Author: D.S. Biryukov

Arianism is the first current in the mainstream of Christian thought, recognized as heresy and became the state religion in the Roman Empire. Arianism is undeniably the largest and largest of the movements within Christendom since the beginning of Christianity that have been recognized as heretical. Therefore, subsequent generations of Christian writers understood Arianism as a heresy par excellence, and this testifies to the important role played by the phenomenon of Arianism in the culture and philosophical thought of their time.

The Arian movement was formed by the first quarter of the 4th century as a result of theological disputes that began around 315-318. These disputes arose around the teachings of presbyter Arius, after whom the movement of the church people and bishops, who in one way or another shared his ideas, began to be called. Arius taught that Christ (God the Son) was created by the will of God from “nothing”, and He is created by nature (this did not prevent, however, Arius from calling Christ “God” (1)). God created Christ, Arius taught, but Christ, following the direction of God, created the whole created world. Arius distinguished between the Word and Wisdom proper to God, which God always has (2), and the Word produced by this Wisdom, which is the Word and Wisdom by communion with God. “There are two Wisdoms: one own and co-existing with God; the Son is begotten by this Wisdom, and, as a partaker of it, is only called Wisdom and the Word. For Wisdom from Wisdom was realized by the will of the most wise God … In God there is another Word, besides the Son, and The Son, as one who participates in Him, is called by grace the Word and the Son himself” (3).

For this reason, according to Arius, Christ does not know God as He is in Himself, but just as the Son is the Word and Wisdom by participating in the true Word and Wisdom of God, so the Son knows the Father “as far as it is permissible”, by participating in the contemplation of God. himself: “Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all is that He is invisible both to those who are through the Son and to the Son Himself. God can see, in his measure it is possible for the Son to see the Father, as much as possible” (4).

We can agree with R. Williams (5) that here the words “by the same power by which God can see” indicate the self-contemplation of God, that is, it means “by which God [Himself] can see”.

Arius’ argumentation is interesting as to why the Son cannot fully know God: because the work cannot grasp its reason, its foundation of being, all the more so since this reason itself is causeless, having no beginning for itself, for to one who has beginning, it is all the more impossible to seize Him who has no beginning. As V. Lehr notes (6), probably for the same reason, Arius argues that the Son cannot know His essence either – because it is produced by the Father as an existential principle that is not covered by the mind: “For it is impossible for Him [the Son] to explore the Father what He is in Himself. For the Son does not even know His own essence: being the Son, He was truly realized by the will of the Father. And how is it possible for one who is from the Father to know the Begotten through comprehension? He is” (7).

On the whole, Platonic implications are seen in Arius’s teaching on the knowledge of God. His teaching about the unknowability of God by the Son and people refers to the tradition of interpretation of Timaeus, 28c, in Platonism, and primarily in Christian Platonism (8). In connection with the intellectualism of the First Principle in the doctrine of Arius (the theme of the self-contemplating God), we can talk about the Middle Platonic motives in his teaching, as opposed to the Neoplatonic emphasis, which is placed on the fact that God the First Principle is higher than mind and being. Middle Platonic elements are also seen in the teaching of Arius that there is an intermediate link between the Deity and the world – Christ, who performs demiurgical functions (the mediator-demiurge is a distinctive feature of the systems of Numenius and Albinus (9)); for the same reason, the origin of the world in the Arius system cannot be explained using the concept of an outpouring, an emanation of the Divine (similar to the case in Neoplatonism), which also brings the teaching of Arius closer to the middle Platonism, although, of course, in this respect the decisive role is played by Judeo-Christian doctrine of creationism (10).

However, it is incorrect to say, following Fr. G. Florovsky (11), that the unknowable God Arius is a kind of lifeless higher principle, of which it is known only that He is the cause of the created world. On the other hand, it is probably not worth it, as A. Grillmeier (12) does, to assert that Arius referred to God the concept of infinity, that is, the absolute fullness of life. It is obvious that the doctrine of Arius implies a certain idea of ​​the intra-divine life, although he does not emphasize it – namely, this idea is manifested in the teaching of Arius that a certain Divine Word, Wisdom, is inherent in God, which is such not by communion. , as in the case of Christ, but in the proper sense.

