Discord as a "Preventive" measure within the ROCA

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Discord as a "Preventive" measure within the ROCA

Post by bogoliubtsy »

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?

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

(Part II. Conclusion)

(Part I)

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.

  1. The Psychology of the “Right-Wing Protesters”

In the foregoing we have already noted several vexing errors in the documents of the Council of Bishops Abroad. But by the same token practically nothing is said in them of the dangerous global background, against which alone is it possible to assess reliably what is happening in Russia: the New World Order rapidly developing as the kingdom of the Antichrist. Let us remember that in the epistle of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA in May of 1993, the following was said of this:

“We distinctly sense in the modern world the activity of a system of evil, which controls social opinion and coördinates actions for the annihilation of Orthodox Christianity and nationally stable nations; the present, destructive torrent of the freedom of sin is directed into Russia by a worldwide center of evil.” (Orthodox Russia, #11, 1993)

Of course, the omission of any mention of this in the documents of the Council of 2000 does not mean that the bishops of the ROCA have now repudiated such a view of the modern world; but among some it may create the impression that the last Council was excessively optimistic against the background of an increasingly coalescing universal apostasy. Herein, apparently, is one of the latent psychological reasons for the protests of the right-wing.

Considerable criticism of this sort was elicited by the above-quoted letter of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA to the Patriarch of Serbia, with its request to aid a “spiritual rapprochement” with the MP. It is difficult for us to judge whether such an intermediary can help in the removal of the obstacles to unification described above.

But reproaches in this spirit (viz. that the Serbs are “ecumenists,” and for this reason the ROCA “has fallen under its own anathema against ecumenism”) are hardly justified. Such specialists in the passage of death sentences on whole Churches and in the distribution of grace are reminded of the following:

Firstly, the anathema against ecumenism adopted by the ROCA in 1983, as Metropolitan Philaret explained it, applies to active ecumenists: it does not signify the rejection of Orthodox Local Churches, taking into consideration the healthy powers in their midst. Metropolitan Vitaly, in his Christmas epistle in 1986, explained further:

“At the present time, the majority of the local Churches are shaken throughout their entire organism by a terrible twofold blow: the New Calendar and ecumenism. However, given their woeful state we do not dare (and may the Lord save us from this!) to say that they have lost the grace of God. We have pronounced the anathema against ecumenism for the children of our Church only, yet by this we very modestly but firmly, gently but decisively, as it were inviting the local Churches to reconsider. We, de facto, do not concelebrate with New Calendarists or with ecumenists, but if any of our clergy, by economia, offend by concelebrating, the bare fact of this has no effect upon our standing in the Truth.” (Orthodox Russia, #1, 1987).

Secondly, in the 20th century the ROCA never ceased to concelebrate with the Church of Serbia even during Communist times, and this [concelebration] was an important and courageous support on the part of our Orthodox brethren, which permitted the ROCA to remain in canonical fellowship with the Orthodox world, despite all of its sins, sicknesses and shortcomings. It also permitted us to be, if only to a certain degree, the touchstone of true orthodoxy for that world. As regards the shortcomings of the Church of Serbia, in it, as in the majority of local Churches, the ROCA has always distinguished various wings: that inclined toward ecumenism and that opposed to it. Thus, the previous Patriarch of Serbia was more inclined toward ecumenism than the present Patriarch. So why at this point in time has the ROCA “fallen under its own anathema?”

True, lately a number of Serbian bishops have participated in “conversations” with the heterodox, hoping for the support of Western Christians to counter the aggressions of NATO (about half of the populations of the Western countries did not approve of it). It is possible that some bishops were present at Catholic services (photographs have been cited as evidence, but this does not imply that joint prayer took place; here precise facts are necessary). However, it is scarcely possible to apply the conduct of such hierarchs to the whole Church of Serbia, which has never officially acknowledged ecumenical services.

