About The Antiochian Orthodox Church

Welcome to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. We are the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Christian Church whose roots trace directly back to first century Antioch, the city in which the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26). The Orthodox Church is the oldest and second largest Christian group in the world. We are called by God our creator to worship and follow Him, and to proclaim to the world His message of love, peace, and salvation.

God loves all mankind and desires that all human beings should believe in Him, know Him, abide in Him, and receive eternal life from Him. To accomplish this, God Himself came into the world as a man, Jesus Christ, becoming man that we might become like God. For a fuller statement of the fundamental beliefs of the Orthodox Church, read our statement of faith: The Nicene Creed.

The Antiochian Archdiocese, under the leadership of His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP Saliba, sees itself on a mission to bring America to the ancient Orthodox Christian Faith. We join our brothers and sisters in the various other Orthodox Christian jurisdictions affiliated through SCOBA (the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the Americas) — Greek, Orthodox Church in America, Romanian, Ukrainian, and more — in this endeavor. In less than 20 years the Archdiocese has doubled in size to well over 200 churches and missions throughout the United States and Canada. We welcome you to visit a parish in your area, or when you are traveling. For a list of Antiochian Orthodox parishes and how to contact them, click here: Find a Parish.

We would be delighted to answer any questions you might have about the Orthodox Christian Church. If you do not find the answers you need here (FAQ--Coming Soon), please feel free to contact our Department of Missions and Evangelism, and someone will respond to your question as soon as possible.

Helpful links:

BISHOP RAPHAEL HAWAWEENY

BISHOP RAPHAEL HAWAWEENY

Born: Beirut, Lebanon, ca. November 20, 1860, to Mikha`il and Maryam Hawaweeny; raised in the Bab Tuma Quarter of Damascus, Syria

Educated:

Ordained:

Ministry:

Writings:

Died: Brooklyn, NY, February 27, 1915

Now buried: Antiochian Village, Ligonier, PA; his incorrupt relics having been translated from the Arab section of Mount Olivet Cemetery, Brooklyn, NY (which he founded) in July of 1989.

Summary: Born in Beirut, Lebanon, and educated in Damascus Syria, Halki, Turkey, and Kiev, Russia, Raphael Hawaweeny found himself virtually exiled in Kazan, Russia, making himself of use on the faculty of the Anti-Muslim Missionary School, when he was summoned to the New World by the Syrian Orthodox Benevolent Committee in New York City. Immigrating in 1895 and serving under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Mission -- then the only established Orthodox hierarchy -- he was technically pastor of St. Nicholas Church (later Cathedral) in Brooklyn, NY, but was, in fact, the roving pastor of several dozen tiny, isolated communities spread thinly across the continent. As a priest he crossed the continent repeatedly in the course of nine years, and did so several more after being consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn -- the first such Orthodox consecration in North America -- in 1905. He established a journal, al-Kalimat, to spread "the Word" to places he could not himself be, and worked diligently at translating Greek liturgical books into Arabic. These he distributed at his own expense to communities throughout the Middle East and to émigrés in the Americas, Africa, and Australasia, greatly helped preserve Orthodox Christianity in those regions.

Bibliography:

  1. Garrett, Paul D., "The Life and Legacy of Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," The First One Hundred Years (Englewood, NJ : Antakya Press, 1995).
  2. __________., "Envoy from Antioch: the life and ministry of Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," Again (16.4), 6-9.
  3. __________., "Pascha, 1901," Word (28.4), 15-16.
  4. Issa, André, "The Life of the thrice blessed: Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny," Word 39.2 (Feb. 1995), 5-7; 39.3 (Mar. 1995), 9-11; 39.4 (Apr. 1995), 5-7 ("Bishop Raphael and Orthodox/Episcopal Relations"); 39.5 (May 1995), 9-11.

What Happened?

WHAT HAPPENED?

If, for the most part, Christians are sincerely looking to the Scriptures for answers, yet are coming up with a discordant array of interpretations, there must be some explanation. I believe there is one and only one-but before discussing it, I would like to mention two commonly held views, which though understandable in light of the current chaotic scene, I believe must be rejected at the outset.

1) Unhealthy Skepticism. Some would say Christians disagree over the proper interpretation of Scripture because there is no proper interpretation. These people would claim, "The Bible is not divinely inspired and has no unified message." Frankly, who can blame people for being skeptical? With over 22,000 different Christian denominations and sects in existence today, and with an average of five new groups appearing each week, almost all claiming to base their beliefs on the teachings of the Bible, how could it not appear to those outside the Christian Faith that the Scriptures have no unity, no underlying theme, and no divinely inspired message?

To the skeptic, the spectacle of modern Christian­ity proves that the Bible is simply another book of history, a random collection of religious writings re­flecting the sociological development of a portion of Middle Eastern culture. I obviously don't agree with that position, but in deference must admit that if I were on the outside looking in at all this chaos, I might be tempted to believe it. If you are reading this booklet as a skeptic, but one who would like to believe there is more to the message of the Bible than what you might have experienced so far, I wish to encourage you not to give up. There is more to the story-much more. Please, keep reading!

2) Unhealthy Optimism. Others would tell us that although Christians disagree over the meaning of Scripture, in the final analysis, doctrine is not really important anyway. They would look upon the current disharmony among Christians as not a weakness, but a strength-God's way of teaching us that what a person believes, or how someone interprets the Bible, is only a matter of personal, private opinion, and ultimately has little importance or bearing on one's relationship with God or fellow man. This view says, "Our respon­sibility is to make the best of whatever we have, to respect everyone else's opinion, and not to prefer our views, or anyone else's views, over our neighbor's. It doesn't really matter whether someone is Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Christian Scientist, fundamental­ist, or Unitarian. We should simply live our lives, and stop trying to find out who is `right.'” This view is incompatible with a sincere search for truth.

Looking for Answers

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS

All right, perhaps we are in agreement, at least in principle, that there is a serious crisis here. There can be no denying that the spectacle we modern Christians are presenting to the outside world bears very little resemblance to the picture of unity and oneness envi­sioned by Christ in John 17. The most sincere efforts of Christian biblical interpreters, no matter how intelli­gent, how charismatic, how gifted in biblical lan­guages, how well-loved, or how eloquent, have not been sufficient to quell the confusion that now exists. In fact, most of them have only added to this confusion in their own way. Sectarianism, liberalism, and moral decay are running rampant, and at the present rate of decline, there will likely be no resemblance whatso­ever between the Christianity we now hold, and Chris­tianity one hundred years from now. (If you have been a Christian for many years, think back to the changes which have occurred in your own church since you were a child in Sunday School!)

Okay, so where do we go from here?

What I am about to say, I say with more convic­tion and firmness of belief than I have possessed in over thirty years as a student of the Scriptures. I wish to give a two-word answer to that question which repre­sents what I unequivocally believe to be the one and only prospect for Christians who wish to return to the true message of Scripture and to understand its divine meaning. Apart from this priceless key to interpreta­tion, the fragmentation we see around us will continue unabated until finally there is nothing left of the origi­nal Christian proclamation.

What I'm about to give you is not just another opinion or idea. It is our only hope! It's called Holy Tradition.

YOU MUST BE KIDDING!

"Tradition? Isn't that something the Catholics came up with to impose a system of non-biblical, authoritarian dogmas upon people so that they wouldn't read the Bible for themselves?"

If that statement sounds anywhere close to where you are coming from, please stay with me for at least the next few pages of this booklet. There are reasons why you feel that way, and some of them are valid. But not all of them. What I am about to say is not an indictment of godly pastors, teachers, parents, or friends who in sincerity taught you and me our beliefs about tradition. I was raised in the Baptist Church and in a godly Christian home, and have the greatest respect for those who taught me and sought to be examples of how to serve God and to put Him first in life. I love them, and I thank God for them.

But they only saw a part of the picture.

HOLY TRADITION: A BAD RAP

No one can deny that there is a dangerous and dark side to tradition. It does not take a Ph.D. in biblical studies to be aware of the harsh language used in Scripture

against the legalistic and man-centered traditions of the Pharisees, or the other empty traditions filtering around during the New Testament era, against which Saint Paul warns his readers to be on guard (Colossians 2:8).

Undoubtedly some of the most harsh language in all Scripture directed toward this aspect of tradition can be found coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 15:3-9. He calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" for nullifying the commandments of God through their phony traditions, and then goes on to castigate them by quoting Isaiah's prophecy, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

What Christian in his or her right mind would want to be involved with something that received such harsh treatment from our Lord Himself!

But wait! Are we seeing the whole picture? Be­cause something can be misused and abused, does that necessarily mean it cannot possibly be used in a proper manner? Take, for instance, the Bible itself. As we will soon see, godless heretics from the earliest period of the Church's history, as well as virtually every hereti­cal cult of our own day, use or have used the Bible as their source of proof-texts. Does this mean that we should shun the Holy Scriptures as many people shun Holy Tradition, because the possibility of misuse ex­ists? I hardly think so!

To be quite honest, the Bible, while deprecating the dark side of tradition-that is, the tradition of men-speaks quite highly concerning tradition prop­erly applied. Saint Paul, who in Colossians 2:8 warns his readers against the one aspect of tradition, applauds the Corinthian believers for keeping the traditions he delivered to them concerning conduct in Church wor­ship (1 Corinthians 11:2). Elsewhere, he strongly ex­horts believers to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Further on in that same book, he applies tradition to moral conduct in a favorable light when he says, "We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

What am I trying to say? That tradition, like the Bible itself, can be perverted and twisted into some­thing unimaginably ugly and godless, if that is the intent of those who are using it. But if we as modern Christians have false preconceptions that go beyond that realization, and tell us that all tradition is evil, or that tradition is something to be avoided like the plague, we need to take a second look at Scripture itself. As we will soon see, the early Church had no such hang-ups about tradition-although Christians were most defi­nitely concerned about differentiating between Holy Tradition and the traditions of men.

The Church followed Saint Paul's instruction to Timothy, "the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). The word tradition means, literally, "to hand down."

Holy Tradition speaks of a careful passing on of cor­rect belief and worship from generation to generation. I will tip my hand before moving into the next section by saying here that if the early Church had not been able to come to grips with tradition properly applied, and if the decay of our own day and age had spun out of control in the early history of Christianity, without the safeguard of Holy Tradition to keep the Church from slipping headlong into heresy, we would not have needed a Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth cen­tury. Why? Because Christianity would have died in its infancy, wracked and torn apart by conflicting doc­trines and perversions. The Church would have blown away like dust long before Martin Luther came onto the scene. Or at best, he would have needed way more than 95 Theses to get things straightened out!

But isn't the bible sufficient by itself?

BUT ISN'T THE BIBLE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF?

Okay, how about another question, and a very valid one at that, which is often brought up in discussions about tradition. Isn't the Bible sufficient in and of itself without needing any help? What about the doctrine of sola scriptura?

To answer that question, I would like to intro­duce you to one of my favorite heroes from the Church's past. His name is Saint Vincent of Lerins, and he lived and wrote in the fifth century. Like us, he had a deep and enduring love of the Holy Scrip­tures. (Isn't it a shame we modern Christians so easily assume that we are the only ones to have an interest in God's Word?) Listen for a moment to his discussion of how to determine true doctrine:

I have often earnestly approached learned and holy men who knew Christian doctrine, asking how I can distinguish the truth of the catholic (universal) Faith from the falsehood of heresy. In almost every instance, they have told me that if I, or anyone else, want to detect heresy, avoid the traps set by heretics, and maintain the true Faith, I must, with the help of the Lord, reinforce my own belief with two things:

1) The authority of the Holy Scriptures;

2) The tradition of the Church.

