“The Church’s Helmsman, Both Then and Now, is the Almigh

[Ekaterina]

“The Church’s Helmsman, Both Then and Now, is the Almighty Spirit of God”
Archpriest Peter PEREKRESTOV
http://www.wadiocese.com/edocs_comments ... 6_0_13_0_C

25 questions regarding the process of re-establishing the unity of the Russian Church, the IV All-Diaspora Council, ecumenism, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The following article came out of a desire to explain to those with questions about the currently unfolding process of healing the division between the two parts of the Russian Church – in Russia and abroad. Many of the subjects touched upon in this article, especially those in the realm of ecclesiology and canon law, are not simple ones. For that reason, a question-and-answer format was chosen as the format most accessible. We will attempt to answer the questions clearly and concisely in a manner comprehensible to the reader.

1. Why is the question of uniting the two parts of the Russian Church so urgent? Why can’t everything be left as is?

The life of the Church is guided by the Gospels and by the Church Canons, according to which a Church cannot declare itself to be independent, autonomous, or autocephalous. In its organization and structure, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia follows the Holy Canons. The canonical foundation for the Russian Church Outside of Russia is Patriarch St. Tikhon’s Ukaz № 362 dated November 7/20, 1920. That Ukaz provides, in pertinent part:

“[2] In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Higher Church Administration, or if the Higher Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Higher Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else)”.

“[10] All measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.”

It was on the basis of that Ukaz, that “The Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia,” were developed. The first paragraph thereof provides:

“The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time [in all quotations, emphasis provided by bold typeface is mine – Archpriest P.] until the extermination in Russia of the atheist government, is self-governing on conciliar principles in accordance with the resolution of the Patriarch, the Most Holy Synod, and the Highest Church Council [Sobor] of the Russian Church dated 7/20 November, 1920, No. 362.”

The Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of 1933, a document, which one may say, is the primary and fundamental document in outlining the interrelationships between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, speaks of the fact that “the organs of the ecclesiastical administration abroad have in nowise striven to appropriate the rights of autocephaly for itself, as Metropolitan Sergius accuses us. To the present day the entire Church organization abroad has considered and still considers itself an extraordinary and temporary institution, which must be abolished without delay after the restoration of normal social and ecclesiastical life in Russia.”

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, our respected theologian and ever-memorable teacher of dogmatic theology at the Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, wrote about the fact that the time would come to unite the two parts of the Russian Church:

“The Orthodox Church is Christ’s legacy. The Lord also preserves the little Church vessel known as the Church Abroad, the external offshoot that in the past sprang from the majestic Russian Church. When the Church in the Homeland is reborn, then that part of it which is free will also return to its bosom.” (“Sobornost’ and Religious Collaboration,” Regarding Life, the Faith, and the Church, Jordanville, 1976, p. 218).

It has been 15 years since normal church life was restored in Russia. Fifteen years ago, it became possible to restore direct contacts with the central ecclesiastical authority in Russia. The atheist regime has been officially abolished for over 15 years. Thus, if we consider Ukaz № 362 to be the canonical foundation for our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and if we are governed by our “Regulations,” we are obliged to establish contact with the supreme ecclesiastical authority in Russia, i.e. with the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate.

1. I cannot understand why we need to go through the formalities, if, as a practical matter, unification has already taken place. Immigrants from Russia attend churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and are accepted by them as parishioners. We could intercommune and support one another without a formal unification.

Informal prayerful, and even – on the lay level – eucharistic communion, is one thing. Quite another matter is Church organization on canonical foundations. From a purely technical standpoint, if bishops of the Church Abroad cannot concelebrate and commune together with bishops and clergy of the Church in Russia, Moscow Patriarchate, and if our clergy cannot concelebrate with bishops and clergy in Russia, then can the laity do that? Actually, no. Yes, in practice, lay people do commune on a regular basis, but why can only they do so, while the bishops and clergy cannot? This requires a “formal,” or, more accurately, ecclesiastical unity, attainable only on a canonical level.

To some extent it is understandable that it is easier to live free of anyone or anything, including the canons. However, that is a purely secular, and not an ecclesiastical-canonical approach to freedom.

1. Why is there such a rush to unite?

At every Liturgy, following the singing of “It is truly meet” after the Eucharistic Canon, we commemorate our ecclesiastical authorities. That commemoration defines who we are, and begins with the words, “Among the first, remember O Lord...” Whom do we commemorate first, who is first for us, who is the head of our Church Abroad? We are required to first commemorate the “Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church,” and only after that, in second place, “our lord the Very-most-reverend Metropolitan Laurus.” (After the death of Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia decided to commemorate Metropolitan Kyrill of Kazan. As he was in difficult circumstances, and to avoid worsening those difficulties for him, it was decided to employ a form of commemoration allowing for “anonymity,” i.e. the “the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church.” It was understood that behind the anonymous “episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church” there stood a concrete, specific individual – Metropolitan Kyrill). Who, now, is the “Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church” which we commemorate every day, at every service? Are they bishops in Russia? If so, which ones, and what are their names? Are they catacomb bishops? If so, over the course of 15 years, we could have made contact with them and ascertained the identity of their first-hierarch. Are they the bishops presiding over the Russian parishes of the Church Abroad in Russia? Why, then, are they commemorated before our First-hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus; are they in charge of our Church Abroad? Are they the present bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate? If so, why not openly say so?

The well-known 34th Apostolic Canon, which in his spiritual will, the Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy called “the cornerstone” and which so profoundly and clearly expresses the spirit of conciliar governance in the Church, directs:

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent”.

The Orthodox Church has no anonymous, generalized, formulae for commemorating ecclesiastical authorities. Our present crisis rests precisely in the fact that we commemorate as first “the Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church”, and do not know who that is. Without knowing that, we are incapable of knowing who we are. As long as there was an iron curtain between us and the Church in Russia, we could somehow justify the anonymous formula on the grounds that we did not have reliable information about church life in Russia and that there was no opportunity to personally be sure of what was transpiring there, either in the official Church or in the Catacombs. Now, however, when we have opportunities to travel to Russia, to establish contacts with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, and with the various groups that call themselves “those in the catacombs,” when we likewise can acquaint ourselves with documents heretofore unknown to us, documents in archives that previously had been inaccessible, we have no more justification for, and must seek a way out of, our former, temporary state, and to know whom we concretely commemorate as first.

So as not to usurp ecclesiastical authority and thereby cease being a part of the Local Russian Church, not a single First-hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad had ever dared discontinue commemoration of the “Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church,” which is commemorated first, before the name of the Metropolitan of the Russian Church Abroad.

People in our Church, especially bishops and clergy who are well-versed in canonical matters, understand that the Russian Church Abroad is on the brink of a canonical catastrophe. One may compare the Church to a family, the family of Christ, or according to St. John Chrysostom, the “family of the Only-begotten.” If the children of one single family bicker among themselves and are not talking to one another, do they not thereby destroy the family entrusted to them by their parents? If there is no unity within the Local Church or among the Local Churches, can one even speak of One Church? The unity of the Church is not something secondary; it is the very essence of the life of the Church. The Church is one, for the Lord and Savior of all is One. The Church Canons, and canonical status, are the very laws, the “blood ties” which define the interrelationship and responsibilities of the “family of the Only-begotten.” The Canons ensure legitimate, God-established, apostolic succession. Everyone who believes in Christ and the Kingdom of God which He promised us must be in liturgical and canonical unity with the entire Orthodox Church. Canonical status (including, in part, commemoration of the “first” bishop) determines our belonging to our Russian Church and to the entire Orthodox Church, the “family of the Only-begotten.” If the question of our canonical status is not settled now, we will have no status, something that for the Orthodox Church is impermissible.

1. The flock is not ready for unification. Can’t we slow it down?

Sixteen years have elapsed since the government in Russia ceased to be an atheistic one. Six years have elapsed since the Council of Bishops under the direction of Metropolitan Vitaly established the “Commission for unification,” and three years since its replacement, the “Commissions for dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate” began its work. That Commission, appointed by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2003, was given the following goal: “The establishment of normal relations with the Moscow Patriarchate” (Ukaz of the Council of Bishops № 11-35-16). The Commission accomplished a great deal of work and worthily represented our Church Abroad.

By now, parishioners of the Russian Church Abroad have more or less determined their attitude toward the current unification process. Unfortunately, there is not complete oneness of mind with respect to this question, just as there had not been complete oneness of mind, even among the members of our episcopate, on the question of canonization of the holy New Martyrs of Russia, and especially with respect to the place of the Royal Passion-bearers among the ranks of New Martyrs. Within the circles of those who quite actively and irreconcilably oppose the current process of unification, we do not see a process of comprehension, maturity, understanding of our situation and, it seems to us, no timeframes will help in that regard. As soon as the Church in Russia meets one demand (for example, refusal to engage in common prayer with the heterodox, and condemnation of the ecumenical “branch theory”), these people put forth new demands (e.g. cessation of all discussions with the heterodox, and immediate withdrawal from the WCC). Such people, as Archpriest Pimen Simon noted at the IV All-Diaspora Council, resemble Old Believers.

Only personal experience, living encounters with contemporary Orthodox Rus’, can soften these people’s hearts and allow them to see what is joyous and bright, what gives reason for hope in Russia’s religious life.

In the years we spent studying in Holy Trinity Seminary, we seminarians were told that the barometer of religious life was monasticism: wherever monasticism flourished, there religious life was healthy. In the 15 years that Alexey II has been Patriarch, the number of monasteries in Russia has increased by a factor of 30 – from 21 monasteries to over 600! In Russia there are twice as many monasteries as there are parishes in the Russian Church Abroad!

The multitude of appeals and letters from diocesan meetings, councils, parishes and religious organizations sent to the First-hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, at least during the past month, evidence the fact that the vast majority of the faithful of our Church not only personally support Vladyka Metropolitan Laurus, but also that they wish to have Russian Orthodox Church unity.

It seems to us that not one of the opponents – either in the Diaspora or in Russia – of the glorification of the New Martyrs, can now fail to admit that the matter of their glorification was a work of great importance. The same applies to the question of religious unity. Several years from now, all of the true sons of the Russian Church will come to recognize that the matter of Church unity is a Godly matter, a matter of historical significance.

1. Why are parishioners’ rights being limited? Why is such an important decision being made exclusively by the bishops?

Such is the nature of the Orthodox Church: decisions as to the direction of Church life are made by the hierarchs, to whom at the time of their consecration was given the grace to “rightly divide the word of Truth.” Holy Hierarch John wrote the following on the subject:

“The Church of Christ is a divine institution, and the basis of its organization are given by Christ and the Holy Spirit, through the Apostles and holy men. The development of religious regulations, and direction of the Church, was assigned to the Bishops, as we see from the Epistles of the Apostles and their most immediate successors....

Rule by the people is something alien to the Orthodox Church. In the Church of Christ, everything flows from a Divine origin, and God is given a final accounting of all [our] works. For that reason, the bishops, as heirs of the Apostles, stand at the head of the Church authorities.” (from Archbishop John’s appeal to the general meeting of the parish in 1966., Homilies, "Russkiy Pastyr", San Francisco, 1994, p.307)

However, despite this, our First-hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus, convened the IV All-Diaspora Council, so that representatives of all dioceses might express the opinions of their brethren and parishioners with respect to the rapprochement between the two parts of the Russian Church, and so that the Hierarchs might be able to hear the opinions of their clergy and their flocks.