Not long ago, Archbishop Mark of Berlin & Germany visited Serbia and there posed a direct question about “the turmoil which has arisen in the flock because of such conversations” by the Serbs with Catholics. To this, the Serbian Bishop Ireneje of Bachko said that “the faithful and clergy must trust their hierarchs. The hierarchy is acting according to its Orthodox conscience. The Serbian Orthodox Church participates in these ecumenical measures because the heterodox are turning to it with questions, and the Serbian Orthodox Church considers it improper to refuse to answer them. The Serbian Orthodox Church is doing this while cognizant of its responsibility for the return to the bosom of the Church of those who have fallen away from unity with it.” (One should take into account in particular that the Yugoslav nation is divided into Catholic and Orthodox, all of whom speak the same language.) But the Serbian Orthodox Church cannot conceive of the unity of the Church in any other way than within the framework of Orthodoxy alone. The Serbian Orthodox Church does not participate in any joint services and does not compromise the purity of Orthodoxy” (Herald of the German Diocese [of the ROCA], #2, 2001). More characteristic of the Church of Serbia, Archbishop Mark is convinced, is the legacy of St. Justin (Popovich) of Serbia, one of whose disciples Vladyka Mark is himself. It is on just this basis that his fellowship with the Serbs proceeds (basically with other disciples of St. Justin who have become bishops: Metropolitan Amfilokhije (Radovich) of Montenegro, Bishops Afanasije (Evtich) of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ireneje (Bulovich) of Novi-Sad, Artemije of Kosovo. Three years ago the latter tried to engineer the withdrawal of the Church of Serbia from the World Council of Churches. If such Serbian hierarchs mediated in the establishment of contacts between the ROCA and the more welcoming circles of the MP, this might prove beneficial to all of Orthodoxy. Here what is spoken of is the looked-for “spiritual unity” (sensing ourselves to be parts of the one eucharistic body of the Church, without accusations of “the Karlovci Schism,” etc.), and not of administrative unity with the MP, which is a distinction that many critics do not make when discussing the given problem.

Among those who do not agree with the documents of the Council Abroad there are, of course, no few respected persons possessed of a sincere fear of God. The situation developing in the world is spurring them on to a certain zeal (preventive, forestalling an abandonment of the Truth which, in their understanding, is capable of being perverted. They belong to the stauncher members of the ROCA, as the dismayed clergy in Omsk emphasized (Fr. Basil Sevel’ev and others, who were later satisfied with the explanations of their bishop). But one cannot fail to see that on the whole people of another type provoked this disturbance long ago and are deepening it from two sides.

On the one side are those unfamiliar with the concepts of Church discipline and who have “zeal without knowledge,” and on the other are those (both in the diaspora and in Russia) who have simply found a convenient opportunity to display their own “uncompromising Orthodoxy.” In the diaspora, such persons often wash their hands of the Russian Orthodox people, which they do not know and do not distinguish from the leadership of the Patriarchate; any sense of love for [the Russian people] is foreign to them; they see in Russia a “religious desert;” they would like not changes in the “black-and-white” status quo which has developed, and with which they have become quite comfortable living in their own countries, doing nothing for their former homeland.

In Russia itself several “protesters” of the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad, with the ardor of neophytes, now want to be “more royalist than the king” and, whether intentionally or not, are exacerbating the situation (firstly counting on praise and help from the emigrés, as well as on their own immigration in the character of a “zealot;” and in the latter case the indiscriminate denigration of the Church in Russia is often employed to justify one’s own flight therefrom). Others, on the contrary, sensing themselves abandoned by the diaspora (in this they are often right, the moreso in that this important question was to all intents and purposes not discussed at the Council Abroad), are keenly and suspiciously afraid that things will improve for their own parishes, which will turn out to be “offered up as sacrifices” to the powers that be in the Patriarchate. And in general, for those who have left the MP it will be psychologically very difficult to return (under the omophoria of those hierarchs whom they were forced to because of their transgressions?). Hence, such an opposition to the very idea of uniting even in the future. And now it seems that the end of the world would be greeted more warmly by certain “protesters.” Hence also the disbelief in the possibility of any healing of the “utterly perverted” MP, and even the censure of those who are trying to do something to aid in its cure.

