Temples of the Holy Spirit

On relics and the “gift” to the Pope of Rome

Photo: http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/zhitie_svjatykh_razdel/view/id/28659 Photo: http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/zhitie_svjatykh_razdel/view/id/28659

On September 15, 2016, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, met with Pope Francis at the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. In Italy for a session of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church held in Chiet from September 15 to 22, Met. Hilarion, on behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, gifted the Pope of Rome a piece of the relics of the much beloved great wonderworker St. Seraphim of Sarov, in a shrine the shape of a Paschal egg.

Unsurprisingly, this has caused consternation among the Orthodox faithful, especially of the Moscow Patriarchate. The issue is not one of begrudging any and all pleasantries towards the Catholic prelate, but is focused rather upon the importance given to and the seriousness with which Orthodox Christians relate to the holy relics of the saints.

As St. Justin Popovich, the incomparable saint of the twentieth century Serbian Church, explains, relics, in fact, lie at the very heart of the New Testament faith of the Orthodox Church.[1] It can even be said that relics confirm for us the mystery of faith. In proclaiming the Incarnation of the Son and Word of God the Orthodox Church proclaims the sanctification of the material world, and chiefly of the human body, summoned unto the status of the Holy Spirit’s own temple (1 Cor. 6:19). The relics of the saints, with their sweet fragrances, miraculous healings, and myrrh-streaming properties—all signs of the grace of the Spirit that continues to abide in them—thus serve for the faithful as the confirmation of their Orthodox faith.

St. John Damascene, the great saint, hymnographer, and dogmatician of the seventh—eighth centuries explains: “The saints have become according to grace that which the Lord Christ is according to nature. That is, they have become gods according to grace: pure and living habitations of God. For God says: ‘I will dwell in them, walk in them, and I will be their God’ (2 Corinthians 6:16; Leviticus 16:12).” Thus we see that relics are explained by the distinction between God’s nature and grace, His essence and energies—a distinction known only to Orthodox theology and Orthodox praxis.

Met. HIlarion (Alfeyev) gifting the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov to the Pope of Rome. Photo: https://mospat.ru/en/2016/09/15/news135747/ Met. HIlarion (Alfeyev) gifting the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov to the Pope of Rome. Photo: https://mospat.ru/en/2016/09/15/news135747/
That relics are inextricably bound up with the incarnational heart of the Orthodox faith is further confirmed when we note, as does St. Justin Popovich, that from deep within antiquity, the Orthodox Church has built its temples over the graves and relics of the saints, and that the Divine Liturgy can be served only over an antimension in which is placed, as a rule, the relics of a chosen saint. That is, the holy Eucharist, the highest height of the Christian life, the grace of which maintains the world in existence, is celebrated over the relics of the saints.

An Orthodox altar is incomplete without relics—an altar into which the Pope of Rome is not permitted to enter. The Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated in the presence of holy relics—the precious Communion of which the Pope of Rome is not permitted to partake.

In light of this serious understanding of relics, Fr. Peter Heers, holding a doctorate in Dogmatic Theology from the Theological School of the University of Thessalonica with a keen interest and expertise in ecclesiology, raises some serious questions, which deserve a serious answer. Noting the disturbance and disappointment brought to the faithful, he asks:

“Can a Patriarch or Metropolitan take relics and give them to heretics? Is this permitted by the canons of the Church? Does this express Orthodox ecclesiology? Does this lead people to the Church or mislead them?” “Are the relics ‘ours’ to give? Do they belong to us or … we to them?” “Why is this not a case of throwing pearls before swine (with ‘swine’ here meaning those who cannot understand [not having the spiritual presuppositions to properly value] and do not glorify in an Orthodox manner)?”

In the same vein, Fr. George Maximov, a beloved Moscow priest active in Orthodox catechism and missionary work both at home and abroad, offers his own thought-provoking reflection and series of questions:

The “gift” to the Pope of Rome:

As I learned, not long ago Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk met with the Pope of Rome and gifted him a piece of the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov in a reliquary. Having read this news, the first thought to arise within me was: “And how would St. Seraphim himself react to such a step?” I know that there are quite different people among those calling themselves Orthodox, but even among those who maintain absolutely different views than I, I think you could hardly anyone who could seriously declare: “Yes, I believe that St. Seraphim desired that after his death his relics would be given to the Pope of Rome.”