By the way, when the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia held in 1927 decided on 27 August/9 September to break relations with the Moscow ecclesiastical authority, and to become self-administering (note, we are not aware of a single conciliar church document that speaks of a break in eucharistic communion with the Church in Russia), neither the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad nor its parishioners were polled, nor was an All-Diaspora Council convened to consider such an important question.

1. Was there dissension at the IV All-Diaspora Council?

During the opening days of the IV All-Diaspora Council, a great many varied, and sometimes, irreconcilable opinions were expressed. The third working day of the Council was the most intense, but on the fourth day, when the Resolution was under consideration, the situation changed. The delegates began to pay more attention to one another, to propose constructive, practical suggestions, and to strive for oneness of heart, and there took place what many of them later called a miracle – the working of the Holy Spirit. The resolution was adopted almost unanimously. Less than 3 per cent of the participants spoke out against any of the paragraphs of the Resolution. The first paragraph, regarding complete trust in and support for the First-hierarch and the Council of Bishops in the matter of deciding the question of time frames and conditions for the process toward achieving Church unity, was adopted by 100% of the delegates.

1. Why was the voting at the IV All-Diaspora Council not by secret ballot, as it was at the III All-Diaspora Council?

None of the participants in the III All-Diaspora Council whom we questioned affirmed that at the III All-Diaspora Council voting was by secret ballot. The minutes of the III All-Diaspora Council did not include a single mention of secret balloting. Practically all of the resolutions were adopted, one after another, on the same day, and almost unanimously.

In San Francisco, the Organizing Committee prepared voting cards to be used for secret balloting, but they turned out to be unnecessary for three reasons:

а) No delegate asked that the voting be secret, and no delegate objected to the order of voting proposed by the Most-reverend Archbishop Hilarion, head of the Editorial Committee.

b) The show of hands made it absolutely clear that the vast majority was for the proposed Resolution. For all practical purposes, the Resolution was adopted unanimously.

c) The Vote Tallying Committee, consisting of Priest Vladimir Petrenko (a delegate from the South American Diocese), Protodeacon Andre Meillassoux (Western European Diocese) and Alexander Ivanovitch Mutilin (Odessa Diocese), found the order of voting consistent with the conciliar process. The Vote Tallying Committee took note of who raised their hands, and they tallied the votes. Upon completion of the voting, the Vote Tallying Committee turned the voting results over the Council Secretariat.

1. Why was only four minutes allotted to each speaker at the IV All-Diaspora Council?

In accordance with the instructions to the III All-Diaspora Council, at that Council, time limitations of 10 minutes were imposed. Moreover, according to the minutes of the III Council, Archbishop Nikon more than once “closed debate,” i.e. would not allow discussion to continue. Also, Metropolitan Laurus, secretary of the III All-Diaspora Council, and a series of participants (both clergy and laity) whom we specifically questioned as to the time allotted for speakers, confirmed that at the III All-Diaspora Council time limits were imposed.

The III All-Diaspora Council had 9 working days, and the number of delegates at the sessions did not exceed 90 individuals (there was one day in which fewer than 80 were present). Moreover, that Council was not convened to consider any one specific sharply-pressing question.

In duration, the IV All-Diaspora Council was almost half as short, and every day there were up to 40 more participants than at the III All-Diaspora Council. It was convened to consider one principal question – the further canonical existence of the Russian Church. The Organizers of the IV Council had to so organize the presentations as to allow each delegate an opportunity to speak his mind. On the second and third days of the Council, there were over 130 presentations from the floor! 130 х 4 minutes = 520 minutes = almost 9 hours of uninterrupted speech – and that does not take into account responses made by lecturers and committee members to those speaking from the floor! Thus, the imposition of time limits for comments was done out of organizational necessity. Nonetheless, everyone who wanted to had the opportunity to briefly and concretely express his point of view or to present comments in written form to the Secretariat.

1. It is our understanding that unification can happen only at a Local Council; is that not so?

The Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy wrote about the fact that the unity of the Russian Church would be re-established at a free Council of the Russian Church, and Holy Hierarch St. John (Maximovitch) referred to a Local Council: “…the entire Church Abroad, all together, must present to the All-Russian Council with what it had done during its time of forced separation.” (“To the Orthodox flock of Shanghai, grace and peace from the Life-giving Trinity!,” Shanghai, August 2, 1946). In that paragraph, the Holy Hierarch emphasized that the Russian Church Outside of Russia must give an account of its activities to the Church in Russia, and not vice versa.

The current process toward unification appears to be the middle, Royal, path. On the one hand, both parts of the Russian Church, in Russia and Abroad, are presenting an account to one another (rather than one side giving its account to the other) and are seeking that common ground upon which Church unity may be built. On the other hand, a Local Council in which both parts of the Russian Church can participate is possible only if there they share eucharistic communion. The Church in Russia would hardly invite to a Local Council it had convened, those who are in opposition to, and do not recognize it. When the two parts of the Russian Church share Eucharistic Communion, the part Abroad will be able to participate in the convocation of a Local Council and in the formulation of its agenda.

1. What is the “Mother Church?”

The following definition was given at the IV All-Diaspora Council: The Mother Church is the Church of the New Martyrs, of the Local Council, and of Holy Russia.

1. Our Church Abroad did not recognize the election of the Patriarchs in Russia, including the election of Patriarch Alexey II. Have those decisions been rescinded?

A similar question was considered at the IV All-Diaspora Council, and in part, some delegates, specialists in the history of the Russian Church Abroad and canon law, offered the following conclusions.

Our non-recognition of the “patriarchate” of patriarchs of the Church in Russia is tied to the fact that we are not under their jurisdiction, in light of our temporarily independent existence, in accordance with Ukaz № 362. Our hierarchs were not, and currently are not, members of their Council of Bishops. Were our hierarchs to be part of their Council, their first bishop, i.e. the Patriarch, would, in accordance with Apostolic Canon 34 and Canon 9 of the Council at Antioch, solicit the opinions of our hierarchs with respect to all important Church questions.

Non-recognition of the canonicity of the elections of the patriarch meant that he could not extend his authority over us. The denial of the canonicity of the election of Patriarch Alexey II in 1991 was a defensive measure. The Church Abroad recognized all of the patriarchs of the official Church in Russia as heads of the part of the Church that remained under them; however, retaining its own freedom, it did not submit itself to the patriarchs. With the adoption of the “Act of Eucharistic Communion,” our relationship to the Patriarch changes: All hierarchs of both parts of the Russian Church, those in Russia and Abroad, become part of the Council of Bishops of the Local Russian Church, and the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad are consulted on all important issues of the Russian Church. Upon adoption of the “Act,” Apostolic Canon 34 and Canon 9 of the Council at Antioch will also be extended to apply to us. Both parts of the Russian Church enter into eucharistic and canonical communion, thereby re-establishing the desired unity.

1. How can we commemorate the Patriarch, a former “agent of the KGB”?

In actual fact, during the Soviet years, some hierarchs of the Church in Russia made certain compromises. That is no secret, just as it is no secret that when the Apostle Paul was still Saul, he was a fierce persecutor of Christians.

However, Archimandrite Justin (Popovic) wrote that we Orthodox Christians are true disciples of Christ not in that we have fewer sins than other people and nations, but in that we have faith, repentance and humility before the God-man, the only One who did not sin, and Who was without sin. That path of repentance is open to all without exception. According to St. John the Baptist, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,” i.e. one must repent not in words but in deeds.

Patriarch Alexey has brought repentance – serving the Liturgy almost daily (more than 300 times per year!), he prays for forgiveness of his sins and those of his flock. For His Holiness Patriarch Alexey, prayer is the main thing in carrying his Cross as Primate of the Church. This is supported by his own words, “I strive to serve the Liturgy as much as possible, and in the Church Mysteries, Divine grace supplements, fills in, and strengthens [my] weak human powers,” (from an interview in the magazine Vstrecha [Encounter], №19, 1/2005). During his Primacy, three new churches are opened every day! Unquestionably, he takes care to further Orthodox education and to do battle with Russia’s growing propaganda for immorality. He has the trust and love of his clergy and people throughout all Russia. Can we deny that these are the fruits of repentance?

It would be appropriate to cite an excerpt from a resolution made by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on August 12/25, 1981, regarding the difficulty of assessing Church life in Soviet Russia. The resolution was made in connection with the publication in a certain Orthodox magazine of a letter from Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) regarding the activities of Archimandrite Tavrion, a clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate. In his letter, Vladyka Philaret noted sympathetically that at first Fr. Tavrion was in the Catacomb Church, but later, for pastoral reasons, openly served in the official Church, in the Moscow Patriarchate. The publication of Metropolitan Philaret’s letter provoked indignation and criticism by zealots, especially those in the camp of the Boston “Panteleimonite” sect. In that regard, the Synod of Bishops resolved:

“The Synod of Bishops deems it necessary to remind its flock that first of all, we must strongly uphold our own faith and exercise our zeal in the authentic life of the Church under the conditions in which God has placed each one of us, striving towards the salvation of our souls. Due to insufficient information, deliberations about the significance and quality of various events in Russia do not at present provide adequate guidance for the faithful. Indeed, in the majority of cases these deliberations cannot serve as instruction but must rather be regarded as personal opinions... Mutual love and concern for Church unity, which is especially necessary in times of heresy and schism, require from each of us great caution in what we say...

The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately.”

1. Yes, that’s fine, but why to date has Patriarch Alexey not offered words of repentance, openly and publicly?

Patriarch Alexey had publicly repented in the press, in an announcement published in 1991 regarding Metropolitan Sergius’ Declaration. Unfortunately, his announcement was not aired in the religious press of the Church Abroad. It was first publicly announced 12 years later (!), at the Pastoral Conference in 2003 in Nyack, and then at the IV All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco. For that reason, we cite his words here:

“That declaration is part of the history of our Church. As a person of the Church, I must take upon myself responsibility for everything that happened in the life of my Church: not only the good, but that which was difficult, lamentable, and erroneous. It would be too simple to say, ‘I did not sign it and don’t know anything…’

Today we are able to say that untruth was mixed in his [Metropolitan Sergius’] Declaration...

Defending one thing, he had to make compromises in something else. Were there other organizations or other people among those who had to bear responsibility not only for themselves but for the fate of thousands of others, who in those years in the Soviet Union did not have to proceed in like manner? It is not only before God, but also before all of those people to whom the compromises, silence, forced passivity or expressions of loyalty that the Church leadership allowed themselves to make in those years brought pain that I ask forgiveness, understanding and prayers.” (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, № 10, 1991).

1. Before, there was a negative attitude of mistrust toward the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, including toward Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk, and now the attitude toward them has turned in a more positive direction. Why has there been such a shift?

When you are talking about the episcopate of the Church in Russia today, you must bear in mind that the majority were chosen and consecrated after the fall of the atheist regime.

Many representatives of the Russian Church Abroad formed a negative attitude toward Metropolitan Kyrill, primarily on the basis of some of his early pronouncements and also negative articles about him in the secular press.

