rebellion led by the Cossack Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky. It was quickly quelled by Polish forces with political leaders being arrested and by the Unia’s Jesuit troops arresting Orthodox Christian Church leaders.

Arrested and imprisoned, St. Athanasius was charged with undermining the Union of Brest-Litovsk, inciting rebellion, opposing state-church educational initiatives, etc. but none of the legal charges were sustained. It was decided to detain him until a suitable charge could be made. From the day of his incarceration on July 1st until September 5th, 1648, he endured both physical and mental tortures by his captors and the Roman Catholic authorities but he never ceased to cry ‘Anathema to the Union.’¹⁸ Tortured with hot coals, flogged and burnt, he was finally shot to death by his executioners, then decapitated and thrown into a pit. His incorrupt body, discovered some time later and brought to the monastery in which the saint had served, was found to work miracles and healings.

September 6th:

New Hieromartyr MAXIMUS Sandovich

Maximus Sandovich ¹⁹

St. Maximus Sandovich was born in 1886 in the village of Zhdenia on the present frontier of Poland with Slovakia, in territory which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time. His piety was evident from his early years. As a schoolboy, he would get up early to read the services and sing the canticles of the church in his room. He wanted to become a priest or monk and so, at the end of his secondary education, he entered a Uniate monastery of the region as a novice. But the life of this establishment soon disappointed him, and he left after three months for the Monastery of Pochaev in Ukraine (see 28 Oct.), as much renowned for the strictness of its typicon and for the spiritual life of the fathers, as for its witness to the Orthodox tradition. When Maximus was still a novice, Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky (1863-1936), visited the monastery and asked the Abbot to let him take a novice with him who could be put to study in his Seminary, with a view to ordination to serve the Ukrainian communities in the Carpathian region, that had returned to Orthodoxy from the Unia. Maximus was chosen so he had to give up his heart’s desire for the monastic life and follow the Bishop. When he had finished his studies at the Seminary in Zhitomir, he married a Byelorussian wife and was ordained by the Metropolitan in 1911.

His pastoral ministry began in the town of Grab, not far from his native village, where he served the first Orthodox Liturgy since the Carpatho-Russians yielded to Uniatism in the eighteenth century. He was arrested on a visit to his family home, sentenced to eight days imprisonment and heavily fined. Father Maximus was unshaken by this and continued to serve the divine Liturgy in the surrounding villages, despite the penalties imposed by the courts upon himself and those who assisted him. In March 1912, he was remanded in custody at Lvov, charged with being Orthodox, using Church books written in Russian and of collaborating with the enemy, for so Russia was regarded by the Austro-Hungarian authorities. Despite the lying accusations heaped up against him, and the ill-treatment and harassment of all kinds that he endured, when he and his companions came to trial in June 1914, they were acquitted. In poor health, he was able to return to Zhdenia. But, on the outbreak of the First World War in August, he was again arrested, together with his pregnant wife, his father and the Orthodox of his village. They were imprisoned at Gorlice, the county town. On 6 September 1914, Father Maximus was brought out of his cell before a judge who summarily informed him that he was condemned to death. He was shot in the prison yard before the eyes of the assembled Orthodox prisoners. As he fell, Christ’s valiant Martyr cried out, Long live Holy Orthodoxy! whereupon one of the executioners, seized with anger, rushed forward and stabbed him. It was not until 1922 that his body could be taken to Zhdenia, where it was laid to rest near the Church. From then on, pilgrims flocked to his tomb. Veneration of Saint Maximus, as the very image of their ethnic and religious identity, grew among the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, especially during the years of their deportation.

See here and here for some liturgical hymns to him.

September 7th: Monk and Martyr MACARIUS,

Archimandrite of KANEV

St. Macarius came from the province of Volhynia in the northwest of Ukraine, when the Orthodox were experiencing aggressive attempts at proselytism by the Roman Catholics.²⁰ "Born in 1605 in Ovruch, Volhynia, to a family known for their zeal for Orthodoxy, from 1614-1620 Macarius Tokarevsky studied at the Assumption Ovruch Monastery and upon the death of his parents became a novice there. In 1625, Monk Macarius received a blessing to be assigned to the Kupyatichi Pinsk Monastery where in 1630 he became a hierodeacon and subsequently a hieromonk in 1632. He became well known for the example of his monastic life.