The intermediate link between the teachings of Arius and the neo-Arian teachings that developed in the second half of the 4th century, at the second stage of the Arian disputes, the Anomeans (neo-Arians (13)) Aetius and Eunomius, is the teaching of Asterius (14). Asterius was born in Cappadocia. Like Arius, he was probably a student of Lucian of Antioch. Having been tormented in the time of Diocletian, Asterius became an apostate, and for this reason he could not accept the priesthood. By profession he was a rhetorician. Asterius was the chief defender of the Arians in the first stage of the Arian controversy. Around 325, at the insistence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius, he wrote his essay “Syntagmation” (15), and in 327 he defended in writing the provisions of the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia condemned at the Council of Nicaea to the Peacock of Tire.

Fragments of this work are preserved by Athanasius, especially in the treatise “Against the Arians”, and also, mainly in paraphrase, by Marcellus of Ancyra (16). Asterius refused Aryan’s distinction between the two Words of God – the Word by communion (Christ) and God’s own, however, according to Asterius, God has intrinsic Wisdom and Power, through which He created the created world. Apparently, Asteria was not entirely satisfied with the position of Arius regarding the fact that God is unknowable and inexpressible, and the Son cannot know his own essence. Asterius also sought to challenge the words of the main defender of Orthodox teaching during the first stage of the Arian disputes, Alexander of Alexandria, whose position is evident from the following quote: “But let no one ever accept the word in the sense of unbornness, as people with damaged feelings of the soul think: “always”, nor “before the age” – is not the same thing with unbornness. The human mind is not able to invent any name to indicate unbornness “(17).

Asterius believed that if Alexander focuses on the impossibility of finding in speech, the impossibility of establishing the exact meaning of that essential feature that distinguishes the Divine from the created, then it is necessary to work on rationalization, the definition of this feature. Asterius thus defines the unborn: “The unborn is that which is not created, but always exists” (18).

Thus, agreeing in some way with the understanding of Alexander of Alexandria that the concept of “unbornness” is not identical with the idea of ​​the absence of a beginning in time, Asterius adds a certain positive attribute to the definition of unbornness, namely, that in relation to the subject of unbornness one cannot speak of its creator, i.e. e. that the unborn has no reason for its existence. However, “unbornness” for Asterius is not an essential sign of God as a single being, as it will later be among the neo-Arians. According to Asterius, God has a constructive Wisdom and Power, and the concept of “unbegotten” can also be applied to the Wisdom that God made Christ: “Blessed Paul did not say that he preaches Christ – His own, that is, God, Power or Wisdom; of this addition: God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24), preaching that there is another own Power of God Himself, innate and unborn coexistent with Him; and she is the bearer of Christ and the Creator of the whole world “(19) .

As we can see, Asterius, like Arius, has a certain idea of ​​the fullness of Divine life, manifested in the doctrine of His Wisdom and Power co-born with God. Speaking of God’s Wisdom as the Creator of the cosmos, Asterius develops the view of Philo (20) and Clement

of Alexandria (21) to God’s Wisdom as a helper and organizer (22) of the creation of the cosmos.

So, the discourse of Arius suggests that the Divine essence is unknowable and ineffable; and although, according to Arius, God is unbegotten, this is not a characteristic of His essence, but “unbegottenness” is a predicate applied to God along with many others (23). Moreover, Arius’ understanding of the Divine names, as far as one can judge, is such that any name spoken of God can only be expressed in terms of opposing the Divine being to the properties of the created world; in particular, God, according to Arius, is called “unbegotten” in opposition to the “begottenness” of the Son (24), – this is one of the manifestations of the intention of apophaticism in the teaching of Arius. In this regard, the teaching of Asterius acts as an intermediate link between the doctrines of Arius and Aetius. Asterius, as far as can be judged from the fragments preserved in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Athanasius, lacks the elements of apophaticism that are so important for Arius, but there is still no emphasis on rationalism in theology, which was the main point in the methodology of the Arians of the time of the second stage of the Arian disputes (neo-Arian ), and, in particular, in the methodology of one of the leaders of the neo-Arian movement – Aetius.

