A puzzling question about Metropolitan Laurus' position.

[Priest Siluan]

A puzzling question about Metropolitan Laurus' position.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The most recent Epistle of the First Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus (dd. December 9, 2005) is a curious document that proposes an 'alternative view' of ROCOR history. For example, I am unaware of the Soviet Church ever having been viewed by our late Hierarchs of blessed memory as "the Mother Church", "the Sister Church", or even "part of the Russian Church" as stated by Vladyka Laurus below, in the 85 year legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. As a convert, I have always been taught that the other "part of the Russian Church" was and continues to be, the Russian Catacomb Church -- the glorious New Martyrs and Confessors, as well as the faithful lay people, priests, and bishops that continue to be persecuted by "the official church" -- even to this very day. Notably, Vladyka Laurus states in his most recent Epistle,

"I wish to remind everyone that at this moment, we are not talking about "unification," "merging" or "union" with the Moscow Patriarchate, but of reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church."

I can think of no other way to decipher this statement, apart from an understanding of the literary device the great George Orwell described in his discourse on the English language, as "Newspeak". In a nutshell, "Newspeak" is an attempt to rewrite history through the distortion of language. To illustrate this point, compare the above statements with that of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) +1985 concerning this matter:

"When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ." Metropolitan Philaret, Letter Concerning Father Dmitri Dudko, 1980.

These two statements represent two very different ecclesiological views on the Synod's stand in regard to the Soviet church. In fact, they are diametrically opposed. The former is something of a newcomer to the scene -- a strictly political philosophy that is being slickly marketed to the faithful to be 'in step with the times'; while the latter is steeped in the tradition of ROCOR - 'the mind of the fathers'. Vladyka Laurus continues with a description of the ecclesiastical arrangements that will follow the proposed forthcoming union in May 2006:

"...one Chalice, that is, joint services, but two entirely separate ecclesiastical administrations. In short, our Church will preserve its independence in all administrative, property, educational and pastoral matters, and we will remain what we were before reconciliation—a self-governing part of the Russian Church.

To this I might be so bold as to ask -- What would be the point of this fraternal arrangement? Either the Synod will be in communion with Moscow, or She will not be. To give an illusion of autonomy to the Synod faithful, (such as currently exists between "the MP" and its KGB-created offshoot known as "the OCA") is a distortion of reality at best, and a blasphemy against the unity of the Church of Christ at worst. His Eminence continues,

"No one can meddle in the internal workings of our beloved Church, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will continue to appoint bishops to their sees, and our ruling bishops will appoint priests to their parishes."

Are we to believe that "the internal workings of our beloved church" have not already been meddled with? Given the massive amount of documented KGB penetration into the Moscow Patriarchate, it seems necessary at this juncture to come to terms with the degree to which our own Synod has already been compromised. Instead, we are exhorted in the Epistle below to cooperate with the Unionists: "...it is necessary for us on our part", "the process...we must not shy away from"; and to shut our eyes to the further dismantling of our Synod: "this should be of no concern at all".

Finally, it seems the author of this Epistle has been practicing the currently fashionable ecumenical diatribe with great diligence, as the Epistle is peppered with WCC-inspired prose such as, "the process of coming to know each other", "through constructive cooperation and fraternal meetings", "embark upon this road of peacemaking through dialog", "being conducted in a frank and constructive spirit", "receptive to the idea of reconciliation and of spiritual unity with the Church in Russia." What a far cry from the First Hierarch we stood confidently behind only three short years go when the same Metropolitan Laurus gave his blessing to print the following concerning the state of The Russian Church Abroad in 2002:

"Many people still remain under the influence of hierarchs who for some reason refuse to reject the legacy of the Moscow Patriarchate... If Saint John (Maximovitch) in 1960 wrote that "The church authority in Russia (i.e., the Moscow Patriarchate) is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: neither is there freedom of will, nor action," then surely his words apply in our days. Now one can say that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are held captive only by their own incorrect way of reasoning. The fruits of such captivity are participation in the ecumenical movement (which has as its secret agenda the creation of a "universal church" for the coming antichrist), and the willingness to serve any civil government - under the present circumstances, the spiritually antichristian "New World Order." (Rassaphor-monk Vsevlod, Commentary on the Contemporary State of Church Life).

