A Theological and Historical View
A. Strelbitsky
“…there is no fear of God before his eyes. His ways are defiled at all times; Thy judgments are taken away from before his face.” (Psalm 35:1–2)
The events in the lives of the saints, both during their earthly existence and their post-mortem manifestations and miracles, serve as signs for us—tokens by which we read the spiritual meaning of history. The Lord Himself, the True Holy One, exhorted us to be attentive to the signs of the times (Matt. 16:2).
At present, for many believers of the Moscow Patriarchate who are aware of its fall into the hyper-heresy of ecumenism and super-ecumenism, it remains painfully difficult to resolve to recognize the impossibility of the presence of grace—that is, the Holy Spirit—within it. As though He, the Spirit of Truth, could breathe and act where the Truth is consciously and maliciously trampled upon…
Perhaps the publications offered below, dedicated to the fabrication of false relics—in Petersburg, of Venerable Alexander of Svir, and in Vladimir, of Stephen of Makhrishch—will enable at least someone to look more soberly and impartially upon the religious organization styling itself the “Moscow Patriarchate”…
1. Holy Relics—or “Petersburg Remains”?
(On the “Second Acquisition of the Relics” of the Venerable Alexander of Svir)
“Prophet and priest are defiled; and in My house I have found their wickedness, saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 23:11)
“Delusion is a person’s assimilation of a lie, accepted by him as the truth.” (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov)
…On July 28, 1998, in Petersburg, Igumen Lucian (Kutsenko) announced the second acquisition of the relics of our patron saint of the Northwestern Region, our Venerable Father and Wonderworker of All Russia, Alexander of Svir. Let us recall that his relics were uncovered as incorrupt on April 30, 1641, 108 years after the saint’s repose, and from that time rested in his monastery. In 1918, the Bolsheviks removed the holy relics from the monastery, as attested by a document published in the Nevsky Spiritual Herald (May 1988, pp. 12–13):
MOST SUBMISSIVE REPORT
I have the duty to most respectfully report to Your Eminence, our merciful Archpastor and Father, that on the 7/20th of this December, the Lodeynopolye Extraordinary Investigative Commission, accompanied by three doctors, visited the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery entrusted to me, and examined in detail the holy relics of the Venerable One. Upon examining them at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, they took them entirely from the cathedral and departed for Lodeynoye Pole. What will happen hereafter is unknown. Acting Superior of Your Eminence (Signatures)
The further fate of the relics, subjected to desecration a mere five months after the murder of the Royal Martyrs, was indeed unknown…
…The reliquary with the acquired relics was placed for veneration in the church of the holy martyrs Faith, Hope, Love, and Sophia. From whence were the relics taken? According to a document posted in the church, they were recovered in the closed anatomical museum of the Military-Medical Academy (MMA). A year ago, Fr. Lucian became the acting superior of the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, continuing to oversee the sisters of the Pokrovo-Tervenich Convent. It was precisely thanks to the search conducted by the sisters, especially nun Leonida, that the holy remains were discovered…
Among the believers, this event caused great joy; vast crowds of people flocked to the church, standing in queues to venerate the relics of the saint. People marveled at the white foot, almost like that of a living person, exposed and bare. One wanted to believe that after so many months, when many Orthodox Christians tried to do everything to prevent the burial of false relics in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the Lord was sending the true relics of His righteous one to encourage us. However, the reality is far more terrifying than one would wish to believe.
Some of the Petersburg clergy, belonging both to the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, warned from the very beginning about the possibility of deception and categorically refused to bless their parishioners to travel for veneration to the newly acquired relics: “We do not know what kind of relics these are or whether they are genuine.” Grounds for doubt certainly existed, as the customary course of events had been violated: upon the recovery of remains suspected of being the relics of a saint, a church commission is formed, enlisting expert specialists if necessary. Such was the case upon the discovery of the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov in the funds of the Museum of Atheism, and later—the relics of St. Joasaph of Belgorod, miraculously preserved in the attic of Kazan Cathedral. Here, however, we witness an astonishing haste: issue No. 19 of the Saint Petersburg Diocesan Gazette facsimiles Fr. Lucian’s report alongside a resolution of gratitude from Metropolitan Vladimir, which says not a single word about the necessity of thoroughly investigating so momentous an event.
In September, an article by S. Petukhova dedicated to the history of the discovery of the remains—which Fr. Lucian declared to be the relics of Alexander of Svir—appeared in the newspaper Northern Trade Route. The article was, unfortunately, written in an illiterate and blasphemous tone, which matched its title: “Holy Relics with… a Manicure.” This was the reason why for a long time we were reluctant to believe even the substance of what was written in it—namely, that the body lying in the church of Faith, Hope, Love, and Sophia was by no means composed of relics. Only much later, in view of the importance of recovering the relics of so great and world-renowned a saint as Alexander of Svir, did we decide to contact an employee of the MMA upon whose opinion the publication relied.
Andrei Valentinovich Kovalev, Doctor of Medical Sciences, senior researcher at the Military-Medical Academy of St. Petersburg, and head of the osteological laboratory at the Leningrad Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, confirmed the substance of the newspaper publication and supplemented it.
