V i e n n a . S e p t e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 .

S i s t e r Va s s a L a r i n :
O r t h o d ox y: A ffi r m a t i o n , N o t N e g a t i o n
You mentioned an insensitivity to history as a reason for the recent divisions in the
ROCOR (in the wake of the reconciliation with the MP). Since you spent several years
studying the archives of the ROCOR and reflecting on our history, could you tell us more
about this connection between our attitude toward history and the divisions in our
Church?
It would seem that issues surrounding the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate (MP) have already been argued to death. However, I think one central question
was hardly touched upon at all, leaving many of us either uneasy or at least puzzled by the
whole affair. The unresolved question has to do with history, and it can be formulated as follows:
In light of the well-documented statements of ROCORs councils and hierarchs of earlier
decades, the decision to enter into communion with the MP means a radical change in policy,
and hence a break with our history. So, how can this decision be acceptable for the Church?
The question is in and of itself interesting, because it presumes that change and church
history cannot possibly belong in the same sentence.
This concern for continuity, though doubtlessly well-meaning, betrays a rather hazy perception
of church history; as if inconsistencies and changes never occurred; as if the earthly Church
galloped through the centuries on a white horse, in effortless consistency and triumph. Having
learned a minimal amount of church history as children, many of us continue to base our
conceptions of church life on this Walt Disney version as adults. But just as children eventually
grow up, and cease to see their parents as god-like creatures though continuing to love and
venerate them no less as parents so could we be expected to mature in our perception of the
Church in her past and present.
The grown-up version of church history tells us that the Church of the Apostles decided on a
change in policy from the very outset. The so-called Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem
decided not to circumcise the Gentiles (as described in Acts 15), in blatant discontinuity with no
less than the Law of Moses, and with what the Apostles themselves had been preaching thus
far. The decision was not popular with everyone and resulted in the schism of the JudaeoChristians. Nonetheless, it was this that seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the Apostles,
and not a more consistent and traditional policy. There was apparently a bigger picture that
was more important than consistency with past policy. In the mid-3 rd c., after many Christians
broke under the pressure of persecutions and worshipped pagan gods, previously upheld
canonical discipline demanded that these lapsi or fallen ones be excommunicated for life. But,
to the dismay of many, the Church chose to be inconsistent with previous policy and opted for
clemency. The many faithful who opposed this decision, which did indeed signalize a break with
past policy, broke away into the schism of the Novatianists. Similar unpopular decisions were
that of the Second Ecumenical Council to not re-baptize the Arians (the Arians!); the decision of
the Seventh Ecumenical Council to accept iconoclast bishops as bishops; and the list could go
on.