At this point someone may wish to ask, "Since the canon of Scripture is complete and more than sufficient, what need is there to join the authority of the Church's interpreta­tion to it?" Good question. But there is a simple answer we all know if we think a moment: Because of the depth of the Scrip­tures, they are not interpreted in the same sense by everyone. One understands a text to mean one thing, and another thinks it means another. Sometimes it seems there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.... Consequently, because of the intricacies of all these heresies and incorrect doctrines, we must formulate our understanding of the writ­ings of the Apostles and prophets in harmony with the standards of ecclesiastical and ortho­dox interpretation. (From The Commentaries, chapter 2, paraphrased by Fr. Jack N. Sparks).

Aside from the fact that this passage is so relevant to our contemporary scene it could have been written yesterday, Saint Vincent's work is vitally important because it so perfectly summarizes the need for tradi­tion in the earlier period of the Church-earlier, that is, even than Saint Vincent. It was because of the count­less heresies seeking to pervert the Scriptures that Holy Tradition became so important!

EARLY "SCRIPTURAL" HERESIES

Let's take a few steps farther back in time, starting in the first century, and listen to just a few of the heresies which started attacking the Church from her earliest times. To understand these heresies is to understand why the Church, from its inception, placed such a high degree of emphasis upon the role of Holy Tradition.

§ In the first century, the Cerinthians, a heretical cult, taught that the world was formed out of preexis­tent matter, possibly by angels. Jesus began His life as a mere man; the divine power descended upon Him at His baptism, and left Him before the crucifixion.

§ Also in the first century, the Ebionites taught that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary. The Holy Spirit came upon Him at, but not prior to, His baptism.

§ In the second century, the Gnostics came into prominence. They taught a wide array of philosophical and pseudo-Christian doctrines, saying, among other things, that there was a distinction between the God who created matter, and the supreme and unknowable Divine Being. The world was therefore imperfect and unspiritual. True knowledge of God could only be obtained through mystical "gnosis" or knowledge.

§ Also in the second century, the Marcionites taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament. Jesus, who didn't really have a physical, human body, came to over­throw this cruel god of law and violence.

§ In the third century, the Novatians, a harsh and legalistic sect, taught, in part, that the human soul was preexistent, and that Jesus' soul was united to Jesus, the Word, somewhere in time prior to His human incarnation.

§ Also in the third century, Sabellius taught that the Godhead did not consist of three distinct Persons, but that there was only a succession of modes or operations of one Person.

§ In the fourth century, the infamous heretic Arius taught that the Son was not equal to or of the same substance as the Father.

What a mess! And that is only to name portions of the teachings of just a few early heresies. Other than the fact that some of these groups differed as to what books they believed composed the Old and New Tes­tament, do you know one thing they all had in com­mon? Just like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses of our day, they all claimed adamantly that these misbegotten views were the true teaching of Scripture!

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

Thank God, from the earliest period of the Church, going right back to the Apostles themselves, the true heroes of our Faith fought tooth and nail against such perversions. No one, not a single one of them, believed that the Bible needed additional help to somehow become God's Word. In view of the countless heresies attacking the Church from the beginning, all of them using Scripture to make their claims more palatable (in Saint Vincent's words, heretics sprinkle the perfume of heavenly language upon their doctrines, because they are "quite aware that the evil smell of their doc­trines will never be accepted if their nasty vapors are released undisguised"), it was sincere Christians who needed the help-desperately. There had to be some way to distinguish truth from error in those crucially formative years of the Church. One thing wouldn't work, for sure: letting everyone draw his own conclu­sions about what the Bible really meant!

One of the earliest and most important "yard­sticks" the early Christians used to determine precisely the core essentials of true doctrine was their baptismal formulations. What was it that catechumens coming for Christian baptism were proclaiming they believed? In the face of all that wrong doctrine, what were the essentials of the Church's saving and biblical Faith? Baptismal formulations-concise, carefully worded statements of faith (such as the Apostle's Creed, whose roots go back to the second century) -became one of the earliest forms of tradition. They were the Church's way of protecting new catechumens who came seeking salvation in Christ. Because of these baptismal creeds, the Church was able to say, "These are the essentials of apostolic teaching. This is how true Christians under­stand the Scriptures concerning vitally important points of belief. This is what you must believe to be a Chris­tian."

I simply do not have time in the course of one short booklet to go into further depth concerning the history of tradition in the early Church. However, I will say that one of the most encouraging studies I have ever embarked upon in my entire life has been to examine the teachings of men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, and Basil the Great concerning this subject. As one born "after the bomb," so to speak, someone whose only experience of biblical interpreta­tion has been that of the contemporary din of conflict­ing and contradictory opinions, this study has been like discovering a sweet oasis in the midst of a parched desert. Finally, I have found godly men who agree on the essentials of interpretation!

I will also say by way of summary that for these men, and in fact for all the great heroes of the early Church, the Scriptures were never looked upon as something to be stripped away and interpreted in isola­tion from the Church. That is what the heretics did. For early Christians, the Bible was most naturally under­stood in the context of the Church, that community of believers, both living and departed, who believed, taught, and, most importantly, worshiped in accor­dance with what the Apostles had received from the Lord Himself. For early Christians, that kind of faith­ful tradition, that "Rule of Faith," was the interpreta­tion of Scripture.

The Make-Up Of Tradition

THE MAKE-UP OF TRADITION

The most important aspect of Holy Tradition, the New Testament, was still in its developmental stage through­out the entire period of the first century. The Holy Scriptures, God's infallible and unerring word deliv­ered through the Apostles, stand alone and without rival. Orthodox theologian Bishop Kallistos Ware speaks for all Christendom when he says, "The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to man."

People from my evangelical background have bent over backwards to "hold fast" to this vital facet of Holy Tradition. A person could not consider himself to be evangelical if he did not read the Scriptures regu­larly, attend a Bible-believing Church where the Scrip­tures were both preached and practiced, and spend time meditating upon the message of Holy Writ.

And who among the early Fathers would disagree with that sentiment? Saint Jerome wrote that "igno­rance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Saint Athanasius called those who neglect the Scriptures "worthy of utmost condemnation." And Saint John Chrysostom said that not knowing the Scriptures is "the cause of all evils."

But tragically, somewhere in the white-heat inten­sity of the "Battle for the Bible," many Christians have entirely overlooked the rest of Holy Tradition. Indeed, to badly misquote a verse in Acts, many evangelicals today would say in all honesty, "We have not even heard whether there is such a thing as Holy Tradition."

Besides the Scriptures, I've already mentioned one other important aspect of Holy Tradition, the early baptismal formulations. What are some of the other elements of tradition?

1) Councils and Creeds. As the Church grew and matured, the need often arose for local, regional, and even ecumenical-universal-gatherings of orthodox pastors, bishops, theologians, and godly leaders, to establish true biblical and historical doctrine in answer to heretical claims of the day. They gathered to decide, again with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what the Bible really taught about those issues. And to make sure that their decisions were really biblical, they made extreme efforts to follow the consistent teaching of the godly faithful who had gone before. By far the most important of the creeds coming out of these councils is the Nicene Creed (or more technically, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), which is recited at every celebration of the Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. It states the absolute essentials of Christian Faith and belief as understood by the unified early Church.

2) The Liturgical Life of the Church. It is fascinating to read a later Church Father, Saint Basil (fourth century), as he defends biblical Orthodoxy against the pseudo-Biblicism of the Arians, who were masters at twisting Scripture. Of course, Saint Basil reasons from Scripture. But knowing the craftiness of his enemies, and how treacherous they were at proof­-texting their absurd teachings, Saint Basil also invokes another powerful witness to, in this case, the true teaching concerning the Holy Spirit: the liturgical formulations-the patterns of worship-of the Church from her inception. "Do you want to know what Chris­tians believe about something?" to paraphrase Saint Basil's argument. "Take a look at what they do and proclaim in their worship." When you stop to think about it, isn't it not only logical, but even a matter of piety, to believe that the same Holy Spirit who guided the writers of Scripture should also guide the Church in the development of her worship? The Church's liturgical and prayer life is a powerful element of Holy Tradition.

3) The Teaching of the Fathers and Lives of the Saints. I have never witnessed a martyr being tortured and killed for his or her faith. The early Church, however, had abundant opportunity to witness such spectacles. Is it any wonder that the writings of these martyrs, along with the writings of those who "fought the good fight" to the finish, who maintained true belief while others fell away, were looked upon with reverence and respect? Evangelicals today look to and trust respected Church leaders of our own era for sound Bible teaching and worthwhile instruction and edification. Why is it so difficult to give that kind of respect and honor to early heroes of the Faith-men and women who started, and finished the race? I wish that more of our "modern heroes" would do what all early Fathers and saints did to warrant the respect and admiration of their followers: make absolutely sure that what they are teaching squares with what faithful Christians have believed throughout the years. To be a "hero" to someone, and to teach new and radically differing doctrine in the guise that this is what "the Bible says," is a cruel deception and a lie. G. K. Ches­terton defined tradition as "giving your ancestors a vote."

4) Continuing Tradition. Also included under the banner of tradition could be mentioned, with vary­ing degrees of importance and universality: the deci­sions of later councils, canon law, and finally the iconographic tradition of the Church. In fact, one of the most exciting things about tradition is that it never stops or remains static. Tradition is the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We do not simply observe tradition, we enter into it, are swept up by it, and in the process become a part of its ebb and flow.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

For early Christians, there was no false dichotomy such as we see today between the Bible and Holy Tradition. In the intensity of unimaginably crucial battles for the Faith, when forces within and without were threatening to tear apart and silence forever the message proclaimed by Christ and passed down through His disciples, the Church looked gratefully to both Scripture and Holy Tradition to find balance and to maintain equilibrium. It was never an "either/or" op­tion. Both Scripture and Holy Tradition were received as having been given to the Church by God Himself, the source of all wisdom, through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

The battles of our own era are no less fierce than those of the Church's early history. In the midst of a fragmented and hopelessly divided Christian procla­mation of the early twenty-first century, with a myriad of groups and individuals claiming to know the true meaning of Scripture, yet disagreeing radically with one another and often proclaiming new and danger­ously novel doctrines, the battle for faith is, in fact, intensifying on a daily basis. What will be the outcome of this tremendous struggle?

Thank God, there is still time for a return to the balanced and Spirit-filled understanding of the Holy Scriptures, as guided by the light of Holy Tradition. If we are willing to lay aside our modern prejudices and return to the consistent and clear message of the Bible, understood through the clarifying lens of Holy Tradi­tion, our chances of surviving the current crisis in­crease tremendously. In fact, the very gates of hell will not prevail against us.

As the Bible says, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work" (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17).

And God's people answered: AMEN!

History, More Detail

THE PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH

The city of Antioch on-the-Orontes was the most important city of the Roman Province of Syria, and, as such, served as the capital city of the Empire's civil "Diocese of the East." The Church in Antioch dates back to the days of the foremost apostles, SS. Peter and Paul, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Scripture refers to Antioch as the place where the followers of Jesus Christ were first called "Christians" (Acts 11.26), and records that Nicholas, one of the original seven deacons, was from that city -- and may have been its first convert (Acts 6.5). During the persecution of the Church which followed the death of St. Stephen the Proto-Martyr, members of the infant community in Jerusalem sought refuge in Antioch (Acts 11.19), and while St. Peter served as the first bishop of the city, SS. Paul and Barnabas set out on their great missionary journeys to Gentile lands (Acts 13.1) -- establishing a tradition which would last for centuries, as from Antioch missionaries planted churches throughout greater Syria, Asia Minor, the Caucasus Mountains, and Mesopotamia.

At the first Ecumenical Council , convened in the city of Nicaea in the year 325 by Emperor Constantine the Great, the primacy of the bishop of Antioch over all bishops of the civil Diocese of the East was formally sanctioned.