Before us arises the following picture. First, the question arises: whence came the remains in the anatomical museum—which we shall henceforth call the “Petersburg remains”? A. V. Kovalev, who worked with the archival materials of the Academy’s Department of Forensic Medicine, suggests that they arrived at the museum of the Department of Anatomy precisely from that department—most likely in the 1930s. The registry logs of the deceased contained in the archives hold a large number of entries regarding the arrival at the Academy in the 1930s of bodies of prisoners who died in the Regional Hospital. I. V. Gaivoronsky, head of the Department of Normal Anatomy at the MMA, likewise insists upon this timeframe for the appearance of the remains—the 1930s of our century (see R. Popov’s article, “Just an Ordinary Miracle,” in the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, October 9, 1998). It is entirely probable that the body mistaken for the saint’s remains was used in the Department of Anatomy for teaching students. As for the true relics of the Venerable One, A. V. Kovalev is certain that the body of the holy elder was never examined at the Military-Medical Academy and, as a logical consequence, was never stored there, since neither the post-revolutionary commission that examined the relics—headed by Izhevsky, head of the Petrograd expert service—nor any of its members included any employee of the Academy. No documents regarding this examination have survived.
What are the characteristics of the “Petersburg remains,” and are there grounds to consider them relics? As nun Leonida writes in issue 19 of the Saint Petersburg Diocesan Gazette, the remains “…represent a completely preserved mummy (!) of a man, which according to a number of essential features, age, ethnicity, and external traits corresponds to the description made during the first acquisition of the relics of the venerable Alexander of Svir in 1641.” Yet there is no factual confirmation of this correspondence across the “number of essential features.” For the validity of judgments, it is necessary to examine separately the supposed age, ethnic type, and external characteristics of the remains removed from the museum.
A. V. Kovalev asserts that the man whose body was in the museum was no more than forty to forty-five years of age. This is evidenced by the facial features, the remarkably well-preserved superficial epidermis, and especially the well-preserved teeth. From the saint’s hagiography, it is known that he reposed at the age of 85; his life passed in arduous ascetical labors and toils, and he partook of coarse, predominantly plant-based food. His teeth, therefore, ought to have been heavily worn down, which we do not observe in the deceased person in question. According to A. V. Kovalev, no serious specialist would confirm the identity of the examined body with the holy relics. The era during which the man whose body was in the museum lived is most likely our own—i.e., he is in reality almost a contemporary of ours.
It should be noted that A. V. Kovalev held a particular opinion regarding the “Yekaterinburg remains” as well, which is why he was not included in the commission for their investigation. Interestingly, he was rejected as an expert both by the falsifiers from the remains commission and by Nun Leonida, who declined his services: he did not enter into the composition of the MMA commission. The MMA expertise did not claim an exact identification of the body from the museum with Alexander of Svir, but… allowed for such a possibility.
Let us turn to the question of the ethnic origin of the deceased. Venerable Alexander, as we know, was a Vepsian—that is, he possessed mongoloid traits. Nun Leonida writes: “The remains under consideration cannot be the relics of other saints for the reason that the relics of all known saints have been returned to the church (?? — Ed.). Furthermore, the Orthodox world knows of no other saint of Vepsian nationality whose relics would be manifested to people in a state of miraculous preservation,” speaks of a “conducted thorough anthropological study,” and insists that “classifying him [the found body] as a Vepsian appears extremely important.”
Nun Leonida refers to Yu. D. Benevolenskaya, senior researcher at the RAS Institute of Anthropology. It must be said that Yu. D. Benevolenskaya did indeed find mongoloid features in the remains and therefore conjectured that they might belong to a Vepsian—while, however, not ruling out the possibility of the presence of traits of other ethnic types in the deceased, especially since the ethnic type of the majority of Russia’s residents is mixed, and frequently exhibits mongoloid markers. Nun Leonida’s assurances, constructed rather upon emotions and a desire at all costs to prove the authenticity of the relics, actually lack a solid foundation. Furthermore, an additional fact discovered during the examination of the remains inspires concern (requiring more detailed research): according to A. V. Kovalev, there are grounds to believe, based on the features of the body, that he was a Muslim…
From the description of the true relics of the Venerable One, it is known that hair and a beard were preserved on his head. Yet the body from the museum has a shaven face; moreover, it is entirely clear that he was shaved either during life or after death, but prior to the conservation of the body (of which more will be said hereafter) (translator’s note: a whole body may disintegrate, but hair and beard do not disintegrate).
Let us turn to the physical characteristics of the “Petersburg remains.” The rigorous ascetical life of the Venerable Alexander, filled with labors surpassing the capacity of an ordinary person, should have left distinct traces upon his body: both the soles of his feet and his hands undoubtedly ought to have been heavily calloused. Yet in the body from the museum, this is not observed; on the contrary, the delicate skin of the feet and the well-groomed nails on the hands and feet indicate that this was a well-to-do person, hardly acquainted with a harsh, laborious life. Nor are there calluses on the knees, which naturally should be present in an ascetic who constantly made full prostrations during prayer.
Nun Leonida asserts that “on the tips of the fingers of the right blessing hand there are damages corresponding in character to the extraction of particles of flesh for reliquaries.” However, there is no proof that the existing damages are connected with extraction for reliquaries. Furthermore, there is also damage on the face patched up with plaster, and on the body—patches of formalin-treated skin taken from other corpses. Such damage on the body may simply be the marks of mouse teeth, which are numerous in anatomical theaters.