"In 1637 while presenting money to Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev which had been collected by the brothers for the reconstruction of the St. Sophia Church in Kiev and asking for help with the construction and renovation of the Kupyatichi Pinsk Monastery church, the Metropolitan was impressed with his devoutness and gave him a universal list for collecting donations. In 1638 the Metropolitan appointed him abbot of the Kamenets Resurrection Monastery. This monastery was robbed and seized by the Uniates in 1642. St. Macarius was called back to the Kupyatichi Monastery to be hegumen until 1656. From 1656-1659, he was hegumen of the Pinsk monastery and in 1660 became archimandrite and head of the Assumption Ovruch Monastery. There were constant problems with the Latin Poles for over a decade. The Dominicans seized land, robbed the monasteries and beat the brethren but the brethren were steadfast and would not abandon the monastery. In 1671 when Ovruch was demolished by the Tatars and no brethren remained, Archimandrite Macarius went to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Metropolitan Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky) appointed him abbot of the Kanev monastery, where he was needed as a defender of Orthodoxy, after thirty years of standing up for the faith against the Uniates.

"Hetman Korolenko who had petitioned Metropolitan Joseph for the appointment of St. Macarius to the Kanev Monastery visited often and in 1675 with the blessing of Macarius, renounced his Turkish citizenship and became a Russian citizen. The Turkish authorities sent troops and on September 4th, 1678, they broke into the monastery. St. Macarius was waiting for them with a cross in his hands on the porch of the temple. The invaders demanded the monastic treasures to which the saint replied that his treasures were in heaven whereupon being frustrated by his answer, they hung him by his hands and feet between the two pillars. On September 7th, 1678, they cut his head off. The witnesses to the martyrdom carried his body into the monastery church where they barricaded themselves. The Turks returned and burned the temple, lighting it with firewood. The surviving townspeople, upon going through the rubble, found only one body still intact and as if it was still alive, with a cross on his chest and another cross in his hand. This was the body of the martyred Macarius. They buried him under the altar on September 8th.

"In 1688 during the temple renovation, the coffin was opened, and his incorrupt body was discovered. Due to the danger of an attack on the Kanev monastery May 13th, 1688, the holy relics were transferred to the Perevaslav Regimental Resurrection Church. His copy of the book Conversations of John Chrysostom on the 14 Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle with his handwritten notes in it was also transferred there. In 1713, his relics were moved again, this time to the newly constructed St. Michael’s Pereyalavl Monastery and when that closed, they went to Pereyaslavl Ascension Monastery on August 4th, 1786. In 1942 the relics were transferred again, this time to the Trinity Church of Cherkassy and finally in 1965 they went to the temple in honor of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Cherkassy. His feast day is on September 7th, the day of his repose, and on May 13th, the day of the transfer of his holy relics."²¹

September 13th: JOHN of PRISLOP

John of Prislop ²²

Our holy Father John most probably lived in the first half of the seventeenth century at the Monastery of Prislop situated at the foot of the Parin and Prishop range of hills in Transylvania. This monastery had been founded by Saint Nicodemus of Tismana (26 Dec.) on the site of an ancient hermitage, and was to play an important part in the defence of Orthodoxy against the proselytizing efforts of the Uniates in Transylvania, until its destruction by the Austrian authorities in the middle of the eighteenth century.

September 22nd: TWENTY-SIX MONKS

and MARTYRS of ZOGRAPHOU Monastery (Mount Athos)

Twenty-Six Monks and Martyrs ²³

Even after the Schism of 1054, there were attempts at reunification of Rome and Byzantium. It was the Fourth Crusade (1204) that marked the final separation of the two sees. The next two centuries witnessed very many attempts to restore communion, but developments such as Latin domination of Byzantium by the Crusaders, papal centralization, scholastic theology, and the dogmatization of the filioque at the Second Council of Lyons complicated reconciliation. The period of Latin dominion had left behind deep scars on the Byzantine body politic.

The truth is that political more than religious considerations motivated the negotiations during the Komnenian and Palaiologan periods. The Palaiologos Dynasty particularly needed military aid to fight the Turks and others. The papacy, utilizing this threat to their advantage, demanded the total ecclesiastical submission of the Orthodox Church in return for military aid from the West. Unionist attempts failed, as the unions of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence patently showed. Lyons was an excellent example of the limitations of Byzantine imperial influence over religious policy, and of the unrelenting rigidity of papal diplomacy. In the end, both councils only served to widen the separation.

Our account opens with Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1259-1282) who came to power by dubious means. He usurped the throne of Emperor Theodore II Laskaris who died in 1258. Michael joined an aristocratic conspiracy to murder George Mousalon, regent for the child emperor John IV Laskaris. Michael succeeded Mousalon as regent and was crowned co-emperor in 1259. He further secured his position after the recovery of Constantinople from the Latins when he soon received a second coronation. He ordered the blinding of his co-emperor John IV (1261), thus becoming sole emperor. He was excommunicated by Patriarch Arsenios (1254-1260, 1261-1265). The position of Byzantium was extremely precarious. Michael hoped to win over Pope Clement IV, who wished to eliminate the Greek Schism.

