STALIN'S CHURCH by Dr Eugene L. Magerovsky
Since I have seen that many ROCOR faithful have made the false observation that 'Stalin acted to ease the persecution of the Church in order to rally the Russian people to fight the Nazi invaders,' shows me that that these do not know enough about the formation of "Stalin's church," the Moscow Patriarchy. This "easing" was nothing of the sort.
Stalin decided to form a church-like organization because there was a religious renaissance on the territories occupied by the Germans which Stalin was now reconquering, where church and small monasteries appeared like mushrooms.
And now Stalin was in a quandary whether to close them, as ideologically he should have, or let them continue, but under the strict tutelage of the regime. So he chose the second. That was the reason.
The MP was gradually changing during the next 50 yrs, acquiring more and more the trappings of a church. But still it hadn't shed its quality of being the hand-maiden of the Russian government whether:
a) "Soviet" government" or
b.) Putin's "Neo-Soviet" government. That is what "sergianism" is all about.Once it sheds that servitude and repents it could no longer be "Stalin's church."
Some among our ROCOR faithful claim that Stalin's instituting the MP does not give the Church a "god-less" beginning." I disagree. Many of our hierarchs said that the MP was without grace, including, Met Anastasi of memory most blessed:
"We must follow the examples of the Moscow saints turning aside from the dishonesty of those who have now occupied their throne. Oh if they could but arise; they not only would not recognize any of their successions, but rather would have turned against them with severe condemnation." - Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) (+1965) "Address to the Sobor of Bishops, 1959"
To bring the MP, "Stalin's church," into the fold and make it a real church, you have to begin by getting rid of all the "red" bishops. And that is only the beginning to prepare the MP to start atoning for the past fifty years as "Stalin's church."
Alexis II has to atone not only for himself, (which could have been done privately to his confessor, that is, if he has one besides President Putin), but since he is a Patriarch, he has to atone for the whole MP establishment which can be done only in a Sobor setting.
Many, I fear, confuse the Protestant individualized approach with the Orthodox "Sobor" that is, a "conciliar" one. Acts of our bishops, metropolitans or patriarchs always have to be "in common" with the whole Christian populace, rather than as individuals.
We await the day when the Moscow Patriarch in the person of the Patriarch, at present, Alexy II, makes a full public atonement in a SOBOR setting.
Until then the MP will remain "Stalin's church."
Eugene L. Magerovsky Ph.D.
