Discord as a "Preventive" measure within the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
The Russian Church and People at the beginning of the “last times”
The decision of the Bishops of the Church Abroad, made at their October 2000 Council, to establish a committee to study the questions of unity of the Russian Church have evoked discord. In the following article, Michael Nazarov, one of the most serious Orthodox journalists of the Russian Diaspora addresses the question “What paths truly lead to unity of the Russian Church?”. While we cannot agree with all of Mr. Nazarov’s contentions, there is no question that he has clearly presented the positions of those who favor dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate. The article was translated into English by Isaac. E. Lambertsen.
In October of 2000 a Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was held, which assessed the resolutions of the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate (which met in August of 2000) to be the "beginning of a true spiritual awakening. This is manifested in the following:
“we welcome the appeal of the whole Russian people to pray to all the holy new-martyrs of Russia, and especially the martyred Imperial Family, which has henceforth become possible, thanks to the recognition of their sanctity by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate.
- and we are likewise heartened by the adoption of a new social concept by that Council, which in essence cancels out the 1927 "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius', for it recognizes that the Christian must oppose any regime that is spiritually destructive and anti-Christian."
On this basis, the Council Abroad addressed a letter to the Patriarch of Serbia: "We now observe with joy and hope how the process of spiritual regeneration foretold by our saints has begun, and parallel with it the gradual returning to health of the ecclesiastical administration in Russia. This process is difficult and will not move forward unopposed. There still remain other serious wounds within the leadership of the Church of Russia, which prevent our spiritual rapprochement. Nevertheless, we pray to God, that He heal them with the almighty grace of the Holy Spirit. Then the desired rapprochement will advance, and, God grant, a spiritual unification between the two sundered parts of the Church of Russia: that located in the homeland and that which finds itself abroad. We ask Your Holiness to assist this."
With this aim, the Council of the Russian Church Abroad formed a Committee to discuss questions involving the unity of the Church of Russia.
These documents of the Council Abroad were received within the Moscow Patriarchate with gratification, yet have been regarded by many parishioners and clergymen of the ROCA as containing disloyal opinions. For example, why, in the Council’s epistle, has the prayer of the Russian people to all the holy new martyrs, and especially to the imperial martyrs, become "henceforth possible, thanks to their being recognized by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate?" Whoever wished to (and this was no negligible portion of the churchly people in Russia)prayed to them early on, and even more so since their glorification abroad in 1981 and even before the resolution of the Moscow Council (which has not recognized all the new martyrs, and has only glorified Emperor Nicholas II with reservations, as a rank-and-file passion-bearer, and not as the Anointed of God who was prepared to become a redemptive sacrifice for his people). In general the impression may arise from the epistle of the Council Abroad that "the beginning of the present spiritual awakening" is due to the awakening and decision of the leaders of the MP, whereas this decision was adopted by them not without many years of opposition and only under strong pressure from the churchly people below, in whom is to be found the core of the spiritual awakening. This must be noted (as, for example, was done in the statement of the Supreme Monarchist Council; cf. Imperial Herald, #52). There are similar discrepancies, basically stylistic, in other texts of the Council (which were composed in haste, according to the testimony of an eye-witness).
However, critics' views of these errors are various. Some would like to condemn them and correct the editorial errors which have been identified (this would be easy to do without altering the basic sense of the documents). Others, without posing questions or waiting for explanations, have immediately accused their own bishops of "traitorously changing course" to "unite with a pseudo-Church the MP," of "capitulating" to it. Certain critics have ceased being in submission to their hierarchs and have been suspended from serving; several priests and one bishop (Varnava, in France) have themselves declared their withdrawal from communion with the Church Abroad.
Code: Select all
Thus, there has arisen within the ROCA a new discord. This has happened earlier in the history of the Church Abroad, leading to the breaking away of the "left": firstly, of the ecumenist Evlogians (1926) and of the Americans who wished to introduce democracy (1926 and 1946), and then (1940-1950s) of the "fellow countrymen." The present discord, although on a smaller scale, bodes a breaking away of the "right"; not toward a union with the powerful of this world, but in an attempt to wall themselves off from their prospective global influence. (The separation of the Old Ritualists "of the right" originated in an analogous psychological arbitrariness, which was also, at the beginning, "literalistic.")However, to understand the essence of what is happening, one must remember: 1) the traditional attitudes of the ROCA and the MP; and 2) the issues that have thus far hindered any union; 3) and one must also consider how reliably the decisions of the Council of 2000 have been interpreted by their critics, determining all the reasons and motives of everyone who is taking part in the discord; and 4) to propose a way out of the situation which has developed.