In 1271, the Italian Gregory X was elected pope. He was an enthusiastic supporter of movements for a Crusade and ecclesiastical reunion. The union with the Greek Church formed the center of his policy in the East. This pope was not satisfied with the vague promises of union with which Michael VIII had already beguiled Rome for more than a decade. He gave Emperor Michael an ultimatum: either the Greek Church was to submit, in which case he guaranteed the full support of the Roman Catholic powers, or else he could no longer restrain the persistent demands of Charles of Anjou, king of Naples and Sicily (1265-1285), who made no secret of his projected plans to attack Constantinople. Despite the obstinate position of the Byzantine clergy, Michael VIII came to terms with the papal legate in Constantinople. Ultimately, Michael was able to persuade a section of the clergy to accept the union. The historic act was concluded at the Council of Lyons on the 6th of July, 1274. In the name of the emperor, the Grand Logothete George Acropolites swore to acknowledge not only the papal primacy but also the Roman faith. The ecclesiastical members of the Byzantine legation, the former Patriarch Germanos and Metropolitan Theophanes of Nicaea also signed the imperial declaration. With union now realized, papal pressure on Charles of Anjou obliged him to abandon his projected conquest of Byzantium. Michael VIII betrayed the Faith so that he might secure his throne. But his thirty pieces of silver purchased him a severe internal crisis. The Byzantine people and the majority of the clergy repudiated the union and offered bitter opposition to Michael VIII. His relations with the Church had already deteriorated after the blinding of the young John Laskaris. Michael deposed Patriarch Arsenios, but had been granted a dispensation by his successor, Patriarch Joseph I (1266-1275). When Michael VIII submitted to the pope and demanded that the Orthodox should recognize papal supremacy, a storm broke throughout the populace. Patriarch Joseph refused to accept the union, so Michael made another drastic change in ecclesiastical leadership. He chose John Vekkos.

John Vekkos was chartophylax²⁴ of Hagia Sophia (1263-1275). He served twice as Michael VIII’s ambassador: first, to Stefan Uroš I in Serbia (1268), and then to Louis IX in Tunis (1270). Initially, he opposed the plans for the union of Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, and was imprisoned (1273). After further study of the Latin doctors, he changed his views, was released from prison, and went on to become head of the Unionist party. Soon thereafter, John XI Vekkos was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople (1275-1282). Throughout his patriarchate, he supported Michael VIII.

The emperor ignored the protests of his subjects and adhered to the union. Cruel persecutions followed against subjects of both high and low degree. The prisons were crowded with both clergy and laity, commoners and nobility, for the schism affected all sections of the population, and the imperial family itself was divided. With the death of Pope Gregory X (1276), Nicholas III (1277-1280) tried to uphold his conception of a universal Church. In 1281, another papal election put the Frenchman Martin IV on the papal throne. He condemned the Byzantine emperor as schismatic and deposed him. No Catholic sovereign was allowed to communicate with Michael VIII. Thus, the union collapsed, abandoned by Rome herself. The Western powers united against Byzantium. The Balkan rulers joined the anti-Byzantine front and, in cooperation with Charles Anjou, John of Thessaly and the new Serbian King Milutin (1282-1321), invaded Macedonia in 1282. Yet, the tide of fortune temporarily changed, and a terrible catastrophe overwhelmed Charles of Anjou when Michael helped the king of Aragon, Peter III, to attack Charles.

Michael VIII, at his death (d. 1282), was refused burial by the Orthodox Church. Patriarch John Vekkos was deposed after Michael’s death. In 1283, at a synod meeting at Constantinople, he was formally charged with heresy and banished to Prusa. Once more, he was condemned at the Synod of Vlachernai (1285), and imprisoned. The office of Patriarch (1282-1283) was once again bestowed on Joseph, who had been deposed after the Council of Lyons.