Following the third Ecumenical Council , held in Ephesus in the year 431, the first of several divisions occurred in the Patriarchate of Antioch. The followers of Nestorius disputed the council's definition of the nature of Christ, and formed a separate, parallel hierarchy. Most Nestorians lived outside the Byzantine Empire in Persia, today known as Iran.

At the fourth Ecumenical Council , held in Chalcedon in the year 451, the Bishop of Antioch was "promoted" to the rank of "Patriarch". Thereafter, continuing disputes about the nature of Christ caused another portion of the ancient Patriarchate to separate, forming a hierarchy often referred to as the "Jacobites" after their theological leader, Jacob Baradai. Today they are usually known as the "Syrian Orthodox Church". They are a member of the Oriental Orthodox family of churches. The Orthodox were termed "Melkites" -- meaning followers of the [Byzantine] Emperor.

From the seventh century onward , many Christians living in isolation on Mount Lebanon identified themselves with the Monk Marun, and came to organize another separate hierarchy, the Maronites . In the twelfth century the Maronites became the first part of the Patriarchate to unite with Rome.

The "Great Schism" of 1054 resulted in the separation of Rome, seat of the Patriarchate of the West, from the four Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In 1724 a portion of the Orthodox Patriarchate vowed allegiance to Rome and appropriated for themselves exclusively the ancient name "Melkite" , joining the family of "Greek-Catholic" or "Uniate" churches. The Orthodox continued to be known as the "Greek-Orthodox" -- or "Rum" in Arabic.

During the reign of the Egyptian Mamelukes, conquerors of Syria in the 13th century, the Patriarchal residence was transferred to the ancient city of Damascus , where a Christian community had flourished since apostolic times (Acts 9), and which had succeeded earthquake-prone Antioch as the civil capital of Syria. The Patriarchate has jurisdiction over all dioceses within its ancient geographic boundaries (Syria and Lebanon) as well as others in the Americas, Australia, and Western Europe. Its headquarters is located in Damascus on the "Street called Straight" (Acts 9.11).

 

THE ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA

In the late 19th century , events in their homelands forced Antiochian Christians to join the ranks of Europeans who emigrated to other parts of the world. The spiritual needs of those who settled in North America were first met through the "Syro-Arabian Mission" of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has had a presence in North America since 1794. in 1895, a "Syrian Orthodox Benevolent Society" was organized by Antiochian immigrants in New York City, with Dr. Ibrahim Arbeely, a prominent Damascene physician, serving as its first president. Conscious of the needs of his fellow countrymen and co-religionists, Dr. Arbeely wrote to Raphael Hawaweeny , a young Damascene clergyman serving as Professor of the Arabic Language at the Orthodox Theological Academy in Kazan, Russia, inviting him to come to New York to organize and pastor the first Arabic-speaking parish on the continent. Fr. Raphael, a missionary at heart, went to the imperial capital of St. Petersburg to meet with His Grace, Nicholas, ruling bishop of the Russian Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, who was then in Russia to recruit new missionaries. After being canonically received under the omophorion of Bishop NICHOLAS, Father Hawaweeny arrived in the United States on November 17, 1895.

Upon his arrival in New York, Archimandrite Raphael established a parish at 77 Washington Street in lower Manhattan, at the center of the Syrian immigrant community. By 1900, approximately 3,000 of these immigrants had moved across the East River, shifting the community center to Brooklyn. Accordingly, in 1902, the parish purchased a larger church building in that borough, at 301-303 Pacific Street. The Church, assigned to the heavenly patronage of St. Nicholas, the Wonderworker of Myra in Lycia, was renovated for Orthodox worship and consecrated on October 27, 1902, by NICHOLAS' successor, Archbishop TIKHON . St. Nicholas Cathedral later relocated to 355 State Street, Brooklyn, and is today considered the "mother parish" of the Archdiocese.

At the request of Archbishop TIKHON, Hawaweeny was elected to serve as his vicar bishop, to head the Syro-Arabian Mission. His consecration as "Bishop of Brooklyn" took place at St. Nicholas Church on Pacific Street on March 12, 1904. Bishop RAPHAEL thus became the first Orthodox bishop of any nationality to be consecrated in North America. He crisscrossed the United States and Canada, and even ventured deep into Mexico, visiting his scattered flock and gathering them into parish communities. He founded al-Kalimat [The Word] magazine in 1905, and published many liturgical books in Arabic for use in his parishes, in the Middle East, and in emigration around the world. After a brief but very fruitful ministry, Bishop RAPHAEL fell asleep in Christ on February 27, 1915, at the age of fifty-four. Not long afterwards, the tragedy of the First World War and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia brought financial and administrative ruin to the Orthodox churches in North America, and shattered the measure of unity they had enjoyed. Movements arose in every ethnic group to divide it into ecclesiastical factions. Deprived of its beloved founded and bishop, the small Syro-Arabian Mission fell victim to this divisiveness, and it would take sixty years from the death of Bishop RAPHAEL -- in June of 1975 -- for total jurisdictional and administrative unity to be restored to the children of Antioch in North America. Some communities desired to remain under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church, while others opted to be received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The hierarchs of that period were: Metropolitan GERMANOS (Shehadi), Archbishop AFTIMIOS (Ofiesh), Archbishop VICTOR (Abo-Assaley), and Bishop EMMANUEL (Abo-Hatab). By 1936, all of the parishes were in one or two Antiochian archdioceses -- the Archdiocese of New York, headed by Metropolitan ANTONY (Bashir) , and the Archdiocese of Toledo, Ohio, and Dependencies, headed by Metropolitan SAMUEL (David).

A pioneer in the use of the English language in the Orthodox churches in the New World, the Antiochian Archdiocese has since 1917 kept in print and available Isabel Hapgood's pioneering English Service Book ; it printed the first English music books for choirs in the 1920s; and its Father Seraphim Nassar produced in 1938 the first - and still the only - comprehensive collection of texts needed for the chanting of complete services in English (The Book of Divine Prayers and Services). A full-fledged publishing department was established in 1940, and it has produced and distributed numerous titles in religious education sacred music, and liturgical services. Thousands of people of various ethnic and racial backgrounds have "come home" to the Orthodox Church and have found a spiritual home in the parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese, joining with Americans and Canadians of Middle Eastern descent to make the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America a vibrant witness for Christ and his Church.

The New Future

On June 24, 1975, Metropolitan PHILIP (Saliba) succeeded Antony Bashir in 1966. Together with his counterpart in the Antiochian Archdiocese of Toledo, Ohio, and Dependencies, Metropolitan MICHAEL (Shaheen), he signed Articles of Reunification restoring administrative unity among all Antiochian Orthodox Christians in the United States and Canada. This document was presented to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate, which ratified the contents on August 19, 1975, recognizing PHILIP as Metropolitan-Primate and MICHAEL as Auxiliary-Archbishop. Archbishop MICHAEL fell asleep in the Lord on October 24, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  V.Rev. Antony Gabriel, "A Retrospective: one hundred years of Antiochian Orthodox Christianity in North America," in The First one hundred years: a centennial anthology celebrating Antiochian Orthodoxy in North America (Englewood, NJ: Antakya Press, 1995), pp. 237-286.
  Garrett, Paul D., "Eastern Christianity," Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience (New York, Scribner's), I:325-344 -- an extended treatment of the broader historical context of Orthodoxy in North America.
  Fitzgerald, Thomas, The Orthodox Church (Denominations in America, 7) (Westport, CT : Greenwood Press, 1995) -- the first full-length study of Orthodoxy in America.

METROPOLITAN ANTONY (BASHIR)

Born: Douma, Lebanon, March 15, 1898, to Joseph and Zaina Bashir

Educated:

Ordained:

Ministry:

Writings:

TIKHON, SAINT, ENLIGHTENER OF AMERICA

Born: Vasilii Vasil'evich Belavin in Toropets, Pskov Territory (Russia), on Jan. 19, 1865 (O.S.), third son of the priest Vasilii Ivanovich Belavin.

Education:

Ordinations:

Service:

Died: Apr. 27, 1925 (O.S.)

BIOGRAPHY

The Preparation

From an early age his father dreamt of his future greatness; he entered the theological academy a year younger than normal, and was affectionately nicknamed "the Patriarch" by his colleagues. Outwardly serious, he liked to joke all the time. He was a popular boy, humble, pious, kind, warm, respectful, unaffected, gentle, simple, witty, and always willing to help others with their lessons. He was appointed Librarian of the Student Collection, and took a active part in all areas of student life, while shunning the temptations of youth. "Among his comrades he enjoyed an indisputable authority. His comrades valued his natural intelligence, goodness, and kindness," and were unwittingly drawn to him. He completed his program at age 23, in 1888, still a laymen -- a rarity in those days -- as a Candidate, enjoying the right to receive the degree of Master of Theology without having to take additional oral examination -- and returned to home to Pskov.

In the Pskov Seminary he taught dogmatics and moral theology for three years, giving "friendly attention to the needs of the pupils and his helpful support in their conflicts with the authorities" -- rare in a day of "cold formalism," and living very simply in the mezzanine of a wooden house near Nikola Sousokha Church, in a very friendly atmosphere. There, he was accepted as an "authority even among those who not so long ago had known him as a student." All were sad when, at age 26 in 1891, he finally petitioned Bp. Germogen to receive monastic tonsure and moved away. In the Seminary Chapel "he professed himself with full consciousness and determination, entered on the new life, evidently considering himself not disposed for family duties and desiring to consecrate himself entirely to the service of the Church."

In March of 1892 he was transfered to the Chelm Seminary as superintendent. In May he briefly became rector of the Kazan Theological School, then, already an archimandrite, returned in June to Chelm as rector, and exhibited great administrative abilities, tact learned by experience, and an easy disposition and charm. He improved the students' discipline and living conditions, and introduced daily liturgical services for them. During Advent and Lent he preached ethnical sermons to them in the Church of St. Theodosius of Chernigov He also assumed wider responsibilities in the Archdiocese of Chelm/Warsaw: as personal assistant to Abp. Flavian, Dean of Monasteries, President of the Chelm division of the Diocesan School Council, President of the Orthodox Brotherhood, Censor for the Brotherhood's publications, and led "a many-sided and fruitful ministry," thanks to his "great abilities and nobility of soul." His "gentle, unprovocative ways," also helped him work among the majority Polish Catholic population in a region torn away into the Unia 300 years before and partially reclaimed for Orthodoxy a mere quarter-century previously.

His reputation grew steadily in the diocese, to the point that late in 1896, Abp. Flavian nominated him for the newly-vacant Vicarate of Lublin. Since Tikhon had not yet quite attained the canonical age of 33, the Holy Synod refused, and the archbishop went without help until the archimandrite's birthday, when he again petitioned the Synod. On Oct. 19, 1897 (O.S.) he was consecrated to the holy episcopacy. Lifting the banner of Orthodoxy and Russian ethnicity, he steadily gained a reputation as a respected peacemaker and unifier, not prone to using force but issuing "a gracious call from his kind heart, and helping hand, and happiness." He celebrated solemnly on Sundays and feastdays, and Saturday services before the beloved wonderworking Our Lady of Chelm icon. In eleven months as bishop, he made over 120 pastoral visits, preaching every time, always before a large congregation.

When word came of his appointment on Sept. 14, 1898 (O.S.), to the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska -- in actuality, all of North America -- tears flowed in Chelm in abundance; even Abp. Flavian's successor, Ieronim, is said to have wept publicly when informed that he was losing such an effective assistant. Crowds even larger than normal flocked to his final services, and many delegations appeared to pay their respects. "Even the Jews," records his archdeacon, "were amazed at why they would take from Chelm 'such a good Bishop.'" There was, however, considerable wisdom in the Holy Synod's decision, for the vast majority of the Orthodox flock in America shared the same background as the faithful of Chelm among whom he had enjoyed such great success. For the movement from Unia to Orthodoxy to continue, a leader of Tikhon's proven abilities was clearly required.