However, Metropolitan Kyrill himself has experienced a certain disenchantment with the ecumenical movement and has demonstrated a shift in emphasis in his activities. As to press notices Archpriest Nikolai Artemov noted at the IV All-Diaspora Council that he used to read a variety of critical articles about Metropolitan Kyrill (Gundyayev). However, when he began to receive similar articles about a hierarch of the Church Abroad whom he knew well, he changed his attitude toward such publications.

In 2004 members of the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had the opportunity to meet face to face with Metropolitan Kyrill and to candidly ask him a series of questions. After their personal encounter with Metropolitan Kyrill, the delegates were convinced as to his sincerity and candor, his devotion to the Russian Church, the breadth of his knowledge, and his opinions; likewise, they were persuaded of the sincerity of his battle with the secular West in defense of Orthodox values. (Those who would like to better acquaint themselves with Vladyka Kyrill’s pronouncements may read them on the Internet: regarding secular liberal values, how charity brings us closer together and regarding human rights and their moral foundations.

1. Our fathers and grandfathers suffered at the hands of the communists. How can we now unite with such people?

It was not only the fathers and grandfathers of those who went abroad that suffered at the hands of the communists. Almost every family, abroad and in the Soviet Union, suffered at the hands of the communists. By way of example, we mention the Pravdoliubovs, a priestly family from the Ryazan Diocese (there were priests in their family over the course of 300 years). Here is what Archpriest Sergei Pravdoliubov writes about his ancestors:

“When the awful persecutions and active victimization of clergy began, our relatives, as chosen warriors of the Heavenly Kingdom, followed after Christ unto death. On my father’s side, my great-grandfather, Archpriest Anatoly Pravdoliubov, was executed by firing squad on December 23, 1937. Three of his sons, two priests and one layperson, also gave up their lives for Christ. In the year 2000, they were glorified as New Martyrs. As a youth, my father was made worthy to endure five years of incarceration in the Solovketsky camp of special purpose and on the mainland. On my mother’s side, my grandfather, Archpriest Michael Dmitrev, was executed by firing squad on December 2, 1937, in the city of Ryazan. His nephew, Yevgeny Dmitrev, perished in the city of Perm. They were also glorified as saints in the year 2000. In addition to our closest relatives, another five of our relatives – priests and laity – suffered for the Faith. In all, they were 11 saints, now glorified by the Holy Church! Need I describe our family’s attitude toward the spiritual struggle of the martyrs and toward service to the Church?! The entire history of the XX century ‘by word of mouth,’ tales of our great-grandparents and grandparents, brought everything, including events in the past, to life for us. Thus, the “[length of] our Church life” and the transmittal of oral tradition extends in direct succession from the mid XIX century.”

Further, Fr. Sergei tells of his own life:

“God blessed me to live through the entire second half of the XX century in peace and prosperity. But we never forgot the suffering of the martyrs – our ancestors and fathers. We lived with an indissoluble connection to them. My father’s stories about Solovki and the Solovki Islands themselves did not retreat as I grew older; they came ever closer. From my earliest youth, I was able to avoid joining the October Movement, and the Pioneer and Komsomol [Young Communist] organizations. There were difficult situations, and there were even little sufferings for Christ, when my school peers – both from 7th grade “A” and 7th grade “B” – would beat me for being the son of a “pope.” But that was out of ignorance, out of something general instilled in them by adults. Today I have only the warmest and friendliest of relationships with classmates and co-workers alike.” (“Regarding the approaching Council,” taken from the website: That with one mind we may confess).

Can we possibly be “more pure” than these people, greater than they in suffering, and can we possibly not want to be united with them?

1. There are still a lot of communists in the Russian Federation, and many have yet to acknowledge the sin of regicide.

We are less concerned with the communists’ attitude toward regicide than with that of the Russian Church and the faithful. On the occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the murder of the Royal Family, Patriarch Alexey and the Holy Synod of the ROC-MP addressed the flock with an epistle of repentance. Unfortunately, the Russian Diaspora religious press did not publicize that expression of repentance either:

“The sin of regicide, which took place amid the indifference of the citizens of Russia, has not been repented of by our people. Being a transgression of both the law of God and civil law, this sin weighs extremely heavily upon the souls of our people, upon its moral conscience.

And today, on behalf of the whole Church, on behalf of her children, both reposed and living, we proclaim repentance before God and the people for this sin. Forgive us, O Lord! (From the Epistle of His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexey II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on the 75th anniversary of the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family, 1993)

Some of our parishioners are troubled by the fact that there are still many communists, many people who have “repainted” themselves, in the Russian Federation. Yet, after all, it is not with the current regime that we are uniting, but with the Church in Russia. The Russian Church was united even during Lenin’s fiercely theomachist reign. Why cannot unity exist today?

1. Could it be that the path taken by the Church Abroad, especially during the 1980s and 1990s, was a mistake?

The path taken by the Russian Church Abroad was the path of the Confessors, a glorious and worthy path. We love our Church Abroad, we stand by it, and we treasure and preserve its heritage.

However, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, it was noted (in Archpriest Nicholas Karipoff’s speech entitled “The Spiritual-Historical Heritage of the Russian Church Abroad,”Pravoslavnaya Rus’ [Orthodox Russia] № 13, July 1/14 2006), that:

”The best of the emigres at first saw their exile as God’s punishment for their sins. After the Second World War, however, we see a different perception. Thanksgiving to God for deliverance from the communist hell changes to a sense of chosen-ness: we were saved because we have a special mission. By the second half of the 1960’s and further this caused the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad to decide on a change of direction....

The loss of the spirit of repentance of the first decades led to a loss of clarity in self-assessment. Hence we began to perceive ourselves as not only intercessors for the Church of Russia but as having the right to teach others and meddle in the affairs of other Local Churches and to think that perhaps we even constitute the One Catholic Church: we have everything and have no need of anything from without... we are unique.”

If we are Orthodox, we must not be afraid of acknowledging our weaknesses, our mistakes; we must not be afraid of the truth, and we must be honest. A certain hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad once stated, “We are not perfect, but we are honest.” (from an interview with Priest Alexis Duncan, in Russky Pastyr [Russian Pastor], №22-23, 1995). The fact is that the Church is holy, but that people in the Church are weak and sinful… In seeking to save sinners, the Church Militant on earth does not drive them out from its midst. We must admit and, through the mercy of God, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, did admit, that mistakes were made in the past, and that we now “had to pay” for those mistakes. One example of such mistakes cited at the Council was our taking into the Church Abroad certain Russian parishes. It is possible that our reception of parishes on the territory of Russia was a transitional stage, a bridge between Russians in the West and in Russia. However, on the other hand, Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukaz № 362 and our own “Regulations” did not allow for establishing dioceses or setting up parishes in Russia. Likewise, they did not allow for interfering in the affairs of the Church of Greece – this is in reference to the consecration, by ROCOR bishops in 1962, of Old-Calendarist Greek bishops. (The Greek Old-Calendarists have now splintered into many microscopic groups recognizing neither one another nor any of the Local Churches, and introducing confusion and embarrassment into Church life. Neither Metropolitan Anastassy nor the Synod of Bishops approved of those consecrations, and it was only in 1969, already under Metropolitan Philaret, that they werе confirmed).

The Ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of Geneva used to say that we cannot demand repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate while doing nothing on our part. We must repent as well. In our history there were “wounds” – the Suzdal, Lazarus of Odessa, and the “Panteleimonite” schisms… Of course, we do not have the right to reprove our late hierarchs. They sincerely wished the Church well. However, surely Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) also acted sincerely, with good intentions for the Church. Even those who quite severely condemned his actions did not doubt his sincerity. To cite one example, in an interview broadcast on Radio Radonezh this October, the religious historian Sergius Firsov did not express approval for Metropolitan Sergius’ politics, but also had no doubt about his sincerity and his willingness to sacrifice. However, even if one is sincere, mistakes and blunders can happen. The Lord humbles us and brings us to repentance, without which salvation is impossible.

1. We were taught that our Church is “crysal” clear, like unto a glass of pure clean water. If pure water is mixed with dirty water, the pure water becomes murky. Will not the same thing happen to our Church if we enter into communion with the Church in Russia or with the Local Churches that are members of the WCC?

Unfortunately, such pronouncements, to the effect that our Church is crystal-pure while all of the others are muddy water, bring to mind what the Lord warned us about in the parable of the publican and the pharisee. The history of the Church is extremely complex, and one cannot approach it with a black-white, fundamentalist standard of measurement.

Let us turn to one of the most important hierarchs and confessors of the XX century, Holy Hierarch Athanassy (Sakharov), whom the Church in Russia glorified as one of the New Martyrs. In 1954, he had been a bishop for 33 years. In all that time, he served in a diocese for all but 33 months. He spent 32 months in freedom but inactive, and 76 months in exile. He was in fetters and working at hard labor for 254 months! Holy Hierarch Athanassy considered that Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) had illegally usurped all of the rights of First-hierarch while Metropolitan Peter, the canonical First-hierarch of the Russian Church was still alive, thereby “freeing” Vladyka Athanassy from being subject to him and to the Synod he had formed. Bishop Athanassy stopped commemorating Metropolitan Sergius. However, after the death of the (by then) Patriarch Sergius, and the election of a new First-hierarch, Patriarch Alexey (Simansky), who was recognized by all of the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate and by all of the Local Churches, Holy Hierarch Athanassy dared not turn away from him, and began to commemorate him. He encouraged all of his spiritual children to do the same.

In a letter to his spiritual daughter (“Can one attend churches of the Moscow Patriarchate,” Herald of the Russian Student Christian Movement, № 106, 1972) St. Athanassy made the following evaluation of analogous circumstances in the life of the Universal Church:

“Look for example at the history of the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the XVII century. Turkish sultans appointed patriarchs, and installed as patriarchs those who made the greatest deposit in the sultan’s treasury.

Some patriarchs were on the patriarchal throne for a year, others for a few months or a few days. They included people who were secretly Jesuits, or who were sympathetic toward Protestantism… The sultan replaced one patriarch because someone else had promised to make a greater contribution to the sultanate treasury. How rapidly and unexpectedly patriarchs were replaced can be demonstrated by the fact that between 1586 and 1654 there had been 54 changes of patriarch. What temptations there must have been for the people around them, for the faithful!
And life for the Christian Greeks during that period was one of unremitting suffering… but they did not separate themselves from their pastors and archpastors, they did not decline to attend churches in which the names of patriarchs appointed by the Muslim sultan were commemorated.

One of the patriarchs of that time was St. Athanassy Patelarius who, on three separate occasions – with the requisite payments into the treasury – ascended the throne of Constantinople, and who later reposed in Russia in Lubno and was subsequently entered in the ranks of saints.”

Despite the fact that Vladyka Athanassy did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius and considered his actions uncanonical, his profound understanding of history enabled him to not refuse to attend churches in which services were conducted by clergy who recognized Metropolitan Sergius.

In that regard, he wrote:

“I considered, and consider, sharp and abusive reactions against so-called Sergianist churches and the Divine Services therein ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.’

True zeal for the Faith cannot be united to anger.

Where there is anger – there is not Christ, but inspiration from the power of darkness. Christian zeal, with love and not sorrow, can be accompanied by indignation, but not by sin (in becoming indignant, do not fall into sin).