Now during Michael’s reign, Mount Athos was exercising a growing influence on the spiritual life of the entire empire. While the state was disintegrating, the Patriarchate of Constantinople remained the center of the Orthodox world. The Church remained the most stable element in the Byzantine Empire. The Athonite fathers, comprised of Greeks, Georgians, Serbians, Bulgarians, and Russians, addressed an epistle to the apostate Michael VIII, declaring that they abhorred the union. They neither recognized the pope’s primacy nor considered his name worthy of commemoration. They refused to use unleavened bread and to change the Symbol of Faith by adding the filioque, that is, and from the Son, with regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. They declared the emperor a heretic, unless he forsook the papal union and innovations. The emperor, by royal decree (1278), imposed the union by any and all means. The papacy still did not trust Michael, even though he placed his own family in irons and paraded them before the papal envoys. It was during this period that the Latins came to the Holy Mountain Athos, having been invited by Michael to come to the East and crush the Bulgarians, who were laying waste to his provinces. The Catholic sovereigns agreed to help, not because they viewed Michael as a brother in Christ, but rather so that they might destroy him.

The Latins came to the Athonite peninsula and systematically terrorized the Great Lavra, Iveron, and Vatopedi, leaving behind some forced or frightened converts, but also a company of Orthodox martyrs and confessors in the ruins. The Latins then went north of Konstamonitou, in the interior of the Athos peninsula, to the Monastery of the holy Great-martyr George, known as Zographou. The monastery lies on top of a rise, tucked into a woody fold, hidden from the sea. From the 13th [century] onward, the monastery was under the control of Bulgarian monks.

At that time, the hegumen of Zographou was Abbot Thomas. He became aware of the Latin marauders seeking Orthodox souls, as told in the following moving account. There was a certain virtuous and aged monk who lived in Zographou’s vineyard, being about one-half hour’s walk to the southwest. His rule of prayer was to recite the Akathist Hymn to our most holy Lady, the Theotokos. He pronounced the Akathist daily before her icon, wherein she is depicted holding the Christ Child in a Directress-type icon.²⁵ One day, as he was reciting his customary rule, and was at that part were the Archangel Gabriel greets the Virgin Mary, saying, Rejoice, the elder suddenly heard from the sacred icon the following words, Rejoice thou also, O elder of God! The old monk began to tremble. He then heard the Mother of God’s voice coming from the icon, saying to him, Cease fearing, but go quickly to the monastery, and announce to the brothers and to the abbot that enemies of both my Son and I are approaching. Whosoever, therefore, is weak in spirit, in patience let him hide until the temptation passes. All those who desire martyric crowns, let them stay and lock themselves within the monastery. Go, therefore, quickly. The old monk fell before the icon, asking, How, O Lady, shall I leave thee, my protectress, in this place? She replied, Concern not thyself for me, but hasten to the monastery.

The elder obeyed the voice and will of our all-immaculate Lady. He left his cell, hastening as much as possible to the monastery, that each one might be granted time to consider which way he might choose. As soon as the elder came to the monastery gate, he beheld the very same icon of the Mother of God before which he recited the Akathist Hymn in his cell. By divine power, the icon was born aloft and went on before the elder to the monastery gate. The old monk fell down and venerated the icon. He then entered and related the warning given by the Theotokos. The monks, seeing the icon and hearing the miracle, gave glory to God and His compassionate Mother. At the news that the heretic Latins were approaching, each man was stirred at the coming peril.

The abbot exhorted those who remained behind, quoting from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, saying, As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye received a Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: And if children, also heirs – on the one hand heirs of God, on the other hand joint-heirs of Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, in order that we might also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy in comparison to the future glory to be revealed in us [Rom. 8:14-18]. Abbot Thomas urged them to keep their faith unhypocritically, and that they rekindle the gracious gift of God, for God gave us not a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Therefore, says Saint Paul to Saint Timothy, do thou not become ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor me His prisoner, but suffer hardship with the Gospel, according to God’s power [2 Tim. 1:8]. He then looked upon the brotherhood and told those that feared torture to conceal themselves, and added, Let them take the precious things of the church with them. The weaker among the brethren took themselves away, concealing themselves in the mountains and caves. Twenty-two of the monks, including Abbot Thomas, stood their ground with four laymen. The abbot then took those that remained and ascended the monastery’s tower. They took with them the icon from which the aged monk received the warning. They remained within, expecting both the enemies and their martyric crowns for confessing the Faith.

In a short while the Latins, together with the Latin-minded, arrived. Open up unto us, they demanded. The abbot answered, Even if an angel from out of heaven should preach a gospel besides what Gospel has been preached to us, let such a one be anathema [cf. Gal. 1:8]. Declare your teaching. If it is not from God, begone!