So, inconsistency and change in and of themselves are nothing new in the history of the
Church, nor is opposition and schism on the basis of such changes. Yet it seems that in the
recent discussions and divisions in our Church, change was perceived as something of a shock.
This is what I meant by insensitivity to history.
It has become a commonplace to oppose a deviated Western Latin theological mindset
to Eastern Orthodox phronema. Is this a false dichotomy?
I will not pretend to do this complex question justice in an interview, but since you ask I shall
share a few thoughts.
A dichotomy involving the very broad concepts, East and West, is, of course, a
generalization. And any generalization is inexorably doomed to oversimplify and hence distort
the reality it attempts to explain. Let me relativize the dichotomy with a few observations. First,
the East-West distinction did not exist when modern educated thought was originating in the
ancient Greek philosophical schools in both East and West: About six centuries BC, we have
the Miletians on the coast of todays Turkey, and the Pythagoreans where? in Southern Italy.
The East-West distinction comes into theological play only from the 3rd-4th c. AD, when Latin
replaced Greek as the language of the educated class in the West. But today the borders are
once again blurred in our globalized world, when American culture permeates every city from
London to Athens and from Moscow to Hong Kong. Add to this the fact that many generations of
Orthodox have been educated in Western schools or school systems.
Having said that, I will state the obvious that of course there are marked differences between
Eastern and Western Christianity (I am referring only to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic
Churches), though I am not sure what you mean by deviated in your characterization of the
Western Latin theological mindset. Be that as it may, the Catholic-Orthodox discrepancies
rooted in theological tendencies are most evidently expressed in different styles of worship
and church administration.
The theological issues must be investigated by both sides not downplayed nor politically
exploited in conscientious and professional theological discussion. Unfortunately, however,
today the Orthodox-Catholic differences are often exploited to foster Orthodox identity. I mean
the penchant of Orthodox religious instructors or preachers for beginning their line of thought
with a negation of some Catholic teaching: The Catholics teach that Now, we the Orthodox
dont say that because. Such a method is disturbing because it reduces Orthodoxia, an
affirmation of true faith and worship to a negation of Catholicism. One Catholic priest once
said to me jokingly after he had listened to a recording of a well-known Moscow theologian
making fun of several Catholic saints: You should thank us, because you wouldnt exist if it
werent for the Catholics. Now, this comment is clearly offensive, but it is a reaction to an
Orthodox theologian ridiculing that which is holy to Catholics, i.e., highly-venerated Catholic
saints. This is all the more offensive since it was unprovoked.
As we contemplate and nurture our Orthodox identity today, perhaps it would be more
constructive to keep in mind that the fundamentals of this identity were articulated by the

Ecumenical Councils at a time when the Churches of East and West were one. Significantly,
unity was maintained despite the liturgical differences, which were almost fully developed in that
same period. Also, in light of the demographic crisis facing traditionally Christian countries,
where Islam seems soon to become the dominant religion, we would perhaps be well-advised to
reconsider the wisdom of dedicating our theological energy to attacks on Catholicism the
largest Christian denomination in our increasingly non-Christian world.
Many of our faithful think it inappropriate for the Orthodox even to discuss womens issues. For
example, when the wife of one of our priests heard about the First ROCOR Womens
Conference in Glen Cove in June, 2008, she said that she would never take part in such a
feminist undertaking. One of our clergymen who had heard about your talk Ritual Im/Purity
commented: How is the topic discussed by Sr. Vassa supposed to bring people closer to
God? Do you care to comment?
It is not easy to respond to hearsay. And for the record, we should keep in mind that we actually
have no idea as to what many of our faithful think, because as a rule the Orthodox do not
conduct professional surveys, nor do we even have any dependable statistics.
In any event, our Church has held conferences dedicated to certain demographics, to the
exclusion of others: we have Youth Conferences to the exclusion of older people; we have had
conferences dedicated to The Orthodox Family to the exclusion of single people and
monastics (and honestly I was not offended). In Russia there have also been conferences
dedicated to monastics of different monasteries, to the exclusion of non-monastics. This means
that the Church has not found it inappropriate to address the issues of these demographics.
It is also clear that the Church recognizes men and women as distinct categories in her fold:
the distinction is made both in our liturgical lives, as well as in the administrative structure of the
Church. To name just a few distinctions, women are encouraged to wear headscarves while
men are not; women do not enter the sanctuary while men do; women may not be ordained
while men may, etc. So the Church recognizes the distinct demographic women, thus
providing it with a distinct ecclesial experience and its own issues. We can thus conclude that
a.) women exist as a distinct group in the Church; b.) womens issues exist in the Church,
and, c.) it is OK to discuss these issues at conferences, just as this is done for other
demographics.
Can a discussion of the liturgical question of ritual im/purity from a theological standpoint bring
people closer to God? Just like anything else we do that is church-related, it depends on how
we approach the task. If, for example, while singing in the church choir my mind is never
occupied by prayer, but by idle and perhaps clearly sinful thoughts, then I could ask: Does
singing in a church choir bring me closer to God? If my baking cookies for the parish sisterhood
somehow causes me to quarrel with my husband and leaves me indisposed to prayer, I can
wonder: Does baking cookies for the parish sisterhood bring me closer to God? If cleaning the
candle-stands in church every Saturday makes me hate all the people in church who do not
clean the candle-stands every Saturday, I could ask a similar question. We could and should
question church-related activities in this way our own activities, that is.