But malicious anger is a great sin, an unforgivable sin, – a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, the Spirit of serenity. And, as a protest against those who tolerated non-attendance of Sergianist churches, the most-zealous Vladyka Metropolitan Kyrill (of Kazan – Archpriest. P.), would condemn the abuse of ignorant blasphemers and would say that if need be, in the event of approaching death, he himself would go to confession to, and receive communion from, a Sergianist priest.”

Likewise, one must remind those not wanting to mix “clean” water with “murky” water, that already in the III century, the Orthodox Church had condemned those who could not allow both sinless Christ and sinners to be present simultaneously in the Holy Church. These people, the Novatianists, criticized the Church for receiving into communion those who had “fallen” in time of persecution. Let us be neither like the Pharisees, neither like the heretic Novatianists.

1. Is not “Sergianism” a deviation of a dogmatic nature? Are not “Sergianists” heretics, schismatics, and uncanonical?

Over the course of 75 years, the Russian Church Abroad has not made any conciliar determination as to what “Sergianism” is. Individuals have offered definitions, often radically differing from one another, but there has been no conciliar, universally-accepted definition. For example, in no article, no homily that has come down to us, no letter of which we are aware, did Holy Hierarch St. John (Maximovitch) ever use the term “Sergianists.” He did not refer to the Church in Russia as uncanonical, graceless, or illegal. The principal reason that made communion between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate impossible, one systematically laid out by Vladyka John, rested in the fact that the Church in the Soviet Union was not free, that it was enslaved, and that it could not express its own actual will (Speech by the Very-most-reverend Archbishop John; Herald of Orthodox Affairs № 4, Geneva, 1960, p.5.)

Had Holy Hierarch John considered the Church in Russia (MP) uncanonical or schismatic, he would not have voluntarily and completely consciously submitted to the authority of Patriarch Alexey I (Simansky) in 1945. In a letter to Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Archbishop Antony (Bartoshevitch) of Geneva bore witness to Holy Hierarch John’s attitude toward the Church in Russia:

“The late Archbishop John, respected and loved by all of us, used to say the following: ‘The official Church in Russia of course, has grace, although individual hierarchs are behaving in an unworthy manner.’” (Posev № 12, 1979)

The Russian Church Abroad has never declared in Council that the Church in Russia is “without grace.” On that subject, the same Archbishop Antony wrote the following in his Encyclical to Pastors and Flock in 1986:

“Blind fanatics and foolish zealots may be dissatisfied only with the fact that our hierarchs (of the Russian Church Abroad – Archpriest P.) have never asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate is graceless, bereft of the grace of God; because of that, we always received bishops and priests coming into our Church from the Moscow Patriarchate in their existing rank. We believe and know that God’s love continues to be with the Christians of our much-suffering homeland, even with those who seek it in the clergy officially recognized by the regime and in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate.”

Were the Church in Russia not canonical, schismatic or heretical, we would have to admit that all of the rites of Ordination, Baptism, Matrimony, and the other Mysteries it had performed, were invalid! Those so asserting would have to indicate from what day, from what hour, from what moment, the grace of God had ceased to function in Rus’. With respect to this question, the thoughts expressed at the Council of Bishops in 1953 by His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anastassy regarding the reception of clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate into the Russian Church Abroad are of great value. He stated:

“Do we recognize as a matter of principle the validity of the ordinations of the current Patriarch (Alexey I – Archpriest P.) and his bishops? Could we even call it into question? We would then have to declare the entire Church to be without the Mysteries…. [People] say that Patriarch Alexey sinned more than his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or sinned less, we do not deny his ordination. Much has been said about their apostasy. However, we must be careful. We can hardly make a direct accusation of apostasy. Nowhere have they approved of atheism. In their printed homilies they strive to hew to an Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures with respect to the renovationists, and they did not break their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policies pertains to the Church authorities and responsibility for them falls upon its leadership. In this case, the people do not answer for the course of the leadership, and the entire Church, as such, remains incorrupt. No one dares state that the entire Church is without grace, but inasmuch as the priests had contact with a sly dissembling hierarchy, they themselves dissembled, acting against their own conscience, and were in need of repentance.”

1. Is compromise in church life permissible?

At the IV All-Diaspora Council, Metropolitan Amfilohije responded to a question about compromises and martyrdom as follows:

“We cannot demand martyrdom of everyone. Martyrdom is a gift. I lived under the communists and by experience know what they are in essence. I do not know how I would act if they were to start cutting off my arms and legs, or to kill children. In addition to everything else, a bishop is responsible not only for himself, but for his flock. Preservation of the flock often depends upon the bishop. I recently met with Muslims and Catholics in Kosovo. Some people accused me of ecumenism. My people have been driven away, thrown out, their homes and churches destroyed, and I do not know what tomorrow will bring. At the Synod of the Serbian Church it was decided that for the sake of the flock, it was necessary to participate in negotiations, including negotiations with Muslims and Catholics. One must also remember the words of the Gospel, that ‘they will kill the pastor and the sheep will scatter.’ The history of the Church is not only a history of victory and Resurrection. It is also a history of Crucifixion. It is also a history of defeat, and not only the triumph of the Resurrection…

The life of the Church is a difficult life, a life of crucifixion. We must be afraid of moralizing; moralizing is dangerous. It is characteristic of Western Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as Communism. This is the dangerous road of the Inquisition. This kind of moralizing kills!”

1. The Moscow Patriarchate has yet to leave the World Council of Churches. This was a demand our Church had always made of the MP as a condition of re-establishing unity. Is this not so, and does this condition remain in effect?

In 1987, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, addressed the hierarchs, clergy, and laity of the Russian Church Abroad with a call to overcome the spirit of bitterness and partition, and to take part, together with them in the approaching celebration of the Millenium of Baptism of Rus’ (Pre-jubilee Epistle, dated June 21, 1987). In his letter in response, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, under the direction of Metropolitan Vitaly (see Church Life № 5-6, 1987), noted three conditions preventing our Church from accepting that invitation at that time:

The first reason was – ”the denial by the Patriarchate of Moscow of the martyrs and confessors of our time.”

The second reason was – ”the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (subsequently Patriarch), that the interests of the Church and the atheistic government are identical, to this day still forms the basis of their relations.”

The third reason lay in the fact that “the epistle of the Patriarchate of Moscow, even though it calls us a Church, distinctly maintains that we are outside the salvific fold of the Mother Church.”

The Epistle written in response to the invitation was limited to those three reasons. The end of the Epistle speaks of the troubling confusion evoked by the Moscow Patriarchate’s attraction to ecumenism and its participation in prayers with the heterodox. However, that was not presented as something precluding the Church Abroad from accepting the Moscow Patriarchate’s invitation to participate in joint celebration of the Millenium of the Baptism of Rus’, and was not framed as a condition.

Likewise, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, withdrawal from the WCC was not posed as a pre-condition for unity with the Church in Russia. The Church in Russia was told of the plea for such a withdrawal:

“From discussions at the Council it is apparent that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation.”

This plea remains in effect and, God willing, when unity within the Russian Church is achieved, representatives of the Russian Church Abroad may be able to participate in the process of a full and final withdrawal of the Russian Church from the WCC. Religious modernists fear our having such an influence. It was for a reason that Nikita Struve, editor of the Herald of the Russian Christian Movement and one of the principal and most influential ideologues of the “Paris Exarchate” recently announced,:

“Re-unification of the Church in Russia and Abroad is a bit frightening, because if that unification takes place... it will strengthen conservative tendencies in the Orthodox Church in Russia.” (Daily Magazine, August 21 2006).

When, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, a question was posed to Metropolitan Amfilohije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, about the withdrawal of the ROC-MP from the WCC, Vladyka replied that “ecumenism is a problem but is not a cause of division between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad. First, you must treat the reasons for division, and then other questions, such as ecumenism.”

1. In 2006, at the Assembly of the WCC in Porto Allegre, the Moscow Patriarchate participated in a summary document from which it may be concluded that baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church is recognized and that the basic decisions adopted at the ROC-MP Bishops’ Council in 2000 are being violated. How should one react to that?

The given document was not adopted as a statement, but as an invitation upon which to reflect, and the ROC-MP is preparing a response, in the spirit of Orthodoxy, to that document. The ROC-MP proposed that a representative of ROCOR, together with responsible Patriarchate workers take part in preparing a reply to that ecumenical document from the WCC. This was discussed at the IV All-Diaspora Council, but none of the delegates, including the hierarchs and clergy of the Church Abroad, frank opponents of the WCC, expressed a desire to accept this proposal.

In talking about the WCC and about ecumenism, it would be appropriate to bring to mind the words of Metropolitan Vitaly’s Nativity Epistle of 1986. In that Epistle, Vladyka Vitaly explains the meaning of the anathema against the heresy of ecumenism which is pronounced by the Russian Church Abroad. He writes:

"At the present time, the majority of the Local Churches are shaken in all their organism by a terrible double blow: the new calendar and ecumenism (one should note that, in Montreal, for 40 years – from 1957 to 1999 – the new calendrist Annunciation Church, along with its rector, the V. Rev. Dr. Peter Popescu, was under Metropolitan Vitaly’s omophorion. – Archpriest P.). But even in this sorrowful state of theirs we do not dare, and may the Lord save us from this, say that they have lost their grace. We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if [b/invite[/b] the Local Churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church. We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, (Metropolitan Vitaly concelebrated with assembled clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church both at the glorification of Holy Hierarch St. John Maximovitch in San Francisco, and at the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in 1998 – Archpriest P.), this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth.”

1. Will the real property of the Church Abroad be transferred to Moscow’s control? Will not Moscow demand the return of icons and other treasures saved from the Bolsheviks by the Russian refugees?

In item 2 of the “Act of Canonical Communion,” it states that the “the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property, and civil matters, existing at the same time in canonical unity with the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.” In other words, with respect to real property and holy objects, the status quo remains. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that in the future some holy objects of the Russian Diaspora will visit Russia, and that the Russian people will have the opportunity to bow down before them and raise up their prayers before them. There is already an established precedent for this – the visit to Russia in 2004 of the relics of Venerable New Martyrs Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fyodorovna and the Nun Barbara. Over the course of seven months, the relics visited 71 dioceses, over 140 cities, and in excess of 10 million people experienced the joy of praying before the relics of these saints of God. Likewise, holy objects from the Homeland will be able to visit dioceses of the Russian Church Abroad.

1. Will bishops of the Russian Church in Russia (MP) participate in the Councils of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia?

The Russian Church Abroad had, has, and will continue to have its own Council of Bishops. All hierarchs of the Russian Church Outside of Russia may participate in the Councils of the Russian Church Abroad. It is not envisioned that hierarchs of the Church in Russia (MP) will participate in these Council. However, in accordance with the “Act of Canonical Communion,” hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad are members of the Local Councils and Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, and take part, according to established order, in meetings of the Holy Synod. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, according to established order. They likewise will have a full say in the elections of the Patriarch.

1. After the “Act of Canonical Communion” is signed, will representatives of the Russian Church Abroad have the right to concelebrate with representatives of Local Churches? Will we not then become part of “official world Orthodoxy?”