For his farewell liturgy in the Chelm Archdiocese, celebrated on Oct. 11th, concelebrated with priests from across the region; at the end of his farewell talk, he bowed to the earth, asking forgiveness, and the people wept aloud. In the evening after boarding a train for St. Petersburg, distraut people from all walks of life sought to block his departure by lying down on the tracks; when he begged them to let him depart in peace, they sorrowfully obeyed. The bishop stopped en route in Pskov to visit his former colleagues, and in Klin to see his mother and kinsfolk. He spent Oct. 26-Nov. 15 in the northern capital, preparing for his new ministry, speaking with anyone who might be able to teach him something about his new flock. He learned that he was succeeding a very popular hierarch, who had turned around a failing enterprise and given optimism to his flock.

Career in North America.

The American Mission was rapidly expanding, while Russian Government funds supporting it were remaining static. He would need to grow into a very delicate role as the de facto representative of all of Eastern Orthodoxy in the New World, at a time when that Church was attracting the attention of many denominations seeking rapprochement and friendship. Simultaneously, he would be viewed as the representative of Holy Russia (despite the presence of a formal diplomatic corps), the "icon," as it were, of the friendly relations which had traditionally existed between the two peoples from the time of the Civil War and the amicable sale of Alaska in 1867. He would have to weigh his every word and action for their potential effect. Indeed, filling the shoes of Bp. Nicholas' shoes would be a formidable task for the young hierarch.
At 8:15 P.M. on Nov. 15, 1898, Bp. Tikhon, filled with anxiety, boarded a train bound for Warsaw. The Assistant Ober Procurator, K. Sabler, Academy Professor P. I. Zhukovich, A. P. Lopukhin, I. S. Pal'mov, and other former colleagues -- diocesan clergy, seminary professors, and students -- were hand at the station to see him off; of each he asked forgiveness and to each he gave his blessing. The bishop's younger brother, Mikhail Belavin, who would serve as his personal secretary, and two cantors, Venedikt Ieronimovich Turkevich and N. F. Grivskii (who had come over from San Francisco as an escort), accompanied him to his new post in the New World. Their route took them through Verzhbolobo, Eidkunen, Berlin, Paris, and La Havre. In Berlin, he met with the V.Rev. A. P. Mal'tsev of the Embassy Church and the diplomatic staff; he did likewise in Paris, celebrating vigil for the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. The Champagne sailed at noontime, on what was destined to be a smooth passage.

The Russian party docked in New York on Nov. 30/Dec. 12th, but was forced by statutes to spend the first night in quarantine, and a large crowd of clergy and laity returned home in considerable disappointment. The Orthodox faithful of North America were most anxious to size up this new hierarch whose task was truly formidable. Early next morning the Arab Orthodox of the Greater New York Area were prominent in the crowd at the foot of the gangplank. Following short words of welcome by the Russian General Consul V. A. Teplov, and Mr. Peters, heading a delegation of intellectuals from the newspaper Russkaia Beseda, one of their poets offered an Arabic panegyric to their new "Sayedna," which their pastor, Archimandrite Raphael Hawaweeny rendered into Russian for his benefit. At the conclusion of his translation, Fr. Raphael, with Fr. Ephrem, and Archimandrite Anatolii (late of Sitka), escorted Bp. Tikhon into Manhattan to the Russian Cathedral for a prayer service of thanksgiving. The apprehension over this transition was present, if diplomatically veiled, in the official welcoming speech next morning, delivered by the Cathedral Dean, Fr. Alexander Hotovitzky:

You have now put your episcopal hand on the rudder ... O Master! There are many wild branches in the vineyard which the Lord has made your lot: childish whims and the stubborness of human hearts -- and the whims of children who lack their father's kindness ... Fatithlessness preys on the people's hearts here; our brothers, secluded by the heterodox milieu and oppressed by need, have fallen here, members of the holy Church. The Uniate hosts are blinded and scorn truth and veracity; for them, Orthodoxy is hateful! ... And in Alaska, there are the fervent tears of the unfairly-treated Orthodox sons of our Church! ... A difficult and sorrowful path, but is it not with such that the battle you will get your satisfaction? The Lord, who cares for all will not leave your zeal, love, cares in vain, but will allow us to see the moment when your flock will, in retun, for the care you show it, call your name blessed. Then the Lord who cares for all will accept their prayers, and, in return for the moments and spiritual difficulties and physical ills, will crown you with a heavenly reward ... where the labors are great, the crown is great too! May the Lord give you strength in this new apostolic labor!

Following an enthusiastic response: "'May Thy Kingdom come!' That is, may Orthodoxy spread in this land of religious freedom to which those enslaved in false obedience to the Pope in the Old Country are constantly streaming; our common task is to allow 'the inner powers of our soul to go out to meet God's mercy!'" -- Fr. Raphael stated the question most clearly. Speaking on behalf of "the whole twenty-thousand Orthodox Syro-Arab colony, both in New York and the whole United States," he dutifully pledged the community's complete loyalty, then asked that, in return, His Grace "continue to show all of us Orthodox Syro-Arabs who live within your divinely-protected Diocese, the same maternal love, paternal care, and archpastoral attention that your Most Reverend predecessor showed us..." Responding in equally concrete terms, Bp. Tikhon vowed that he would be "equally well-disposed to all Orthodox of whatever nationality, for Orthodoxy is catholic; if in Russia we do not experience that catholicity, so to speak, it is because all Orthodox there are Russians. But here, outside of Russia, where under the roof of an Orthodox Church the Russian, the Greek, the Arab, etc., are all straining equally -- the concept of catholicity is fully clear for us." Then blessing the congregation, he departed for the rectory for a joyous, festive tea, and to receive representatives of the brotherhoods, the parishes, and a few Americans. The new hierarch made a very good impression. Next day he received such notable clergymen as Frs. Alexis Toth, M. Balog, and Gr. Grushka.

On his first full morning "on the job," Bp. Tikhon celebrated his first Divine Liturgy in the makeshift Russian cathedral and ordained a deacon to serve there, making up for Bp. Nikolai's strange thriftiness in making do without one (in the Russian ritual, a hierarchical liturgy without one or more deacons is virtually unthinkable -- if not, indeed, "undoable"). Preaching on the pericope of the Pharisees who withhold the keys of the kingdom to those desirous of entering, he warned that the Russians, without becoming proud, must realize that God will judged them if they fail to proclaim the truth of Orthodoxy to those in the country where they now lived who find themselves, unknowingly, lost in errors. Zeal, he declared, is absolutely required of New World Orthodox Christians. Next morning he demonstrated his determination to serve all Orthodox equally, by celebrating his second Liturgy in the St. Nicholas Syro-Arab Church, where he ordained another deacon. Having ministered to the largest Orthodox community in the major port of entry for all immigrant groups, Bp. Tikhon, accompanied by Fr. Hotovitzky, set out on a cross-country tour which would end at his San Francisco See. As he left New York, the bishop's left the distinct impression among clergy and laity alike that Providence had sent them a man who would not seek his own good, but would continue and build upon all the good which Bp. Nikolai had done, that the Orthodox Church in America would, as they had hoped but scarcely dared to believe, go "from glory to glory."

After touring Washington, DC, he crossed Pennsylvania on Saturday, celebrated Liturgy in Allegheny and ordaining a local man to priesthood, then visiting with clergy gathered from as far away as Osceola and Cleveland. In Chicago Monday morning, he spent a few hours at the church, visiting with Fr. John Kochurov, whose relatives he had met in Russia, then proceeded fairly swiftly and directly for the coast. From the ambo in San Francisco's Holy Trinity Cathedral, where he arrived on Dec. 11/23rd, Bp. Tikhon sounded he major theme of his episcopacy. Citing Hos. 2.23, "a people not my people," he discussed the relationship of bishop to people in biblical and patristic terms -- as the marital relationship between husband and wife. He invited the clergy to serve as his advisors and the people to make full use of their gifts as members of the Body of Christ. The immediate impression was the happy, if disarming, one of a completely atypical Russian prelate, most unpompous and completely unpretentious . In his office, Bp. Tikhon spoke simply and with humor and tact. He reproved lovingly and with a disarming air of jocularity. He was utterly simple and genuinely friendly. People responded to him with undisguised love. He was accessible and responsive to the people's needs, meticulous about details, yet able to grasp "the big picture." Anything that could be blessed he blessed -- and as expeditiously as possible. He needed this, for difficult steps were clearly required if the Diocese were to be stabilized. No longer anyone's assistant, but with the "buck stopping on his desk," he rapidly matured into a most able administrator under very touchy circumstances. Above all, he had to inspire the often parsimonious parishioners shoulder responsibility for their own churches, to be weaned from their accustomed subsidies. This meant countering unrelenting Uniate propaganda that the "Moskaly" were richly endowed, whereas in fact, available funding fell fall short of allowing anyone -- much less everyone -- a "free ride." The formation of new missions, almost always the result of mass defections from the Unia, might well have been expected to slow if subsidies were cut and made contingent upon the parishioners' pledge of adequate financial support for their pastor -- but, in fact, this policy succeeded in rallying the converts, gave them a sense of belonging and responsibility. This, in turn made it possible to ask that they share responsibility for the upkeep of institutions outside their local parish which served the larger needs of the entire Mission -- the Seminary in Minneapolis, the proposed Monastery, and the Cathedral in New York City. The exceedingly hard nut of parochialism was successfully cracked, and naturally-divisive people learned to live together in peace and agreement.

The year 1899 was very full for the new bishop. From late April through early June, he crisscrossed the continent, becoming acquainted with eighteen communities. In Minneapolis he spent time with his seminarians. He held conferences with the clergy. He presided at a convention of the Russian Brotherhoods Organization, and enjoined them to practice true brotherhood. Returning to New York May 20-22, he celebrated with the Syro-Arabs even before his own Russians. En route to Galveston, TX, on the return leg west, Tikhon made the best of a layover in Houston, to invite representative of the small colony of Christian Arabs to discuss their spiritual needs with him. Before leaving the bishop's quarters late at night, a poet delivered a florid, impromptu poem expressing his people's "profound love for the Archpastor of all Orthodox" in America. Late June through early September, he dedicated to a 9,637-mile visitation of the largest and most accessible settlements in seaboard Alaska. In Sitka's St. Michael Cathedral, he communed with the spirit of his great predecessor, Abp. Innocent Veniaminov, venerating the altar cross with which he had blessed the faithful, celebrating on the antimension which he had signed, standing on the eagle run which his daughter Polyxenia had woven with her own hands. Making a point of visiting the Serbian community in Jackson, CA, he was welcomed by Fr. Sebastian Dabovich, the first American-born Orthodox priest, with the following words: "May you and this little-cultivated field enjoy forever that blessing of the Apostles, the success of the great Hellenic hierarchs, the power of the Syrian martyrs, the prayers of the Russian monks, and with them, the Serbian miracle-worker, Bishop Savva. Amen." In December he again headed east to celebrate the holidays in New York and to inspect final plans for the building churches there and in Chicago. On the day after Christmas he honored Archimandrite Raphael's request and ordained Michael Husan to the diaconate and assigned him to the Lowell, MA, church; on the eve of his departure west, he stood as godfather for a Syrian baby.