In the groin of the body, a sutured incision was discovered. Such incisions are made to introduce preserving solutions into the body. Here one circumstance must be noted: the small folds of sutured skin along the edges of the incision. This renders impossible the supposition that the incision was made upon ancient relics, since skin folds would not appear if the body were the dried, 500-year-old remains of the Venerable One. The results of the chemical analysis of the body, like much else, are omitted in Nun Leonida’s report—yet they indicate that the internal organs and skin integuments contain formalin. Moreover, its concentration in the muscles is much higher than in the skin integuments. This proves that it was introduced into the interior of the body through an incision in the groin. Furthermore, it should hardly be present in the muscles at all if dry relics had been subjected to formalin treatment. In addition, the body is completely exsanguinated.
A. V. Kovalev describes the remains as follows: the body was in a position unnatural for relics—a sharp, almost right-angle turn of the head to the left; the left hand is pressed to the abdomen, while the right lies along the body; the right foot is turned outward. Nun Leonida, in her report, draws attention precisely to the “unusual position of the right foot” (while all other features are simply ignored), seeing in it new proof that the body belongs to Alexander of Svir. At the same time, she cites the description of the relics from 1641: “…and the legs lay as those of one freshly reposed: the right one with the metatarsus upward…” However, all the aforementioned peculiarities of the body’s position are explained by the supposition that after the introduction of the preserving solution, it lay face down for some time—to which additional proof is served by the dents left upon it by the left hand, which had been lying beneath the abdomen.
What are the conclusions? In Nun Leonida’s publication, there are no facts confirming that the body from the MMA museum belongs to Alexander of Svir. Upon examination of the body, it was revealed that it appeared in the museum in the 1930s; the man to whom it belongs was, so to speak, our contemporary, lived in considerable comfort and pampering, cared for his appearance, wore neither beard nor mustache; possessed mongoloid-type features, was possibly circumcised; perhaps ended up in prison for some reason and died in the Regional Hospital at the age of 40–45; after death, the body was conserved with a formalin solution introduced through an incision in the groin, and for some time lay face down; then, it was possibly used for anatomy classes at the Academy.
As for the assertion that the description of the newly acquired remains coincides with that made prior to the disappearance of the Venerable One’s relics, we provide for comparison the text of yet another document published in the May issue of the Nevsky Spiritual Herald for 1988:
ACT ON THE OPENING OF THE RELICS
November 5/18, 1918, we, the undersigned brethren of the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery of the Olonets Diocese, have drawn up this present act concerning the following: On the 13/26th of October of this year, we inspected the holy relics of our venerable father Alexander of Svir the Wonderworker, dusted them, and changed their coverings. The holy relics are found whole and intact in the following form: wrapped in schema-attire, which in places has already decayed; the head is covered with a veil (nalichnik), which is also partially decayed. Upon lifting the veil, we beheld the face of the venerable one; the lower jaw has fallen onto the chest and the mouth is open, the teeth in the mouth are all intact, only the upper two having fallen out. On the head there is a little hair and part of the beard. The relics lie upon the board of the coffin in which they were acquired, covered by a shroud and swathed just as monks are generally buried. In the chest, the ribs have fallen and the spinal bones and hands up to the shoulders are visible. Beyond the hands they are not visible, since they are swathed by the shroud, and the shroud has adhered to the aforementioned board and was not untied. The soles of the feet are destroyed, and the small bones are put together [emphasis added] with those shoes in which the venerable one was buried, wrapped in clothing and tied with a ribbon. To which we bear witness. (Signatures)
When reading this document, especially its final lines, the entire history of the acquisition of the “relics”—and particularly the obsessive persistence with which attention was drawn to the bare foot of the Venerable One—looks simply like some sort of demonic mockery of the truth.
However, Nun Leonida has an answer even for such objections: when the forensic medical examination confirmed that the remains belonged to a man of about forty, the nun replied: “You are not making an allowance for holiness!” Yes, of course, with such an “allowance” one can explain anything whatsoever, even say that the relics were “miraculously” “renewed”; but this does not bring us any closer to the truth…
Igumen Lucian provided for publication in the Saint Petersburg Diocesan Gazette yet another Act—testimony regarding the outflow of myrrh from the remains during a moleben before them in the X-ray room of the Bureau of Forensic Medical Expertise of Saint Petersburg. The Act was drawn up on July 15, 1998, and bears the following signatures: Igumen Lucian (Kutsenko), Nun Leonida (Safonova), novice Alexander (Vasilyev), Elena Yuryevna Smirnova, Mariamna Viktorovna Sergeyeva, and a laboratory assistant of the X-ray room of the FMEE (without name and surname; one is sorely tempted to ask: why not an N-th number of some other research associates?..). It is astonishing: according to the Act, the outflow from the relics occurred on the 15th, yet Fr. Lucian reports this miracle to the hierarchical superiors only half a month later—the date of the Report being July 30. A. V. Kovalev—a believing and Orthodox person—answered the question regarding the myrrh-streaming unambiguously: that he had repeatedly and meticulously examined the body, but discovered no signs of any myrrh secretion.