Ok, maybe someone will say that it’s an abstract question, and the head of a Synodal department isn’t obliged to be guided in his actions by such “mystical” reasoning. But here’s another question, more practical: “How will the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church feel about this?” Could it really be that the head of a Synodal department doesn’t need to ask this when planning his public actions? Is it really so difficult to foresee that many believers will perceive this action with pain? Does Met. Hilarion sincerely believe that after publication of the news of such a gift, the DECR’s[2] mail will be flooded with the faithful’s grateful letters saying, “Finally! We’ve waited for this for so long!?” Or he thinks that the faithful simply don’t care? Or is it that he absolutely doesn’t care what our believers think?

Fr. George Maximov, celebrating a mass Baptism in the Philippines. Photo: http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2016/02/99-baptized-in-mass-baptism-into-orthodoxy/ Fr. George Maximov, celebrating a mass Baptism in the Philippines. Photo: http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2016/02/99-baptized-in-mass-baptism-into-orthodoxy/

And the most important question: “WHY?” In the West, of course, there was a time of wheeling and dealing in holy relics, but this time passed already long ago. Now Catholics don’t know what to do with the relics of their own saints. Some are placed in a frame behind glass and hung on the wall, like a part of the interior design. Others gather dust in various repositories or are displayed in museums, where it’s no longer the relics themselves that are valued, but the expertly made reliquaries. Others try to sell them off—ebay is overflowing with such offers. In the church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome there isn’t even a line of pilgrims to the shrines over the relics of Sts. John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Dialogist—all around it’s empty. For Catholics, the veneration of the relics of their own saints is largely irrelevant—so why give the Pope of Rome the relics of a saint they don’t even honor?

In this situation there are no complaints against the Pope of Rome—he was given something completely unnecessary for him and he behaved as does any polite person when given something completely unnecessary: he smiled and said “thank you.” Now, probably, this Orthodox sacred object has been sent to the warehouse of useless items gifted to the Pope of Rome, where it will gather dust until the end of the ages.

Fr. George ends his reflection: “But maybe I’m incorrect in my critical attitude—thus I have placed below a poll in which you are invited to take part and express your attitude to this given action.” At the time of writing of this article, 1,642 people had cast a vote in the same poll hosted on his Russian social media page—153 expressing an indifferent attitude towards the gifting of the relics of St. Seraphim to the Pope of Rome, 246 positive, and 1,243 negative.

[2] The Department of External Church Relations

Editor7/9/2019 10:09 am
John: We have not answered your question because we cannot speak for Metropolitan Hilarion. There is nothing in the Russian language that even accuses him of being a freemason, so, can't help you there. We can only say that historically, the Russian Orthodox Church has mostly encountered problems from the Roman Catholic Church, which has numerous times attempted to subsume the Russian Church under Vatican rule through wars and subterfuge. This has made Russians cautious of Rome on the genetic level. During Soviet times, there were attempts to be friendly with Catholics as a subtle cry for help as the Church was being persecuted at home. And now that the whole world seems to be against Russia, the Catholics have a kind word to say to the Russian Church every now and then. On the human level, there is no reason why Russian churchmen can't be friends with Catholic churchmen. Ecumenism, however, assumes that everyone should merge into some sort of unified Church, which is not something that the Russian Church has ever espoused. So, what moved Met. Hilarion to gift a particle of St. Seraphim's relics to the Roman pope, we don't know. You can ask him yourself. It has to be mentioned, however, that there are too many relics now in Russia to name there were gifted from the Catholics, partly because they simply don't mean much to Catholics anymore.
John7/9/2019 6:39 am

No comment or response? I'm asking because I don't speak Russian fluently. Has Met. Hilarion or the Patriarchate addressed these criticisms, at all?