In contrast to Arius, the neo-Arians followed a rationalist stream in theological discourse. As Ronald Heine rightly remarks, this was probably because Arius’s insistence on the unknowability of God provided their rivals with a weapon that embarrassed the Arians; namely: accepting that the Divine nature is unknowable and ineffable, one could insist on the possibility of the eternal birth of the Son from God and His consubstantiality with God and say that how the Son is born and how He is consubstantial with the Father is beyond human understanding (25) .

Therefore, the neo-Arians needed to formalize the discourse that operates with the concept of the Divine nature (essence) and the nature (essence) of the Son. They insisted that a Christian needs to know what he worships, what is the nature of the worshipper; if a Christian cannot express this essence, then he does not know what he worships (26). Thus, the methodology adopted in the teaching of the neo-Arians, in contrast to the Arian teaching of the time of the first stage of the Arian disputes, indicates the prevailing rationalistic motives in their doctrine – in the sense of an emphasis on knowledge and expression in the language of the image of the being of God and Christ. This approach aims to achieve a static stability of thought, which has found its rest in the knowledge of the specifics of the way of being of God and Christ.

NOTES:

1 – On the one hand, Arius, like Origen, argued that the Son is not “true God” (Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.9), on the other hand, the Arians could, for political reasons, argue that the Son is the true God (Athanasius, Epistle to the African Bishops, 5).

2 – In his sophiology, Arius probably followed Philo of Alexandria (cf. On flight and acquisition, 109; That the worst tends to attack the best, 115-116).

3 – Athanasius, Against Arius, 1.5.

4 – Athanasius, On cathedrals, 15.

5 – Williams 1987: 212.

6 – Loehr 2006: 148.

7 – Athanasius, On cathedrals, 15.

8 – See Albin, Textbook 10.1,4; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 77; Justin, Conversation with Tryphon the Jew, 4.1; Athenagoras, Petition, 6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.102.5 et al. See in general: Danielou 2003: 165-167.

9 – See Dillon 2002: 351.

10 – For Arius’s Middle Platonic connotations, see Stead 1964: 16-31; Stead 1997: 39-52. And although certain points of Stead’s argument seem to us incorrect, for example, the correlation of the monadology of Arius with the monadology of Numenius, in general, we can agree with his conclusion about the predominant Middle Platonic underlying basis of the doctrine of Arius.

11 – Florovsky G., prot. “The concept of creation in St. Athanasius”, Florovsky 1998: 90 (translated from the English edition of the article by o. G. Florovsky: Florovsky 1962).

12 – Grillmeier 1975: 231, 237.

13 – The Orthodox opponents of Aetius and Eunomius called them “anomei” (Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, PG 29, 500.27), i.e. “incomparable”, but this is an incorrect name, since, firstly, Arius also argued that Christ is not like God and, secondly, in a certain respect, according to Aetius and Eunomius, Christ is like God (by will). Therefore, following the modern researchers, we will call the teaching of Aetius and Eunomius “neo-Arian”; for a discussion of this issue, see ed. Wiles 1996: 30-31.

14 – See Kopecek 1979: 72-73.

15 – Surviving fragments from the “Syntagmation” of Asterius published in the book: Bardy 1936; in general, Asterius is dedicated to ss. 316-357 of this classic work.

16 – See Markellus 1972: 185-214. For a general discussion of the controversy between Asterius and Markell, see the generalizing work Parvis 2006: 96-133.

17 – Theodoret, Church History, 1.4.

18 – Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.30.

19 – Athanasius, On Cathedrals, 1.18.

20 – Philo, On flight and acquisition, 109.

21 – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.13.

22 – On this see Jaeger 1961: 90-106. However, this evidence seems to contradict other fragments from Asterius cited by Athanasius, according to which God, having wanted to create the cosmos, but seeing that the cosmos could not endure the power of the Divine hand, created Christ as an intermediary between Himself and the cosmos – this view, according to Athanasius, was shared by Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Asterius (Athanasius, On Councils, 24; On Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, 8).