Concerning the comment of the priests wife, I dont know the exact reasoning behind it. But the
part about feminist undertaking gives me a clue. The term Feminism, which I call the F
word because it often has the effect of a profanity, is similar to the term ecumenism: we are
not really sure what it means, but we have this gut feeling that it is something very, very bad.
The fact is that feminism can mean different things. It certainly always involves a discussion of
womens issues, but we have already established that that is OK. In its radicalized form,
feminism can mean a conviction that any differences between men and women can and
should be eliminated; a radicalized feminism may also encourage female homosexuality in the
name of total female self-sufficiency, etc. This is indeed a very, very bad thing. On the other
hand, feminism is a sentiment that in the 20 th c. led to women receiving higher education and
the right to vote; that provided women with protection against sexual harassment; that led to
women being recognized and treated as adults, etc. One would be hard put to prove how these
developments could be considered un-Christian, un-Orthodox, or bad in any way. Could you
imagine an Orthodox hierarch getting up and saying that parents should not send their
daughters to college, but encourage them to marry with no higher education, because thats
how it was in the good old days? Would you agree with your parish priest announcing that
women should not vote in next years congressional elections, because it is not their place? If
not, then a century ago you would definitely have been considered a feminist. In any event, it
is feminism that made it possible for women to do these things, which you today take for
granted. My point is: if we take for granted that today women are treated as adults, we will have
to reject the notion that feminism is a bad thing per se. And this means the concern for and
discussion of womens issues.
Sometimes I observe that Orthodox Christians express contempt towards education and
especially towards disciplines that are not directly related to Orthodoxy, such as literature,
psychology and philosophy. You have commented in your interview about the impossibility and
the detriment of isolating ourselves from the surrounding world. But how do you think does one
balance benefiting from what the non-Orthodox world has to offer, yet managing not to
compromise our beliefs?
If we are indeed concerned with managing not to compromise our beliefs, then it is necessary
to learn what those beliefs are, particularly in the context of todays world. And that is not
possible without an education, including literature, psychology, and philosophy. But a knowledge
of these things is not only a useful tool for dealing with the world; it is also needed for
understanding our own tradition. It took the knowledge of all three of these disciplines
literature, psychology, and philosophy to create the liturgical texts and rites of the Orthodox
Church, as well as most of the patristic writings. So, a contempt for these disciplines must
extend to traditional Orthodox culture and thinking as well. It may also be helpful to remember
that many Orthodox Christians of more recent times for example, F. M. Dostoevsky and
Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitskii demonstrated a healthy interest in these fields, and were no
less Orthodox for it.
As for benefiting from what the non-Orthodox world has to offer, let us review what this

involves: we eat potatoes grown by non-Orthodox farmers; we get in and out of automobiles and
airplanes designed by non-Orthodox engineers; our computers and telephones are also
manufactured by non-Orthodox; and we send our children to non-Orthodox schools. We may
even hire non-Orthodox architects to build our church, take an evening course given by a nonOrthodox professor at a community college, or consult a non-Orthodox child psychologist in
addressing the difficulties that our autistic child is having in school. In doing these things, do we
compromise our beliefs? Well, we might commit some sin while having the non-Orthodox-grown
potatoes, or while reading a non-Orthodox textbook, driving an automobile, using a computer, or
talking on a telephone (such as passing judgment on other Christians for being interested in
literature, psychology, and philosophy); we may lose sight of sharing the benefits of these things
with the needy, or neglect to use them to the greater glory of God, or lose our tempers when the
service or product we purchased turned out unsatisfactory. But in this case we have ourselves
to blame for how we made use of our blessings, and not the non-Orthodox world for having
made them available.
To condemn education, or literature, or philosophy, or psychology as if these things were bad
in and of themselves instead of condemning their abuse by human error or sin is a classic
yet tempting mistake of the pious mind. But it is one that the Church does not make, just like the
Church does not condemn wealth, power, alcohol, youth, music, etc., in and of themselves.
These things are God-given gifts, or the products of God-given talents, and it is how we use
them that can be either bad or good, as we choose in our God-given freedom.
I know how busy you are, and thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I
hope that this fruitful discussion will continue.