Following his first full year in America, Bp. Tikhon settled into a more realistic, somewhat less-taxing, if not perfectly-balanced schedule of alternate-year visitations to Alaska on the one hand and the rest of the Mission on the other. Holy Week and Pascha were kept in his cathedral, then it was time to travel. In May of 1900, he set sail for Alaska for 78 days, becoming the first bishop in fifty-five years to penetrate some parts of its vast hinterland. Of much of his 7,300-mile trip, an Alaskan veteran wrote: "The inconveniences of travel in this region often oppress even the local people who are used to them. How much more difficult must our travels have been for the Bishop, a novice. But not only did the Bishop never express fatigue or inconvenience, he even inspired cheerfulness in us by his good-natured attitude toward the various inconveniences." Aliutukhta, as the Natives called him, treated them as though they were his own children, at with them and like them from a common pot, taught them, offered them gifts, administered medicine as he visited the sick, and most memorably celebrated spectacular services for them. In the spring of 1901 he rode the far more comfortable rails east, the highlight of which was the blessing of the cornerstone for the new St. Nicholas Cathedral. Increasingly he became an apologist for the Orthodox faith, countering false claims by the Uniates, even as he consecrated newly-built and renovated churches for those who had left the Roman ranks. He spent a good deal of time in the Greater Pittsburgh Area which was rapidly expanding as a center of Orthodoxy; Galician Uniates were returning to the ancestral faith in large numbers, Serbs and Arabs were requesting pastors. In May the Allegheny Syro-Arabs held a dinner in his honor; the bishop repaid their hospitality by giving each a flower along with his blessing. In August, after consecrating the Pan-Orthodox church in Seattle in a mixture of English, Greek, and Church Slavic, he first crossed the border into Canada. Despite serious leg injuries sustained in a buggy accident in the prairies, he boarded ship in September for a brief sortie to Sitka, knowing that in 1902 he would have to attend to East coast matters.

By 1902 Bp. Tikhon was more than ever convinced that San Francisco must yield to New York as the diocesan see. Work began on providing him a permanent residence in the city. Construction of St. Nicholas Cathedral had not met the contract deadline following a rugged winter, so the planned consecration was postponed until fall, and the neighboring parishes received a far larger portion of their bishop's time than anticipated. Diocesan matters in the East continued pressing, so for the first time in history, hierarchical services were celebrated in and around New York during the early part of Great Lent. During the second week of Lent Fr. Raphael and his fellow clergy were pleased to meet and welcome into their midst Fr. Alexander Nemolovsky, a man destined to play an important part in their lives within several decades, newly-arrived from Russia via Bremen on March 2nd, and got to know him a bit before he set off on March 27th for his first assignment in Catasaqua, PA. On the second Sunday in Lent, Bp. Tikhon visited his Syro-Arab flock in Brooklyn. Fr. Raphael just returned from Mexico, reported on the status of the church building fund which, despite successful collections across the country, still fell short to begin work. Fr.Raphael joined the bishop's entourage for a trip to the Philadelphia Shipyards, where Tikhon blessed the newly-completed Russian warship Retvizan, whose crew had been most generous to the American Mission during the five years of construction.

Returning to New York -- and his new apartment on E. 97th St. -- in the autumn of 1902, Bp. Tikhon consecrated two St. Nicholas Churches, the first, a renovated building at 299 Pacific St. in Brooklyn for the Syro-Arabs on Sunday, Oct. 27, 1902, and the second, the long-delayed future cathedral, for the Russians, on Nov. 10th. To Fr. Raphael's flock he said:

We rejoice because we are your brothers in faith. We have with you one Lord, one faith, one system of sacraments, and, here in America, one hierarchical principle. We rejoice also because, just as in your homeland of Syria, the Russian people cooperate with you in preserving your faith and nationality, so too, here, we have helped in building your church. Here is a donation from our most pious Emperor, and a mite from the spiritual authorities and local Russian people. Therefore your church is near and dear to us as well. Let today's celebration of consecration bring us even closer together and bind us with the unbreakable bonds of faith and love for Christ Jesus, to the greater glory of the Orthodox Church and to our common good.

News of the sudden death of his brother Michael in San Francisco on Dec. 16th rapidly changed his plans. He would return to San Francisco for a month, then spend Lent and Easter on the East coast, and attend to the remaining scheduled church consecrations. He petitioned the Holy Synod for a leave-of-absence to accompany his brother's body home for burial, to comfort his aged and now grieving mother in Toropets (she soon afterwards died), and to conduct some official business (including participation in the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov). Permission arrived on Feb. 24, 1903, the Holy Synod granted Bp. Tikhon . En route to New York, he consecrated, doubtless with a sense of relief after interminable planning and one year of actual construction, the Chicago Russians' magnificent church building. and the bishop with a sense of relief consecrated it. In May, he accepted back into the fold of Orthodoxy the Uniate community in Mayfield, PA, a community very soon destined to prove pivotal in an event of surpassing importance for the entire Mission -- the acquisition of farmland on which to establish St. Tikhon's Monastery. On May 13th he boarded the S.S. Gascogne, leaving behind a melancholy flock. As one priest wrote:

In him we had a Guardian Angel, protecting and encouraging us in the darkest moments when the ignorance of the people whom we were called upon to save, and the continuous intrigues of the enemies of Orthodoxy contrived to dash our brightest hopes and to frustrate our efforts -- it was such a comfort to know that in difficult moments, our leader was with us.

In July they were further disheartened to learn that Bp. Tikhon had been elected to membership in the Holy Synod, which obliged him to spend the next full year in St. Petersburg. Pride in their honor bestowed on their bishop could not offset fears for their own future, a numerous telegrams were dispatched across the Atlantic, entreating he authorities some day soon to send him back. While serving for eight months on the Synod, Bp. Tikhon did not abandon his distant flock. On Dec. 14, 1903, he served as chief celebrant in the consecration of Archimandrite Innocent (Pustynsky) as Vicar of Alaska, and secured permission to consecrate Archimandrite Raphael (Hawaweeny) as Vicar of Brooklyn and the Syro-Arab Mission. That act would be performed upon his return to New York. In August, the bishop proposed to the clergy that they undertake expansion of the Minneapolis Seminary.

On the first Sunday after his returning on Jan. 11, 1904, he declared:

I have placed myself and my path in life in God's care, and I rejoice that in the New Year I shall have to cross the old field of my ministry -- that I am among you again after an eight-month separation. But while I was away physically, in spirit I remained always with you, and my link with my flock never broke. Even in Russia, I occupied myself with your concerns; I was an advocate for your needs, and prayed constantly for you whenver I served -- for you, the flock which God has given me. I have gratifying witnesses that you, too, did not forget me in my absence.

He turned next to the future:

Let us ... pray, labor, and work out our salvation, carrying each others' burdens! It is not to support that former, old order of ecclesiastical life -- that so-called spiritual "conservatism" -- that we are called by the profound words of today's epistle reading: "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them" (2 Tim. 3:14). Rather, this scripture speaks only of "remaining unshaken and faithful in preaching Christ's truth" -- something that fans of innovations often accuse ... of amounting to stagnation and lifelessness.

On Feb. 29th, Bps. Tikhon and Innocent consecrated a third hierarch for the North American Church. By May, Tikhon was back in San Francisco. On Mar. 25, 1905, "Greek Independence Day," Tikhon ordained a Greek, Michael Andreades to the holy priesthood. After celebrating his last Pascha in San Francisco, Bp. Tikhon bade farewell to the people of Holy Trinity Cathedral on May 3rd, boarded the 11 P.M. Southern Union Pacific Railroad train for Chicago. Several hours after his departure, a cable arrived in San Francisco from St. Petersburg, informing Archbishop Tikhon of his elevation. An official ukase from the Tsar arrived two days later, citing "his extraordinary zealous service and special labors." In Chicago on Sunday Sept. 18th, the new Archbishop elevated Fr. Sebastian Dabovich to the rank of archimandrite, and named him official Head of the Serbian Mission, destined to follow Bp. Raphael into the episcopacy. The Serbs thanked Tikhon for all the care and help he had shown their people in America. On May 20th, he presided at a Clergy Conference in Cleveland's St. Theodosius Church. On May 26-27th, he visited Mayfield, PA, to inspect several parcels of land offered by their owners to house the Archdiocese's first monastery and an orphanage. On the first, the zealous Rusyn farmers had already erected a simple chapel, dedicated to the Nativity of the Theotokos, in which he conducted a prayer service, and whose construction he approved of on close inspection. Further examination of the parcel, however, showed it isolated from emergency services and its soil too poor to support a large monastic community, so the Archbishop politely elected to examine a second farm, offered by another group of Rusyns, before making a decision. The second site was larger, more scenic, less isolated, and had possibilities for expansion through the purchase of an adjoining farm. Clearly favoring this location, Tikhon faced the East and invoked God's blessing on the proposed deal, then entrusted final negotiations to Hieromonk Arsenii (Chagovtsev), the future Abbot. On the buggy ride back to Mayfield, they mused about the future and stopped often to admire the beautiful Pennsylvania landscape. On Aug.10, 1905, the Holy Synod of Russia authorized plans for a Seminary in America (Ukase No. 7806) In September, Basil M. Bensin, a graduate of the Moscow Theological Seminary and veteran teacher in several Russian seminaries, arrived in Minneapolis to organize the project. On Sept. 20th, Bp. Raphael headed the delegation of diplomats, clergy, and Consistory personnel which awaited the Archbishop at the railroad station in New York, and was first to speak in the Cathedral following a prayer service of thanksgiving. Tikhon emphasized that the See's transfer to New York was intended not to serve anyone's advantage, but to better serve the entire Mission's needs. Beginning Oct. 11th, Abp. Tikhon began a three-day visit to St. Tikhon's Monastery and Orphanage, now an accomplished task, stopping first in Wilkes-Barre to visit Fr. Toth. Fr. Arsenii in full monastic garb and the first two novices in cassocks came out to meet his covered two-seat carriage as it approached mid-afternoon. They performed the appropriate full prostration before their superior. The first two orphans to be taken in also approached, together with their supervisor bearing bread and salt. After a prayer service in the simple house-church, Fr. Arsenii pointed out that all of the great monasteries in history had begun with a single monk. America's first cloister was ideally located in a perfect location, beautiful and tranquil, where monastics can satisfy them with thoughts about God and love him as he commanded humankind to do. They will also love the land they till and the orphans for whom they care. Tikhon was assigned a small room on the second floor above the orphans' quarters. He found the facilities better than many established orphanages in Russia and well-repaired, given their condition upon purchase. He next inspected the separate house for the monks, examining the novices' reading material in each cell. He prayed at the site of the future church, where a cross had been erected, and in the cemetery. After dinner with the children, he retired to his own cell. Fr. Arsenii celebrated vespers and compline at 6:30 P.M., after which the company began reciting the Jesus Prayer in silence. Morning prayers, nocturns, and matins began at 4:30 A.M., followed by Liturgy at 8:00 A.M., attended by some of the local farmers. He and Fr. Aleksei Boguslavskii spent the rest of the morning trout fishing, then dined at noon with the monks as the lives of the saints were read. At 4:00 P.M., Fr. Iliia Zotikov arrived from New York to instruct the community in the proper execution of monastic chant, and led the singing of vespers. In the evening the Archbishop discussed building plans with Fr. Arsenii. On Thursday, following morning services, Tikhon chanted the Akathistos to St. Tikhon, and prayed for the new institution. After lunch and prayers, he departed for the railroad station. After ministrations in the troubled parishes of Eastern Pennsylvania and a consecration in Ansonia, CT, Abp. Tikhon returned to St. Tikhon's with Bp. Raphael to consecrate the new church on May 17/30, 1906. An exhausted Tikhon vacationed at the Monastery in July, serving Sundays in the neighboring parishes, and attending to matters which required quiet and attention. He helped the brothers cut firewood in the forest; worked the soil, harvested grain and gathered cucumbers; tended the bees, assisted in construction projects by fetching boards and pounding nails. He shared the simple monastic means, demanded -- and received -- no special treatment. He attended daily services, and read ascetical literature like Unseen warfare. On Aug. 13th he tonsured St. Tikhon's first monk after vespers: Bro. Antonii (Repella); at liturgy next morning, he tonsured the second: Bro. Seraphim. On Sept. 14th he ordained Bro. Antonii to the diaconate at the Monastery.

