Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

[johnnykins]

I understand, but I fail to see how any council proves anyone being the One True Church?

In and of itself it doesn’t. For example the Oriental Church rejects Chalcedon and later councils. It is generally deemed by both Catholicism and Orthodoxy to have left the Church at that time. Contrariwise, they would say they remained true and Catholicism and Orthodoxy veered of the OHCA Church path. (We’ll ignore current talks and recent agreements for simplicity).

Since the Holy Spirit preserves the OHCA Church the argument is to reject a councilor decision is to go into heresy or schism. Catholics and Orthodox say the Orientals have rejected a council. With Chalcedon, the Orientals say the Council was flawed and invalid, so that those holding to it are in error. Who is right?

The Catholic answer is that the position adopted by the Pope is the guarantor of Truth in such circumstances. Apply the same to Florence. Catholics look to the Pope for assurance they are on the right side of the dispute. The Orthodox have no single or consistent rule to determining which councils are valid. Clearly, they can’t say they have the Pope rule. At Florence all the Bishops (except Mark of Ephesus - which is why that name is chosen by a poster here and he is named in other signature lines) - with the Emperor of the East - all agreed. They returned home and the people would’t accept it - not to mention the Turks at the gate who offered Scholarius the Patriarchal throne for hsi rejection of Florence… you see where this all goes.

 

[L_piperatus]

We have our saints and holy people as well. St. Philaret of New York, St. John Maximovitch, St. Matthew the Confessor, Abp. Auxentius, Bp. Spyridon of Trimythus, Elder Moses of Athikia, St. Gregorios of Greece, St. Catherine the New Martyr, St. Charalambis fool for Christ, etc.

I have a great respect for St. John Maximovitch the wonderworker. His many miracles, great sanctity of life, ascetic lifestyle, are in many ways similar to the Catholic Saint Padre Pio. Both these saintly men reposed in the 1960s.

Recently I’ve read a biography of St. Philaret the Confessor, and I was taken aback at his great courage and heroism in the face of Soviet and Chinese communists who tried to kill him, and inspired by his story of miraculous escape to New York, i.e. how God protected his courageous servant who never wavered in front of the murderous communist henchmen.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

johnnykins;9039989]In and of itself it doesn’t. For example the Oriental Church rejects Chalcedon and later councils. It is generally deemed by both Catholicism and Orthodoxy to have left the Church at that time. Contrariwise, they would say they remained true and Catholicism and Orthodoxy veered of the OHCA Church path. (We’ll ignore current talks and recent agreements for simplicity).

Since the Holy Spirit preserves the OHCA Church the argument is to reject a councilor decision is to go into heresy or schism. Catholics and Orthodox say the Orientals have rejected a council. With Chalcedon, the Orientals say the Council was flawed and invalid, so that those holding to it are in error. Who is right?

The Catholic answer is that the position adopted by the Pope is the guarantor of Truth in such circumstances. Apply the same to Florence. Catholics look to the Pope for assurance they are on the right side of the dispute. The Orthodox have no single or consistent rule to determining which councils are valid. Clearly, they can’t say they have the Pope rule. At Florence all the Bishops (except Mark of Ephesus - which is why that name is chosen by a poster here and he is named in other signature lines) - with the Emperor of the East - all agreed. They returned home and the people would’t accept it - not to mention the Turks at the gate who offered Scholarius the Patriarchal throne for hsi rejection of Florence… you see where this all goes.

Yes I understand the arguments and rebuttels. But these issues deal with “Authority” not proving “they’re the One True Church”.

What is fascinating about the Eastern heresies and excommunications at Chalcedon etc… These never lost their valid liturgy, valid holy orders and valid sacraments even though they teach heterodoxy.

Another aspect to these councils is that they were united to the Popes who ratified them.

It could be noted that one does not have “completely the one True Church” without Peter’s Chair in the Popes. Because the early Church was never without Peter. In other words there was never a Church without Peter’s Chair in the Popes, until the schisms began, then as you say these Orthodox do not hold to Peter’s chair anymore to be united as the Early Orthodox Church was once was always to rule in Truth together.

It is impossible for Orthodoxy to rule as one body again without being united to Peter. Thus we have “autocephalous” church’s being out of unity with one another.

It goes without saying that Peter’s Chair is the only one of all apostolic sees to have never fallen into heresy, when all the others did at one time or another.

 

[Nine_Two]

The very way you phrased your question was polemical and that is clear. It was posted in a way so as to lead to no other conclusion than Catholicism is in error. On a Catholic forum, I can hardly think of anything more polemical.