I. The Traditional Attitudes of the ROCA & the MP
Thus, the main argument of the “right-wing protesters” within the ROCA is that the Church Abroad earlier viewed the MP as a "pseudo-church devoid of grace," formed by the Bolsheviks; and that, "having sharply altered course," the ROCA has now recognized the MP as the Russian Church for the first time. However, this argument is historically erroneous.
Yes, there have been instances when hierarchs of the ROCA on one occasion or another expressed the opinion that the MP is devoid of grace, but this most likely concerned the so-called "KGB agents in riassas" and the higher administration which collaborated with the atheistic regime. Never was there such an official, conciliar resolution calling the MP a non-Church, and even those who held such a view never applied their opinion of an "absence of grace" to all the clergy of the Patriarchate, let alone to the people of the Church.
All throughout its history, the ROCA, in its epistles, characterizes the Church in the homeland (and moreover its official part, not its catacomb part, with which there was full unity in prayer) as "enslaved," "captive," "unfree," and deprived of canonical leadership, in need of "healing." Even when it was maintained that its "higher bishops were taking the path of destruction," they nevertheless treated it as a part of the Church of Russia. The Russian Church Abroad considered itself to be yet another, free, part of it, as is stated in its governing regulations.
One can cite a multitude of examples of the understanding in the diaspora that the fullness of the Church of Russia consists of three parts –the Catacomb Church, the Captive Church and the Free Church (even if the boundaries between them are not always carefully delineated). (On this theme see the letter of Deacon Nikolai Savchenko of St. Petersburg, dated 6/19 December 2000, and the Appeal of the Pastoral Assembly of the Diocese of Western America of the ROCA, dated 2/15 March 2001.) In several such examples below we will set in italics passages which bear witness to the ROCA's treatment of the MP as a Church.
Thus, the ROCA considered Patriarch Tikhon to be its head right up until his death, treating with understanding individual compromising statements made by him. In 1927, after the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who demanded that all clergymen sign an oath of loyalty to the atheistic regime, the Council of Bishops Abroad resolved ( on 9 September 1927):
"The free portion of the Church of Russia is ceasing administrative relations with the Moscow Church authority [i.e., Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod] in view of the impossibility of normal relations with it, and in view of its enslavement by the atheist regime, which is depriving it of freedom to function and freedom to govern the Church in accordance with the canons."
Moreover, the enslaved part of the Church was not declared to be devoid of grace. In this question, the Church Abroad followed the position of Metropolitan Cyril (Smirnov), the locum tenens of the Patriarch, who in 1934 wrote: "The Mysteries performed by the Sergianists, who were validly ordained for the priestly ministry, are without doubt sacraments which are salvific for those who receive them with faith, in simplicity, without arguments and doubts as to their efficacy, and who do not even suspect that there is anything wrong in the Sergianist Church organization. Yet at the same time, they [the Sergianist clergy] are the accomplishers of their own judgment and condemnation and that of their followers who understand well the unrighteousness which exists in Sergianism and by their opposition to such unrighteousness exhibit a criminal indifference to the desecration of the Church. This is why a bishop or priest must abstain from communion in prayer with the Sergianists. The same is also necessary for lay people who consciously concern themselves with all the details of Church life" (quoted from Lev Regel'son's The Tragedy of the Russian Church, p. 495). (The well-known, contemporary writers Fr. Dionysy and Timofei Alferov, clergymen of the ROCA, have written in the same spirit concerning this problem of grace in the MP, referring to it as 'a two-edged sword.')
In the early 1940s, in the USSR, after the "five-year plan for atheism," the Sergianist structure of the Church had to all intents and purposes been destroyed: throughout the entire country there remained only four governing (though absolutely lacking any rights) bishops. Thus, the official part of the Church had only a symbolic existence, even though it had not disappeared entirely.
In 1943, after Stalin reestablished the present structure of the MP (to help mobilize Russian patriotism during the war years), the ROCA immediately declared that this structure was formed in an uncanonical way (which in essence has been admitted in the multi-volume History of the Church of Russia which the MP published not long ago). However, even this was not considered reason enough to declare it "devoid of grace."