Fr. F. Buketov <"V ozhidanii Vladyki," APV 10.23, p. 456-58> described Abp. Tikhon's travels. In order to spare the Mission the cost of automobile travel, he always takes the train. At every station, his "patriarch's figure" in warm blue cassock and hat from which flowed long hair, he attracted attention. People stood up. Many approached him, shook his hand, and asked advice. Many of the places he visited were so isolated that trains stopped only once a day, so he spent the night in rectories, and -- in many places lacking permanent clergy -- in private homes. "He lives like a true Apostle, without complain, bearing with joy all the difficulties and inconveniences while proclaiming the Good News about Christ." He has truly "tak[en] the form of a servant," being afforded none of the royal treatment taken for granted by hierarchs in the Old World. The author prophecied that "something even greater, more responsible" must be being prepared for him by Providence. Arriving in 1906, Fr. Leonid Turkevich found him americanized like the rest of the clergy, uncharacteristically animate in speech for a Russian, friendly, and simple, yet still very much an archpastor, keeping everyone in their correct place. "The Mission's workers," he wrote, "are full of trust, love, and the desire to be obedient to their patriarch and head." In November of 1906 he traveled all the way to Butte, MT, to consecrate an isolated Serbian Church. Another, anonymous description: "A wise Archpastor, full of pure, profound faith; a concerned leader, firm director, humble instructor, authoritative conversor, happily combining an openness to all and yet preserving the dignity inherent to him. We saw before us not only a bishop, but a person as well, who was kind, condescending, strict with himself, sincere and patient, often covering over the impatience of others. All felt equally close to their bishop and valued his nearness to them. A friendly Missionwide family was created; a friendly common work and ministry was held by all who accepted the yoke of this responsibility."

Ultimately, Abp. Tikhon's administrative prowess in America led to his transfer, on Jan. 25, 1907 (O.S.) to Yaroslavl, one of the oldest and most important sees in the Russian Church. His service on the Holy Synod brought him to the direct attention of Pobedonostsev and fellow hierarchs. He had also achieved that level of popularity among the flock which, in the minds of the government officials administering the Russian Church, marked him for transfer. This spirit of loving unity between bishop and his flock is perhaps Abp. Tikhon's greatest legacy to the American Church. Arriving in America, Abp. Platon declared in St. Nicholas Cathedral, "I see already here that the name of Abp. Tikhon is surrounded with a halo of love, and the fond memory of him will never die here." On 1/14, 1907, the Russian Orthodox American Messenger ran a front-page story, citing "reliable, but not official sources," that Abp. Tikhon had been transferred the historic and prestigious see of Yaroslavl. The editors congratulated him on the promotion, but lamented that "the American Mission cannot conceal the feeling of deepest sorrow in parting with their kind, fatherly-solicitous, and wise Archpastor." Official word came Feb. 15/28th, in an ukase signed by the Tsar on Jan. 26th. There remained one major project to complete: convening of an All-American Council in Mayfield, PA. On Thursday, Feb. 22nd, between working sessions, the Archbishop hosted a luncheon for the clergy. After the meal, he rose to speak:

Fathers and Brothers:

This is our farewell meal, but the sorrow of my parting with my flock is tempered by the fact that I have the possibility today of seeing almost all of my colleagues in the States.

And so, I take the opportunity of this gathering to express to you my thanks for our work together. We labored and toiled together. In some matters, I took the initiative for you, inspired you, and you did the work, realizing my ideas. In other case, on the opposite, you gave me ideas -- and I am not ashamed to admit it. Then I sought the means and possibility to realize your idea practically. I appealed to you to work together from the very beginning -- in my first speech in the San Francisco Cathedral; and my words were not in vain. If anything has been done here, it has not been by me alone, but together with you. (It goes without saying that the Lord God helped us.) More than once have I told you that the more I study the history of the Orthodox Church in this country, the more I am convinced that our work here is God's work; that God himself is helping us; that when it seems as though everything we do is ready to fail -- the work of Russian Orthodoxy -- on the contrary, it not only does not die, but grows in new strength and brilliance.

I recall how strongly I was disturbed by the news of my appointment to America. I was not saddened so much by leaving the flock in Chelm whom I had gotten used to and where (it seemed) I was of some use. I was sorrowful not so much at the thought of having to go to a country distant and of leaving my very old, ailing mother at home -- as I was depressed when I realized that I was little suited for this work for which I was being sent, and little acquainted with it. And what happened? "No one but God?" or "Who else but God?"

He helped me spend over eight years here in service which not only gained praise from people, but was somewhat useful for our work here itself. And now, I am inclined to think that even my appointment to America occurred not so much by human judgment as by God's design -- that it was well-timed for the flock here. ...

From the very beginning I gave my colleagues wide room for initiative. As long as the work got done, it was not important to me whether it began with me or others. And the consequences of this were not slow in being told: parishes began to multiply, new churches were built, the number of parishioners grew, new institutions were established. On the other side, they cannot reproach me for lack of firmness or patience. On the contrary, when others thought it necessary, for example, to abandon some project or take some stringent measures to suspend someone, I always parted humbly and patiently, preferring to wait it out -- fearing that I might extinguish smoking flax and shatter a broken reed. And who knows how many people and projects have thus been preserved ... But I should not boast; better I turn to my weaknesses.

You know that there is no full perfection in the world, that very often our virtues and perfections border on faults and weaknesses. It is not in vain that they say that genius and insanity are related. So, too with me. That which was worthy, that which brought good to the diocese, especially in the beginning, little-by-little changed, and in the final account, could be accompanied by harm. As we said, I gave my colleagues wide initiative and independent work. But tell me, are sensible and true voices not sometimes heard to say, in effect, "We are allowed to much." That "Something needs to be suppressed" (which is sometimes done, but after the fact). Or, for example, does my patience not sometimes pass over into connivance? Or, for example, I sometimes boast that I have string instead of nerves -- it is hard to draw me out, that I bear the most unexpected misfortunes with relative composure, that I do not lose my presence of mind over them, that it is hard to amaze me by them. But this is close to apathy, to complete indifference, to stony senselessness -- which are not only not virtues or merits, but, on the contrary, evil and sin, from which we pray that God will deliver us.

And so, I think hat those things in which I was useful here for a while -- for which I was perhaps even sent here -- have now passed and are no longer needed. that you need something different, a different worker with a different approach and character. It is in this thought that I find the chief motive and justification for the transfer of hierarchs from one diocese to another, and not at all in a desire for greater comforts, peace, honor, and other earthly blessings -- the desire for which is ascribed, not always rightly, to hierarchs when they are transferred.

Let me depart, Fathers and Brothers, with peace to a place where the qualities I manifested here will, perhaps, still be of value. And allow me to wish you further successes in your tasks, and to remain here happily.

The Archbishop understood his hearers' childlike tears, their inability to respond. At the close of the Council, he addressed them again:

You know, of course, that I am departing from you, and perhaps shall not see many of your again. Under these circumstances, the touching prayer of Christ our High Priest to his Heavenly Father comes to my mind -- the prayer for the Apostles and believers. Preparing to part with his disciples, the Savior beseeched God to keep the flock together as Christ himself had kept them; to preserve them from enmity so that none would be lost; to sanctify them in mutual love. Following the image of our Supreme Shepherd, Jesus Christ, I too, preparing to part with you, pray first of all for my former flock. ... And my present prayer to the Heavenly Father before parting is that he would preserve you in the True Faith and defend you against the malevolences of enemies.

Our Savior, parting with this world, feared for the fate of his not-numerous disciples who were facing many enemies. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat! (Lk. 22.31-32). How can we help fearing for our small flock? How easily the candle can be extinguished by the wind coming through the open window. How easily can an oarsman in a frail boat be overturned by the sea waves. Here, we cannot boast of great numbers, neither of renown, nor of wealth, nor of learning -- all that is valued in this world. We are strong here only in one thing -- in possessing the True Orthodox Faith, but even "that not of yourself; it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2.8), and we should ask the Lord for the increase of this gift. Let them stand fast in thy Holy Church, in the Orthodox Faith.

And you, brethren, when departing from here and doing to those who delegated you, strengthen your brethren in the Faith and the love of Orthodoxy.

"Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. 1.15).

Unannounced, through heavy snows, he paid a final visit to the Monastery where he had found such "happiness and solitude"; he encouraged Fr. Arsenii and the brotherhood to live a life worthy of monks. Their only consolation, said the Abbot, was that their beloved archpastor would soon be "surrounded in all the grandeur and glory" that he deserved "in the bosom of Holy Mother Rus'." On March 11/24th, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Archbishop celebrated his last Divine Liturgy in America, and from the pulpit took the opportunity one last time to express his views on what it means to be Orthodox in the New World:

It is not enough, brethren, to celebrate the "Triumph of Orthodoxy." We have to concur in this triumph. And for this, we have to guard sacredly the Orthodox faith, to stand firm in it, disregarding the fact that we live in a non-Orthodox country; not giving heed to opinions one hears, such as: "This is not the Old Country, here. This is a free land. Therefore, supposedly, we may not have to observe everything that the Church requires." As if the Word of God is suitable only for the Old Country and not for the whole world. As if the Church of Christ is not catholic! As if the Orthodox Faith is not the one that "sustains the universe!"

But guarding the Orthodox Faith sacredly and loving it is not enough. Christ the Savior said that lighting the candle, one does not put it "under a bushel, but on a candlestick." (Mt. 5.15), and the light of Orthodoxy is lighted not for a small circle of people. No, the Orthodox Church is catholic; she remembers the will of her Founder: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, teach all the nations." (Mt. 28.19, Mk. 16.15). We ought to share our spiritual wealth, truth, and light with others. ... Thus, each of us should consider this task of propagating the faith as his own task, dear to his heart.

I have spoken of this many times to my flock, and now, departing from here, I leave it to you as my last will -- to cherish and to fulfill. And first of all, you, brethren of this holy temple ... testify to your beliefs as Russian people in your cultural traditions. ... May God strengthen you always in devotion to the Orthodox Faith! ...

Farewell to you, this country. For some you are a fatherland, for others you were a haven and gave them shelter, work, and prosperity. Still others in this free land obtained the right to profess the sound, true faith. In antiquity, God spoke through the prophets: "And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried, ... and pray the Lord for it: for the peace thereof shall yet have peace" (Jer. 29.7). And we pray likewise "for the abundance of the fruits of the earth, for healthful seasons" ... in all our services. So let the blessing of God be with this country and this city and this temple, and may the blessing of God be with all of you, now and always and unto the ages of ages."

Post-American Career.

On March 13/26th he sailed for Europe aboard the Kronprinz Wilhelm. He served in Yaroslavl from 1907 until 1913. "One can state that in Yaroslavl, Abp. Tikhon was in the bloom of his archpastoral talents, adorned by his administrative experience in America." The ancient archdiocese had declined sharply since the Revolution of 1905, and he managed to improve the religious and political situation significantly. He proved very popular, particularly the solemn liturgies he served in parish churches. He also participated in the highest levels of the Russian Church, as a member of the Holy Synod or Preconciliar Commission, learning the good and bad points of the tsarist and synodal system, becoming acquainted personally both with the most prominent hierarchs and consecrating young hierarchs -- factors which would serve him well when he was elected Patriarch in 1917 and required to maintain unity in the episcopacy in the face of the Bolshevik threat. He succeeded -- much to the horror of the Soviets -- because the old-line synodal bishops respected him and sought his advice.