Metropolitan Laurus is the inheritor of the great spiritual succession of First Hierarchs that spans the greater part of a century. However, it is clear that this most recent Epistle signed with the name of "Metropolitan Laurus" is not a part of the tradition of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Whether the mind of the First Hierarch has been darkened, or whether these are not really Vladyka's words at all but those of an imposter, is perhaps not for us to know. Let us not forget the 'Official Declarations' attributed to Saint Patriarch Tikhon giving validity to the Living Church, that he in fact, never issued. It is not for us to judge our brothers and sisters, much less our own hierarchs, as only God knows what they have endured and been subject to. Rather, it is imperative that we pray for them and forgive them, as each one of us is capable of becoming a Judas. As servants of the one true God - may we not lose heart when all seems lost, but find the strength to fight against these God-hating philosophies dressed up in sheep's clothing and passed off as an "Epistle from the First Hierarch". God is infinitely just and merciful in His wisdom - may His will be done.

in Christ,

John

http://metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo29.html

[Kollyvas]

This is a most interesting post and deserves due attention. For now, I'd like to point out a few things I think offer it a fuller perpective:

1). Surely, there must be some acknowledgement that the soviet era is over. Today, the communist party in Russia is supporting a strong Orthodox Church and its role in Russian life, for instance. Moreover, the MP just recently made itself clear in stating that it would not want to be a state church. Most of the members in the Russian parliament are openly supportive of the Church and its role in Russian life. Children, soldiers, invalids, etc. are being exposed to Orthodoxy and taught its tenets. The president of Russia has gone to Mt. Athos on pilgrimage. Compare this to the Americans who have to fight in the courts for their children to be able to say "Merry Christmas" in school or the French whose children cannot wear crosses. There is a new era in an emerging Orthodox Russia. The cold war paradigm simply will not do. To be deaf to statements of repentance which have issued forth from the MP sine 1991 letting them fall to the wayside is simply not Orthodox.

2). Secondly, even during the era of Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret, it was acknowledged that there were fully Orthodox and uncompromised elements in the MP "who shared one Church with ROCOR." Mention is easily made of Fr. Gleb Yakunin, then Fr. Vladimir Rusak, Fr. Dmitri Dudko, Elder Tavrion, et al...even the saintly +Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg. Yes, there was a faction within ROCOR which held the MP as thoroughly illegitimate, but that was never the official position of the body. From the initial reaction of bl. +Metropoltian Antony to +Sergius' concordat through Blessed +Metropolitan Anastassy to Blessed +Philaret ROCOR repeatedly called for repudiation of the sergian declaration "to restore a Common Chalice." There was a recognition of the body which came to be known as the MP as that body which at very least was representative of the Faith, hopes, sufferings of the vast majority of the Russian people, and ROCOR frequently understood that clergy and laity within the MP shared one Russian church with them. I, as a faithful son of the MP, would indicate to partizans of ROCOR that there is no confusion on the MP's part regarding unification--our goal is Orthodox renewal and mission while surmounting the past. I believe that +Patriarch Sergius policy was ruinous and not an acceptible paradigm for church-state relations and should be duly condemned as heresy. That being said, ROCOR's representatives have recently signed documents speaking of +Sergius' "podvig" and essentially exhonerating the policy as acceptible. Currents in the MP do not accept it, but ROCOR has come to its terms with it. Behind closed doors Fr. Komarovsky as "the representative of the Metropolitan" is compromising everything, even things which in the MP are extremely unacceptible such as ecumenism. ROCOR representatives negotiate reemergence into the Oikumene while telling believers in Russia and Abroad that "the talks are non-biding." You see, that's intentional disinformation and the MP is not responsible for it. Finally, how should the MP be addressed if not as thew Mother Church?! 99% of Russian Orthodox insitutions and believers are faithful to the MP. Would one argue that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not the Orthodox church of the imperial court after the deposition of nestorios?! communism is over and sergianism as a political tool simply no longer functions. The situation now in the MP is even freer than in the Synodal Imperial church where Priests were required to reveal the contents of Confessions to the Okhrana.