So, why did he do this, knowing full well in advance that it was an extremely controversial action, and knowing full well that people would overwhelmingly disapprove of this? The Russian Church is free from political control - correct? Or not correct? This smells to me of Masonic influence somewhere. Did Met. Hilarion just decide one day to do this on his own (of course not), or did someone else direct him to give these relics to Francis? If so, who is directing the ecumenist agenda to the MP? Is it just the bishops themselves, or someone else?

Very little to none of this information ever gets into the English-speaking world. This is very confusing for me. Fr George asks here, "WHY?" - did he ever get an answer to this question?

Thank you for your time.
John2/9/2019 8:48 am
Dear Editors:

Has Metropolitan Hilarion ever addressed these concerns, or answered any of these questions surrounding this incident, or has the Patriarchate released any statement about it?

I have heard reports that he is a secret Catholic cardinal, or more likely a Freemason. Is it possible for you to comment on this?
Jane4/28/2017 6:04 pm
Hieromonk Ambrose: How can someone be received into the Orthodox Church, i.e. baptised or chrismated, without having a body? This is the point, we have to do it while we are alive on earth. It can't happen after death. Too late.
Hieromonk Ambrose4/28/2017 1:12 pm
Many people are probably not aware of the account of Francis of Assisi's acceptance of Orthodoxy, after death, in the Life of Saint Seraphim by Archimandrite Lazarus Moore.
Misha Pennington4/27/2017 7:40 pm
I,for one, have been patient with the MP regarding their learning curve with respect to Holy Orthodoxy. The Russian Church Abroad was the Supreme Authority in the Church of Russia from the time of St. Tikhon's ukase until the reunification in May 17, 2007.

That being said, Met. Hilarion and Patriarch Kirill would benefit greatly by relearning the faith from the hierarchy of the ROCOR. I can't phrase it any more politely than that. Patriarch Kirill caused a scandal in his joint statement with the pope and Met. Hilarion has done this little travesty.

At some point the MP is going to have to take responsibility for relearning the faith that was only kept intact in the Church Abroad.
P. Antonio Arganda4/27/2017 3:30 am
Met. Hilarion is of the school of thought that Roman sacraments are "valid". The differences between the Orthodox and the R.C.s are reduced to differences of opinion. He believes that Roman sacraments are completely valid. The ecclesial theology of St. Hilarion Troitsky is completely ignored as are the thoughts of many Orthodox canonists. It should be remembered that the Frankish heresy did not adopt baptism by infusion until 1311.
Anthony10/5/2016 4:38 pm
@ Jesse Dominick - apologies, my comment was wrongly framed - I meant to say the article compares St Seraphim and pseudo Saint Francis, and shows just how disparate their spirituality is, in other words encouraging people to read it to see and understand the differences.
Jesse Dominick10/5/2016 11:55 am
Anthony, to be clear, the article comparing St. Seraphim and Francis of Assisi is in no way favorable to Francis.
Anthony10/4/2016 8:22 pm
As a Greek Cypriot whose own home Church is spiralling into freefall heretical ecumenism and communion with the heretics, and as one who is now under Moscow, I find this extremely disappointing. Comparisons have been made in articles such as the one that appears above these comments, between St Seraphim of Sarov, and the prelest riddled, hapless pseudo-''saint'' francis of assisi. And now someone from the ROC is giving a part of these holy relics to heretics. For what? Has 75 years of enslavement to godlessness not taught these people anything. Look at the spiritual state of Russia prior to the revolution. It's this exact dabbling with heresy that brings the wrath of God. What a disgrace.
Fr. Peter Olsen10/4/2016 5:12 pm
On the Russian Orthodox calendar we celebrate the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari, Italy in 1087. Note that this was after the schism, and the relics were actually stolen by Venetians. The relics were put in the church of St. Stephen, I'm sure a church that still commemorated the Pope. The circumstances surrounding this were certainly different than gifting relics to the pope, but I always found it odd that it was God's will that relics of an Orthodox saint should be transferred to heretics, and that it would even be celebrated on our church calendar.
Castrese Tipaldi10/4/2016 2:16 pm
The Lord is crystal clear: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs...".

The problem is to make the dogs understand it!
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

to our mailing list

* indicates required