23 – See: “Our faith, received from the ancestors, which we also learned from you, blessed Pope, is this: we know the one God, the one unborn, the one eternal, the one without beginning, the one true, the one having immortality, the only wise, the only good, one Sovereign, Judge of all, Ruler, Dispenser, immutable, unchangeable, righteous and good” (Message to Alexander of Alexandria in Athanasius in On Councils, 16).

24 – “God Himself, since He is God, is indescribable for all. He alone has neither equal, nor similar, nor glorious to Himself. Let us call Him unbegotten for the sake of the one who was born by nature; let us hymn Him without beginning for the sake of the one who has a beginning; we honor Him eternal for the sake of the one born in time” (Arius, Thalia, in Athanasius in On Councils, 15).

25 – See Heine 1975: 135.

26 – Evidence of this: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 234.1; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2.39.13-14 (Jaeger).

Bibliography

Albertz M. (1908) Untersuchungen tiber die Schriften des Eunomius (Wittenberg)

Bardy G. (1928) “L’Heritage Litteraire d’Aetius”, Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 24, 823-882

Bardy G. (1936) Recherches sur saint Lucien d’ Antioche et son ecole (Paris)

Eunomius (1987) The Extant Works, Text and transl. by R. Vaggione (Oxford)

Florovsky G. (1962) “The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius”, Studia Patristica 6, 36-67

Grillmeier A. (19752) Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 1. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, 451 (London / Oxford)

Harnack, A. (1901) The History of Dogma, vol. 4 (Boston)

Heine R. (1975) Perfection in the Virtuous Life (Philadelphia)

Kelly J. N. D. (1958) Early Christian Doctrines (London)

Kopecek Th. (1979) A History of Neo-Arianism (Philadelphia) vol. one

Lohr W. (2006) “Arius Reconsidered (Part 2)”, Zeitschrift ftir Antikes Christentum 10, 121-157

Markellus (1972) Fragmenta e libro contra Asterium (frr. 1-128), ed. E. Klostermann, G. C. Hansen, in Eusebius Werke, Vol. 4, GCHS 14 (Berlin)

Jaeger H. (1961) “The Patristic Conception of Wisdom in the Light of Biblical and Rabbinical Research”, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 79, 90-106

Parvis S. (2006) Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (Oxford)

Stead C. (1964) “The Platonism of Arius”, The Journal of Theological Studies 15, 16-31

Stead C. (1997) “Was Arius a Neoplatonist?”, Studia Patristica 32, 39-52

Wickham L. (1968) “The Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomean”, The Journal of Theological Studies 19, 532-569

Wiles M. (1996) Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries (Oxford)

Wiles M. (2002) “Eunomius: hair-splitting dialectician or defender of the accessibility of salvation?”, The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams (Cambridge) 157-172

Williams R. (1987) Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London)

In Russian:

Danielou J. (2003) “Plato in Christian Middle Platonism”, Theological Collection 11, 146-168

Dillon J. (2002) Middle Platonists (St. Petersburg)

Lossky Vl. (2000) Theology and vision of God (Moscow)

Nesmelov V. (1887) The dogmatic system of St. Gregory of Nyssa (Kazan)

Florovsky G., prot. (1998) Dogma and history (Moscow)

Photo: Icon of Saint Mercurius killing Emeror Iulian

Source: portal-credo.ru

It is hard to imagine that it was in Mariupol land about two centuries ago that a man lived whose personality both his contemporaries and descendants compared with the personality of God’s prophet Moses. “Moses of the Mariupol Greeks” – this is the name of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gottya and Kafay. Just as the prophet of biblical times, Moses, delivered the people of Israel from Egyptian slavery, so St. Ignatius delivered the Crimean Greeks from subjection to the Tatars.

The future Saint Ignatius was born in 1715 on the Greek island of Thermia (today’s Kythnos) into a noble, pious Gozadino family. His parents named him Jacob. Fermia Island at that time was under the rule of the Turks. The Greeks conquered by the Gentiles, although they had certain rights – both civil and religious – never forgot that their homeland was in the past the center of the entire Orthodox world. They dreamed of its revival and raised their children in this hope.