If the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad comprise one single Local Russian Church, and that Local Russian Church is part of the Universal Church, then, of course, with the blessing of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, representatives of the Church Abroad will be able to serve with representatives of all canonical Churches, thus manifesting the Church’s fullness, which Holy Hierarch St. John held so dear: “[The Russian Church Abroad] must not break Communion with other Churches unless they first take that step.” (“The status of the Orthodox Church after the war,” Proceedings of the 2nd All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400).

Ever-memorable Archbishop Anthony of Geneva brilliantly said of the fullness of the Church in his speech at the XII Conference of the Western European Diocese in 1973:

“In the Church, there have always been good and bad shepherds, both jewels of faith and pillars of Truth, and reeds shaken by the wind of the stormy sea of life. Comprehending the strength of and the temptations brought by this wind, fanned by the Evil One, we cannot and should not personally condemn the latter...

Putting aside these bad rectors, those often forced upon the Church, an image of total concord and mutual understanding among the faithful of all Local Churches opens up to us. For it is not without reason that at the Liturgy we pray for ‘the good estate of the Holy Churches of God,’ and ‘for the union of all’ – Orthodox Christians in oneness of mind and love!

We all live in the Church in one Holy Spirit and in the grace of God. Reflecting upon and personally experiencing this Divine Fullness of the One Body of Christ, we cannot but believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, against Which the gates of Hell cannot prevail.

And that consciousness of the unity, holiness, sinlessness, and invincibility of the Church, in which there is neither Greek nor Jew, in which believers of all nationalities… demonstrate complete unity of faith and mutual understanding in love, that consciousness manifests our strength, our comfort, and our joy, for as the Apostle states, ‘this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.’

Woe unto those who do not feel or understand that invincibility of our Faith and the Divine fullness of the Church. Distancing themselves from the errors of official representatives of the people of God and from their unworthy ambitions, their fascination with ecumenism and modernism, they shut themselves up within themselves, and like the sectarians, lose the Church while believing themselves to be the sole bearers of the Truth. The sectarian path is frightening; it is the path of pride, of loss of the conciliar consciousness of the Church, and of our organic unity in It. Such people sin against the dogma of the Church, for they do not believe that Its fullness will prevail against the gates of Hell. They also sin against the Holy Spirit, Which breathes and lives in the fullness of the Church.”

–––––––––––––––––

We would like to end this article with the comforting words of St. Nicholas of Serbia, who shed so many tears over Christ’s Holy Rus’, over the fate of the Church:

“...In particular, you should not despair over the Church of God. If ultimate victory is assured to anything on earth, it is victory for the Church of Christ. The gates of Hell will not prevail against It, said the Lord.

Holy Hierarch St. Gregory the Dialogist, describing the state of the Church in his time, compared it to an old ship battered by storms, a ship into which water is pouring from all sides, for its planks have rotted through having been shaken apart by the waves that continue to buffet it every day. That was a time of difficult trials – famine, epidemics, confusion, despair, and wars, that brought agriculture into decline; people did not want to raise families, because they thought that the end of the world was at hand. That was the state of the Church XII centuries ago. But the world did not end, the situation improved, and the Church became firmly established. If the Church helmsman had been but a human being, It would have perished in the storms. However, the Helmsman was then, and

[joasia]

Fr. Peter is a strong supporter for the union. He walks hand in hand with Lebedeff and his kind. I am reposting this writing from Fr. Nikita which gives a clear explanation of what the MP is all about.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A long but excellent rendition of the history of the MP and ROCA

Priest Nikita Grigoriev
Rector, St. John of Kronstadt Parish, Utica NY
Instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY 1986-2006

Some of the faithful are being confused by assertions that the ROCA must necessarily unite with the MP at this time or face dire consequences. These consequences include losing ROCA’s canonical foundation, creating a schism in the Church, becoming a sect, losing respect in the eyes of the world, partaking in the heresy of Donatism, etc. The positive reasons for immediate union are usually given as the claim that Communism has fallen in Russia, the MP has completely renounced “Sergianism” as well as Ecumenism and above all, that Russia, the long suffering Russian people and the MP need the ROCA now. In other words, the best way for ROCA to help the Russian people is to unite with the MP now. If they don’t do it now, ROCA will not get another chance, and will become a sect and earn the contempt of the world.

It is worthwhile at this time to sort out some of these assertions in the light of historical fact and to focus clearly on the real issues at hand.

Donatism has nothing to do with why the Russian Orthodox Church, whether abroad or in catacombs cannot join the organization that calls itself the ROC, MP. Donatism was a heresy that taught that the sacraments performed by a priest or bishop of low moral character, or who had fallen into grievous personal sin were not valid. This was, of course condemned by the Church because we're all sinners and none of us would then be worthy to perform them, not to say that we shouldn't strive with all our strength to attain to the high calling.

The fact that many of the MP hierarchy are apparently of questionable moral character is certainly not the actual reason why the Russian Church abroad cannot unite with them. This is a misleading teaching that seems to be generated to deflect the focus to a false issue that can then be handled through accusations of Donatism etc... Our differences with the MP had never been a matter of personal sins or moral character and people should take care not to allow them to be reduced to that.

The reason why we can't "join the MP" is very simple. They are a schismatic group that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1927 under Metropolitan Sergius and to this day remains in that schism. The fact that they have become very powerful, with the help and support of the atheistic government, is entirely irrelevant. They are, from their origin and to this day, a schismatic group that separated from the Church.

It is extremely important to understand what a schism is. A schism is not a division of the Church into two valid parts that are no longer in communion with each other. Perish that thought! That kind of teaching is the foundation of the heresy of ecumenism.

The Church is one. We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. By its own self-definition, in the Nicean creed, the Church is first of all One.

The unity of the Church is likened to the indivisible unity of the Holy Trinity by Christ Himself in his prayer to His Father, just before His arrest in the garden of Gethsemane. The Church is a living, breathing organism, not just a social, political or even religious human organization. It cannot be contained, prohibited or even destroyed. It is eternal and immortal because it is a body that is imbued with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God Himself. It is the body of Christ and as such, it is indivisible, in as much as the body of Christ is indivisible. The living body of the Church is united and vivified by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, that organically unites all the members of the Church into one, indivisible body, united in the Spirit of Truth, in God Himself.

A schism occurs when a group of people leaves the Church and consequently, breaks communion with the Church. This occurs, as a result of a falsehood or a false doctrine, which is obstinately maintained by the schismatics in opposition to the Spirit of Truth, Who is the very essence of the Church. If the schismatics repent of the falsehood that separated them from the Spirit of Truth, The Holy Spirit of the Church, then they may be received back into the Church through a special rite of confession and absolution and by the reinstatement of The Holy Spirit in them by the Church. If they persist in their position that is in opposition to the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of the Church, they remain outside of the Church. They certainly can never be considered as "another part" of the One Church that happens to be not in communion with the "other part" of the Church. No matter how big or how powerful they become in the eyes of the world, they will always remain outside the Church until they repent and are received back into the Church through the mystery of absolution.

The following is a brief synopsis of the actual historical events that led to the schism in the Russian Church in 1927, that resulted in Met. Sergius and his followers, who eventually became known as the Moscow Patriarchate, to be outside the Russian Church.

From his youth, Met.Sergius was an extremely ambitious man who was obsessed with power. When the February, 1917 revolution occurred in Russia, he was quoted as saying that he hopes that perhaps now something of the sort may also take place in the Church. He didn't have to wait very long for his opportunity.

In the years of turmoil following the revolution, he tried to seize power in the Church in 1922 by heading a radical renovationist group calling itself the "living church". This was a group that sympathized with the Bolshevik revolution and broke away from the Church under the leadership of Met. Sergius and so it was, of course, in schism with the Church. But it did not get much support from the faithful and soon petered out despite the great efforts on the part of the godless government to arrest or shoot all who opposed it. The “living church” bishops were trying to take advantage of the time when Patriarch Tikhon was under arrest to usurp power in the Church with the help of the godless regime. Patriarch Tikhon had staunchly opposed all attempts by the Bolsheviks to gain control of the Church and boldly spoke out against the godless atrocities and brazen lies of the Bolshevik government.

Because of the enormous authority that Patriarch Tikhon wielded not only in Russia but even with foreign governments, the Bolsheviks were forced to release him, still keeping him under very close observation and persecution. The release of Patriarch Tikhon served to quell the “living church” revolution and Met. Sergius then asked to be taken back into the Church, which he was, unfortunately in the same rank, after a clear public confession and a renunciation of the "living church". But he kept his eyes open for another opportunity.

The new Bolshevik government had a stated agenda to destroy all faith in God. At first it began to physically exterminate many of the faithful, starting with the bishops and priests, and to demolish most of the churches. Soon they realized, just like the Roman Empire did in the first three centuries, that it was hopeless and that they were bound to lose. The Church, which comprised most of the country, was only becoming stronger and increasingly more resolute. Large crowds were following priests who had been arrested, encouraging them to stand fast and ripping off pieces of their cassocks to keep as relics from the martyrs on their way to certain death for Christ and His Church.

The Bolsheviks realized that they needed a new plan.

Comrade Tuchkov had been selected for the job of destroying the Church. On Dec. 13, 1926 Met. Sergius was arrested and brought for a chat with comrade Tuchkov. When Tuchkov met with Met. Sergius it was like a match made in hell. Met. Sergius saw a great career opportunity and Tuchkov saw a chance to create a schism in the Church: Exactly what they were both looking for.

Met. Sergius emerged from jail on March 30, 1927 and was then free to live in Moscow with privileges that he did not enjoy even before his arrest at a time when almost all the bishops were being arrested and retained in jail. He began to be suspected of having struck a deal with Tuchkov. It's not clear which one of them was the actual author of that hideous document that entered history under the infamous name of "Declaration of Met. Sergius". Most likely it was a joint effort, with comrade Tuchkov dictating and Met. Sergius obliging. The end result was that on July 29, 1927 Met. Sergius signed the infamous "Declaration of Met. Sergius". This document not only created schism in the Church and precipitated the most vicious persecution of the Church in history, where millions upon millions of Christians were butchered for their Faith in the most horrendous ways imaginable (I personally heard some of the details from witnesses such as the new confessor Bishop Leonty of Chile, for instance), but most importantly it lay the foundation for the creation of nothing less than what may be rightfully called the Antichrist Orthodox Church.

Why?

Consider the third temptation that Satan presented to Christ in the desert. Satan took Christ atop a high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the earth in all their glory. And Satan said to Christ, "all this I will give to you if you bow down before me". What did Satan want from Christ? Only one thing: that Christ recognize Satan's authority and submit to it. What did Satan promise Christ in return? Permission to operate freely in the world, subject only to Satan's approval, of course. What would have occurred if Christ had agreed to Satan's proposal? There would have been many glorious churches built but they would all have been subject to Satan and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation. That church would have been founded and built not on the Spirit of Truth but on falsehood and belong to the father of lies, Satan.

When the Bolshevik government realized it cannot annihilate the Church they decided to make it theirs, to own it. In corporate business it's a well known principle that if you can't beat your competition, you buy it, so that it works for you. The God-fighting Satanic Bolsheviks demanded then that the Russian Church recognize their authority and totally submit to them, just as Satan had done with Christ in the desert. In exchange they also promised to grant the Church permission to operate, entirely subject to their approval and direction. What would have occurred if the Church had agreed to the satanic government's proposal? Exactly what would have occurred with Christ in the desert: some churches would be permitted to operate on a limited basis but they would be headed by Satan, not by Christ, and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation.