Thus, to Patriarch Alexis' 1945 appeal to return "to the fold" of the Mother Church, Metropolitan Anastasy, then First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, replied that its members "had never considered themselves, and do not consider themselves, to be outside the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church, for they have never broken canonical, prayerful and spiritual union with their Mother Church. We will not cease to thank God that He has arranged for us to remain the free part of the Church of Russia. It is our duty to preserve this freedom until such time that we return to the Mother Church the precious surety entrusted by her to us. Only a freely and lawfully convoked Pan-Russia Church Council, completely independent in its decisions, in which would participate as far as possible all bishops from abroad, and especially those now imprisoned in Russia, before whom we are prepared to give an account of all our activities during the time of our sojourn abroad, would be fully competent to judge between the bishops abroad and the present head of the Church of Russia. (Orthodox Russia, #6, 1976).
The 1950 epistle of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA, which emphasized the struggle of confession of the Catacomb Church, spoke of "the highest bishops of the Church in Russia," and said that "our Church Abroad remains, as before, outside of all communion with them, praying to the Lord only that He enlighten the eyes of their souls and turn them from that destructive path which they have taken and along which they are dragging their flock" (Orthodox Russia, #23-34, 1950).
In 1960, Metropolitan Anastasy, speaking of the hidden Catacomb Church as the place where Holy Russia resides, added that Holy Russia “is still alive” even in the hearts of that part of the Russian people “which openly confesses it, visiting with zeal the churches which have been preserved all throughout Russia” (Orthodox Russia, #10, 1999).
For this reason, in 1964, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA sharply protested in its epistle against the ban "by the atheist government of the USSR on permitting children, boys and girls, young men and women from the ages of 3 to 18, to attend services in church and receive the Body and Blood of Christ," characterizing this as a "mockery of the Church" (Orthodox Russia, 32, 1966). In 1965, Metropolitan Philaret, the third First Hierarch of the ROCA, also made a clear statement concerning the three parts of the Church of Russia - the Catacomb, the MP and the Church Abroad (Orthodox Russia, #22, 1965). Moreover, in the epistle of January, 1966, he wrote: "On us who live in the freedom of the diaspora lies the duty not only of preserving our Faith inviolate, but of maintaining loyalty to our persecuted Mother Church, despite the fact that we cannot have communion with its present-day official leadership; “furthermore, the First Hierarch of the ROCA considered important "our voice of protest against the persecution of the Church in the USSR" (Orthodox Russia, #2, 1966).
In 1976, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA, noting in its Epistle to the Russian People the confession of the catacomb faithful, likewise addressed itself to the persecuted priests and laity of the MP: "We likewise kiss the cross which you also have taken upon yourselves, O pastors who have found within you the courage and strength of spirit to openly accuse your hierarchs of having capitulated to the godless. We know of your struggle; we read about you. We read what you have written, we pray for you and we ask your prayers for our flock in the diaspora. Christ is and will be among us! The life of the Church continues even under the yoke of atheism, taking on, due to oppression and violence, forms which under conditions of peace are often unusual, breaking through chains and fetters to freedom of spirit and the victory of the children of God! We are lovingly following this process among you in the homeland, and rejoice therein" (Orthodox Russia, #20, 1976).
In a decision of the Council of Bishops, dated 12/25 August 1981, it is also stated that the absence of liturgical communion with the MP "does not hinder our watching over the course of religious life in Russia with sorrow and love for our people. In certain cases we see a complete falling away; but among others there are at least attempts, even where there is a formal submission to the Patriarchate, which nonetheless remain outside its leaders' policies of apostasy, striving somehow to accomplish their salvation even on the territory of the kingdom of Antichrist. Our interest in the events of Church life in Russia cannot fail also to note the more positive phenomena against the background of total apostasy. We must not limit our attention only to what deserves unconditional condemnation."
In the above-cited examples, despite the sharp criticism and refusal to accept the official structures of the Moscow Patriarchate, there is not the slightest hint of it of its being "devoid of the grace" of the Church. And this position was expressed not only in the general words of the epistles, but also in deed. Let us remember how, from the 1960s through the 1980s, the Russian diaspora defended the persecuted faithful of the MP, such as the martyr Boris Talantov; how directives were issued by the First Hierarch to commemorate persecuted priests of the MP; how by permission of the bishops abroad support was given (e.g., within the framework of the brotherhood "Orthodox Action") to many clergymen and believers of the MP, who in the 1970s and 1980s tried to insist upon their rights, who battled for the opening of churches.
In accordance with this, late in 1981, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA spoke of "the Church of Russia in the Soviet Union," which is “deprived of the possibility of expressing its own opinion and of acting according to its own convictions. It is caught in the vise of the atheist administration.” Therefore, the Council Abroad, "as a small part of the whole Church of Russia, but in its name," has taken upon itself the mission of glorifying the new martyrs and the Imperial Family, likewise following the appeals of believers and clergymen from the MP”(Orthodox Russia, #21, 1981).