Monastic service

Jacob received his education in Venice, in the Greek College established there. In Greece itself, the state of education was then not the best. After school, Jacob felt a monastic vocation, took the blessing of his parents and went to Mount Athos, where one of his close relatives carried out the monastic feat. Jacob wholeheartedly loved the monastic life with renunciation of worldly fuss, therefore, as a young man, he took monastic tonsure with the name Ignatius in honor of the great Saint Ignatius the God-bearer. Having gone through all the hierarchical degrees of the priesthood, up to the episcopal rank, Ignatius (Gozadino) proved himself to be a kind and hardworking pastor, for which he earned the love and respect of his flock.

Metropolitan Sanctuary

In 1769, by decision of the Hierarchy, the bishop, in the rank of metropolitan, headed the Gottya-Kafai department in Tauris. He settled in the Holy Assumption Monastery near Bakhchisarai. At that time, the Holy Assumption Monastery was a beacon for all Christians of the peninsula. From this monastery St. Ignatius ruled the diocese, here he prayed for the flock, meditated on its difficult fate. The great-nephew of the Saint, Ignatii Ivanovich Gozadinov, tells about the life of the Greeks under the rule of the Tatars and cites horrific facts: “What was the life of the poor Greeks, completely enslaved by the Asian peoples? -an eyewitness, who at that time was a boy under the Metropolitan One Greek comes to His Eminence and says with tears: “Effendi! (This is how the Turks and Tatars call noble persons) Efendi! My four-year-old son, having heard the muezzin shout on the minaret: “Magomed irresul alla”, shouted the same himself; the Tatars seized the child and, saying that he had converted to Islam, Muslimized him.” “Efendi! calls another. – The Tartar knocked out the rest of the still burning tobacco from his pipe in the street in order to light a newly filled pipe from it. My old and almost blind father, without noticing this, stepped on the fire. Seeing this as an insult to himself, the Tatar, without hesitation, and without saying a word, shot him like a dog.

For seven difficult years St. Ignatius ruled his cathedra, offering tearful prayers for the oppressed flock. The Lord opened the way for deliverance from the oppression of his co-religionists. Like Moses, the difficult mission of the exodus of Orthodox Greeks from the Tatar Crimea to the Christian land of the Russian Sea of ​​Azov was entrusted to St. Ignatius.

At the head of the Greek settlers

Diploma of Catherine II.

Made for the Crimean Greeks who moved to Russia

May 1779

When the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774 broke out. and Crimea was occupied by Russian troops in 1771, Archbishop Ignatius, through the commander of the Russian occupation corps in Crimea, V. M. Dolgorukov, sent letters to the Holy Synod and to Empress Catherine II with a request to accept Christians into Russian citizenship. Negotiations began, during which it was decided to start campaigning for the resettlement of Orthodox Greeks to the territory of the Russian Empire. Russia itself was interested in this resettlement, because 30 thousand people who could be withdrawn from the Crimea would significantly weaken the Crimean Khanate. The qualities of a diplomat helped Saint Ignatius obtain great economic and land benefits for his flock, but the main thing was that the Greek people had the opportunity to forever get rid of oppression in the sphere of religious life.

The call to begin preparations for the Exodus was made after the Divine Liturgy on April 23, 1778, in the cave church of the Holy Assumption Skete. Messengers throughout the peninsula alerted fellow believers. It is noteworthy that there was not a single traitor among the Greeks: the Turkish-Tatar authorities of the Crimea did not learn anything about the impending event and were unable to prevent it. Leaving the houses and graves of their ancestors, in the month of June, with the great shrine – the Bakhchisaray icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria, whose name translates as “Guide”, – the Greeks set off. They also took with them the icon of St. George the Victorious from the monastery on Fiolent.

Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov led the military side of the exodus, and Vladyka Ignatius led the spiritual and administrative side. About twenty thousand people left the Turkish-Tatar Crimea.