On the other hand, dissension is being provoked by malicious forces who are spreading misinformation and inciting the ardor of the rebels, so as to divide and weaken the Church Abroad. For this reason, unfortunately, the partial rightness of the “right-wing protesters” is drowning in a sea of the exaggerated accusations, false conjectures and simply provocative rumors being spread by opponents of the ROCA and the enemies of Orthodoxy as such.

For example, in Europe there have been many cases of misinformation concerning “concelebration with the MP,” “going over to the MP,” which fail of confirmation. Yielding to this provocation, the protesters who possess zeal without knowledge allow themselves to act with unacceptable insolence toward their hierarchy, and in essence are playing their opponents’ game, the objective of which is the destruction of the Russian Church Abroad. It is not surprising, for example, that the Valentinians are speaking with ill-concealed glee of the “end of the mission of the Russian Church Abroad” (Vertograd, #12, 2000), hoping to snatch from the ROCA a part of its flock.

In this, the presumption of innocence accepted even in secular jurisprudence, and which is all the more applicable within the Church, is supplanted among the protesters with a presumption of guilt, when in any unclear case (whether this applies to an individual or to the entire Council of Bishops) they immediately suspect guilt, betrayal and other transgressions. Viewed thus, the Council¹s documents are all misrepresented (thus, pastoral condescension toward those who have sinned is taken for “a fawning tone” and “self-abasement”) and unbelievable, exaggerated predictions are issued (in January, two respected priests disseminated the announcement that “only a week” remained before official liturgical unification with the MP!). Such a presumption of guilt is possible to such a degree in counter-espionage, but is it appropriate for pastors of the Church?

For this reason, in forming the Committee to Discuss Questions concerning the Unity of the Russian Church it would be preferable not to see any “traitorous negotiations with the MP” immediately, but to interest oneself in its plans and mandate. On March 12, 2001, in answer to just such a question, Archpriest Nikolai Artemov, a member of the Committee, told us the following:

“No one is conducting any negotiations with the MP. When the Committee to Discuss Questions concerning Unity of the Russian Church meets in three months, we will discuss exactly what it might be possible to do, but without proceeding to the task. The Committee operates under the Synod of Bishops, and as such has no authority of its own. It must present all its proposals, desires and conclusions for consideration by the Synod. The Synod will issue its decisions as to what may and may not be done. I suggest that in the end we will agree upon a form conversation similar to those held in Germany, but on a more comprehensive level. The results can be submitted as recommendations for consideration by the Synod of Bishops. This may seem too slow [a process] to some, or unacceptable to others, but on the part of the OVSTs and Metropolitan Kyrill (Gundyaev) it is most probable that the policy aimed at the annihilation and disintegration of the Church Abroad (and which are being aided by unqualified attacks within our own milieu, discrediting us) will continue.”

The very name of the Committee, expressed in its title, is rooted in the Russian diaspora’s traditional hope for a return to the homeland and the reuniting of the sundered parts of the Church of Russia. It is possible to see something “suspicious” in this only if one ignores this aspiration.

The critics point to several bishops (one of whom declined to sign the Council’s epistle [though he did so in violation of the rules, for he did not express a contrary opinion at the Council itself], another later, for some reason, wrote an emotional letter to the flock (that the true believers in Russia to this day celebrate Pascha “in a whisper” and creep about “on tiptoe” in their cramped apartments, and for this reason the ROCA “will never unite with the MP”), yet later reconfirmed the decisions of the Council; and a third and fourth, on returning to Russia and thinking it over for several months, withdrew their signatures from the letter to the Patriarch of Serbia. Yet with all our sincere respect for the personal spiritual stature of all these archpastors, one may see in their belated reactions their political susceptibility to the influence of the rebellious groups. It is a pity that all of this is impairing the flock¹s trust in the Council and is further deepening the discord. This is especially so when the First Hierarch wavers (first signing the Council’s resolutions, then expressing his disagreement with them, then again confirming them. This has even given some people cause to suspect that “they are compelling him to put his signature [to the documents] by force” (these people are probably unaware of the staunch character of our First Hierarch).