How St. John Maximovitch Became Our Slava

July 2, 2012 by matushka constantina

Pray to St. John of San Francisco for your husband. St. John was a very holy man,
the priestmonk told me as I turned the door handle to leave the room.
Okay, I said shrugging, not fully realizing just how holy St. John was.
I had wanted to become Orthodox for a couple months, but was wary of converting
while my husband was a candidate for ordination in the Anglican church. My
struggle to remain in the Anglican church was the source of much tension in our, so
far, four month long marriage. I remember, like it was yesterday, explaining to my
husband why I thought it was best for him to wait to be ordained: I felt I was not
mature enough to be a priests wife. And although I truly didnt feel mature enough
at that stage in my life (I was only 22 years old), the real reason I wanted him to
wait was because I secretly wanted us to convert to Orthodoxy. John agreed to wait
and humbly put his four-year-long desire to be ordained to the side.
Let me take a step back however, and briefly explain our history. Although I was
raised Catholic, when I went to World Youth Day in Toronto in 2002 I felt that it was

time for me to find a more traditional church. My brother whom I deeply loved
and respected had converted to traditional Anglicanism and his conversion had
planted a seed. (We had never heard of the Orthodox Church at that point in our
lives). I began to think: Perhaps there is a better form of Catholicism outside the
Catholic Church. During University I too became Anglican and grew closer to my
brothers friend (who was also a convert to Anglicanism from, well, nothing). We
were married. Eventually he became an Orthodox deacon, Fr. John. For what felt
like an eternity however, he was just stubborn John, not interested in Orthodoxy
while my brother, sister-in-law and younger sister committed to becoming
Orthodox. I was left longing to join them.
As time went by my desire to be Orthodox grew ever stronger and my conviction to
remain in the Anglican church ever weaker. After only five months of marriage I
became a catechumin in the Orthodox Church and stopped going to the Anglican
church altogether. Tensions rose, a lot of people were upset with me, but I needed
to follow what I thought was right for my soul.
So, needless to say, I sought guidance from a priestmonk and was advised to pray
to St. John. On my way home to New Brunswick I was asked if I would be willing to
take a later flight in exchange for a flight voucher. I had a long stay-over at my next
destination so I didnt mind sticking around the airport a bit longer. I thought
nothing of the voucher since we were moving to South Korea in a month or so and
didnt expect to fly anywhere in North America in the meantime. (We decided to
move to South Korea together with my brother and sister-in-law to teach
English since until that point our future plans only consisted of John being ordained
in the Anglican church).
Once I arrived home I started reading the biography of St. John of Shanghai and
San Francisco. Late one night I read a story about a nurse who started to go blind
and felt that if only she could put some water from the pool of Siloam in her eyes
shed be healed. The next day, while the nurse was visiting St. Johns tomb, a
woman who had just returned from Jerusalem gave the nurse some water she
brought back from the pool of Siloam. The woman put the water in her eyes while
standing over St. John and was healed. She believed the water was brought to her
through St. Johns intercession.
I suddenly had this strong feeling that if only I could visit St. John in San Fransisco
my John would become Orthodox. Then I remembered the flight voucher. I didnt
think there would be any available flights to California since the voucher seemed
quite limited. I wanted to get out of bed and check online for a ticket right then but
I made myself practice a little self-control and wait until morning.
The next morning I found an available flight to San Fransisco that the voucher
covered. We were about three weeks away from moving to South Korea, so I knew