“The Great Transition of the Greeks to Azov”

Mariupol wood carver Georgy Korotkov

(cedar)

During the journey, the Greeks faced many difficulties and terrible illnesses, which were successfully overcome thanks to the prayers of Archpastor Ignatius. So, when an unknown terrible epidemic happened on the way, Saint Ignatius prayed to Hieromartyr Kharlampy, and the people were saved. Metropolitan Ignatius, sparing no effort, worked for his flock, helped them endure the hardships of the path – not a single person was bypassed by his care. But just as the Jews once lived in the wilderness, so the Greeks were not always grateful to the one who laid down his life for them. Many grumbled, offered to go back, complained about the difficulties of the path. However, nothing could lessen Vladyka’s love for his spiritual children, and he sincerely rejoiced that the miracle of God’s mercy had taken place and his people had been saved.

In the city of Mariupol

On the Russian coast of the Sea of ​​Azov, where the settlers stopped, with the blessing of Metropolitan Ignatius, the city of Mariupol was founded, named after the Queen of Heaven, the Patroness of Christians on the road and in later life in a new place. Vladyka passed under the omophorion of the Russian Orthodox Church as a vicar bishop of the Kherson and Slavic diocese, retaining the title of Metropolitan of Gottya-Kafai. For the feat and courage shown, Empress Catherine II awarded the Saint with a high award – a diamond panagia.

The first concern of Metropolitan Ignatius was the arrangement of the spiritual life of the flock: living under the auspices of an Orthodox state, the Greeks were now free to confess the faith of Christ. Vladyka founded new settlements, built and consecrated temples in them. In one of the churches of Mariupol, an icon of the Mother of God brought from the Crimea was installed. Vladyka kept another icon – St. George the Victorious – in front of this icon, St. Ignatius constantly prayed for the well-being of his people.

The hardships of life in a new place, the danger of an attack by Turkish landing forces, which often landed on the coast in order to return the fugitives – all this aroused the murmur of faint-hearted people. They began to blame the Saint for all their troubles and discords. The Metropolitan endured everything with humility. Archbishop Gabriel of Kherson and Taurida, whose manuscript is in the Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities (Volume 1, 1861), indicates: He lived, along with the poorest of his fellow tribesmen, in a wretched, gloomy, damp dugout. Moreover, misfortune visited him here: a fire that broke out turned all his property to ashes, after which, although a comfortable house was built for him, but the saint did not find perfect peace in him, being disturbed by frequent upsets from his compatriots.

The manuscript of Archbishop Gabriel tells about the place where St. Ignatius stayed: “He chose a special place for spiritual rest, six miles from the city up the river Kalmius, where he planted a good orchard, building in it a stone cell for prayer. , also a stone, tiled house with five windows. Here the Right Reverend intended to build a monastery in the name of the great martyr and victorious George, especially revered by the Greeks; but with his death, all his noble intentions crossed.”

Attitude of compatriots

In 1786, after a two-week illness, Vladyka reposed in the Lord. He was buried in the first church in Mariupol – in the Cathedral of St. Kharlampy. But the ingratitude of compatriots did not dry up for a long time, both in relation to the saint and to his relatives. “The suburban orphanage of the Right Reverend has fallen into disrepair, the garden has died out with nettles, and the cells and the prayer house are being destroyed. With his death, the existence of the diocese of Gotthia and Kathia in Russia ceased to exist, with him it arose and lasted for almost seven years,” says Archbishop Gabriel.

The saint died on February 3, 1786, after a two-week illness. He was buried in the first church in Mariupol – the Cathedral of St. Haralamp.

After some time, the name of the saint, hitherto under the cover of semi-forgetfulness, again awakened a grateful memory of him among the Orthodox of the Russian Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov. Requiem services at the grave of the righteous man gathered many people, readings and historical research were conducted about his life and work.

In 1936, the atheists destroyed the St. Kharlampi Cathedral, and opened the coffin of the saint. Then it was discovered that his relics were incorruptible. During the occupation, when churches were reopened, his body was transferred to a church building. During the liberation of Mariupol on September 10, 1943, the city set on fire by the Germans burned, and the holy relics burned with it. Thus the prediction of the saint was fulfilled, that his body would be burned along with the city. And yet part of the relics survived. Through the efforts of believers, this part was kept by them until 1992, when the tomb with the shrine was transferred to the Mariupol Nikolo-Preobrazhensky port church.