Why did such a blasphemous desecration occur? Why were the incorrupt remains of St. Alexander of Svir recognized so easily in one of the anatomical preparations of the MMA, and why soon were thousands of Orthodox believers worshiping these false relics—perhaps these formalin-soaked remains of a man perhaps not only an unbeliever and non-Christian, but perhaps even a circumcised Muslim? Patriarch Alexy II was no exception: he served a moleben and venerated the “Petersburg remains” during his September visit to Saint Petersburg…
One can point to one of the causes of what transpired: from the moment the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery was placed under the abbotship of Hieromonk Lucian, the latter’s targeted determination was known that now—that is, under him—the relics must be found without fail. His church dedicated to the holy martyrs Faith, Hope, Love, and Sophia produces a very heavy impression: there is not a single genuine icon in it painted according to ancient church canons—instead, sweetish pictorial depictions hang on the walls, which cannot even be called icons. Meanwhile, in any restoring church, believers always bring genuine icons. And if they are absent from the church, it means the issue here is not the tastes of the abbot—who might prefer his sentimental, wretched primitivism to genuine icon painting—but an active rejection of canonical icons. In this is seen the expression of the Catholic disposition of Fr. Lucian, which led also to a purely Catholic story regarding the relics: such acquisitions of false relics are quite frequent in the Catholic Church. It is also worth noting that in the courtyard of the church, a statue has been erected—a “monument” to the holy martyrs whose name the church bears—which passing old women, without a second thought, devoutly cross themselves before. At the sight of such a picture, the thought involuntarily arises: what is this? preparation for the future unification of the “sister churches”…? One is also horrified by the “iconostasis”—devoid of icons, with gaping holes in place of the Royal Doors and side gates…
What occurred suggests that Fr. Lucian, and perhaps his subordinate nuns, dwell in a state of profound spiritual delusion (prelest). To suppose this is not at all difficult if one recalls that Fr. Lucian previously experienced an “apparition of the Mother of God,” who pointed out to him the place where a water spring was subsequently uncovered; Fr. Lucian painted an icon of this “apparition” in a completely un-Orthodox manner, looking upon which brings to mind the “Fatima apparition of the Mother of God.” A person imagining himself worthy of divine apparitions and daring even to paint such icons could quite easily have had some other “vision,” for example, of the Venerable Alexander, which convinced him that he specifically would find the relics. The “fragrance” experienced by Fr. Lucian and Nun Leonida during the moleben fits fully into the same picture of spiritual delusion. The Holy Fathers have written extensively about such cases of delusion (prelest).
However, apart from delusion, there could have been another reason for so easy an acquisition of “relics” and their rapid identification. Material interests could quite easily have mingled with spiritual ones. However blasphemous such a supposition may sound, it is entirely logical if one recalls the crowds of pilgrims who visited the church after the “relics” were placed within it…
Be that as it may, it appears that Fr. Lucian himself already sensed something amiss in this story: on the morning of November 22, on the eve of the Diocesan Assembly, the “Petersburg remains” were quietly removed to the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery. And this despite the fact that it had previously been officially reported that they would be transferred to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, where they would remain for quite some time…
It must be noted that not only Fr. Lucian and his exalted nuns are to blame for what happened, but first and foremost the hierarchical leadership of the MP, which did not demand the proper examinations and did not bother to thoroughly verify Nun Leonida’s “report.” It turns out that anyone has the right to submit a report to the Metropolitan concerning whatever he pleases and receive an approving resolution…
Yet another very important question arises: after all, according to testimonies, there have already been healings from these “relics”! How is this possible if the relics are not genuine? Firstly, like the “relics” themselves, these healings have not been verified. But did they actually occur?
Secondly, we live in a post-Christian world that has already rejected Christ and is preparing to accept the Antichrist. And in this world, the State Church is ever more rapidly becoming a false one, preparing the acceptance of the Antichrist, within which signs and wonders can also and will be performed. The Word of God speaks clearly of this: And I saw another beast coming up… and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority… And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and… he doeth great wonders… And by those miracles which it had power to do in the sight of the beast, he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth… …false prophet, of three unclean spirits like frogs: for they are the spirits of devils, working miracles… (Revelation 13:1–2, 11, 13–14; 16:13–14).
The occurrence of the acquisition of these false relics thus fits entirely into the process of forming the church of the Antichrist, which perhaps will abound in false “wonders” no less, and even more, than the genuine ones of the True Church of Christ in the first centuries. For we all know about the numerous “healings” and various extrasensory tricks (such as walking through walls, clairvoyance, etc.) occurring in our days—and we understand by whose power these “wonders” are accomplished… One recalls also the words of St. Ignatius [Brianchaninov]:
“People, intoxicated by self-conceit, self-confidence, and ignorance, strive indiscriminately, recklessly, and boldly toward everything miraculous, not refusing to be participants themselves in the working of miracles. Such a trend is more dangerous than ever before. We are approaching step by step that time in which a vast spectacle of numerous and striking false miracles must open up, to lead into perdition those unfortunate nurslings of carnal mindedness who will be seduced and deceived by these miracles.”
And as a stern warning addressed to contemporary Christians ring out the words of the Apostle Paul:
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition… Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (II Thess. 2:3, 9–11)
…As for personal impressions from communicating regarding the problem of the “Petersburg remains,” one can say the following. The absolute majority of people, though with sorrow, accept the arguments that make it impossible to speak of a genuine acquisition. There is a very small part that fanatically defends the identity of the body from the museum with the relics of the Venerable One. Many, for some reason, being under the influence of the high degree of preservation of the unknown remains, become as it were fixated on this. The main question—whether they could be the body of St. Alexander—is replaced by an entirely different one: why are these remains incorrupt?