3). The OCA was never a "kgb" organization, but rather the North American Metropolia and recognized by both ROCOR and the MP as the North American sovereign Russian Orthodox mission. "Autocephaly" which was admittedly a political ploy and PREMATURE, uncanonical, was the freeing of the OCA to function independently without the interference of compromised or agendized higher authorities. The early years of it were scandalous--especially +theodosius' reign--but it was a body quite independent of the MP. I think that the OCA properly understood as an autonomous and fully self-governing Metropolia to be the best direction for ROCOR and other emigre Russian bodies. Specifically, it offers independence from the MP and a free course for the jurisdictions in question. It links diasporan Russian Orthodox together and focuses their resources on their respective missions. ROCOR has little to offer the MP, and its Russia is a fond, glorious expression of the past, but ROCOR's current reality is very much shared with the OCA. A great and positive influence can be exerted on the West by both bodies witnessing in tandem. The alloy of both bodies would create a strong and Traditionalist whole, a synergy of grace. I would even think that the MP's elevation of the diasporan administration to the Patristic, self-governing status of "Katholikosate" would be appropriate.

In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Jean-Serge]

Finally, how should the MP be addressed if not as thew Mother Church?! 99% of Russian Orthodox insitutions and believers are faithful to the MP.

In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

The question of being THE MOTHER CHURCH is not linked with the question of being the majority. In a detemined time, Saint Maximus was the only Orthodox... but he was right... Moreover, knowing the scriptures, we cannot forget that the global aapostasy will come and will seduce the majority claiming it is the true path...

Secondly, the ROCOR and the current MP have distinct origins, which makes impossible calling the MP mother church. The MP was Stalin's creation whereas ROCOR comes from those who did not accept this submission. They rejected the sergianists and cannot be considered as their sons... ROCOR is the son of the MP who was persecuted by the communists and whose heir is not the current MP but the catacumb churches (that still faces persecutions, which proves their is fake religious freedom in Russia).

If ROCOR has the current MP as mother church and if the current MP is a stalinist creation, than ROCOR's grandfather would be Stalin...

ROCOR is the brother of the catacumb church, that's all... :ohvey:

[CorpusChristi]

So what is the outcome of all this, what do you all who have posted on this subject recommend that people do ? walk away from Rocor,Oca,Mp, and join who? a crumbling "rocie", or maybe pack everything up and move to a remote farm where on e can attend one of maybe 20 churchs in america respectively of ROCA,Hocna,or synod in resistance? or maybe just go back to Orthodox roots with the Greek Church, reguardless of many secular problems, and a couple of internal schisms, reguardless of whats happening with there complete bankruptcy they remain in there own little box, the Roman church or any other church will never be with the greek church, because there ecumenical affairs is to convert them to the TRUTH and not the other way around... besides the latins,protestants,etc.are too ego centered and grounded in palaces of wealth to join the true church of The Greeks, maybe that is what is happening with the russian church $$$$$$$$, ah yes, the downfall of all the human "legal tender", isnt this the reason for all the bloodshed from the past, including communism, and the war in iraq today...$$$$$everybody wants it$$$$$ I wonder how life must have been for St.Seraphim of Sarov- it must have been beautiful, but full of sorrow and pain........I remember grandma telling us as children that when we found a penny,nickel,quarter on the floor and picked it up to quickly make the sign of the cross where it laid, because this was the root of all evil, but God had provided- we were very poor and were only allowed to eat twice a day and very little from the age 4 or 5 till we were adults and found a job

[Kollyvas]

Kindly speaking, the MP is looked upon as a survival of the Moscow Patriarchate established at the All-Russian Sobor of 1917-1918, it was an organization DIRECTLY linked; whereas, ROCOR was rather oblique in its relationship as far as their lineage to the Tikhonite church. The mention of stalin is interesting...is it then necessary to discount Patriarchates who had been under the sway of iconoclast emperors and councils but later upheld Orthodoxy? Mind you iconoclasm bears synodal condemnation. The number 99% is brought up not to emphasize the correctness of majorities but rather to beg the question of just exactly how one holding to views discounting the MP would describe the Russian church as a whole which sees the MP as its mother. No, the stalin era ends with the restoration of MP and even imposition upon it as a missionary body, a quite traditional and a organic continuation of the structure of HNM +Tikhon--the 1948 Synod of Moscow underscores that. Indeed, during this era, the MAJORITY of Catacomb clergy entered the ranks of the Patriarchate as a sign of their acknowledgement of their common Russian Orthodox patrimony. Just as ROCOR was not a "sister church" to the HNM +Tikhon's MP, so too it can not be looked as such in regard to current MP. The Patriarchal throne is RESTORED.
R

[Priest Siluan]

So what is the outcome of all this, what do you all who have posted on this subject recommend that people do ? walk away from Rocor,Oca,Mp, and join who? a crumbling "rocie"

Forgive me, Dear, but if I don't remember bad, in the past you wanted to be in ROCiE. What do you happened to change opinion?