As long as you attack Catholicism, you can expect me there - especially if you do so in the slight-of -hand way you favored in that post.

Again, a polemic is an argument, not a question. Please get a dictionary.

If there was any negativity it is because I’ve seen these loaded questions.

Now please tell me which part it is that you find to be so offensive?
The question of the OP was asking for us to “prove” we are right. I tried to form a basis on which it would be possible to prove one or the other was right.

If you actually bothered to read the post instead of jumping into hysterics you would have seen where I commented that under these set circumstances the Catholic Truth could also prove itself to be correct. I made no assertions over which was correct, and which was not. It is obvious which I believe, just as it is obvious which you believe.

On what basis do you think we should be having discussion?

So once again, I would ask you to show some civility. Although my guess is you’ve already reported my first post for being “anti-Catholic”.

 

[Nine_Two]

The OP is in its essence unanswerable. While noting that, the next post posted that certain structural forms, specially “synodal” v. “monarchical” structure, was the touchstone - in a ham handed effort to make a point that Catholicism cannot be the OHCA Church, and Orthodoxy is. Having seen these types of responses (with the usual ‘what me’ reply when called on it) with some regularity over the years, it was in response to that straw man, that I set up a variety of positions that could be taken as indicia of the True Church that leads to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be the True Church. One of those involves issues concerned Ecumenical Councils (which was also a slap at synodality) since such Councils, in our common history, determined orthodoxy (small case) so that if one rejects a council, one is no longer part of the OHCA Church as often commonly understood.

Fr. Kimel in his usual irenic manner derailed the sword play with an interesting couple posts. The subtext of Fr. Kimel and his posts, still to be illuminated -perhaps even for him.

You read far too much into my posts. If you think off the bat that a synodal government form makes a church truer than a monarchical form (something I never asserted), then perhaps I can understand why you attacked me.

 

[Nine_Two]

Then who was Orthodox in 4th century Antioch?
orthodox-standard.blogspot.com/2011/12/problem-of-canonical-authority-and.html

See, now that’s actually a good example.

It is something that has arisen multiple times, both in the East, and the West, where someone who we look back on as being legitimate was deposed by a malicious group of heretics.

The methodology I stated before is an excellent method of deciding who among these random little groups that pop up now and then claiming the rest of the church has gone astray, is true. It is simple, and it is not messy.

But the case you’ve presented here is very similar to the break with Rome (though it has many major differences).

When it comes to those holding the Patriarchal office (and this works with the smaller groups as well), then you must look at whether or not they hold the faith of Orthodoxy.
Meaning: Are they in Communion with the other Churches, and do they hold the same faith as their predicessors.

In the particular case you gave, the new Patriarch was not recognized by the rest of the Orthodox world (at the time including Rome), and he did not hold with the faith (holding to a heresy which had been condemned).

I will maintain my original formula will work in sorting out the bulk of these groups.

 

[johnnykins]

Again, a polemic is an argument, not a question. Please get a dictionary.

If there was any negativity it is because I’ve seen these loaded questions.

Now please tell me which part it is that you find to be so offensive?
The question of the OP was asking for us to “prove” we are right. I tried to form a basis on which it would be possible to prove one or the other was right.

If you actually bothered to read the post instead of jumping into hysterics you would have seen where I commented that under these set circumstances the Catholic Truth could also prove itself to be correct. I made no assertions over which was correct, and which was not. It is obvious which I believe, just as it is obvious which you believe.

On what basis do you think we should be having discussion?

So once again, I would ask you to show some civility. Although my guess is you’ve already reported my first post for being “anti-Catholic”.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/polemic polemic

Pronunciation: /pəˈlɛmɪk/
noun

a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something

It was obvious as is your present attempt to deflect what you are up to. It’s happened so long and so frequently on this forum from your ilk it is tiring - as is your weak attempt to say black is white

 

[johnnykins]

You read far too much into my posts. If you think off the bat that a synodal government form makes a church truer than a monarchical form (something I never asserted), then perhaps I can understand why you attacked me.

I am certain of exactly what you are and are up to. You choice was deliberate and calculated - the opposition is what’s startled you.

Sorry I’ve seen the bona fides of so many posters like you on this forum busted in their anti-catholicism, that yours was simply an obvious gambit of a sort far too often resorted to.

Th very fact that you’ve not even attempted to respond to my examples but have focused on a limited definition of polemic is ample proof that you’ve been exposed.