With all their might, the Latins employed every rhetorical technique that their western learning afforded them to madden or move the Orthodox to their way of thinking and interpretation of Scripture. The papists demanded that those of Zographou open the monastery tower and acknowledge the headship of the pope over the œcumenical Church. In a wily manner, they spoke of the filioque, unleavened bread, shaved beards, and priests as bridegrooms of the Church. If the Orthodox complied, they promised, the pope’s clemency and plenty of gold would be theirs. If they refused, they could expect destruction and death. The venerable monks made a reply to the Latin innovations. They quoted holy writ and the words of our Saviour Himself, Who said, Whenever the Paraclete should come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the truth Who proceedeth from the Father [John 15:26]. The fathers also recited other passages in the Gospel of Saint John: I will ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete [Jn. 14:16]; and, The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, that One shall teach you all things [Jn. 14:26]. The fathers, from their tower on high, also gave the example of the Forerunner who beheld the Spirit descending out of heaven as a dove, and abode upon Christ [cf. Jn. 1:32]. Then there came to be a voice out of the heavens, ‘Thou art My Son,’ and the rest [cf. Mk. 1:11; Mt. 3:17]. The fathers then concluded this portion, saying, Thus, it is evident that it is from the Father alone that the Spirit proceeds.

The monks then warned the Latins not to blaspheme, saying, Christ says that every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one [Mt. 12:31, 32]. They added, "No synod or council has stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. What canon has been enacted by the holy Fathers that we ought to use unleavened bread or shave our beards? You are filled with seven evil spirits that contradict the seven OEcumenical Synods. You do not preach the Gospel, but the presumptions of Antichrist, even as Mohammed.

We do not offer unleavened bread as the Jews. The bread at the Mystical Supper was leavened.²⁶ We do not shave the hairs of our beard; for there is no decree on this matter in the Scriptures or œcumenical synods. Trim not your beards but your tongues. The things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and those defile the man. We do not cut our beards, but rather strive against those things that defile a man, that is, evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, and blasphemies [cf. Mt. 15:19, 20].

Moreover, there are not many bridegrooms, but one Bridegroom, Jesus. And you tell us that your pope is the head of the Church? From what place do you derive such a teaching? For us, Christ is the Head of the Church! We say to you, therefore, accept Orthodoxy, for neither your violence nor your tyranny shall convert us. We will not pollute our souls nor defile this sacred place. We will not open the gates of the monastery. Depart from this place! The Latins, greatly maddened, shouted up at them, Indeed, since you wish it, what remains is for you to die.

The Latins then busied themselves gathering wood, which they placed around the tower and put to the torch. The mighty conflagration reached a great height. None of the monks or laymen consigned to the flames enveloping the tower withdrew. All conducted themselves with a steady and manly bearing, glorifying and blessing the Lord. After they prayed on behalf of their enemies, they surrendered their souls into the hands of God, to Whom is due glory and dominion to the ages of the ages. Amen.

A voice was then heard from on high, Be rejoicing and be exceedingly glad, for your reward is great in the heavens [Mt. 5:12]. Though the terrified Latins heard the voice, they did not come to repentance. They left and continued their path of destruction. The concealed brethren returned to a devasted monastery. In the ruins of the tower, the icon was found undamaged. It is generally believed that those who suffered martyrdom departed to their much beloved Lord in 1276.²⁷ The names of the laymen have not been left to us, but the twenty-two martyred monks and confessors are as follows: Abbot Thomas, Barsanuphios, Kyril, Micah (or Michael), Simon, Hilarion, Iakovos, Job, Cyprian, Savvas, Iakovos, Martinian, Kosmas, Sergios, Menas, Joseph, Ioannikios, Paul, Anthony, Efthymios, Dometian, and Parthenios the ecclesiarch. Parthenios, however, did not repose quickly. The heretics did not notice that his dashed body was still conscious. When the brethren returned to Zographou, they found him among the immolated remains of those valiant martyrs. Before he reposed on the 10th of November, he recounted the events of his co-sufferers and confessors.

The surviving brothers took up the icon of the Virgin Mary and deposited it within the Church of the Dormition. An everburning vigil lamp is maintained before this Icon of the Akathist. The monastery was speedily rebuilt through grants of the Palaiologan emperors, particularly, Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282-1328) and John V Palaiologos (r. 1341-1391), and with the assistance of many rulers of the lower Danube countries. In the third Typikon of Mount Athos (1394), Zographou occupied tenth place in the monasterial hierarchy. Although the monastery flourished to some extent in the 14th [century], gradually the situation deteriorated, leaving the monastery nearly deserted. The rulers of Hungro-Wallachia were forthcoming with assistance, including Stephen VI the Good, who was markedly generous (1502). The only 18th [century] building at Zographou is the southeast wing (1716). Between 1862 and 1896, the northern and western ranges, the refectory, and the guest cells were renovated and the imposing portico constructed. The situation of the monastery improved in the 18th and 19th centuries. Zographou, at the beginning of the 18th [century], was the home of many monks of Bulgarian, Serbian, and Greek extraction. Services were conducted in both Greek and Bulgarian. In 1845, Bulgarian supremacy was confirmed, and the house is still Bulgarian today.