This point is so crucial that it cannot be over emphasized: If a church receives its authority from Satan or through Satan's servants, then that church is Satan's church and not Christ's. It may look like Christ's Church, even try to act like Christ's Church in order to deceive, but the real, living person of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. Such a church is totally the church of Antichrist and subject only to Satan.

Naturally the Russian Church could not possibly accept any such offer from the godless authority. Not only did the Russian Church flatly reject this proposal from the Bolsheviks but, in the person of Patriarch Tikhon, who had that authority, it anathematized the Bolshevik government and all those who collaborate with it in their attempt to destroy the Church of Christ. Anathematized means they were declared to be outside the Church and no longer members of it.

But Tuchkov found one bishop in the Russian Church who was quite ready, on his own, to accept just such a proposal. That was, of course, Met. Sergius Stragorodsky. What Met. Sergius agreed to and signed was the document that he produced during those days in collaboration with Tuchkov in 1927, and this is what became known as the "Declaration of Met. Sergius".

In that declaration Met. Sergius claims that he not only recognizes the godless authority as legitimate and God given and totally submits to it, he joins it in essence and in spirit to the point of completely identifying with it. He then proceeds in the spirit of Satan, the father of lies, to declare that there is no, and never had been, any persecution of the Church by the Bolsheviks, and that the Bolshevik government is only exterminating the enemies of the state. To further demonstrate his oneness with the godless authority he then proceeded to fully collaborate with them in identifying and condemning to death all the bishops, clergy and faithful that had not submitted to him and to the godless government.

Now, if Met. Sergius had made such a declaration on his own behalf, it would have been bad enough, but it would have been useless to the God-fighting Bolsheviks, who were intent on destroying the whole Church. As such, it would have been of no further consequence.

But although he had no right and no authority to do so, Met. Sergius tried to make that declaration on behalf of the entire Russian Church. And this was the crux of it. The Bolsheviks thought that if they could have that declaration signed by the highest-ranking bishop in the Church, they could insist that it was binding for the entire Church. But they were mistaken on both counts. First, Met. Sergius was not the highest-ranking bishop in the Church. Met. Kyril, who had just been released, and Met. Peter, who was in jail at the time, were superior to him. And second, even the highest ranking bishop in the Church does not have the authority, on his own, to commit the Church to any new course, especially one that is completely unacceptable to the Church as a whole.

And so, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, who was the locum tenens of Patriarch Tikhon, and definitely the superior authority of Met. Sergius, distinctly forbade the latter to sign any such declaration on behalf of the Church. This fully legitimate order was sent to Met. Sergius in a letter, which he did not respond to. Then Met. Peter sent a second letter to Met. Sergius, which was delivered to him by hand courier. Met. Sergius also ignored that letter and did not respond to it. This was because he saw an opportunity to seize power in the Church and, with the help of the ruthless Bolshevik government, to extend and consolidate that power over the entire Russian Church.

When the Bolsheviks realized that Met. Peter was a superior of their Met. Sergius, they kept him in jail and eventually shot Met. Peter. Then they proceeded to vigorously support Met. Sergius by ruthlessly liquidating any and all who refused to sign the Declaration of Met. Sergius.

Some of the bishops did join Met. Sergius and signed his Declaration of oneness with the God-fighting government. They formed their own synod, that by no coincidence consisted of many of the old “living church” group, and declared themselves to be the supreme authority of the Russian Church.

But here's the very crux of the whole thing. The Russian Church, as headed by its legitimate leader, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, Met Kyril of Khazan, Met Joseph of Petrograd and scores of other high ranking bishops rejected the Declaration of Met. Sergius and emphatically did not join itself to the God-fighting Bolshevik government. The Russian Church, represented by its leader Met. Peter, strictly forbade Met. Sergius to sign the declaration that joined him and his followers to the godless authority. When Met. Sergius ignored this directive from his legitimate Church authority and did join himself and his followers to the godless authority, the Church broke communion with him. Met. Sergius and his followers then fell under the anathema of Patriarch Tikhon that applied to all those who collaborate with the God-fighting Bolsheviks. They became an entity outside the Church and no longer part of the Church. In other words, they were then in schism from the Church.

The teaching that the infamous Declaration of Met. Sergius was a tragedy because it created a schism in the Russian Church is right. But who was the Church and who was in schism from The Church? Clearly, the group that was led by Met. Sergius were the ones that left the Church to unite themselves with the godless Bolshevik government, in direct disobedience to their superior, Met. Peter and many other bishops and in complete contradiction to all Church principles.

Two parts of the Church, not in communion with each other on a matter of principle, and yet both valid, but neither comprising the fullness of the Church is the very definition of the heresy of ecumenism. Such a view has never been considered in the Church to have any validity. Schismatics have always been considered by the Church to be worse even than heretics, because they rend the very body of Christ. They may only be received back into the Church after they repent of the cause of their schism and are absolved by the Church of the sin of schism.

Met. Sergius never did repent of his sin of schism and never was received back into the Church again, as he had been the previous time. Not only did he remain outside of the Church, in schism, but also he helped to precipitate a totally ruthless persecution of the Church in order to wipe out any possible competition and to consolidate his supreme position in this, his new Soviet church.

This total persecution, unprecedented in history in terms of scope and ferociousness, was carried out by the secret police of the Bolshevik government, the NKVD, with the help of Met. Sergius and his schismatic church. NKVD agents would arrive at the residence or jail cell of a bishop or priest, frequently pointed out to them by Met. Sergius himself or by one of his accomplices. They would thrust a copy of the Declaration of Met. Sergius at them to sign. When the faithful would refuse, the agents would often shoot them in the head right on their doorstep. Some of the bishops were dragged out into the street and impaled on a sharpened stake. Others were taken away and sliced slowly on a meat slicer.

All the while the Bolshevik government and Met. Sergius kept insisting that there is no persecution of the Church in Soviet Russia and that they are only exterminating the political enemies of the state and of the people.

Their blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth, The Holy Spirit of God could not have been more obvious. It would be worthwhile to recall that it was Christ who said that every sin a man commits may be forgiven him, but the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven neither in this life nor in the life to come. This is because when a man, through his own volition, becomes totally committed to falsehood, then truth becomes inaccessible to him, and repentance becomes impossible through his own determination to cling to falsehood.

This great persecution, carried out by the godless Communist government and aided by Met. Sergius and his followers, did succeed in killing or imprisoning most of the people of the Russian Church. A considerable portion of the Church went underground and became the ultra secret Catacomb Church. The other portion of the Church was forced to emigrate and organize itself into the Russian Church Abroad by the order of Patriarch Tikhon, which he issued on Nov. 7 / 20, 1920 as Ukase No. 362. The Catacomb Church and the Church abroad was all that remained of the Russian Church.

This remnant of the Russian Church was then physically separated into two parts, remaining completely in communion with each other in the Holy Spirit of God, as the One, indivisible Church of Christ and separated only physically by the godless regime but certainly not divided in Spirit.

The bishops that were forced to emigrate were unable to maintain contact with the Higher Church Administration in Russia and were required to form an independent synod with Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky, the senior bishop, as head of the Russian Church Abroad, in accordance with Ukase 362.

Patriarch Tikhon died on March 25 / April 7, 1925. The episcopate of the Russian Church Abroad issued encyclicals to all its parishes worldwide to continue commemorating Met. Peter and not to commemorate Met. Sergius. When Met. Peter was killed in prison, the Russian Church abroad commemorated Met. Kyril, the other locum tenens chosen by Patriarch Tikhon. Met. Sergius and his followers were never commemorated by the Russian Church neither in catacombs nor abroad because he was regarded as a schismatic who joined the enemies of the Church and collaborated with them in the persecution of the Church.

When it became known that Met. Kyril was also killed, The Russian Church abroad continued to commemorate "the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church". This clearly did not mean Met. Sergius and his followers and successors, who had actually joined the persecutors and were even assisting in the persecution of the Church. It referred to the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church, the Catacomb Church. This was always completely clear in the Russian Church abroad and the fact of it was never in doubt until very recently, when an order was issued in the Church abroad to drop the word "persecuted" from the traditional phrase in litanies, etc... and to begin commemorating only "the Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church" instead.

The Soviet government succeeded in slaughtering most of the visible Church that remained in Russia. But it was not satisfied with this. It also killed many of its own hierarchy, the followers of Met. Sergius that had joined them, who were no longer useful to them.

Met. Sergius and his followers joined the godless government that was persecuting the Church in an effort to save their own lives.

They claimed that by joining with the God-fighting government they could remain alive and out of prison, thereby saving the Church from being wiped out. This idea of saving the Church by actually joining with its persecutors, whose ultimate aim was the complete eradication of all faith in God, was not only absurd but completely foreign to Church teaching and practice during its entire history.

This is truly Satan's idea as can be clearly seen from the words of Christ to apostle Peter when the latter begged Christ to not go to the Cross and Christ rebuked him sharply saying, "get thee behind me Satan". Christ created the Church precisely by going to the Cross, not by joining with his enemies. This is why the sign of Christ and of His Church is the Holy and life-giving Cross and not a negotiating table. His apostles, with the exception of St. John, all died a martyr's death for Christ and His Church. If there was ever a time when the Church would seem to be totally dependent on the apostles, it was in those first few years of its young life. But the Apostles certainly did not join the pagan Roman government or the God-fighting Pharisees saying that they could not afford to die or go to prison then because they need to remain free and thereby save the Church.

The Church always grows and is strengthened by its martyrs who confess their faith in Christ fearlessly before Satan and his world and triumphantly go to their death, only to live forever in Christ. The blood of the martyrs has always been called "the seed of the Church". To this day the Divine Liturgy can only be performed on the relics of martyrs who died for Christ and His Church.

So Met. Sergius certainly did not save the Church by recognizing and submitting to the Bolshevik government, but very likely he did help save that satanic godless government from collapsing. This became even clearer during World War Two, under Stalin's regime. Stalin unleashed such a reign of terror in Soviet Russia that he succeeded in liquidating practically all of the remaining communists that had actually committed the revolution in the first place. Ironically, communist Russia under Stalin had practically none of the communists left who were actually involved in the communist revolution. This also extended to many of their collaborators, among them the group under Met. Sergius, because the godless Soviet government had no particular interest in preserving even their own collaborators after they were of no further use to them. Such is the nature of the satanic beast. By the time WW2 broke out very little remained even of the schismatic group under Met. Sergius that the Soviet government called Church. The Soviet government had used them to help them annihilate the visible part of the Russian Church that remained in Russia, and were coming close to liquidating them as well.

They had considerable difficulty in dealing with the catacomb part of the Russian Church because the latter was not centralized, not organized and extremely difficult to infiltrate. The part of the Church that was outside the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was easy to infiltrate, very difficult to influence (at that time) and impossible to control, because its bishops remained steadfast in their refusal to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the Soviet pseudo-church, as they called it.

Then something unexpected happened that fundamentally changed the attitude of the Soviet government towards the Church.