It is known that the incorruption of bodies occurs for completely different reasons: as a sign of holiness, for natural reasons (like the well-known lady from Martyshkino), and finally, as the people say, the “earth does not accept” the bodies of very great sinners. Let us recall the photographs circulating in many publications in 1997 of Athonite monks from the time of the Lionne Union (13th century) who concelebrated with the Latins. As a stern warning to contemporary ecumenists, their bodies were preserved incorrupt, and hair and nails continued to grow on them.
Due to the irresponsible actions of Fr. Lucian and Nun Leonida, with the connivance of the hierarchical leadership of the MP, Orthodox Christians now have to figure out something that has no church significance whatsoever: what exactly does this museum exhibit represent? Something else is important—the body of a 35–40-year-old shaven-headed man close to our own time can by no means be Alexander of Svir…
A very characteristic position is the following. One priest said to his spiritual daughter, who did not consider the relics to be genuine: “Do you know that they are not genuine? Keep silent. It has to be that way.” In the sense that even through false relics the Lord brings people into the Church. This is, perhaps, more frightening than mere delusion. This is contemporary Sergianism in action: the Church must be saved by a lie.
Close to this is also the position of Fr. George Mitrofanov, a teacher at the Theological Academy and the Institute for Teacher Advancement. As a professional historian, Fr. George knows perfectly well about the absurdity of the “acquisition” and speaks about this to his listeners. Moreover, he shows them a xerox of the 1919 act concerning the destruction of the genuine relics of the Venerable One. Alas, in those years this was a frequent occurrence: thus, the relics of the Novgorod Hierarchs were removed from their tombs in the Cathedral of St. Sophia and burned.
However, Fr. George does not publish the documents in his possession that could put an end to this regrettable story. He waits for a “decision from above,” as befits one who has consciously accepted the lie of the Sergianist ideology that has darkened Orthodoxy. Sincerely sympathizing with Fr. George, we want to ask: You are a believing person, are you not? One may fear human superiors, but are you truly not afraid to meet the Venerable Alexander at the Last Judgment, asking why you, having had such an opportunity, did not defend his memory?
Why Does John of Kronstadt Weep?
Let us try to understand how one can explain so burdensome a situation. More than eight months have passed since the day when veneration of the unknown remains bearing the name of Alexander of Svir began. Let us recall that it followed 10 days after the blasphemous participation of the church (amid declared non-participation) in the burial of the false relics of the Royal Martyrs in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. A burial that by all spiritually sensitive people was unambiguously perceived as the second ritual destruction of the memory of the last Sovereign in Russian history.
This was yet another milestone taken by the forces of evil and falsehood. Yet another arrogant trampling upon the truth, into which the Moscow Patriarchate was once again drawn. The Church, which by its nature is the Truth incarnated in the world, is united again and again with falsehood, entering into a new, ever more fleeting period of degeneration into the predicted church of the Antichrist.
The false relics fit into the general series of a vast number of ongoing signs—mainly the myrrh-streaming of icons. How should one relate to them, the question arises? The answer must be sought in church Tradition, in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Let us see what St. Ignatius Brianchaninov says about the significance of signs and the attitude toward them in his work On Miracles and Signs:
“The essential worker is the word. Signs are not needed where the word is accepted, by reason of the dignity belonging to the word. Signs are a condescension to human infirmity… The word acts differently, and signs act differently. The word acts directly on the mind and heart; signs act on the mind and heart through the bodily senses. The consequences of the word having acted are stronger, more definite, than the consequences from the action of a sign. When both word and signs act together, then the action of the signs remains as it were unobserved, by reason of the abundant action from the word. This is clearly seen from the Gospel narrative… The God-Man pronounced blessed those who did not see signs and yet believed (John 20:29). He expressed compassion toward those who, not satisfied with the word, had need of miracles… Truly! Left to be pitied are those who leave the word and seek conviction from miracles. This need reveals a particular predominance of carnal mindedness, crude ignorance, a life sacrificed to corruption and sin, the absence of exercise in the study of the Law of God and God-pleasing virtues, the inability of the soul to sympathize with the Holy Spirit, to feel His presence and action in the word… Those who believed by reason of signs constituted the lowest tier of believers in Christ. When the spiritual, most exalted, all-holy teaching was proposed to them, then many of them… condemned the word, which was Spirit and Life (John 6:66).”
Thus, according to the teaching of the Church, signs are an auxiliary tool in the economy of our salvation, which the Lord employs, condescending to human infirmity, in order to draw even the lowest tier to His Word. It is interesting to compare the phenomenon of the “relics” under Fr. Lucian with his attitude toward icons. We spoke last time about the “icons” filling his church of the Holy Martyrs Faith, Hope, Love, and Sophia: these are sweetish pictures the work of his novices. Despite the fact that there is not a single genuine icon in the church, not even the smallest one, not even in the narthex!
