Fr. Alexander Lebedeff posted this today on a number of Orthodox lists. Thought it was worth sharing. Always good to learn from someone a bit more "in the know".
Recently, several posts have come up that have touched upon a couple of questions that I would like to respond to.
1) Is the Moscow Patriarchate a Church?
When this question is brought up, it immediately begs the question--if it is not a Church, when did it stop being a Church?
No one seriously doubts that the Moscow Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Tikhon was the legitimate canonical Church of Russia.
No one seriously doubts that Metropolitan Peter was the legitimate Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne.
No one seriously doubts that Metropolitan Sergius was the legitimate Deputy (or Vice) Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, according to the instructions of Metropolitan Peter.
So--when did he and his Synod become not the Church?
Certainly not as a result of his signing the "Declaration" of 1927.
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia absolutely did not think so, since it addressed an Epistle to the Flock in 1933 (six years after the Declaration), where it says:
"We are taking fully into account the extraordinary difficulties of the position of Metropolitan Sergius, who is now the de facto head of the Church of Russia, and are aware of the heavy burden of responsibility for the fate of the latter, which lies upon him. No one, therefore, has the audacity to accuse him for the mere attempt to enter into dialogue with the Soviet regime so as to obtain legal standing for the Church of Russia. Not without foundation does the deputy locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne say in his aforementioned Declaration that only "armchair dreamers can think that such a vast community as our Orthodox Church, with all its organization, can exist peacefully in a country while walling itself off from the authorities."
Certainly the Moscow Patriarchate was not considered by the Church Abroad to be "not the Church" in 1938, when the Bishops' Sobor Abroad issued the following resolution:
"DISCUSSED: concelebration with the clergymen of the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.
METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergymen arriving from Russia from this jurisdiction are immediately admitted into prayerful communion, and refers to the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan in his epistle, published in Tserkovnaya Zhizn' [Church Life], that Metropolitan Sergius' sin does not extend to the clergymen under him.
DECREED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful communion and concelebration with clergymen of Metropolitan Sergius."
Now, some say that the Moscow Patriarchate became "not a Church" from 1943, from the time that Stalin permitted the restoration of the Patriarchate.
But, ten years later, it is clear that the Church Abroad did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate to be not the Church. In 1953, at the Bishops' Sobor, Metropolitan Anastassy said the following:
"Do we recognize in principle the authenticity of the ordinations of today's Patriarch and his bishops? But can we even question them? Then we would have to declare the entire Church without grace. Do we have the audacity to declare her entirely without grace? Until now we have not posed this question so radically. . .
"They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
Now, some people have been accusing me (and others) of radically changing our attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate, and wondering why?
The answer is simple. I will speak for myself.
Ten years ago, I was not familiar with the Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR from 1933. I was not familiar with the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of 1938 regarding concelebration with the clergy of Metropolitan Sergius. I was not familiar with the Minutes of the 1953 Council of Bishops.
Another eye-opener for me was the publication of the Archival Materials of the Politburo regarding Church issues, published just a few years ago in two volumes. These previously top secret materials show that Patriarch Tikhon collaborated far more with the Bolshevik regime than I had previously believed--and that he, prior to his repose, had agreed with the regime's request to issue a statement which contained virtually all of the points found in the Declaration signed by Metropolitan Sergius just two years later.
I also became familiar with a great many documents proving that Metropolitan Sergius was using every means at his disposal to try to influence the Soviet regime to lessen the burden on the clergy, to release the imprisoned and return the exiled bishops--including specifically Metropolitan Peter. There are literally dozens of Petitions by Metropolitan Sergius addressed to the Politburo requesting this. There is also clear documentary evidence that Metropolitan Sergius agreed to lie about the existence of persecution of the Church at the infamous "Interview with foreign journalists" in 1930--in return he was promised the release of 28 imprisoned and exiled bishops, including Metr. Peter.
I was not aware of any of this before.
2) Now, to the second question.
Some have asked why the Church Abroad does not try to establish contact with the Catacomb Church in Russia, since, if the Moscow Patriarchate is not a Church, it constitutes the only remnant of the legitimate Church of Russia that exists on that territory today.
The answer is simple: there is no single entity that can legitimately claim to be the Catacomb Church. There are only widely dispersed catacomb communities, most of which live in complete mistrust of one another.
Virtually none of these catacomb communities can prove that it has legitimate apostolic succession--for when consecrations and ordinations were performed in the catacombs--typically no certificates of ordination were issued.
Many of the catacomb communities, having no theological institutions or visible structure, no ecclesiastical discipline, have deteriorated to the point where superstitions have replaced dogma, and services are incorrectly performed.
Others have become so fiercely nationalistic, that they have become fascist in their views, with swastikas decorating their sites and flags, and tributes to Hitler as the God-sent leader.
The final point is that these communities have lost the reason for their catacomb existence--they can only legitimately exist when there is outright persecution. When persecution has ceased, they must come out of the catacombs and rejoin the legitimate Church structure that has been preserved.
I am afraid that some people who call themselves Traditionalist of "Genuine" Orthodox have lost some fundamental understanding of what the Church is.
It is not simply where a correct teaching is to be found.
It is also where there is a legitimate ecclesiastical authority in accordance with the Canons--which give that authority a particular territory and administrative structure.
You cannot have more than one legitimate Church of Russia. You cannot have more than one legitimate Church of Greece.
And anyone outside that one legitimate Church is not a member of the Church at all, but a member of a parasynagogue.
That is what all of these Mansonvillians, Varnavites, Lazarites, Valentinites, Gregoryites, Panteleimonites, etc. are--outside of the Church.
The existence of ten or twenty Greek Old Calendarist jurisdictions, and as many "independent bishops" is an absolute affront to Orthodoxy.
And it is completely naive to think that they will ever join together. Their reasons for splitting apart are the fact that they all have lost touch with the legitimate body of the Church.
Look at a fire.
If an ember splits off from the burning log and rolls away, it fragments, and then these fragments quickly die.
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has a mandate--stated in its Constitution (Statutes) -- to administer itself as an independent entity, only on the territories outside of Russia, and only until the fall of the Soviet regime.
Now that time has come.
Time for the Russian Church to be whole again.
With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