With the beginning of perestroika, in the periodicals of the ROCA the positive initiatives of the parishioners and clergymen of the MP were increasingly noted, such as, for example, the activity of the "Radonezh" society (see Orthodox Russia, #23, 1990). That is, the mission of the Church Abroad consisted not only of rebuking the unworthiness of the hierarchs of the MP, but also of aiding the healthy forces of the Church.
In May of 1990, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA, under the presidency of the current First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly, stated straightforwardly in its epistle: "We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those of which the priests have an ardent faith and pray sincerely, showing themselves to be not only ministers of the cult, but also good shepherds who love their flock who approach [them] with faith, saving grace is imparted in the Mysteries" (Orthodox Russia, #10, 1990). In the "Statutes for Parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church" on the territory of the USSR, which were adopted at that time, it says that, in offering up prayers for "the union of all," these parishes of the ROCA hope for the healing of the MP and the "speedy unification of all the children of the Russian Orthodox Church, both in Russia and in the diaspora, which will be a joyous event" (Orthodox Russia, #12, 1990).
In December of the same year (1990), the Synod of Bishops of the ROCA, in reply to the MP's call for "an open and honest dialogue," expressed its readiness for this, "if for such a dialogue there be an common platform of ecclesial thought, and if persons would not participate in it who had besmirched themselves by collaborating with the godless regime and were subject to indictment by an ecclesiastical court" (Orthodox Russia, #24, 1990). Thus, the possibility of such a dialogue was not, in principle, rejected.
In May of 1993, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA noted for the first time: "We are hearing repentance in the words of individual hierarchs of the Church in the homeland, and in the courageous bearing of fresh trials we are seeing a purification. We are aware that it is time to muster all forces, so that the Orthodox Church might occupy the place it deserves in the life of the Russian people. We are aware that a new beginning must be made, and for this new ways must be sought. Thus, none of us dares to sit in judgment. All of us must familiarize ourselves with the tortuous paths of Church life in the unprecedented conditions of the 20th century and go forth cleansed of the grievous experience of our time. In our time, when
all manner of negative phenomena have surged into Russia from the West, we must pool the various experiences of all the parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. With frank discussion we must prepare the ground for a free, genuine and fruitful Pan-Russia Council. Our aim must not lie in condemning our neighbor, but in searching for ways to the restoration of one visible Russian Orthodox Church” (Orthodox Russia, #11, 1993).
And finally, in November of 1994, the Council of Bishops, without repudiating its former uncompromising criticism of all the perversions of the MP, decided: "Acknowledging our own responsibility before God and the people, we, the hierarchs of the Church of Russia who are free from all outside interference, propose that the time has come to seek a living fellowship with all the parts of the One Russian Orthodox Church, which are uncoordinated due to the circumstances of history. In honest conversations, begun without prejudice and mutual imprecations, with all to whom the treasure of Orthodoxy which we have inherited is dear, we are ready to elucidate the canonical and dogmatic questions which have created a division between the various parts of the Church of Russia as a single whole. We rejoice that healing forces are appearing within the Patriarchate. These are priests and laymen who think in an Orthodox manner and preach true Orthodoxy despite all obstacles. In fruitful and critical discussion, we desire to make our own contribution to the process preparatory to a free Pan-Russian Council, of which we have spoken in the past epistles of our Councils (Orthodox Russia, #24, 1994). (On this basis attempts were made, such as the conversations undertaken in the Diocese of Germany, which were, however, terminated by the seizure by the Moscow Patriarchate's representatives of churches of the Church Abroad in other countries.)
Thus, over the long course of the entire history of the ROCA, the MP is spoken of in its documents as a part of the one Church of Russia, with hope for its future healing and unity in the Truth (pace the later formulated "heretical" [in the opinion of Vertograd] ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian). It is for precisely this reason that those who have come to the Church Abroad from the MP have never - neither before the War, nor in later years - been re-baptized or remarried, while clergy have been received in their existing ranks. Those who consider the MP a "pseudo-Church devoid of grace" must give some thought to this and cool their critical ardor regarding the alleged "new" ecclesiological significance of the decisions of the Council of Bishops of 2000.
They should limit their criticism within other frameworks: to what extent is the hoped-for "healing" of the structures of the MP proceeding, and does it give hope for unification within the foreseeable future? In this there may be differences of opinion, but the main thing is: what should be done to overcome the obstacles and to bring closer this, let us even say far distant, "joyous event?"