And now, even in the ancient monastery of Alexander of Svir transferred to him—in the Trinity Cathedral, which preserved 17th-century frescoes—the walls and pillars are being filled with the same kind of depictions. But in addition, one can see a special novelty upon them. As is known, an icon is “endowed with speech” (slovesna); an image becomes an icon when the name of the saint, the Mother of God, or the Savior is inscribed upon it. This name is typically depicted in the upper part, on the free field of the icon. On the newly written images in the monastery, the inscriptions are located directly upon the depiction itself, as though crossing it out. If one recalls that an icon is the very same divine word expressed through canonical images, one will see that the thirst for a miracle at any price—even of falsehood and direct deceit—is the cause and consequence of deep dogmatic corruption.
So what about the present-day miracles that have poured upon us like an ever-expanding stream in recent years? Do they fulfill the role of true miracles? Do they draw people to the Word of Truth? A paradoxical picture takes shape. In our country, the majority of people remain unbelieving, and certainly not Orthodox. One would think an unprecedented number of renewing, tear-shedding, myrrh-streaming icons—unprecedented in the entire history of the Church—should lead to all-national conversion, to crowds striving for baptism and repentance. But this does not happen. If there are isolated conversions to the faith thanks to miracles, they are very few.
This means these miracles are addressed to those already believing. But why? Do we see that through contemporary miracles the divine goal of true signs is achieved—leading to the word? Have we begun to grieve more over the trampling of Christ’s teaching by the heresy of ecumenism? Have we become morally purer, coming into the fear of God from the contemplation of miracles? Who can answer these questions positively?
It seems that those who fanatically refuse to recognize the falsity of the “relics” “acquired” by Fr. Lucian merely signify the general trend of the devaluation of miracles. A true miracle is always a free gift of the absolutely free Holy Spirit, always directed toward drawing humans to the Word of God, Who is consubstantial with Him. Occult, false miracles depend to a large degree on the arbitrariness and desire of those who thirst for such “miracles.”
Beginning last December, events continuing this terrible trend have been taking place. As described in the newspaper Radonezh No. 4 for 1999, in the Holy Vvedensky Monastery of the Ivanovo Diocese, in one of the cells, myrrh-streaming occurs on any icons brought there. By February, more than 1,000 such icons had accumulated, and by April—over 1,600!!! That is hundreds of times more than the total number of myrrh-streaming icons glorified by the Church throughout the entire history of Christianity!
Let us recall that the spiritual father and abbot of the monastery is none other than Archimandrite Ambrose Yurasov—one of the major representatives of contemporary false elderhood. So what is going on? Previously, pious people—often overcoming great difficulties, and in Soviet times often risking a great deal if it became known to the authorities—traveled to monasteries and carried away from there as a treasure a prosphora, a crumb of monastery bread, water from a holy spring. And now, arriving in comfort and safety on a “pilgrimage” bus, one brings his icon into the cell—and carries away a wonderworking image from the trip!!!
To the special sorrow of Petersburgers, we now also have such a “grace-charged” image. Having learned about the miraculous cell, the abbess of the St. John Convent, Mother Seraphima, sent thither an icon of Father John of Kronstadt. They say it “did not yield” for a long time, this icon brought indeed from a holy place—his tomb—and did not begin to myrrh-stream. But in the end, it wept—rivulets of liquid flow directly from the eyes (and from the mouth)… Why was it necessary to touch a genuine shrine—the icon of the Saint? If this were necessary, could not the Father “independently” have performed a miracle from his image? Once and for all—let us firmly remember: the guaranteed predictability of a result is invariably a property of occult, demonic influences…
In this story, the rapidity of spiritual degradation is once again striking. Only two years had passed since this same monastery and Mother Seraphima herself were able to repulse Metropolitan Vladimir Kotlyarov, who on the day of remembrance of John of Kronstadt dared to revile the saint and declare that in our time he would inevitably have been a renovationist who transitioned to the new calendar style. That incident at the time animated many and many who hoped for the possibility of delivering the Moscow Patriarchate from the falsehood of ecumenism and renovationism.
Alas, “obedience to evil,” obedience to a lying hierarchy contrary to all the commandments of Christ, cannot be limited merely to the dogmatic and moral spheres—there is always a mystical projection. Betrayal of the Spirit of Truth attracts the spirit of falsehood and seduction.
The Lord came, as the Church chants repeatedly, in order to deliver us “from speechless irrationality” (beslovesie). He restored to man the dignity of being a “word,” a “Logos”—the image of the Eternal Word. “Christianity” that has renounced Him, and “official Orthodoxy” renouncing Him in our time, returns us to this state of fallen speechlessness, wherein man is guided in his judgments and actions by darkened sentiments and carnal mindedness.
Alas, one recalls other miracles occurring in our time.
“In three years 200,000 pagans were converted to Protestantism under invariably miraculous circumstances: no one undertakes anything without precise orders from ‘voices’ and ‘angels’ that appear every now and then, usually quoting Scripture by chapters and pericopes; water is turned into wine every time a Protestant service takes place; disembodied hands appear from out of nowhere and distribute food to the hungry; a whole crowd of demons in plain sight leaves a pagan village because a ‘stronger one’ (‘Jesus’) has come to take their place; ‘christians’ keep a ‘countdown’ over an unrepentant sinner, and when they reach ‘zero,’ he dies; children are taught Protestant hymns by voices sounding from an unknown source…; 30,000 people are healed; ‘Christ’ appears in the sky and ‘falls’ upon the gathered to heal them; people are miraculously transported from place to place and walk on water; fires accompany preachers and show them the way at night, and during the day follow them and shelter them; the dead are raised” (Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Donskoy Monastery, 1992, pp. 243–244).