 

[L_piperatus]

It is determined the same way it is in the Catholic Church.

There are several men who claim to be pope at present, how do you tell which one is the true Roman Catholic Church?

Simple, it is the one that actually has the chain of legitimacy.

Same way in Orthodoxy. A Bishop who disagrees with his Holy Synod and decides to go off and claim to be the True Church, is no longer an Orthodox Bishop, as is the case with the Old Calendarists.

Nine_Two, before addressing issues of legitimacy (i.e. who is orthodox, who has fallen into heresy) within the Orthodox Churches, I agree that similar questions arise in the Catholic Church. Who is right, is Pope Benedict legitimate, or are the other groups correct who hold sedevacantist views, and claim that THEY are the remnants of the true Church while the billion-plus people adhering to the Pius XI - Pius XII - John XXIII - Paul VI - John Paul I - John Paul II - Benedict XVI line have fallen into heresy and are following illegitimate leaders?

Back to Orthodox issues, if I understand it correctly, the Greek Old Calendarists claim that a majority of Church leadership can fall into heresy. As far as they are concerned, they point out that many pan-Orthodox Councils and local Synods condemned the New Calendar starting with 1582 and throughout the centuries since. They believe the EP of Constantinople has fallen into heresy when he adopted the New Calendar in 1922, and I suppose they believe the majority of the Holy Synod around the EP has also fallen into heresy.

This must represent an alternate view of EO ecclesiology, because reading their writings, they clearly believe that only a small minority of Greek Bishops stayed true to Orthodoxy, that only those stayed true who still obey the multiple anathemas pronounced beginning with the late 1500s, anathemas that condemned the New Calendar as a heresy.

Then, when these Old Calendarist Greek Bishops needed help to consecrate new Bishops, they got help from Russian and Serbian Bishops, who obviously were more than willing to consecrate new Old Calendarist Greek Bishops in schism with the majority (New Calendarist majority) of the EP and the Church of Greece.

What I’m trying to point out is the existence of a different type of EO ecclesiology, one that bases its claims of legitimacy not on the rulings of majority fractions and majority votes of Holy Synods, but rather on faithfulness to the unbroken line of past Holy Synods that invariably condemned the New Calendar for more than 3 centuries from 1582 until the EP of Constantinople changed its mind in 1922.

I’ve read some of the history of Greek EO Old Calendar Churches (Matthewite and Florinist Churches) in schism with the New Calendar Church of Greece and the EP, and they apparently believe that Truth is not decided by majority votes at the EP and Bishops around him. They believe that a majority of Bishops, even the EP of Constantinople, can fall into heresy, and they believe that the EP and Bishops on his side did become heretics, as a matter of fact, by adopting the ecumenist heresy of the New Calendar.

In contrast to some who might suggest that these issues are irrelevant to the thread, I see them as highly relevant. When we have multiple Churches that call themselves the One True EO Church, the one true New Testament Church established by Christ, but they break communion with each other, I am definitely interested why each one of these groups regards itself as the One True Church, while simultaneously regarding the other group as heretic.

 

[Nine_Two]

I am certain of exactly what you are and are up to. You choice was deliberate and calculated - the opposition is what’s startled you.

Sorry I’ve seen the bona fides of so many posters like you on this forum busted in their anti-catholicism, that yours was simply an obvious gambit of a sort far too often resorted to.

Th very fact that you’ve not even attempted to respond to my examples but have focused on a limited definition of polemic is ample proof that you’ve been exposed.

I can only guess that somehow you are offended by the fact that I called the Papacy a monarchy. If that’s the case I advise you to look at my location, and do a bit of research (hint: people where I am from are overwhelmingly monarchist).

If it isn’t that, then I’m at a loss, and I would ask that you tell me what it is I did so I can avoid it in the future.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two, before addressing issues of legitimacy (i.e. who is orthodox, who has fallen into heresy) within the Orthodox Churches, I agree that similar questions arise in the Catholic Church. Who is right, is Pope Benedict legitimate, or are the other groups correct who hold sedevacantist views, and claim that THEY are the remnants of the true Church while the billion-plus people adhering to the Pius XI - Pius XII - John XXIII - Paul VI - John Paul I - John Paul II - Benedict XVI line have fallen into heresy and are following illegitimate leaders?