Until 1873, a portion of the tower remained, but was in danger of utterly collapsing. During new construction to rebuild the monastery, the remnants of the tower barred completion of the northern wing. When it was deemed necessary to remove the remains of the tower, it was resolved that a monument be erected to commemorate the very spot of the martyrs’ sacrifice. The cenotaph was finished in the same year. On the day of the consecration of the memorial, at midnight during the all-night vigil, when the lives and sufferings of these martyrs were read during Orthros, a slight sound could be heard in the church. Concurrently, a pillar of fire hovered over the katholikon (main church), illuminating Zographou and the environs on that moonless night. The pillar stood for a few minutes, then formed a ring over the memorial, as though crowning it. This miraculous sign occurred for one-quarter of an hour before many witnesses. All glorified God, Who is wondrous in these saints, who cut down the heresy of the Latins and reproved the vainglorious emperor with his mindless patriarch, Vekkos. Thus, because they offered themselves as sacrifices to the Lord, their memory abides forever. Through the intercessions of Thy Saints, O Christ God, have mercy on us. Amen.

See here for patristic commentary.

See here for some liturgical hymns to them.

September 24th: PETER the ALEUT

Peter ²⁸

The holy martyr Peter Tchounagnak was an Aleut Indian converted to Orthodoxy in the late 18th or 19th century by Russian Orthodox missionaries. He departed this life in San Francisco, California, on Sept. 8, 1815, martyred for refusing to become Roman Catholic at the hands of Padre Abella at Dolores Mission. Little or no public interest was accorded him until quite recently. How is it that he has attracted the public’s attention, and why so late? When the Russian Orthodox Church began to compile information on the first missionaries sent to Alaska, and particularly when considering canonization of St. Herman of Alaska, an account by one of Peter’s fellow prisoners was found among the notes of St. Herman’s devoted spiritual son, Simeon Yanovsky (who was later to become Schema-monk Sergei), which relates the Aleut martyr’s death. Yanovsky, in turn, told Father Herman in 1819, at St. Paul’s Harbor on Kodiak Island, later relating their conversation in writing as follows:

Once I told him how the Spaniards in California had taken fourteen of our Aleuts captives, and how the Jesuits had tortured one Aleut to death, trying to force them all to accept the Catholic faith, to which the Aleuts did by no means consent, answering: ‘We are Christians, we have been baptized;’ showing them the crosses on their necks. But the Jesuits retorted: ‘No, you are heretics and schismatics, and if you do not agree to accept the Catholic faith, we will torture you to death.’ And they left them in the prison until evening, two to a cell, to think it over. In the evening they came with lanterns and lighted candles and began again trying to persuade them to accept the Catholic faith. But the Aleuts, permeated with Divine grace, firmly and decisively answered that they were Christians and would not change their faith. Then these fanatics began to torture them: at first one, with the other as witness. At first, they cut off one joint of his toes, one toe at a time, then the next joint; he endured everything and kept on saying: ‘I am a Christian, and will not change my faith.’ Then they cut off one joint from each of his fingers, then the next joint; then they chopped off his hands, then his feet — the blood flowed. But the martyr endured to the end and repeated unchangingly this one phrase. He died from loss of blood.

The next day they wanted to torture others, but that same night an order came from Monterey that all the captive Russian Aleuts be sent at once under guard to Monterey; and so, on the next day all, except the deceased, were sent off. This was told to me by an Aleut who was an eyewitness, a comrade of the martyred one; he later escaped captivity by fleeing. Upon hearing this I reported it to the Central Administration in St. Petersburg.

When I finished relating this to Father Herman, he asked me: ‘And what was the name of the martyred Aleut?’ I answered, ‘Peter, but I don’t remember his last name.’ Then he got up and stood before the icons, piously crossed himself and pronounced these words: ‘Holy New Martyr Peter, pray to God for us!’"