As the German army began to advance into Russia, the Russians refused to fight for the Soviet government and, without firing a shot, began to give themselves up by entire divisions. The Germans were overwhelmed by the countless thousands of prisoners they had to deal with unexpectedly.

But if the Nazis were bewildered, Stalin was absolutely shocked and terrified. He clearly understood that his goose was definitely cooked, unless he came up with some amazing new idea to motivate the Russian soldiers to fight. And that's exactly what he did. Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. And Stalin was definitely in a tight spot.

Stalin had been at one time a seminarian of sorts, and he remembered how near and dear was the Church to the Russian heart. So he went on nationally broadcast radio with a heartfelt appeal to all Russians to defend their Church and their fatherland. To make his appeal seem all the more convincing, he began to open churches that had not yet been completely destroyed. Stalin and his "communist" party even began to select suitable individuals to be made into bishops and priests under Met. Sergius. The Russian people were so desperate that even this pathetic ruse worked. The Russians began to fight and despite the phenomenal Soviet inefficiency and staggering loss of life and resources, they were eventually able to beat the Nazis back.

But a very important change had occurred.

The godless Soviet government realized that the Church could be very useful to them, as long as it was their Church and they controlled it completely. Stalin then even went as far as to make his Met. Sergius into a patriarch. A year later Met. Sergius died.

But the "Moscow Patriarchate" was born.

The Soviet government organization, that is still now called the MP, originated from a schismatic group of bishops that joined themselves to the godless Soviet government and were eventually made into a patriarchate by the Soviet government and subsequently greatly expanded by the Soviet government strictly for their own nefarious purposes.

Clearly the present day "Moscow Patriarchate" is not at all the Russian Church but rather a spiritual monster that was created by the God-fighting Soviet government by taking advantage of the ambitions and weaknesses of certain individuals in schism from the Church for their own monstrous Soviet purposes.

This fact had always been perfectly clear to the Russian Church in the catacombs in Russia and, until very recently, to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in exile and in the Diaspora.

Soon the MP became an extremely useful tool for public control in domestic affairs and a potentially invaluable asset for Soviet influence in the international arena. The MP not only joined the ecumenical organization called the World Council of Churches, they presently became members of its ruling body. But to realize its potential for international influence the MP really needed to first acquire the ROCA. There was one rather large problem though.

The Russian Church, whether in the catacombs or abroad, never recognized the MP patriarch as a legitimate patriarch and, until very recently, the MP as a legitimate Church. Even though the other Local Orthodox Churches of the world, as they began to be increasingly more corrupt in the twentieth century, began to recognize and accept the MP as the legitimate Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) was still holding out and was confessing to the world the illegitimacy and the spiritual invalidity of the MP. This was, of course more than a little awkward for the MP. It was completely unacceptable.

Immediately following WW2 the iron curtain was erected and the cold war era began. The Russian Church Abroad expanded hugely due to the large numbers of Russian refugees from the Soviet Union. Most of these people knew next to nothing about the Church except that the MP was definitely not the Church but rather a department of the godless Soviet government. They integrated immediately, almost seamlessly with the ROCA, because of their common aversion for godless communism, and zealously set about buying or building new churches and establishing vibrant parishes.

The Soviet government continued to infiltrate the parishes of the Church Abroad and made many attempts to get them to accept and submit to their own "Moscow Patriarchate". Practically all of these attempts resulted in nothing more than scandals and remained fruitless. The vast majority of these "second wave" immigrants remained very resistant to Soviet propaganda, having experienced the fruits of it first hand. The isolation of the Soviet Union and its MP during the cold war years helped to preserve the ROCA for two generations. Eventually, the Soviet Union was exhausted by its own absurdity and collapsed. Ironically, the MP stayed totally intact as the only remaining thoroughly Soviet institution.

As the iron curtain was lifted, a vast number of new immigrants, refered to as the "third wave", began flooding into the ROCA parishes from the Soviet Union. Naturally, they knew nothing about the Church, having grown up as the third and fourth generation in the USSR where no Orthodox literature had ever been available and even MP church attendance had still been vigorously discouraged. But tragically, and this was of crucial importance, they were completely ignorant of the origin and true nature of the MP. Naturally, they assumed that the MP was the actual Russian Orthodox Church, as it was presented by the Soviet government, and that the ROCA was simply the extension of the MP abroad.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of them had no idea that the Russian Orthodox Church, whether Abroad or in Catacombs, was not in communion with the MP group. Most of them had never even heard of the Catacomb Church. Unfortunately very few of them, and by then, few even of the ROCA knew that the MP was not the Russian Orthodox Church but a department of the Soviet government that originated from a schismatic group of bishops that joined themselves to the godless Soviet government and were eventually made into a Patriarchate by the Soviet government and subsequently greatly expanded and groomed by the Soviet government for their own ends.

But nonetheless, due in part to the sheer numbers of these new immigrants in ROCA parishes, but mostly because of the spirit of worldliness and spiritual laxness in many, a new kind of thinking began to take root in many ROCA members and parishes. This was accompanied and supported by an enormous propaganda effort on the part of the MP. The result was that a new and erroneous concept of the Church began to appear in the ROCA. The spirit of worldliness began to prevail among many in the ROCA, regardless of their rank or position in the Church.

The Church began to be viewed much more as a worldly political organization rather than the mystical Body of Christ and the indivisible vessel of the Holy Spirit. Forgotten were the words of Christ to His followers when he said, "You are not of the world, as I am not of the world. I have chosen you out of the world. The world will hate you as it hated Me. But be brave, little flock, for I have vanquished the world".

As the worldly spirit, the spirit of the Antichrist, began to creep into to hearts and minds of the members of ROCA including some of the clergy and hierarchs, they began to view the Church more and more as a corporation engaged in the business of building churches, ordaining priests and "servicing the religious needs of the people", as the MP actually put it. This corporation could now enter into negotiations and consider mergers with other such corporations. As a worldly corporation, the church now derived its validity from its acceptance and endorsement by the world, not so much by unbroken Apostolic succession or adherence to traditional pure Orthodox Christian doctrine and practice. Any corporation aquires respect and validity in the eyes of the world, based mostly on how large it is and how long it's been in business.

But the actual Church of Christ is not a worldly corporation. The Church is very special, unique, otherworldly, absolutely precious and very exclusive. It is exclusive because it is very different from the world and its members, albeit in the world, are not of the world. The Church is spiritually invincible, no matter how small the Church becomes by the time of the Antichrist. This invincibility was promised to it by Christ Himself when He said, "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". And membership in the Church is extremely precious. It's compared by Christ to the pearl of great price that the merchant found in the field and then sold everything he had so that he could buy that field. But that membership can be very fragile and can be lost very easily.

When Christ was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, apostle Peter followed Him into the property of Kaifa, the high priest, to see how it would turn out. One of the servants thought she recognized Peter as one of the followers of Christ and she said to him, "aren't you one of them?” Apostle Peter swore that he wasn't and that he doesn't even know Christ. At that moment Peter lost his rank of Apostle and ceased even to belong to Christ (he wasn't exactly a member of the Church yet because the Church only came into existence fifty-three days later). On two more occasions that night, when she questioned him, he denied being "one of them".

After His Resurrection, Jesus needed to reinstate Peter three times, once for each of Peter's denials that he was "one of them".

Similarly, the Soviet government demanded from all the bishops and clergy of the Russian Church, "Are you with us or are you with them?" The bishops that signed the Declaration of Met. Sergius declared that they were with the godless government and not "with them", not with the Church that was under arrest and was being crucified.

To this day they have not been reinstated into the Church to say nothing of their rank of bishop, successor of the apostles. Naturally, the Apostolic succession in the group of bishops that followed Met. Sergius into schism with the Russian Church was severed at the time of their schism from the Russian Church in 1927. The fact that many of them were also killed by the godless government that they had joined, does not make them martyrs for Christ. They had already denied Christ and His Church and joined with the godless government to save their lives and, ostensibly to "save the Church". When they were of no more use to the godless government, they killed many of them, as they killed all their collaborators who had outlived their usefulness.

Now the MP is teaching that over eighty percent of those who they call the new martyrs belonged to the group that followed Met. Sergius and joined the godless government. They're still denying the martyrdom of most of the real martyrs who were put to death (with their help) because the martyrs did not deny Christ and remained faithful to His Church. They are replacing them with their own martyrs, individuals who denied Christ and His Church to join the godless government only to become victims of that same government. This is all to further create the impression that they really are the Russian Church that emerged from the persecutions with their own host of martyrs.

This is a total falsehood. The MP is not the real Russian Orthodox Church. This is, as it always was, only propaganda and disinformation propagated by the godless Soviet government. They are an uncanonical, schismatic group founded on falsehoods and deception that usurped power in the Russian Church and consolidated and developed that power only by force and by brutal repression. The Russian Church Abroad was always well aware of this and so every effort to get the ROCA to "join the MP" remained unsuccessful. The phrase "join the MP" was dropped and in its place new language began to be introduced to help the deception become accepted.

"Reunite the Russian Orthodox Church" became the new slogan. This had definite advantages over the previous language. First of all, it finally granted the MP, a priori, that elusive status of a legitimate, canonical Church. Second, the MP became de facto the "other part of the Russian Church" separated from the Church Abroad only by "historical circumstances". Those "historical circumstances" then turned out to be nothing more than the iron curtain, erected by the Soviet regime. When the iron curtain was removed and the Soviet regime was reorganized and renamed, clearly there were no more obstacles to the "reunification" of the Russian Church.

This new deception was not accepted by the majority of the Russian Church Abroad. Many voices rose up in protest demanding that the real reasons and causes of the schism with the MP be addressed. Some of these reasons were dismissed out of hand by the Church administrations as trivial and of no consequence. The issue of "Sergianism" and the MP's vigorous participation in the World Council of Churches seemed to remain.

The MP then simply declared that Sergianism was irrelevant because it was all in the past and, as far as their participation in the WCC was concerned, well, they really were there only to witness Orthodoxy. This was perfectly clear and acceptable to some in the ROCA but completely unacceptable to many others. The ROCA by then was becoming increasingly polarized into three factions: ones who were in favor of immediate union with the MP, ones who were completely opposed to union, especially under current conditions, and a third group that just wasn't sure. The pro union group (PU) began to claim that the MP had renounced Sergianism and were obviously not ecumenists but rather witnesses of Orthodoxy. The contra union group (CU) insisted on a clear renunciation of Sergianism by the MP and their complete withdrawal from the WCC.
These objections were not a problem for the Church administrations because they now had a completely new concept of the Church. They would negotiate the differences between the two Churches, make the necessary compromises, which are the essence of any negotiation, and arrive at a new, mutually acceptable truth. That was, at least, the plan. Both sides agreed to form negotiating committees and proceed as soon as possible. To make sure the negotiations proceeded smoothly and successfully, the ROCA team was carefully selected by the instigators of the union to consist mainly of pro union (PU) personnel, with the probable exception of one or two contra members who could be relied on not to create any awkward moments and derail the negotiations.

The rules, under which the negotiations were to proceed, were laid down from the outset by the MP. The past, and nothing in the past was to be discussed. "Sergianism" was off limits and the name of Met. Sergius was not to be mentioned.