Are we not on the path to this abundance of false miracles? Interacting in spirit at ecumenical gatherings with Protestants, one inevitably accepts the spirit of the Antichrist animating their “charismatic movement,” which generates all these miracles.
Let us conclude our article with the stern warning of St. Ignatius:
“With the light of spiritual intelligence must the gaze of the soul’s eye be illuminated regarding signs and miracles, in order to avoid those disasters into which the view of them by carnal mindedness can draw [emphasis by compiler]… Signs, having accomplished their ministry, left their arena, leaving the essential worker to act—the Word, Who abides and will abide the worker until the end of the world, as He Himself announced concerning Himself: Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Matt. 28:20)… Meanwhile, humans, having lost reverence and respect for everything sacred, having lost humility—which recognizes itself unworthy not only to work signs, but even to see them—thirst for miracles more than ever. People, intoxicated by self-conceit, self-confidence, and ignorance, strive indiscriminately, recklessly, and boldly toward everything miraculous, not refusing to be participants themselves in the working of miracles, deciding upon this without hesitating in the least. Such a trend is more dangerous than ever before. We are approaching step by step that time in which a vast spectacle of numerous and striking false miracles must open up, to lead into perdition those unfortunate nurslings of carnal mindedness who will be seduced and deceived by these miracles.”
The 150 years that have passed since the Saint wrote these lines compel us to “correct” his words: not “approaching,” but “we have already entered”…
How can one fail to feel the delusion and terrible danger in all of this?
CONCLUSION
A long time has passed since these publications. Alas, the final question has remained rhetorical. The absolute majority of members of the Moscow Patriarchate feel no danger whatsoever. And if a certain alarm arises, it is extinguished by the thought instilled by “fathers” and “elders” that the actions of the hierarchical leadership are not subject to discussion by the laity. As is known, he who is in delusion does not feel it and worries about nothing.
The number of “wonderworking icons” belonging to Ambrose Yurasov continues to grow. The relics of the unknown person—the “Petersburg remains”—still rest in a reliquary in the monastery of Alexander of Svir, and pilgrims travel to them and venerate them. One sometimes has to hear that it cannot be that the Venerable One would allow a blasphemy to take place. But we live in a world where the Truth Herself was delivered by “pious” Pharisees to an ignominious public execution. What is surprising if Her disciples receive abuse from contemporary Pharisees? In our world, the shrine is defenseless….
2. The Struggle for the Saints
A Tale of How Certain People Utilize “Divine Providence”
The Trinity-Stephen of Makhrishch Monastery of the Vladimir Diocese is one of many returned in recent years to the Russian Orthodox Church in an almost completely ruined state. When in 1993 the first monks appeared among the ruins of the once well-appointed abode, it was hard to believe the monastery would revive. Thanks to the help of “Rosenergoatom,” it was possible to repair part of the buildings, build a boiler room… and in just a year recreate from the foundations the church of the venerable Stephen. And how much work still lies ahead!
Already now one has to think about the approaching anniversaries of the monastery—the 650th anniversary of its founding in 2003 and the 600th anniversary of the repose of the venerable Stephen in 2006.
Shortly after the revival of the monastery, Archbishop Eulogius of Vladimir decided to conduct excavations of the foundations of the Stephen Church to uncover the relics of the monastery’s founder.
For the first time, the relics of the venerable Stephen were uncovered in 1557 during the digging of foundation ditches for a new brick cathedral. At that time, by order of the church authorities, the relics were lowered back into the grave, and over them during the summer period a small church was constructed in honor of the venerable one, which subsequently became a side chapel attached to the Trinity Cathedral and shared a common wall with it. The Trinity Cathedral at the turn of the 18th–19th centuries was dismantled, and a new one constructed in its place. The Stephen Church, however, was rebuilt more than once and after the dismantling of the ancient cathedral became a freestanding structure.
Observation of the clearing of the foundations was carried out by the general design organization—the Central Scientific Restoration Design Workshops of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation (CNRPM), which held permission to conduct research from the State Center for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Vladimir Region. According to the CNRPM design, the church was subsequently recreated. Archbishop Eulogius entrusted the excavation of the burial of the venerable Stephen to Sergei Belyaev, a former employee of the Institute of Archaeology, and now a senior researcher at the Institute of World History.
After the demolition of the churches, a sports ground had been arranged in their place. The foundations of the church turned out to be almost at the surface—the layer of soil covering them did not exceed the depth of a shovel bayonet. From the preserved lower rows of the brick masonry of the church, as from a book, one could read all its construction periods.
On early 20th-century photographs and the 1847 plan, the reliquary over the relics of the venerable Stephen is shown standing in the southeastern corner of the church before the iconostasis, while on an 1886 lithography it is depicted behind the southern kliros, i.e., shifted to the west. The location of the reliquary behind the southern kliros is confirmed also by an earlier inventory of the church compiled in 1642. The fact that the reliquary was moved was also attested by the trimming of the church vault, clearly visible on old photographs. Most of the documents listed above were published and are well known to Belyaev. All this seemed to provide completely sufficient material and a very limited space for searching for the grave of the venerable Stephen.