Apparently, all of this taken together has become the reason for the “right-wing protesters” psychological (sooner say intuitive-emotional and preventive, than well and soberly grounded) refusal to accept the documents of the Council of Bishops.

Yes, there are imprecise and vexing opinions in the Documents of the Council of Bishops Abroad and in the speeches of its members. Yet one may relate to the unfortunate expressions in different ways, depending upon the disposition of one¹s soul: either to elevate them angrily to the degree of “treason” and “capitulation before the MP,” putting first and foremost not a more precise elaboration of the Truth, but an over-emphasis on one’s personal infallibility, even to the point of leaving the “offending” Church Abroad; or calmly to determine the Truth with precision, admitting that the main reason for the unfortunate expressions lies in the conditions of haste [under which the documents were written] and the absence of a proper editor. We favor the second approach: Such discrepancies should be patiently discussed and wisely rectified, finding correct formulations, as opposed to the casting of aspersions and the severing of relations. Among these the preventive fears of the “right-wing protesters” should also be attentively discussed, agreeing with their general apprehensions regarding the apostatic influence of the New World Order upon world Orthodoxy, yet pointing out to them the inappropriateness of the unproved accusations they have directed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCA.

Those who are protesting must not direct their attention solely to the “letter” of one or another of the disputed formulations in the documents of the Council of Bishops; rather, they should also take into account the genuine spirit and cast of mind of our archpastors, who do not deserve to be accused of “treason.”

IV. The Mission of the Church Abroad
One may agree with those who are calling for the convocation of a Fourth Pan-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad‹it has now become particularly necessary. (In the course of the preparations for it, it might be a good thing to submit this present article to its future participants for their review.) Yet prior to the Council no one-sided, unappealable accusations, application of influence and splitting away, are permissible. Those who are accused must have the right to respond. The discord should be healed and the unity of the Church Abroad preserved; schism should not be promoted, to the delight of our enemies.

It would be desirable for all of us, on all levels (from the laity to the hierarchy) to introduce into the strained atmosphere that has developed in all parts of the Church of Russia, in the homeland and in the diaspora, tranquility, wisdom and good-will, acting upon strictly reliable facts, and not on conjectures and emotions which result in irritability and suspicion. What is important is not the good intentions of one or another statement [made by the critics], but their results. And the higher the rank of the person [making such statements], the greater the responsibility he bears for his words.

For example: What is the meaning of the resounding affirmation that the Church Abroad “will never enter into union with the MP?” Even if the MP is healed in the future? The diaspora has always hoped that at some point in the future this will become possible. People in Russia can take this categorical “never” for arrogance and a refusal by the diaspora to help its own nation. If “never,” then the Russian Church Abroad must renounce its own title, its traditional self-consciousness, and its own governing laws. If such were to happen, its canonical right to further existence would be called into doubt, for the famous resolution #362 of the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council, dated 7/20 November 1920, which became the indisputable foundation of the ROCA¹s existence, applied to dioceses of the Church of Russia separated from the [ecclesiastical] center in anticipation of a probable future “restoration of the central Church authority;” moreover, in such a case measures “would be taken to confirm the latter” (¶10).

In this sense, the most recent, pacific statement of the Synod of the ROCA (dated January 26/8 February 2001) rightly said: “The very Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad defines our existence and binds our actions to responsibility before the whole Church of Russia.” The mission of the ROCA is totally incomprehensible to those who with quickness of temper allege that “in the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad there is nowhere, not in a single word, any mention of any responsibility before the whole Church of Russia! To say so is an open, not even a disguised, lie.” (Church News, USA, #1(93), 2001). One can but marvel at the naked emotions which compel the author of these words to force the mission of the ROCA into her narrow, self-satisfied framework.