In 1913, at the age of 48, Abp. Tikhon was transferred to a most sensitive position in the Archdiocese of Vilna, capital of the Province of Lithuania, a veritable hotbed of Catholicism and Uniatism. His innate simplicity and humility, and great difficulty in displaying pomp when required to do so, put off the intelligentsia, but his warmth, wisdom, and approachability generally won the respect and love of the masses, as he labored to break down national and religious barriers and establish trust. Russian officials and people were very anti-Polish and anti-Catholic. He continued to serve in the parishes without pomp, even walking about on foot -- utterly unheard of among bishops! With his priests he was simple and kind, good-natured and unbureaucratic. His Orthodox flock included many former soldiers in need of special spiritual support and healing. He used his own funds to provide them aid. When the front threatened to cut Vilna off from Russia during World War I, Tikhon watched the battle rage around his cathedral before obeying military orders to accompany their last echelons out of harm's way. Rescuing the holy relics and some churchwares, he was first evacuated to Mosow and set up Vilna institutions in exile there. Finding that too remote from his flock, however, he dared to return to Disna where he experienced "all the adversities and deprivations of parochial life," working with displaced persons, visiting forward hospitals, and several times risking his life to minister under hostile fire to the frontline soldiers in the trenches, an act for which he was decorated. During the war he was frequently summoned by the government to serve on the Holy Synod, where he did so with great distinction, attracting attention and respect among the hierarchs. He chaired the Educational Commission of the Holy Synod, which early in 1915 established by-laws for the North American Theological Seminary which made their graduates eligible for admission to the Russian institutions and opened the academies and universities He served as President of the Voronezh-based St. Vladimir Brotherhood, dedicated to promoting Orthodoxy among Rusyns, Galicians, Bukowinians, and other Slavic émigrés to America. The Brotherhood published religious and ethical books and pamphlets aimed at countering erroneous views on the Church, and helped finance building projects in the United States.

When the revolutionary spirit spread to the Church in 1917, he suffered along with his fellow hierarchs under the heavy-handed administration of Ober Procurator Vladimir Nikolaevich L'vov. L'vov expelled from their sees those members of the Holy Synod whom he deemed to have obtained their appointments through the influence of Grigorii Rasputin; concern for proper canonical order in the episcopacy prompted the hierarchs to comply, opening their sees to new elections. In March of 1917 Abp. Tikhon, freed by L'vov from attending the Holy Synod, found himself living in Petrograd, in a two-room suite in Bp. Agafangel's house. In elections for a successor to Metr. Pitirim in the See of Petrograd, he was one of the minor candidates. Although virtually unknown to the faithful in Moscow, he was one of many nominees to succeed Metr. Makarii there. In an extraordinarily solemn and fully free election, Tikhon won 481 of 799 votes, and was enthroned on June 19, 1917, and very well received. On August 11, 1917, he won a landslide victory to preside at the Moscow Council. Two days later he was elevated to the dignity of Metropolitan In mid-October the Council took up the question of restoring the Patriarchate. When the Bolshevik Revolution broke out on October 25th, Tikhon celebrated a prayer service for peace, and suggested that the Council cease debates and proceed to an election. The suggestion was taken only on October 30th, and by a vote of 141-112 with 12 abstentions (there was no longer a quorum), the Patriarchate of Moscow was re-established. Next day, nominations for the office were held, according to the rules in effect in the 17th century when Peter the Great abolished it. On the first two ballots, Abp. Antonii (Khrapovitskii) of Khar'kov won a plurality; Abp. Arsenii of Novgorod won nomination on the third ballot, Tikhon on the fourth. The three hierarch-nominees names were placed in a chalice on November 1st following Liturgy, and Tikhon was selected by lots. Tikhon accepted the lot "with entire dignity, ... not overcome by alarm"; as he always had, he humbly bowed before the will of God, responding with the Church Slavic formulary: "Since the Sacred and Great Council judged me, although unworthy, to be in this ministry, I thank, accept, and say nothing to the contrary." On November 21st, with smoking, joking Bolshevik guards posted at the gates of the Dormition Cathedral, Tikhon assumed the Patriarchal throne at age 52, accepted the pastoral staff which had belonged to Metr. Peter of Moscow from the hands of the soon-to-be-martyred Metr. Vladimir, and was vested in the rounded, white patriarchal mantle and blue velvet cowl belonging to the last Patriarch, Nikon. He led a procession around the Kremlin, sprinkling its walls with holy water. At the approach of the "bent old man," the revolutionary soldiers "instantly pulled off their caps and rushed towards the Patriarch, stretching out their hands for his blessing." He continued accessible and friendly, and against advice that he conserve his energy, celebrated wherever requested.

The Council recessed for the Christmas holidays, and on Jan. 19, 1918, Tikhon anathematized the Bolsheviks: "Come to your sense, madmen. Cease your bloody violence, for what you are doing is not only cruel, it is indeed satanic, and for it you will be subject to the fires of hell in the life to come beyond the grave, and to a terrible curse from posterity in this earthly life." He advised his fellow bishops, priests, and the faithful (Jan. 19, 1918) that "it is better to spill one's blood and be made worthy of a martyr's crown than to allow the Orthodox faith to be profaned."

At the beginning [of the Soviet rule] he condemned this spirit before the whole world, and he never repudiated the condemnation -- nor could he. In the first years, when no one believed that this monstrous and unnatural form of government would be long-lived, the Patriarch was prepared to offer his life as a sacrifice to free the country. But when the protracted and chronic character of this disease in the Russian government (which is also the disease of the Russian spirit) became obvious, he understood the necessity of taking these circumstances into account, and, submitted to the facts as the early Christians had submitted to the fact of Nero's rule. This was all the more [necessary] since his attention was now focused on fighting with the "Living Church." This necessary narrowing of the front found expression in the well-known conciliatory declaration in relation to the Soviet power. ... We must look upon these concessions by the Patriarch as his final pastoral self-sacrifice for the good of his spiritual flock: instead of the crown of martyrdom, [he accepted] dishonor and the world's humiliation, along with those who for a while are being allowed to torment our country. Let us be frank: in anyone else, such behavior would be reprehensible; but coming from the Patriarch, it was a new form of self-sacrifice, a voluntary self-abasement in Christ. It was taken exactly as such by the people in their unfailing love; love endures all things, believes, all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Cor. 13).

Reconvening, the Council supported his position that the Church would not relinquish property to nationalization. Reacting to rumors that his arrest was imminent, it urged the Patriarch to protect himself "for the good of the Church" -- even to the point of fleeing abroad. He quietly and politely declined: "The flight of the Patriarch would be too convenient for the enemies of the Church; they would use this for their own ends. Let them do what they will." The faithful of Moscow organized round-the-clock guards for their Father in Christ. On Sept. 7, 1918, the Council adjourned for lack of funds, planning to meet again in three years. In the interim, a Synod of Bishops and Supreme Ecclesiastical Council was named to assist the Patriarch. They unsuccessfully opposed a risky letter which Tikhon addressed to the Soviet commissars on the first anniversary of their take-over, listing their failures and injustices. Rumors of arrest intensified after Tikhon prayed for the murdered imperial family; again he rejected Synodal pressures to flee the country. Fierce persecutions and confiscations broke out in December of 1918. The Patriarch was placed under house arrest until Pascha, and received horrible reports of incalculable losses among the clergy. Lenin was determined not to make of Tikhon "a second Germogen," and so restrained his followers from physical attacks against him; nevertheless, on May 31/June 13, 1919, was wounded in a knife attack by a deranged woman, P. K. Guseva. "Moral terrorism," however, was waged, by promises that in exchange for dropping his alleged counter-revolutionary acts, the killings could be slowed. As the Soviet regime stabilized, Tikhon sincerely abandoned politics -- and publicly advised the clergy to do likewise as fruitless and serving only to increase bloodshed. He willingly moved to reign in active anti-Bolshevik acts, to the extent of condemning the White movement on Sept. 25, 1919. Summoned before the Special Political Division, he was offered safe passage to America; he refused, preferring to suffer with his flock. Crowds gathered at the gates of the Lubianka No. 2 Political Building whenever he was summoned for questioning; their pious bows to receive his blessing infuriated the Bolsheviks. The Soviet press attacked him constantly and viciously. He continued to serve openly, for "the Patriarchal services were the only somehow bright and joyous thing instilling rest and overshadowing the seal of sorrow which lay on the people's heart." On Nov. 7, 1920, in the face of increasing persecution, he took the precaution of issuing Ukase No. 362, providing for temporary organization of dioceses cut off from the Patriarchate. As famine spread, he appealed in August of 1921 to Orthodox churches worldwide, as well as to the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1922, reduced to living in filth -- without complaint -- he looked forward to celebrating his thirtieth anniversary as a monk, twenty-fifth anniversary as a bishop, and fifth anniversary as Patriarch, and yet confided to Fr. Pashkovsky that he doubted he would live to see Easter of 1923. Indeed, the situation worsened, when the émigré bishops in Sremski Karlovci addressed the Genoa Conference, calling for all nations to arm anti-Soviet forces rather than providing the aid requested by the Patriarch; the Bolsheviks blamed Tikhon and the press began demanding confiscation of church treasures to help feed the people. The Patriarch gave his conditional blessing -- anything not consecrated for divine worship could and should be given up with love, "in view of the extraordinarily disastrous circumstances." When Kalinin's initial orders not to interfere with the "cult itself" were exceeded, Tikhon condemned the "sacrilege" (citing Ap. Can. 73 and Quinisext 10). In February of 1922, the Soviets issued a decree on the seizure of ecclesiastical properties, convinced that opposition would allow them to widen the persecution. < Douglas, "Story," p. 44, observes that the Soviets did not sell the tsar's jewels, which they held and which "have since fetched more than £1,000,000," yet they demanded the churches "treasures," which yielded less than half that amount."> At the same time, they isolated Tikhon by either arresting the hierarchs assisting him or ordering them out of Moscow, back to their sees. He had no one to help him when Bp. Antonin (Granovskii), recently released from arrest, initiated a revolt against his authority, testifying as an expert in canon law about the legality of the confiscation laws. Show trials of ecclesiastics began, with the Patriarch being called to testify; at the infamous "Trial of the Fifty-four" on May 5, 1922, with great self-control and dignity, Tikhon declared from the witness stand: "These people did their duty; they acted on my orders, so they are not guilty of anything. I accept their guilt myself. Try me." He refused to answer to his secular name, Vasilii Belavin. The press utilized this admission to intensify its campaign to destroy his public image and neutralize his power. He was painted as a monarchist and center of the Karlovci opposition, despite the fact that he issued an ukase on Apr. 22/May 5th, declaring the Karlovci group illegal and gave Metr. Evlogii full authority over the entire church abroad. (He fell short of the Bolsheviks' demand that he excommunicate the political émigrés outright.) He was returned to strict house arrest; his quarters were searched for foreign publications in his absence. On March 15/28, 1923, Tikhon's name headed a "list of enemies of the people," published in Izvestiia; his entire staff, including Fr. Alexander Hotovitzky, was arrested, and "the Prelate standing at the helm of the Church was without any means of directing the ship of the Church during the most dreadful storm."

Page 2

The Patriarchate of Antioch

Also visit the:

Patriarchate of Antioch Website

The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul

The Patriarchate of Antioch:
Founded by Saints Peter and Paul

The most famous scriptural reference concerning Antioch relates that it was in this city that the followers of Christ were first mockingly referred to as "Christians" (Acts 11:26). In the Book of Acts, which offers an account of the first years of the Church, we discover that Antioch is the second most frequently mentioned city. Nicholas, one of the original seven deacons was a convert from Antioch and perhaps the first Christian from that city (Acts 6:5). During the persecution which occasioned the death of Saint Stephen the First Martyr, members of the fledgling Christian community in Jerusalem fled to Antioch for refuge.

Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34 . Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city. It was in Antioch that one of the first conflicts within the Church developed between Peter and Paul. This conflict regarded the necessity of circumcision for male Gentile converts to Christianity. It was the resolution of this conflict at the Council of Jerusalem under Saint James the Apostle that determined the direction of the Antiochian mission to the Gentiles, and the dynamic nature of that Christian community in its missionary outreach. It was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas departed for their great missionary journeys to the Gentile lands (Acts 13:1).

The Apostles directed a truly universal ministry. After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter. The multiple Apostolic foundation of the See of Antioch, the early missions centered there and the active nature of the community, as recorded in the New Testament, have been a unique heritage to all who trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical roots to the Antiochian Patriarchate.

 

The See of Antioch continued its glorious contributions to the universal Church by the numerous outstanding personalities it nurtured. Saint Ignatius of Antioch for example, is revered as both a victorious martyr during the reign of Emperor Trajan (early second century) and as a reliable historical source for the structure of Church life. Ignatius was the second successor to Peter and may actually have been consecrated by that Apostle or Saint Paul.

The Church of Antioch has maintained a continuous succession in the Apostolic Faith down to the present. The current Bishop/Patriarch of Antioch is His Beatitude Ignatius IV.

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch
(Orthodox Succession) 

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.

52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.

54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.

55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.

56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.

57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.

58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.

59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.

60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.

61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.

62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.

63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.

64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.

65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.

67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.

69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.

70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.

71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.

72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.

73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.

75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.

76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.

77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.

78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.

79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.

80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.

81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.

83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.

84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.

85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.

86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.

87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.

88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.

89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.

90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.

91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.

92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.

93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.

94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.

95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.

96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.

98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.

99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.

100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.

101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.

102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.

103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.

104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.

105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.

106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.

107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.

108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.

109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.

110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.

112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.

113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.

114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.

115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.

116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.

117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.

118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.

119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.

120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

Separation of the group pledging loyalty to the Pope of Rome.  Today, this group carries the name "Melkite".  However, the term "Melkite" historically applied to the Orthodox Christians of Antioch who remain faithful to the Orthodox Church to the present day. 

The Greek Patriarchs

156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.

157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.

158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.

159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.

160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.

161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.

162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.

163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.

164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.

Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs

165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.

166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.

167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.

168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.

169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.

170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.

Saint Tikon (TIKHON) Page 2

Continued from: http://www.antiochian.org/Bishops/tikhon.htm

A group of priests declaring itself opposed to the Patriarch and in favor of the Soviets' social actions by a return to primitive Christianity, formed the "Living Church" on March 25, 1922; on April 29/May 12th, its Zhivaia tserkov' joined Izvestiia in attacking the Patriarch, and dispatched a five-man delegation (with two GPU guards) to demand his abdication, in view of his inability to govern the Church; he defiantly demanded instead that the Soviets allow the canons to be observed with his authority being transferred to Metr. Agafangel (Preobrazhenskii) of Yaroslavl' pending the convening of a council. On May 3/16th, the Locum tenens was summoned to Moscow to assume power, while the Patriarch retired to the Donskoi Monastery, having thwarted the rebel Bp. Antonin's ambitions for the short term. He was held in squalid, strictly-isolated quarters and constantly guarded, being allowed short periods of outdoor exercise three times a day, one appearance a day at his balcony to bless the masses, and Holy Communion only once a week.
"Every device is put into practice in order to insult the Patriarch, both in public and in private, to humiliate him as a prelate and a man. ... Patriarch Tikhon, who is far from having completed his three-score years, and is by nature wise and calm, sometimes produces the impression of a living corpse." On May 20, 1923 (N.S.), Izvestiia announced a take-over of the Patriarchal Chancery and formation of a Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration headed by Bps. Antonin and Leonid; Agafangel, denied permission to leave Yaroslavl' when he refused to join the movement, led underground opposition to the Living Church until he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. After Izvestiia announced that the Patriarch would be tried during Bright Week, the London Times reported that Tikhon's execution was imminent. A renovationist "All-Russian Conference," convened Apr. 16/29, 1923, in Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral purged sixty opponents; a second conference opened with 476 politically-screened delegates from 72 of 74 dioceses was still divided over which program to follow. On April 20/May 3rd, 54 of the 66 bishops present "unanimously" condemned Tikhon for "bringing into jeopardy the very existence of the Church," nullified his anathema against the Soviets, deprived the "apostate" and "traitorous" Vasilii Belavin of both his rank and monastic calling, and abolished the "restored Patriarchate." He rejected the council's competency, signing the formal notification, but annotating it with one word: "Illegal."

Knowing nothing about the true state of affairs in the Church, since his only source of information in prison was the Soviet newspapers, Tikhon came to believe that continued heroism would be wrong, and on June 3/16, 1923, he officially repented of his "anti-Soviet acts" in order to save the Church,
and pledged, in return for freedom, that "henceforth, I am not an enemy of the Soviet Power. I am finally and decisively setting myself apart from both the foreign and the internal monarchist White Guard counterrevolutionaries." Ten days later, after several postponements of his trial, "Citizen Belavin" was set free from Taganka Prison, barefoot and disheveled, wearing a soldier's coat, and allowed to return to the Donskoi Monastery, where he remained under de facto house arrest, allowed to see only those who dared pass a "ferocious and rude communist sentry" and sign an official registry stating the reason for his visit. (He would be declared no longer "socially dangerous" and have his legal case dismissed only in March of 1924.) His health worsened. An attempt was made to poison him. In June and July he published open letters to the Church in Pravda, declaring himself neither an "admirer of the Soviet power" nor its enemy. He condemned monarchists, White Guards, and the various renovationists (finding only the New Calendar and new orthography worthy of adoption); he declared the Church to be totally "apolitical," neither "white" nor "red," and warned the bishops in Karlovci to heed his 1922 ukase or face canonical trial in Moscow. Izvestiia (July 5, No. 146) declared this "a supremely timely and wise act" which could result in a change in relations between church and state. In an effort to tone down Western (primarily British) criticism, his new position was propagated in the West through a cautious interview with the Manchester Guardian. Regel'son
states that by the time Tikhon made some compromising statements about the Soviets in 1923, the people understood that he had already suffered greatly for the faith, and took his words in context; they were unwilling to be as understanding with Metr. Sergii, who cited Tikhon's position. The renovationist movement rapidly fell apart, and the Soviets pressured Tikhon (by threat of re-arrest for himself and continued arrest for his fellow hierarchs) to be reconciled with its former leaders; he did so with the greatest of reluctance, feeling himself to have been tricked concerning their actual strength and following; nevertheless, Abp. Feodor (Pozdeevskii) found the Patriarch too soft and unauthoritative, and led an aggressive right-wing opposition to Tikhon from the Danilov Monastery. On Jan. 2/15, 1924, Tikhon and his Synod declared the renovationist hierarchy uncanonical On Oct. 21, 1924, a first serious attempt was made on his life, during Liturgy; the hapless assassin mistook Metr. Peter for him, but the experience left him badly shaken, and the asthma from which he suffered notably increased. A second attempt on Nov. 26/Dec. 9, 1924, during a break-in of his apartment by two erstwhile "thieves," left his servant since his days in the United States, IAkov Sergeevich Ostroumov, dead of gunshot wounds, aggravated his nephritis to the point that he was advised by physicians to limit his work; rumors spread that he had suffered a stroke. Kneeling at Ostroumov's grave, two shots which nearly missed, left his constitution broken. In January 1925 (N.S.), the Bolsheviks stepped up measures aimed at preventing Tikhon's effective government of the Church, to the point that he felt himself only nominally free, and wonder whether prison would not be preferable.
He found himself surrounded in an atmosphere of lies, provocations, and deceit, having to second-guess everyone he met. Hints that prisoners might be freed and conditions generally improved alternated with threats that even greater repression was possible. He was forced to do things calculated to be unpopular with the faithful (e.g. ordering prayers for the Soviet authorities, authorizing the New Calendar -- ostensibly because it had been adopted by all the Eastern Patriarchs ). He became visibly (and most uncharacteristically) agitated whenever the Chekist agent Tuchkov (the de facto Ober Procurator) assigned to deal with him approached. on Jan. 12th (N.S.), a doctor recommended complete bed rest in hospital, and the Patriarch realized that he was sufficiently ill to check into the still-privately run Bakunin Clinic; Dr. Bakunina refused him admission, fearing reprisals from the Bolsheviks. Next day, he was admitted as Citizen Belavin. For the duration of his three-month stay, while being treated for severe sclerosis, kidney disease, angina pectoris, and nerves, he enjoyed the comfort of a clean, bright private room with an armchair and desk, where he sat, when he felt up to it, enjoying the view of the Zachat'evskii Monastery. He read Turgenev, Goncharov, and Pobedonostsev's memoirs. He brought in his own icons and a lampada. He looked like a poor, sick old man, except when vested for services. There he celebrated his sixtieth birthday. When his condition began to improve with rest, Agent Tuchkov began "visiting" him again, and saw to it that a steady stream of relatives and friends came to his door -- and thereby tiring him again. He was not too happy to receive the "tall, well-fed," and somewhat insolent Metr. Peter when the latter began visiting near the end of his stay.
When released, he returned to parish visitations, and in March/April consecrated two new bishops. At the beginning of Great Lent he had two decayed teeth extracted. Routine swelling of the gums spread to his tonsils. When he was to sick to celebrate Annunciation (March 25/April 7th), a specialist, Dr. Genkin, his surgeon, Dr. Vinogradov, and Dr. Bakunina were summoned to examine him, but found nothing seriously wrong. Metr. Peter, Locum tenens since Dec. 25, 1924 (O.S.), visited a last time after Liturgy, again pressing the Patriarch loudly and at length, to sign the anti-Karlovci Proclamation which he had composed at Tuchkov's instructions; again Tikhon resisted, but the Metropolitan stressed that this was the only possible and acceptable platform for church/state relations in Soviet Russia and threatened to resign unless he signed it. In the evening Tikhon gave in, and signed with a twitching hand. At 10 P.M., he asked to be washed; then, after resting a bit, he turned uncharacteristically serious and stern; "Now I will fall fast asleep and for long -- the night will be long, long, dark, dark...," he declared. He awoke at 11:45, and had to be dissuaded from having his jaw tied up to ease the discomfort. He slept a bit more, then asked to see a doctor. By the time Dr. Shchelkan and his colleagues arrived (none would accept responsibility for him alone), the Patriarch was pale and his pulse weak; unable to speak, he pointed at his chest, and tremble with the onset of angina. He was in such pain that he requested morphine as he usually did for these particular symptoms. At 11:45 P.M., he asked what time it was, and receiving an answer, crossed himself three times, proclaiming each time, "Glory to God!" and his heart stopped. Camphor and cocaine were administered, without success. An obviously overjoyed Tuchkov learned from a tapped phone of the death, and with a GPU agent, examined the body before Metr. Peter and Bp. Boris arrived, wrapped it in the Patriarchal mantle, and accompanied it in a GPU ambulance to Donskoi to prepare it for burial.
He was vested by Bp. Boris in gold and dark-green velvet vestments and laid in an oak coffin.
Led by sixty hierarchs, 160,000-170,000 people filed by his remains, four abreast at a rate of 100-120 per minute, each day for three days.
He was laid to rest in the Donskoi Monastery on Palm Sunday, March 30/April 12, 1925.
Rumors spread that the dentist who pulled the Patriarch's diseased teeth had secretly administered poison instead of cocaine. The newspapers printed badly muddled reports.

THE NICENE - CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

 

*Note: as recited in Church, we use the first person singular, "I believe...," throughout the Creed, although, as a conciliar decree, it was originally set down in the plural, "We believe...."

For more information on the definition and history of the creed visit: http://www.answers.com/topic/nicene-creed