I needed to act fast. I checked the dates for that coming weekend and lo and
behold, what day would I arrive? July 2. I was flabbergasted, the saints own feast
day. St. John had set that up, I felt. I couldnt believe it, truly I was being shown
just what a wonderworker this holy man was.
I arrived at the cathedral and spent as much time there as I was able whenever
the doors were open. I prayed and lit candles. I lovingly kissed the saints relics.
And I simply stood and looked on him with a great deal of awe and admiration. I
felt reassured that through the prayers of this great saint my husbands heart would
be softened and his mind would be enlightened.
On my last visit to the Joy of All who Sorrow cathedral (where St. John rests) I met
a wonderful priestmonk, Fr. James, and even greater blessings unfolded. He was
there with a Greek family from Canada and he took us all to the Old Cathedral
(where St. John served), served a moleben, prayed over us individually with St.
Johns Bishops mantle, and then took me to St. Tikhons orphanage where I was
able to see St. Johns cell, sit in his chair, and venerate in his chapel. I was so
overwhelmed with all the blessings St. John sent me. How could I doubt for a
second that my husband wouldnt be completely transformed through this saints
prayers? Of course in the months that followed I was impatient and discouraged my
husband didnt seem changed. But I didnt understand that we become blind to the
spiritual transformation of a person when we have particular expectations of them.
John took longer to come around than I wanted, but in October of the same year he
began coming to the Orthodox church where we were living in South Korea, and
even started fasting. The day I saw him using a prayer rope on our way home from
work, however, was the day I realized St. Johns prayers had finally fully penetrated
my husbands heart and I was ashamed I ever doubted the saint, that great
wonderworker and superb servant of Christ. I wish I could say my unbelieving
husband was sanctified by his believing wife, but in truth my husband was
sanctified by the prayers of one who became sanctified even in our latter times.
1.

n July 6, 2012 at 2:15 pmmatushkaannaThis brought me to tears. The first

saints life I read (once I was becoming Orthodox) was that of St. John.
Father and I felt an immediate pull to him. When we were newly Orthodox
someone gave us some oil from the lampada over his relics. We have used
that oil so, so many times. When I was expecting my first child I was about
20 weeks or so and began to have horrible abdominal pain. The pain got bad
to the point that I was sitting in a warm bath and crying. I didnt want to go
to the ER because I was afraid something was wrong with the baby and I
knew they couldnt give me anything effective for pain anyway. Suddenly I
remembered St. John. I told Father to run and get the oil to anoint me. He
did, even bringing me the icon to kiss, and within no more than 2 minutes the

pain had completely vanished. Later in the same pregnancy I went into
premature labor. I had one contraction after another. They checked me in
labor and delivery and I had actually started dilating. I was given a shot of
steroids, something to stop the contractions and told to be checked the next
day as I would certainly deliver within the week. I was terrified. The baby
would probably live but would be tiny. We went home and Father anointed me
with the oil and we asked our priest to pray. The next day my cervix was
completely closed. Our priest told us to anoint me daily until the baby was
born. As it happened, our daughter was born ten days past her due date and
was a big eight pounds! Only a few years ago Father got an earache that
started while I was at work. It was Friday night and we didnt feel anything
terrible would happen if we waited until morning so I gave him some Tylenol
and we went to bed. He woke me up around midnight in horrible pain. I ran
downstairs to get the oil and anointed his ear. The pain was gone in a few
minutes and we went to sleep. In the morning it was all too obvious that his
eardrum had ruptured, but he hadnt felt it. I could go on and on. The only
thing I have ever asked of St. John that he couldnt do was to let me find a
heartbeat that horrible morning last December. Regardless, I know his
prayers helped me through both miscarriages. I am still asking his
intercessions that we have a different outcome sometime in the future.Thank
you for sharing your story!
matushka constantinaAnd thank you for sharing yours! Sounds like hes been
quick to help you as well! He really is incredible, and theres something about his
person that makes him feel so close and nearby. I dont know if its because he is
such a contemporary saint or something else, but it feels as though you could
almost speak to him and not be surprised to hear his voice answer.