We have already pointed out above that the ROCA, in calling itself Russian, has not considered its canonical existence to be separate from Russia and its enslaved people, responsibility for whom has imbued the epistles of the Council Abroad at all times in the past. This bond and the hope for a future return were the bases of the ROCA’s self-consciousness, regardless of what regime governed in the homeland at any particular time. Over the course of 75 years a physical return was not possible, yet a spiritual bond was maintained, without which the Russian emigration would have lost the meaning of its own existence and would have absorbed into other ecclesial organisms.

Today, the post-Communist regime of the Russian Federation is, in its constitution and disseminated ideology (in the system of formation also of the mass media), of course, also un-Christian. But it is no longer openly opposed to God. There already exists the possibility for emigrés to return to their homeland to take part in the rebuilding of the strength of Russian Orthodoxy. The guiding structures of the MP, of course, are not giving this regime proper appreciation, and are still not ready to become the uncompromising spiritual leaders of the Russian people (this aspect, unfortunately, has also gone unremarked in the documents of the Council Abroad). Yet powers are growing among the lower echelons in Russia, which are opposed to the occupation of the New World Order, and with whom it is possible to cooperate in common, concrete works, without paying attention to which of the various ecclesial jurisdictions one belongs to.

Emigrés may, of course, do this from abroad. But the fact that the guiding center of the ROCA has for the present, if only in part, not been transferred to Russia, powerfully weakens also the understanding of what is happening in the country, and also the possibility of exerting influence by our moral authority. Across the border much, passing through the prism of the mass media, which bears us no good will, is seen from both sides in distorted perspective. The moreso in that criticism from afar, aloof from the difficulties and realities of Russian life, loses its power to convince, especially when it originates in the USA: this center of the New World Order is viewed as a prototype of the empire of the Antichrist, and is quite incomprehensible as a place for the true Russian Church to reside in our times. In exactly the same way is it incomprehensible to pray for the authorities in the countries of the diaspora; this was keenly felt during NATO’s aggression against Orthodox Serbia. It is thus essential to discuss these extremely important questions at a future Pan-Diaspora Council.

The very same emigrés who, because of their age or for other reasons, are not ready to take part in Russian life must not hope that the emigré Church can become self-sufficient. Without Russia it will lose its reason for existence and will not survive as a Russian Church. Without Russia it will not be able to realize its principal mission- “the struggle for Russianness under conditions of apostasy” - for the outcome of the struggle between Christ and the Antichrist will be decided in the Russian land. And he who wants to help strengthen the powers of Christ among the Russian nation, which has yet to recover its health and come to its senses, will simply be excluded from participation in that struggle.

This is where the responsibility of the Russian Church Abroad lies: in participating in the work of salvation “not only of its own parishioners, but of the Russian people, of Russia; yes, and of the whole world,” as we are reminded by the St. Petersburg clergymen of the ROCA (Archpriest Vladimir Savitsky, Hieromonk Valentine [Solomakh] and others) in their debate with those “protesters” who had cut themselves off. It is therefore strange when because this question [of the possibility of the hoped-for union of the various parts of the Church of Russia] is posed, individual hotheads begin to seethe, refusing to bear the burden of responsibility, and fall into [the sin of] condemning our Church, and depart into schism. “We will remain faithful to our calling, to our stand in the Truth, for the sake of the resurrection of Orthodoxy in Russia, for the sake of the salvation of our much-suffering land itself.”

Those judges who see “Phyletism” in this (i.e., the exalting of the national over the spiritual, of which the Evlogians accused the Russian Church Abroad in their time, and the Vertogradians are doing now) are not aware that Russia is not “a country like all the others,” and therefore what is Russian is not merely “national,” but genuinely universal, in that it is closer to the ideal of the governmental organization of one who restrains, which is proper for all the nations of the world. The Third Rome is just such a historic, spiritual significance of the Russian Empire, for in it what is national and what is religious is united indivisibly and without confusion, following the analogy of the unconfused and indivisible union of the divine and human natures in Christ. Such are the Russian national-patriotic and imperial sensibilities, of which we ought not to be ashamed.