Having solved the problem of "Sergianism" in this way, the committees could now proceed to address the real issues of administration that needed to be resolved, or rather, that needed to be explained to the ROCA. The ROCA negotiating team got the gist of it right away but they had considerable difficulty explaining it to the rest of the Church, that couldn't seem to understand that the MP renounced Sergianism. So much so, in fact, that the MP didn't even want to talk about it.

The contra union (CU) people still weren't buying it.

The ROCA team then returned to the negotiating table with much hand wringing and asked the MP if they could possibly state something a little stronger concerning the "S" word. Some of their more challenged brethren weren't getting it still. The MP commission then demonstrated their great patience and condescension. They conceded that "The state must not interfere in the inner structure, administration or life of the Church". That would be rather difficult in the case of the MP, considering the state still owns, literally owns the entire MP, body and soul, down to the last brick and kamilavka. The MP also assures us that, "The Church must support all good initiatives of the state, but must resist evil, immorality and harmful social phenomena..." That's exactly what Met. Sergius did. He completely supported all good initiatives of the state, (as defined by the state, of course), and he vigorously resisted the evil and harmful social phenomena that consisted mainly of all those unrepentant enemies of the state, mostly the bishops and clergy that did not support him.

And finally, to completely assuage the doubts of the most apprehensive, the MP clearly stated that the Church should always firmly confess the Truth, and that, "when persecutions commence, to continue to openly witness the faith and be prepared to follow the path of confessors and martyrs for Christ". Such beautiful words. Met. Sergius, the founder of the MP, could not have agreed more. He also clearly stated that there was absolutely no persecution of the Church in Russia. Of course if there had commenced persecutions for Christ and His Church, Met. Sergius would undoubtedly have been the first to follow that path of confessors and martyrs for Christ. As it turned out, though, according to Met. Sergius and his MP, there weren't any persecutions of the Church then and only enemies of the state were being dealt with.

So did the MP renounce Sergianism?

They will not even discuss it or even permit to mention the name of Met. Sergius. Sergianism is buried in the past, they said, and quite irrelevant today.

In a manner of speaking they are right. Sergianism, as understood by most people today is a betrayal of the Church, usurpation of Church authority and a hypocritical subservience to a godless government. That did occur in the past, quite right. That is how the MP was born. But what was born was a spiritual monster, a baby Antichrist church.

Born of the denial of Christ, baptized in the spirit of Satan, this church grew and developed on a steady diet of lies and deceit and has matured into a ravenous spiritual predator with a world-wide appetite. ROCA is not dealing with simply the issues of “Sergianism” or “Ecumenism” in the MP anymore, those are only symptoms of the spiritual condition of the MP. Besides, the MP is right, it really is too late for that now. It was a little naïve of ROCA to think they could “negotiate” with the MP. ROCA is up against a bona fide Antichrist church. In the spirit of Antichrist, it lures its prey with illusions and deceit. It even tries to panic its prey into submission.

These are the three great illusions and deceptions of the MP:

First, the MP is trying to deceive everyone that they really are the Russian Orthodox Church.

Second, that the current MP Patriarch is a bona fide ROC Patriarch and the current MP administration is the bona fide Higher Church Administration of the ROC, continuous with that of Patriarch Tikhon.

And third, they are trying to panic ROCA into believing that ROCA’s canonical foundation is about to “expire” unless the ROCA immediately “reunites” with the MP, or actually, submits to the MP.

The third illusion depends on the second, and the second illusion depends on the first.

Having become aquainted with some well documented historical facts, as outlined above, which the MP understandably refuses to discuss, it’s all too clear that the MP is not the real Russian Orthodox Church and that the MP Patriarch is not the real ROC Patriarch. It is just as clear that the current MP church administration is certainly not the Higher Church Administration mentioned by Patriarch Tikhon in his Ukase No. 362. Where does this amazing notion of ROCA’s canonical foundation “expiring” come from then? Reverse logic confirmation of the MP as the legitimate HCA of the ROC.

Ukase No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon, which provides the canonical basis for the ROCA, contains 10 paragraphs. Paragraphs 2, 5 and 10 have a direct bearing on this question:

Paragraph 2 essentially states that if a diocese is out of contact with the Higher Church Administration (HCA), or if the HCA, headed by Patriarch Tikhon, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishops should form a temporary Higher Church government.
Paragraph 5 states that if the conditions in par. 2 become protracted or even permanent, the diocesan bishops must institute new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.
Paragraph 10 states that all measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the latter.

With regard to par. 2, the ROCA bishops were abroad and definitely out of contact with the HCA of Patriarch Tikhon. The HCA of Pat. Tikhon ceased its activity because Pat. Tikhon died and all the other members of his HCA were arrested or killed. So the ROCA bishops formed a Higher Church government.

With regard to par 5, the conditions above did become protracted and the ROCA bishops did institute new Sees with independent rights.

With regard to par. 10, the central ecclesiastical authority, refered to by Pat. Tikhon, has not been restored to date and consequently the condition refered to in par. 2 has become permanent as has the independent authority and canonical foundation of the ROCA in accordance with par. 5 of the Ukase.

The notion that ROCA’s canonical basis is about to expire is an indirect attempt to establish a priori the MP as the real ROC and its Patriarch as the legitimate ROC Patriarch, just like Patriarch Tikhon was. The underlying false assumption is that the MP Patriarch and his Synod are the same Higher Church Administration that Pat. Tikhon referred to in his Ukase No. 362 and that the Central Ecclesiastical Authority of the genuine Russian Orthodox Church has been somehow restored in the MP and therefore, the ROCA must now submit to this MP.

In reality there is nothing of the sort. This is only an attempt to cloud the issue and create a stampede of the ROCA into the hands of the MP.

Once again, everything depends on whether the MP is regarded as a forgery, created by demonic powers on the basis of deceit and rebellion against the ROC of Pat. Tikhon or as the genuine Russian Orthodox Church, rightful heir to the ROC of Pat. Tikhon. Some people believe the first and see joining in canonical communion with the MP as a betrayal of Christ. Other people believe the second and build their arguments on that belief. Bullion logic excludes the middle position, of the MP as the legitimate ROC but its Higher Church Authority as illegitimate. Either the MP is legitimate or its not. It can’t be both.

What does all this mean?

It means that there are two parallel realities, two worlds co-existing here. One is the Kingdom of Christ, the Prince of Truth. The other is the kingdom of the prince of this world, the father of lies.

Christ has built His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Satan is busy building his own church of the Antichrist.

When the Apostles asked Christ about the end times, He started by saying, "Do not be deceived, for many shall come in My Name and shall deceive many". That is exactly the aim of Satan, to deceive as many as possible by building a church that resembles the Church of Christ in every possible way. But Christ said that fortunate are they who received the love of Truth in their hearts and also that His sheep know the sound of His voice and they will not follow a stranger's voice. This idea of deliberate and intense deception in the Church is very prevalent in the Holy Gospel in connection with the end times before the appearance of the Antichrist.

Why will so many be deceived? Very simply because of their love of this sinful world. Christ warned that a person cannot serve God and Mammon (the world) at the same time.

The world, in this context, does not mean mankind or the beauty of nature. Quite on the contrary, Apostle John wrote that, "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

When Christ warns us about love for the world, He means the fallen world that lies in sin. The corrupt, the ambitious, the greedy, the envious world of pride and lust for power that runs on lies, deceit and flattery belongs to Satan, the prince of this world. The church of the Antichrist uses all that material for its construction. It is being built on a foundation of pride, constructed of lies and deception, cemented by laziness, timidness, carelessness, indifference, love of comfort and convenience and energized by lust for power and hatred for the Church of Christ.

The ROCA has always been as a lighthouse on the shore of a dark and stormy ocean of the world. Its purpose has been, and still is, to be a beacon of light and hope in a world overwhelmed by spiritual darkness and despair. It served as a compass and a direction for a world lost in the fog of compromise.

Its mandate has been to keep inviolate and pure the Holy Orthodox Faith and Tradition, free from any compromise with the spirit of the world. It was faithful to this calling and served it well by remaining separate from the world. You cannot save a man drowning in quicksand by climbing in after him. You must remain on firm ground and extend your hand or a stick out to him. But to save him you must remain on solid ground yourself.

There is no question that the Russian people are in great spiritual need. This is exactly the reason why ROCA needs to exist and cannot afford to self-destruct now. ROCA has not carried the precious pearl of pure, genuine Orthodoxy all these years in very challenging conditions only to throw it away now, when the goal is almost in sight.

Orthodox Russia was built and developed into a great Orthodox empire on the principle that “God is in not in might but in truth”. The Soviet government tried to substitute might for truth, and so its might crumbled. Now it’s more desperate than ever to gain acceptance and respect in the eyes of other nations. They wish to “join the league of civilized nations” as they put it themselves.

That is why now, more than ever, they need to acquire the ROCA by hook or by crook, not only to silence “the witness that got away” but to reinforce the illusion of direct and legitimate historical continuity of the modern day “Russian Federation” with traditional pre-revolutionary Russia that ROCA represents to them. This new self-image and vision of the Soviet government has naturally been extended to its MP department. Once the MP acquires the ROCA, all questions of its legitimacy as the Russian Orthodox Church and the heir to Patriarch Tikhon will finally be put to rest. Unfortunately so will all hopes of a spiritual resurrection in Russia. The MP has never given the Russian people any spiritual nourishment and it never will. Not because it refuses to but because it can’t. The MP is not a spiritual entity but only a political one.

The Russian people are depending on the ROCA to be there when they will be ready for what ROCA has to offer. The Russian people have been under a deluge of lies and propaganda for decades. They are completely drenched. They are now only beginning to dry out. When they dry out, ROCA will need to bring back the little flame of the true Orthodox Church that it carried out at the time of the revolution. That little flame must not be allowed to go out by putting it out into the rain of lies that is the MP. It must be guarded carefully so it can start a proper fire when it’s time. That can only happen when the firewood is sufficiently dry and ready to catch fire. Otherwise, the still wet logs will not catch and the showers will extinguish the little flame.

The godless regime in Russia did not collapse after a few years, as was expected by many, and ROCA found itself dispersed, by the providence of God, throughout most of the world. And so now ROCA’s responsibility is not only to the people of Russia but to all those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven the world over, regardless of race or nationality. Christ has many other sheep in other yards as well, that He needs to bring into His flock.

And that is why now, more than ever, ROCA needs to continue to live and to remain absolutely steadfast in its witness of Holy Orthodoxy and absolutely resist the spirit of this world that is trying to take it over and make it join the church of the Antichrist.

............
Nothing written here is really new. It has all been written many times before, and undoubtedly will be written many times again.

Every one decides for themselves based on what is in their heart. Pray, like you've never prayed before, that God grant you the love of nothing but the Truth in your heart, at any cost. If you are fortunate to receive such a love of Truth, then be prepared to pay the price for it. The price is going to be very high, but it will be worth it many, many times over. You will be one of those fortunate few who will escape the delusions of the antichrist and live forever with Christ

[stumbler]

One element of logic here defies me.

How can there be questions that need answering when all agreement to the schism/union/reunion has been reported as unanimous?

Why acknowledge dissent after the signing unless the dissent has been there all along but just papered over, and only now seems frightening to those who are in a position to know the extent of that dissent?