The only other information given about Peter was Yanovsky’s introduction:

The Russian-American Company founded Fort Ross, not far from San Francisco, in 1812. There climate and soil favored agriculture, stock raising, a vegetable garden, and the like; all this was to be of use to the Company. This required manual labor. Some Russians and Aleuts, coming from northern regions to work, were settled there. But the new colony of Russians, being situated at the border of California, which then belonged to Spain, aroused suspicion in the Spaniards concerning the aims of the Russian-American Company. Fearing that the Russians meant to take possession of the town of San Francisco, the Spanish government began to demand that they abandon Fort Ross, and it began to cause various unpleasant incidents. Finally, in 1815 the Spanish arrested some twenty or thirty Russian Orthodox Aleuts. Some of those arrested were held in San Francisco, while others were deported to other places. They were forced to labor and were badly treated. It is unknown how fourteen Russian Orthodox Aleuts ended up in prison in San Francisco and for some reason fell into the hands of Jesuits.

It was not hitherto known during which raid Peter was captured. Examining Yanovsky’s account and research contained in a doctoral thesis by Michael George Kovach (University of Pittsburgh), we can deduce that he was among the second group of Aleuts and Russians taken prisoner, and suffered an undeserved, cruel and bloody death about one year later, in 1815. Why did he die so tragically? Possibly the answer lies in Spanish attitudes towards foreigners classified as heretics, the general pattern of missionary work carried out among Indians by California’s Spanish missionaries, and the atmosphere at Francisco de Asis Mission itself. The missionary techniques employed in Spanish California must also be explained by Spanish attitudes toward Indians of all types. They were generally viewed as pathetic, savage, primitive and barbarous people incapable of any intelligence above that of children and so were treated with paternal condescension. The basic tactics of the Spanish Franciscans’ missionary work can be described as follows:

By gifts of trinkets, food and clothing they attracted the simple people, whose timidity they overcame by making a display of the friendliness of other Indians they had brought along for that purpose. When necessary, even a double portion of food was offered to those willing to accept the little understood but apparently harmless rite of conversion. And surely the soft-voiced kindly padre would do no harm by speaking strange words while sprinkling a few drops of water on the heads of their wondering children… In return for the favors, the gullible natives gave vent to their gratitude by joining in the construction of the settlement… Only after the rude chapel, barracks, and dwellings became enclosed within a stockade did it dawn on the trusting natives that they had built themselves a prison, walled and guarded. Once a convert, always a convert, even though the confinement was mitigated by the benevolence of their captors… In time, the poor natives discovered there was no legal escape from their new homes, for every enterprising runaway was caught and severely punished.

Each time a mission was built, so was a presidio, or fort, to billet three to five soldiers to catch runaways and protect the padres, whose only protection, other than a cross and breviary, was a deerskin mantle, scant protection from flying arrows. Unaccustomed to civilized life which demanded continual work, many mission Indians longed for their past of free nomadic hunting and fishing, while others simply longed for their families. After several months, many Indians grew fretful and thin, gazing constantly with sadness toward their homes which were visible in the distance. Those who could be trusted were permitted to return to visit their tribes for a short while once each year, but due to a high escape rate few were granted this permission. Usually, the only change in their daily environment occurred when they worked at the pueblos or presidios nearby, work for which they were not paid, since the fathers took it for the benefit of the community, so it was said, although we do not know what part of these products reached the community. Of the Indians that did escape, most were recaptured in short order and punished. On account of the enmities between the different tribes, fugitives were never given refuge in any other tribe but their own, and thus it was not easy for them to resist for long the armed soldiers who pursued them, knowing exactly where to find them.

Punishments were brutally calculated to inflict smarting pain and embarrassing humiliation rather than any long-term privation or permanent injury. They consisted of working shackled, imprisonment in chains, or sitting in stocks. For grave offences or sins the condemned was tied to a cannon or post to receive twenty-five or more lashes. If the culprit pleaded for pardon, the severity of the blows might be lessened, but never the number. Men were punished in public as an example, while women were punished in private, so as not to excite the men to revolt. The most painful punishment of all, however, was called a la ley de Bayone, where a musket was passed under the knees so that the feet and hands could be tied around it. All such punishments were inflicted by the padres, though at times they were compelled to call upon the aid of the soldiers who acted as escorts, or three Indian magistrates, referred to as caciques by the people. These magistrates, or caciques, had no choice but to fulfill the will of their superiors blindly and passively, both when it came to administering lashes and in maintaining orderly conduct among their fellow Indians in church. If faults were especially serious, the priest had to investigate the case, arrest the culprit, and inform the presidio commandant of the fort who handled the case. The missions had no qualms about administering these punishments because they believed that they were acting in the Indians’ best interests as wise and prudent fathers, which to their minds implied that authority possessed by all parents to educate their children by exhorting, rebuking and chastising them when necessary. Thus, they justified their guardianship over the Indians, which they felt had devolved upon them because they had baptized them.