The rejection of this pan-Russian patriotic mission of the ROCA is often explained by the fact that on seeing the present spiritual demoralization in Russian society today, which the official Church is doing little to counteract, one has little confidence not only in the healing of the MP, but even in the rebirth of Russia itself. Here the one follows from the other. Well-known is the theory of Fr. Lev Lebedev, that there is no longer a Russian people, but in its place there is a qualitative something else: something Soviet and degenerate. In recent times, this thesis is being supported more and more frequently by certain of our highly respected opponents and pastors: “The spiritual and bodily harm inflicted on our people during this century by their enemies is already irreversible in character.” (Dormition Bulletin, #38, 2001) Hence there is arising a desire for self-isolation in new semi-catacombs, for one’s own salvation: such is the psychology of no few of the Russian parishes of the ROCA. “Our path is different; our Church turns to the world only so as to draw from it those who desire to inherit salvation, so that they may be clearly separated from the world.” (Hieromonk Dionysy and the Priest Timothy, On the Position of the Russian Parishes of the ROCA in the Light of the Results of the Patriarchal Council).

But firstly, can one so categorically maintain that departure from the world is the sole path to salvation, and that those who hope to restore Orthodox Russia will not be saved by their activity? Cannot paths to salvation be outwardly different but one in their spiritual being?

Secondly, with regard to the “irreversible degeneration of the Russian people,” it is possible to take exception to the theory of Fr. Lev that, since a result of man’s first fall into sin the earthly world was ruined beyond repair; yet God became incarnate for him and Himself preached to the fallen, founded His Church, ordered His apostles to preach to the whole world instead of hiding in catacombs, providentially planned for the spreading of Christianity throughout the world and the formation of the great Orthodox Empire and its army. It is understood that at the end of history there awaits us the irreversible decline of Christian authority on our sinful earth under the onslaught of the “mystery of iniquity” - for the sake of a new, transfigured world. But we do not find in the Sacred Scriptures any theory that fallen human souls and peoples are incapable of redemption; on the contrary, all throughout time, the Lord, His prophets and leaders dealt with the sinful and sluggish masses of the people, and nevertheless roused and led them to a fulfillment of the goals set by God.

The irreversible degeneration of man’s soul most likely occurs only during a conscious serving of Satan. This one cannot say of the prevailing majority of the Russian people even in its present, lamentable, ignorant state. In our people, despite everything, there has been preserved from a thousand years of Russian culture much inner goodness, breadth of soul, idealism; there has been preserved a striving to seek the Truth and a readiness to accept it with a fitting approach to man.

It seems that it is with just such eyes that it is proper for a priest to look at his people, finding and cleansing in the people fragments of goodness, and not rejecting them because of the accumulated filth of the age. In this lies the basic aim of the Orthodox pastor: he is primarily saved in achieving it. The holy and righteous John of Kronstadt has provided us with an example of this, for even while prophesying the imminent Revolution, he did not withdraw into seclusion or the wilderness, but lived in the world like a monk, for the conversion and salvation of his people, who were running amok in the conditions of increasing sin which prevailed in the capital.

Though our pastors today lack such great stature, yet there are those who are setting such a pastoral goal for themselves. Thanks to their efforts, today, simultaneously with the process of demoralization, and racing neck and neck with it, a noticeable process of spiritual selection and a consolidation of spiritual powers is proceeding within Russian society. It is they who, applying pressure upon the Church leadership from below, obtained the glorification of the new martyrs and the repudiation of the heretical interpretation of the Apostle’s words, “There is no authority that is not from God;” the noticeable ambiguities of the MP’s Council (the attempts to correctly resolve developing aims without repenting for what was previously incorrect) are explained only by the inertia of the inveterate leaders, but not by the desire of the people of the Church.