On June 11, 1997, and on November 15, 1998, the Divine Liturgy and the rite of glorification of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gottya and Kefay were served as locally venerated saints.

On November 30, 2017, the all-church veneration of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gotha and Kafa, began with the inclusion of his name in the calendar.

Photo: Portrait of St. Ignatius of Mariupol

John (Maximovitch) the Wonderworker (1896–1966) was a prominent Eastern Orthodox ascetic and hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) who was active in the mid-20th century. He was a pastor and spiritual father of high reputation and a reputed wonderworker to whom was attributed great powers of prophecy, clairvoyance and healing, and he is often referred to simply as “St. John the Wonderworker.”

St. John was born Mikhail Borisovich Maximovitch in 1896 in the village of Adamovka in the Kharkov Governorate (in present-day southern Ukraine). He came from the same family of Serbian origin as that of St. John of Tobolsk whom he was said to resemble in several respects. From 1907 to 1914 he attended Poltava Military School. He received a degree in law from Kharkov Imperial University in 1918. His family brought him to Belgrade in 1921, where in 1925 he graduated from Belgrade University with a degree in theology.

In 1926 he was tonsured a monk and ordained a hierodeacon by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who gave him the name of John after his saintly relative. Later that same year, he was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Gabriel of Chelyabinsk. For several years afterward he worked as an instructor and tutor. In 1934 he was ordained a bishop by Metropolitan Anthony and assigned to the diocese of Shanghai.

Shanghai

In Shanghai, Bishop John found an uncompleted cathedral and an Orthodox community deeply divided along ethnic lines. Making contact with all the various groups, he quickly involved himself in the existing charitable institutions and personally founded an orphanage and home for the children of indigents. It was here that he first became known for miracles attributed to his prayer, and as a public figure it was impossible for him to completely conceal his ascetic way of life. Despite his actions during theJapanese occupation, when he routinely ignored the curfew in pursuit of his pastoral activities, the Japanese authorities never harassed him. As the only Russian hierarch in China who refused to submit to the authority of the Soviet-dominatedRussian Orthodox Church, he was elevated to archbishop by the Holy Synod of ROCOR in 1946.

When the Communists took power in China, the Russian colony was forced to flee, first to a refugee camp on the island ofTubabao in the Philippines and then mainly to the United States and Australia. Archbishop John travelled personally toWashington, D.C. to ensure that his people would be allowed to enter the country.

Western Europe

In 1951 John was assigned to the archdiocese of Western Europe with his see first in Paris, then in Brussels. Thanks to his work in collecting lives of saints, a great many pre-Schism Western saints became known in Orthodoxy and continue to be venerated to this day. His charitable and pastoral work continued as it had in Shanghai, even among a much more widely scattered flock.

San Francisco

In 1962 John was once again reassigned by the Holy Synod to the see of San Francisco. Here too, he found a divided community and a cathedral in an unfinished state. Although he completed the building of Holy Virgin Cathedral and brought some measure of peace to the community he became the target of slander from those who became his political enemies, who went so far as to file a lawsuit against him for alleged mishandling of finances related to construction of the cathedral. He was exonerated, but this was a great cause of sorrow to him in his later life.

Deeply revering St. John of Kronstadt, John Maximovitch played an active role in preparation of his canonization.

Death and veneration

On July 2, 1966 (June 19 on the Julian calendar) St. John died while visiting Seattle at a time and place he was said to have foretold. He was entombed in a sepulchre beneath the altar of the Holy Virgin Cathedral he had built in San Francisco dedicated to the Theotokos, Joy of all who Sorrow on Geary Boulevard in the Richmond district. In 1994 he was solemnly glorified on the twenty-eighth anniversary of his death. His unembalmed relics now occupy a shrine in the cathedral’s nave. His feast day is celebrated on the Saturday nearest to the 2nd of July. He is beloved and celebrated worldwide, with portions of his relics located in Serbia, Russia, Mount Athos, Bulgaria, Romania, United States, Canada (Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church, Kitchener), England (Dormition Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church, London) and other countries of the world.

Photo: Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, 1954.