Back to Orthodox issues, if I understand it correctly, the Greek Old Calendarists claim that a majority of Church leadership can fall into heresy. As far as they are concerned, they point out that many pan-Orthodox Councils and local Synods condemned the New Calendar starting with 1582 and throughout the centuries since. They believe the EP of Constantinople has fallen into heresy when he adopted the New Calendar in 1922, and I suppose they believe the majority of the Holy Synod around the EP has also fallen into heresy.

This must represent an alternate view of EO ecclesiology, because reading their writings, they clearly believe that only a small minority of Greek Bishops stayed true to Orthodoxy, that only those stayed true who still obey the multiple anathemas pronounced beginning with the late 1500s, anathemas that condemned the New Calendar as a heresy.

Then, when these Old Calendarist Greek Bishops needed help to consecrate new Bishops, they got help from Russian and Serbian Bishops, who obviously were more than willing to consecrate new Old Calendarist Greek Bishops in schism with the majority (New Calendarist majority) of the EP and the Church of Greece.

What I’m trying to point out is the existence of a different type of EO ecclesiology, one that bases its claims of legitimacy not on the rulings of majority fractions and majority votes of Holy Synods, but rather on faithfulness to the unbroken line of past Holy Synods that invariably condemned the New Calendar for more than 3 centuries from 1582 until the EP of Constantinople changed its mind in 1922.

I’ve read some of the history of Greek EO Old Calendar Churches (Matthewite and Florinist Churches) in schism with the New Calendar Church of Greece and the EP, and they apparently believe that Truth is not decided by majority votes at the EP and Bishops around him. They believe that a majority of Bishops, even the EP of Constantinople, can fall into heresy, and they believe that the EP and Bishops on his side did become heretics, as a matter of fact, by adopting the ecumenist heresy of the New Calendar.

In contrast to some who might suggest that these issues are irrelevant to the thread, I see them as highly relevant. When we have multiple Churches that call themselves the One True EO Church, the one true New Testament Church established by Christ, but they break communion with each other, I am definitely interested why each one of these groups regards itself as the One True Church, while simultaneously regarding the other group as heretic.

Certainly a majority can fall into heresy, as has happened, but I don’t believe the Church as a whole can. If Bishops believe their ruling Synod has fallen to heresy they have alternatives, I don’t believe it possible that they would all fall, in much the same manner that the Catholic Church teaches the Church can’t fall into heresy.

I have never once seen any evidence that the calendar was a dogmatic issue. Pan-Orthodox councils may have forbade adopting the Gregorian Calendar, but the Council which created the New Julian did so on the same authority they did.

Personally I don’t see why you would want a religious calendar that is exactly the same as the civil, but with a 13 day offset and a different new year.

 

[searn77]

Then, when these Old Calendarist Greek Bishops needed help to consecrate new Bishops, they got help from Russian and Serbian Bishops, who obviously were more than willing to consecrate new Old Calendarist Greek Bishops in schism with the majority (New Calendarist majority) of the EP and the Church of Greece.

There were two Greek Old Calendarist synods at that time, the Matthewites and the Florinites. On the Florinite side, once Met. Chrysostomos of Florina passed away, they had no bishops, so they had ROCOR (ROCOR which rejected the calendar change and wasn’t in communion with World Orthodoxy) consecrate more bishops for them.

On the Matthewite side, Abp. (then only Bp.) Matthew was afraid that if he died there would be no more bishops in Greece. He tried to reach out to the Abp. Chrysostomos of Florina but this did not work out. So he went ahead and consecrated a bishop by himself, and then the two of them consecrated more bishops. The consecration of a bishop by a single bishop, although it is rare, is allowed by economia in the Apostolic Injunctions if it is absolutely necessary. Later they sought communion with ROCOR after making sure that ROCOR was not in communion with the World Orthodox and that they rejected the new calendar. Whether ROCOR performed cheirothesia to regularize the Matthewites consecrations or if ROCOR just gave their blessings thus affirming the consecrations, is questioned today. The Matthewites reject that the ROCOR performed cheirothesia to their consecrations, and later communion between the Matthewites and ROCOR were severed anyways.

I just thought I would type this up to clear up what you wrote, as it was ROCOR who helped consecrate new bishops.

 

[Nine_Two]

Johnnykins, being that it is the season of lent, and I do not wish to have enimity between myself and another, does this rephrasing work better for you:

then what must be proven is the nature of the Church ecclesiology prior to the Great Schism,

If it can be shown that the Church was run by the Papacy prior to the great schism, it stands to reason that Rome is the True Church. However if it can be shown that the Church was made up of multiple independent churches, working on a level as equals prior to the Great Schism, it stands to reason that the Orthodox Church is the True Church.