II. Hindrances to Unification
For this, let us recall the reasons which have divided the ROCA and the MP, as the Synod of the ROCA formulated them in its epistle of November, 1987 (in reply to the appeal of the Synod of the MP in connection with the "all-embracing renovation" which had begun in the USSR):
"The first reason is the denial by the Moscow Patriarchate of the martyrs and confessors of our time. It is impossible to say that among us there were no martyrs for the Faith, as we repeatedly heard from representatives of the MP. The fullness of the Church is not limited only to the believers living on earth.
The second reason is the Declaration of Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius which identified the interests of the Church and the godless government and to this day forms the basis of their relations. It deprives the Moscow Patriarchate of freedom, justifying the totally arbitrary interference of the authorities in the affairs of the Church.
The third reason lies in the fact that the epistle of the Moscow Patriarchate definitely maintains, even though it calls us a Church, that we are outside the saving fold of the Mother Church.
"In addition to these very substantial obstacles, something else also troubles us extremely: We observe with sadness that the Moscow Patriarchate is being drawn further and further into ecumenism by participating in prayer even with pagans and idolaters.
We await the results of the 'all-embracing renovation,' believing that what is impossible today may become possible tomorrow" (Orthodox Russia, #22, 1987).
Further, in 1990, the Council of Bishops of the ROCA instructed its parishes in Russia not to enter into eucharistic communion with the MP "until it repudiated the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, until it repents of its subsequent errors; until it removes from its administration the hierarchs who have compromised themselves by anti-canonical and amoral acts and have become involved in corruption and embezzlement, who hold their positions through the interference of the secular authorities, and also permit the perversion of the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church" (Orthodox Russia, #12, 1990). Subsequently, in the periodicals of the ROCA, there was added to the number of conditions the refusal of any support offered by the post-Communist, non-Christian authorities.
What has changed over the intervening ten years? Let us quote from the report of Bishop Evtikhy of Ishim & Siberia to the Council of Bishops of 2000, which has been subjected to such angry criticism by the "protesters," and on the basis of which the Council's epistle was composed. Vladyka Evtikhy divided the results of the MP's Council "into three categories": "positive, dubious and negative":
"The following decisions of the Council should be treated as positive results:
a) The glorification of the whole company of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, distinctly headed by the holy Imperial Family For this reason, although there are flaws in the Patriarchate¹s glorification of the new martyrs of Russia itself, yet as one of the questions which divides the ROCA and the MP it must henceforth be completely and unconditionally removed.
b) The adoption of a new social concept which might boldly oppose the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). But as the question concerning Sergianism, which divides the ROCA and the MP, it is only partly resolved, since a correct decision was adopted, while what is wrong is not condemned; on the contrary, hitherto, in spite of everything, it is being justified.
c) In the social concept many contemporary questions are well elucidated and analyzed.
The following decisions of the Council may be called dubious"
a) The glorification of the new martyrs has been voiced not as an agreement with their glorification by the ROCA, but as some sort of counterbalance, with a certain emphasis on this contrast.
b) No sort of assessment, or excuse, or attempt to explain why hitherto, for more than seventy years, the Moscow Patriarchate, which was formed by the usurpation of the Synod of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), slandered and bore false witness against the holy new martyrs, saying that there were no such [martyrs] in Russia, but that they [the martyrs] were political criminals; that there was no persecution of the Faith: Hieromartyr Joseph of Petrograd has not been included in the company of the saints.
Among the negative results one may reckon:
a) Among the first, the document adopted with regard to heterodoxy: It justifies the MP’s participation in all the forms of ecumenism in which it had previously participated, and insists on its further participation therein, although with certain provisos. This document is full of internal contradictions. What intensifies the negative nature of this decision by the Council is the fact that it condemns those who within the Patriarchate itself oppose ecumenism. The question of ecumenism has at the present time achieved the significance of being the foremost cause of the division
between the ROCA and the MP.