Though the powers for good in Russia are as a whole not comparable in number with the powers of evil, yet such battles have never been decided by numbers, but rather with the help of God; and it is only given when there is someone to help. In this one may see the significance of the Russian Church Abroad and the objective of its pastoral work in Russia, with the Russian people and Church which is being free from its long sickness (the so-called “Sergianism” began long before the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius; let us remember the conduct of a considerable number of the members of the Holy Synod during the February Revolution).

One thing is beyond doubt: only with the restoration of a healthy Church as a spiritual guide for the nation is the rebirth of Russia possible ‹this is an immutable condition).

The “right-wing protesters” in Russia consider that the activity of the ROCA in Russia must be limited only to the parishes of the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad included in it (but this path is a “withdrawal from the world.” A healthy Church, able to carry out its rôle as a spiritual guide on a nation-wide scale, must not be an emigré Church with a center located abroad, but a single Church with a leadership in Russia itself, for no Church in diaspora can compete with the Russian Church authorities to exert an influence on society; it will always be taken as” not entirely ours.” To change the structures of the MP by some simple and rapid mechanical means is impossible; it is flesh of the flesh of post-Soviet society, with all its sicknesses, and this means that it must be patiently cured together with society.

For example, even now the MP is not with total sincerity “appropriating the spiritual legacy of the diaspora,” but only “in the capacity of an enticement for simple souls and the formation of a deceptive appearance of Orthodoxy,” as the above-mentioned friendly critics and opponents write to us, but does this mean that the “labor of education carried out among convinced adherents of the Patriarchate has drained us?” Is the sowing of the Truth really capable of draining us? This is not our monopoly (Glory to God! let anyone who wants “appropriate” it. The “simple-minded” people of the Church accept this Truth with total sincerity and all the more live in accordance with it, demanding it also of their hierarchs -and for this reason such labor is not without benefit. It is in general strange to hear such expressions as “the Patriarchate is appropriating,” “the Patriarchate is engaging in trade,” “we do not believe the Patriarchate” (as though the Patriarchate is not composed of millions of parishioners and thousands and clergymen, but were a single “voluntarily and irreversibly” corrupted personage. Is it not time for such authors within the ROCA to address their reproaches to those persons and structures which in actuality deserve them, and not antagonize the people of the Church?

The future of Russia and the Russian Church is in the hands of God, as the St. Petersburg clergy (Archpriest Vladimir Savitsky and the others) truly remind us. We can only try to live and act in accordance with the hoped-for goal, trusting in the help of God. And here, as distinct from the theory of the “irreversible degeneration” of the people, are possible another hope and another approach, likewise indemonstrable rationally, yet nonetheless, it seems to us, not bereft of a definite spiritual logic: It is not possible that the 83-year suffering of Russia and the struggle of her throng of new martyrs might have no meaning for the final stage of its earthly existence. Sufferings are permitted so that we may learn from the inverse. And insofar as they are still continuing even more than eighty years after the fall of the monarchy of “he who restrains,” and the end of history has still not arrived, this means that there remains a chance of our learning from the inverse and of the rebirth of Russia “for a short time” (to uproot and conquer on earth the growing evil of the world) for a final proclamation of the Truth to the whole world. Thus, the Lord is prolonging the periods of time, not considering the fall of our people to be “irreversible” (otherwise, there would be no reason for Him to prolong them, merely dragging out our agony (see the book The Mystery of Russia concerning this).

And if there were now to appear in the official Church even one bold bishop who agrees wholeheartedly with the position of the ROCA, he could unite around him the best of the people, who have long awaited this. Those who categorically deny such a possibility, and for this reason have departed from the Russian Church Abroad, have no faith, it would appear, even in God’s help in the regeneration of our homeland. But it is hardly worth it for them to foist the point of view that they possess the one, true Orthodoxy upon those who have faith and act upon it.

N. Nazarov
6/6/2001
© Herald of the German Diocese of ROCOR

Post Reply