?

 

[Nine_Two]

There were two Greek Old Calendarist synods at that time, the Matthewites and the Florinites. On the Florinite side, once Met. Chrysostomos of Florina passed away, they had no bishops, so they had ROCOR (ROCOR which rejected the calendar change and wasn’t in communion with World Orthodoxy) consecrate more bishops for them.

On the Matthewite side, Abp. (then only Bp.) Matthew was afraid that if he died there would be no more bishops in Greece. He tried to reach out to the Abp. Chrysostomos of Florina but this did not work out. So he went ahead and consecrated a bishop by himself, and then the two of them consecrated more bishops. The consecration of a bishop by a single bishop, although it is rare, is allowed by economia in the Apostolic Injunctions if it is absolutely necessary. Later they sought communion with ROCOR after making sure that ROCOR was not in communion with the World Orthodox and that they rejected the new calendar. Whether ROCOR performed cheirothesia to regularize the Matthewites consecrations or if ROCOR just gave their blessings thus affirming the consecrations, is questioned today. The Matthewites reject that the ROCOR performed cheirothesia to their consecrations, and later communion between the Matthewites and ROCOR were severed anyways.

I just thought I would type this up to clear up what you wrote, as it was ROCOR who helped consecrate new bishops.

Actually I believe the requirement that there be at least three bishops to consecrate a new bishop is for exactly this reason.

 

[searn77]

Actually I believe the requirement that there be at least three bishops to consecrate a new bishop is for exactly this reason.

Yes but a single-handed consecration is permitted by economia when it is absolutely necessary.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes but a single-handed consecration is permitted by economia when it is absolutely necessary.

Economia must be granted, and an individual does not have the authority to grant himself that sort of power.

 

[searn77]

Economia must be granted, and an individual does not have the authority to grant himself that sort of power.

He did not grant it to himself, it is granted by economia in the Apostolic Injunctions.

 

[Nine_Two]

He did not grant it to himself, it is granted by economia in the Apostolic Injunctions.

I’m not familiar with that one. Do you have a link to something that describes it?

 

[L_piperatus]

We have our saints and holy people as well. St. Philaret of New York, St. John Maximovitch, St. Matthew the Confessor, Abp. Auxentius, Bp. Spyridon of Trimythus, Elder Moses of Athikia, St. Gregorios of Greece, St. Catherine the New Martyr, St. Charalambis fool for Christ, etc.

Regarding former ROCOR Metropolitan St. Philaret of New York the New Confessor, I think we all have a lot to learn from him. I’m not Orthodox, but I venerate St. Philaret as I do St. John Maximovitch. St. Philaret was obviously a very holy man to whom God granted great miracles both during his earthly life (his heroic resistance to apostasy at the hands of Japanese torturers, God protecting him from being killed by the atheist-communist Bolsheviks) and after his repose (his body remaining miraculously incorrupt).

With the way both the USA and Canada are descending into God-less tyranny and persecution of Christians, St. Philaret the New Confessor can teach and inspire us about faithfulness to God and God’s faithfulness to his servants.

Quote from ripc.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&lang=eng :

Confessor against Paganism

From 1931 until 1945 Manchuria with its capital city of Harbin was occupied by the Japanese. Towards the end of this period the Russians were called upon to confess their faith; for the Japanese placed a statue of their goddess Amateras, who according to Japanese tradition was the foundress of the imperial race, directly opposite the Orthodox cathedral of St. Nicholas. Then, in May, 1943, they demanded that Russians going to church in the cathedral should first make a “reverential bow” towards the goddess. It was also required that on certain days Japanese temples should be venerated, while a statue of the goddess was to be put in Orthodox churches.

An important influence on the Japanese in their eventual climb-down was the courageous confession of Fr. Philaret. The Japanese seized him and subjected him to torture. His cheek was torn and his eyes were almost torn out, but he suffered this patiently. Then they told him: “We have a red-hot electrical instrument here. Everybody who has had it applied to them has agreed to our requests. And you will also agree.” The torturer brought the instrument forward. Then Fr. Philaret prayed to St. Nicholas: “Holy Hierarch Nicholas, help me, otherwise there may be a betrayal.” The torturer commenced his work. He stripped the confessor to his waist and started to burn his spine with the burning iron. Then a miracle took place. Fr. Philaret could smell his burning flesh, but felt no pain. He felt joyful in his soul. The torturer could not understand why he was silent, and did not cry out or writhe from the unbearable pain. Then he turned and looked at his face. Amazed, he waved his hand, muttered something in Japanese and fled, conquered by the superhuman power of the confessor’s endurance. Fr. Philaret was brought, almost dead, to his relatives. There he passed out. When he came to he said: “I was in hell itself.” Gradually his wounds healed. Only his eyes were a bit distorted. And the Japanese no longer tried to compel the Orthodox to bow down to their idol.