Corporal punishments are inflicted on Indians of both sexes who neglect pious exercises, and for several sins, the punishment, of which in Europe is reserved only to divine justice, are punished with chains or stocks. In a word… from the moment a new convert is baptized, he becomes the same as if he had pronounced eternal vows if he makes his escape for the purpose of returning to his relations in the independent villages, they cause him to be summoned to return three times; and if he refuses, they claim the authority of the governor, who sends soldiers to force him away from the midst of his family and conduct him to the missions, where he is sentenced, to receive a certain number of lashes of the whip […] and this custom, against which reason so forcible objects, is mentioned because theologians have decided that baptism could not in conscience be administered to men so fickle unless the government in some measure, become responsible for their perseverance, but officiating as god-father.

When they were not dealing with discipline problems, the padres’ principal duties were to oversee the neophytes’ morals, to instruct them in the basics of the Roman Catholic faith, as well as to civilize them by teaching them useful trades. Most men worked as laborers in the fields, but some were trained as mechanics, stonemasons, cattle, horse, and sheep herders, butchers, shoemakers and blacksmiths. Generally, the women were trained as weavers, cooks and seamstresses. In addition to the regular cleaning, they were under obligation to fulfill duties in various mission buildings. Strictly enforced segregation of both sexes was maintained, and girls and widows in particular were put to work under lock and key to protect them from any sort of mischief. Only marriage allowed a couple the freedom to live in a separate house within the mission walls or on a rancho, and to cook their own meals. All other unmarried mission inhabitants over the age of 9 or 10 ate their meals in the community kitchen. Sundays and certain prescribed holidays were the only days of rest from their appointed tasks, such rest commencing after fulfillment of the mass obligation, since no age group was exempt from church worship. The best-treated Indian boys (those either born to converts or who had been kidnapped by Spanish soldiers at an early age to be raised as house servants) were usually the ones privileged to learn to read, sing and play musical instruments so as to keep up the interest of their newly-converted tribal peers and elders in a service that was virtually unintelligible to them.

While this formed the general pattern of Californian Franciscan missionary work, Peter’s death must also be understood within the context of the historical atmosphere peculiar to the Mission of Francisco de Asis at which he died in 1815, for this Mission was quite different from all others in California, because it had one of the lowest records for baptisms and one of the highest for runaways. Cruelty was part of its early heritage, bequeathed by such persons as Father Dani, Father Landeta, the useless and unbalanced Fernandez, the violently demented Antonio Horra of San Miguel, Governor Borica, and Ensign Moraga. Its reputation further suffered because epidemics took high tolls, as did venereal disease. In the face of all these problems, together with the lack of agricultural security, it is no wonder that sheer force was employed in attempts to replenish lost numbers and to hold the few it still had.

It is by means of their noise that they endeavor to stir the imagination of the Indians and to make men of these savages. It is, indeed, the only means of producing an effect on them. When the drums begin to beat, they fall on the ground as if they were half-dead, no one dares to move; all remain stretched upon the ground without making the slightest movement until the end of the service, and even then, it is necessary to tell them several times that the mass is finished. Armed soldiers are stationed at each corner of the church. After the mass, the superior delivers a sermon in Latin to his flock.

What a contrast to Spanish ways was the Russian philosophy of missionary work and the Russian pattern of missionary activities in Alaska! Although native peoples everywhere were regarded as mere children in need of conversion, protection and guidance, Russian missionaries never extended the idea of guardianship to any legal or civil areas which would adopt people and confine them to any specific place to live, nor did they use soldiers for protection or to bring back the lapsed. If generalizations could be made, one could say that Spanish monks subscribed ideologically to conversion by force or sword, while Russian monks subscribed ideologically to the theory of conversion by example. In fact, the precept save your own soul first, and thousands will be saved around you early formed the basis for all missionary activity undertaken by the Orthodox Church. This in turn kept conversion figures low, causing many people to chastise the Russian Orthodox Church in particular for failures in evangelizing the non-Christian world.

Yet when one reflects on the fact that Siberia, the abode of wild pagan tribes, was only first crossed in 1582, it is a real credit that by 1817, approximately 70% of all people living within Russia’s borders were Orthodox Christians! Primarily this was achieved by monks in search of places suitable for ascetic endeavor, who went into forests and settled near rivers and lakes, using hollow trees, mud huts, or cabins as habitations while struggling in unceasing prayer, fasting and manual labor to save their souls. In the process, the surrounding heathens were not only gradually enlightened spiritually but also in a civilized fashion, being transformed from nomads to settlers. When conditions were favorable, these early individual habitations grew into monasteries with settlements around them which grew into towns. Under less favorable circumstances these