b)The Patriarchate has not mustered within itself the spiritual and moral strength to conduct the glorification of the new martyrs and adopt the new social concept with a sense of repentance, but has presented them as some new contribution on the triumphal path it set out on in 1927. Does this not place a mighty, pseudo-theological foundation under the concept of submission to and collaboration with the Soviet regime, so that it is not easy to write: If the authorities force the Orthodox believers into apostasy from Christ and His Church, and also into sinful actions detrimental to the soul, the Church must refuse to submit to the government? Marvelous words! But this is exactly how the Catacomb Church, and the Church Abroad, which was in solidarity with it in spirit, acted, for which the selfsame lips continue to hurl imprecations at it, calling it "so-called," while in general they make no mention of the Catacomb Church at all, denying its existence. For the Patriarchate we are those who 'continue in every way to deny loyalty to the hierarchy and the fatherland, now as in the past.' The Patriarchate's bad example of unrepentant contrariness assumes the character of a great spiritual transgression even when taking into account the positive decisions it has adopted. "How should we understand its 'good will toward the speediest restoration of canonical unity,' expressed in several statements, yet the slander, denigration of the Truth, and their making allies of governmental structures in their war against the Catacomb Church and the parishes of the Church Abroad in Russia, which accompany the confiscation of churches and monasteries from our Church?
Other negative phenomena at the Council are the accusations made against our Church of 'undermining the authority of the MP,' employing a 'policy of disinformation,' resorting to 'all manner of hostile criticism.' Although we must share with the MP the blame for these false accusations to a degree -since in fact, certain of our publications have resorted to malicious delight in the Patriarchate's misfortunes, words of mockery, and an offensive tone, i.e., everything that violates the apostolic principle: 'Ye who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness' [Gal. 6: 1] - it would be well for us to address to the MP a request that they lay out the facts of the ]hostile criticism' and 'disinformation' resorted to by our side, to ask forgiveness for proven cases of hostile criticism and injustice, and to terminate the anti-ecclesial tactics of those guilty of fault-finding in our name.
Let us proceed to brief and concrete conclusions:
1) The decisions adopted at the Council do not deprive us of hope that unification may actually take place, that obstacles may be overcome.
2) Our complaints against the MP are by no means absurd; on the contrary, their resolution will bring indubitable benefit not only to the Church, but to the whole Russian nation.
3) The issues that separate us from the MP are correctly identified and formulated, and we should stand, no matter what, on the principles and traditions of the ROCA with regard to the MP.
4) So as in the future to avoid extremes and the litany of mistakes laid at our door by the MP, it is essential, depending on its reaction to this, to form a permanent committee within our Synod of Bishops to deal with the problems of mutual relations with the Patriarchate.²
In concluding this lengthy excerpt from Bishop Evtikhy¹s report, with all possible observations with regard to one or another of his formulations (e.g., why must the question of the glorification of the new martyrs 'henceforth be completely and unconditionally removed' if in it there are flaws?"), we ask his critics: Does the author of the report indeed provide a basis for accusations of 'betrayal' and 'of being ready to pay any price to unite with the MP?' The more so in that he later again explained all of this in connection with the imprecations hurled at him:
"Neither I myself, nor the other hierarchs of the ROCA intends to unite with the MP in its unrepentant state, or to accede to its apostasies and injustices. All of us bishops of the ROCA are in favor of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church (furthermore, I consider that this must be the desire of every Russian Orthodox person), but, being Orthodox hierarchs, we desire and envision this unity in no other way that as a unity in the Truth, in Christ, just as we understand the petition at the Great Litany: 'for the union of all.' Is it possible that this petition is to be interpreted as for unity with all manner of heretics and schismatics? No! Has anyone changed the Orthodox understanding that unification and unity is possible only in the Truth?" (Orthodox Herald, Moscow, 2001, #2).
Yes, even in the very epistle of the Council of Bishops the 'right-wing protesters' somehow fail to see words which speak precisely to the impossibility of unification under the existing circumstances:
The Moscow Patriarchate's refusal to understand the position of the Russian Church Abroad, which has jealously guarded the spiritual legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church;"
...the aggressive actions of the Patriarchate in forcibly seizing churches and monasteries from the Church Abroad"; "At its Council, the Moscow Patriarchate in effect confirmed its attachment to a broad participation in ecumenism, taking no care to protect its younger generation from this pan-heresy";
all of this 'convinces us of the reliability of the course of the Church Abroad. And in the future we must fulfill our historical mission of standing in the Truth until everyone turns to it to be faithful to the end. We remain the true Church, possessing the fullness of the grace which saves men’s souls."
And even in the letter to the Patriarch of Serbia, which the critics
consider even more reprehensible, it says: "In the leadership of the Church of Russia there still remain other, serious wounds, which prevent our spiritual rapprochement." Is it possible that all of this is a 'capitulation' and a 'sharp turning toward an apostatic unification with the MP'? Why do our 'right-wing protesters' refuse to see all the passages cited above?