Meanwhile, something strange happened. At the most critical moment, when a test pit (shurf) was laid in the southeastern corner of the church and in its upper layers the remains of the venerable one were not discovered, Belyaev left the monastery, abandoning the continuation of excavations to three seminarians. Arriving at the abode the next day, I found the test pit dug down to the natural subsoil (materik), at the bottom of which ancient burials had been uncovered, oriented toward the excavated foundations to the southeast, which testified to the falling of an ancient monastery cemetery beneath the church.
Upon careful study of the walls of the excavation, it was discovered that from the south the foundations of the southern wall of the 16th-century church had fallen into the excavation; from the east—a cross-digging and the wall between the chetverik [main cube] and the altar; from the north—a cross-digging from burials and repairs of the church of various times; from the west opened a clearly readable backfilling of a grave pit running along the southern wall, which testified to its emergence after the laying of the foundations. In the upper part of the backfilling, a layer of soot from a fire was visible, associated apparently with the devastation of the monastery in the Time of Troubles.
This testified that the grave of the venerable Stephen had been discovered, located right behind the southern kliros of the side chapel constructed over it in the 16th century. This was immediately reported to Vladyka Eulogius, however, blessing for further excavations was not given, after which the measured and videotaped excavation was filled in. Soon the solemn laying of the recreated church took place, and a year later its consecration was performed by Patriarch Alexy II.
In the summer of 1998, Archbishop Eulogius blessed Sergei Belyaev to begin excavations of the foundations of the second Trinity Church. Their main goal was to find the grave of the monastery’s abbot, Barlaam, who subsequently became Bishop of Suzdal and Tarusa. The location of Barlaam’s grave was known from old photos and documents. Specialists from the CNRPM were not allowed near these excavations, and all instructions of the State Center for the Protection of Monuments of the Vladimir Region on suspending excavations pending receipt of the necessary permission and open permit (otkryty list) from the Institute of Archaeology were ignored. In the course of these excavations, two 16th-century white-stone sarcophagi were discovered.
Belyaev makes a sensational announcement that he has discovered the remains of Barlaam and… the venerable Stephen. To the question of how the remains of the venerable Stephen could end up in a completely different place, located 15 meters from the reliquary, he put forward several rather strange hypotheses, including about the transfer of relics, finding absolutely no confirmation in documents. The scientist’s actions were supported by Archbishop Eulogius.
In early August 1998, a meeting of the clergy of the Vladimir Diocese took place at the monastery, attended by Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation V. I. Bragin, representatives of the scientific community, and representatives of the local administration. Belyaev delivered a report on his “discoveries,” without presenting supporting documents. Then the author of this present article took the floor, who on the basis of historical-archival research and the results of excavations proved that the relics of the venerable Stephen are in the church dedicated to him, where they were placed six centuries ago. At the request of Archbishop Eulogius, the specific place in the church where the relics rest was named.
Some clergymen pointed out Belyaev’s mistakes. How could one concentrate on excavating only a single test pit, for this is, mildly speaking, unprofessional? As a result, the meeting recommended continuing research with the involvement of forensic medical experts.
However, Archbishop Eulogius decided otherwise: science is science, but since the bones presented as the remains of Stephen have a yellow color, this undoubtedly is indeed the relics of the venerable one—such a practice of determining holiness exists on Mount Athos. Accompanied by the clergy, he went to the excavations, extracted a whole skull from the sarcophagus, and transferred it to the church for veneration.
On September 8, 1999, the bone remains in the sarcophagi were examined by a group of specialists headed by Corresponding Member of the RAS, Chief Researcher of the Research Institute and Museum of Anthropology of MSU T. I. Alekseeva. The commission wrote a conclusion on the probable translation of these remains, as a result of which Belyaev received the document so necessary to him, confirming his hypothesis about the transfer of relics.
At the request of the CNRPM, a copy of the act of examination of the bone remains was sent for the scientific archive. Specialists determined from the bone remains that the age of the burial, with all allowable stretches, does not exceed 50 years. The venerable Stephen, judging by his hagiography, died in deep old age, around 90 years old. This discrepancy of 40 years was completely ignored by Archbishop Eulogius and Sergei Belyaev. On the same day, September 8, 1999, there was another meeting of the clergy at the Makhrishch Monastery, to which outsiders were no longer invited. At it, Belyaev calmly passed off his conjectures as historical facts, reinforcing them with the commission’s act, as a result of which it was finally decided that the relics of Barlaam and Stephen had been acquired.
Meanwhile, even if we did not have a single testimony about the burial place of the venerable Stephen, one can state with complete certainty that he could not have been buried in a white-stone sarcophagus: according to the rite, tsars, princes, and higher clergy of a rank no lower than bishop were buried in them…
From the Synodikon of the Makhrishch Monastery, published in 1878, it is known that besides Barlaam, Bishop Joasaph lived in retirement in the monastery, died, and was buried there. It is likely his remains that are being passed off as the relics of the venerable Stephen.
In everything taking place, including the acquisition of the relics, Archbishop Eulogius and Sergei Belyaev see divine providence and signs…
Sergei Demidov, church historian
NG-Religiya, December 14, 2000