continued…

 

[L_piperatus]

…more on St. Philaret the New Confessor - quote from website given in previous post:

Confessor against Communism

In 1945 the Soviet armies defeated the Japanese army; later the Chinese communists took control of Manchuria. At this time Fr. Philaret was the rector of the church of the holy Iveron icon in Harbin.

Soon Fr. Philaret read in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate that Lenin was the supreme genius and benefactor of mankind. He could not stand this lie and from the ambon of the church he indicated to the believers the whole unrighteousness of this disgraceful affirmation in an ecclesiastical organ, emphasising that Patriarch Alexis (Simansky), as the editor of the JMP, was responsible for this lie. Fr. Philaret’s voice sounded alone: none of the clergy supported him, and from the diocesan authorities there came a ban on his preaching from the church ambon, under which ban he remained for quite a long time. Thus, while still a priest, he was forced to struggle for church righteousness on his own, without finding any understanding amidst his brothers. Practically the whole of the Far Eastern episcopate of the Russian Church Abroad at that time recognised the Moscow Patriarchate, and so Fr. Philaret found himself involuntarily in the jurisdiction of the MP, as a cleric of the Harbin diocese. This was for him exceptionally painful. He never, in whatever parish he served, permitted the commemoration of the atheist authorities during the Divine services, and he never served molebens or pannikhidas on the order of, or to please, the Soviet authorities. That is how he spoke and acted during his life in China.

Such a firm and irreconcilable position in relation to the MP and the Soviet authorities could not remain unnoticed. Fr. Philaret was often summoned by the Chinese authorities for interrogations, at one of which he was beaten. In October, 1960 they even tried to kill him…

As he himself recounted the story, at two o’clock on a Sunday morning Fr. Philaret got up from bed because of a strange smell in his house. He went to the living-room, in the corner of which was a larder. From under the doors of the larder there was coming out smoke with a sharp, corrosive smell. Then he went to the lavatory, poured water into a bowl, returned to the larder and, opening the doors, threw the water in the direction of the smoke. Suddenly there was an explosion and a flash. The fire burned him, while the wave of the explosion lifted him up and hurled him with enormous force across the whole length of the living-room and against the door leading out. Fortunately, the door opened outwards: from the force of his flying body the bolts were broken, and he fell on the ground deafened but alive. On coming to, he saw the whole of his house on fire like a torch. He understood that the explosion had been caused by a thermal bomb set to go off and burn down the house at a precise time.

Repose

The holy hierarch Metropolitan Philaret passed away to the Lord at about 6.30 a.m. on November 8/21, 1985, on the day of the Chief Captain of the Heavenly Hosts, St. Michael.

Nearly thirteen years passed, and it was arranged that the remains of Metropolitan Philaret should be transferred from the burial-vault under the altar of the cemetery Dormition church of the Holy Trinity monastery in Jordanville into a new burial-vault behind the monastery’s main church. In connection with this, it was decided, in preparation for the transfer, to carry out an opening of the tomb. On November 10, 1998 Archbishop Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity, together with the clergy of the community, served a pannikhida in the burial vault; the coffin of Metropolitan Philaret was placed in the middle of the room and opened. The relics of the metropolitan were found to be completely incorrupt, they were of a light colour; the skin, beard and hair were completely preserved. His vestments, Gospel, and the paper with the prayer of absolution were in a state of complete preservation. Even the white cloth that covered his body from above had preserved its blinding whiteness, which greatly amazed the undertaker who was present at the opening of the coffin – he said that this cloth should have become completely black after three years in the coffin… It is noteworthy that the metal buckles of the Gospel in the coffin fell into dust on being touched – they had rusted completely; this witnessed to the fact that it was very damp in the tomb; and in such dampness nothing except these buckles suffered any damage! In truth this was a manifest miracle of God.

Miracles

Several miracles have been recorded since the repose of Metropolitan Philaret:

Folks, go to the website to read the rest of the story and St. Philaret’s miracles!

see website: ripc.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&lang=eng