Dear V...
I was pleased to hear from you again. While I am not sure I would go into the specifics at length regarding the MP. I would address the position of it "not being a church" or 'false church'" with the following questions:
1). What are the marks of a church?
2). What was ROCOR's historical relationship to faithful, monastics and clergy received from the MP?
3). How should the Sergian Declaration be assessed.
On the first point, the marks of a Church are a valid Episcopate and salvific Eucharist with a fidelity to the Holy Canons and the Tradition of the Church. On this point, the "sergianist" Bishops were indeed canonical, the Eucharist and the Mysteries were never in question and Patriarch Sergius was a known canonist and even more traditional than his mentor, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky).
One could call into question Metropolitan Antony's heretical "Dogma of Redemption" and recognition of Anglican orders, etc. if one wanted to speak about actual error (Renovationism), but theologically and canonically Patriarch Sergius was much closer to Archbishop Theophan of Poltava than Metropolitan Antony. As a matter of fact, his patriarchal administration unequivocally condemned the WCC before ROCOR did.
On the second point, historically ROCOR received faithful, monastics and clergy from the MP as their own, as simply members of their own church, without Confession or Chrismation or Reordination and without statements. This practice was readily observed from the time of the "sergian" declaration until ROCOR broke apart into pieces. So the ecclesial identity of the MP was not questioned by historical ROCOR.
On the third point, things become tricky. Many people fault Patriarch Sergius for his willingness to compromise and for his declaration, many rightly so.
But the facts they refuse to consider are these. In 1930, the Soviet census was suppressed as far as the demographics of religious belief were concerned, for at the time, it was found that 60% of the population believed in God (60% was brave enough to admit it, that is). At the same time, as was clear with the era of the civil war and the revolutions, it was also apparent that a huge percentage of the population, if not the clear majority, had sympathies for socialism and leftist politics. The majority of the Russian people approved of Soviet rule, perhaps not all the tyrannies and repressions, but, yes, they endorsed socialism. So the situation was such that a clear majority of the population believed in God and a similar majority was loyal to the socialist government.
These numbers were based upon a populace being sovietized but enculturated in the Orthodox religious tradition of Tsarist Russia. That is precisely why they indeed allude to the precious survival of Orthodoxy amongst the population.
What was the Russian church to do? It is wrong to divide Orthodox Christians on the basis of political convictions or "go underground" and deprive believers of the ministrations of the Church (which unfortunately occured anyways). So Metropolitan Sergius was faced with a dilemma.
St. Tikhon sought a modus vivendi with the Soviet government and legal status with the Soviet state as a means not only of procuring legal rights for the Patriarchate as an institution but also as a means of suppressing the Soviet inspired heretical Renovationist schisms. St. Tikhon was never released from incarceration but rather released to house arrest and in the documents released from the period, it is clear that he was in constant communication with the Soviet authorities, that they constantly pressured him, and as a result, he sought to achieve some sort of legal status so that the Patriarchate would survive him and not simply be eradicated and replaced with a Renovationist counterfeit. St. Tikhon had constantly sought legal status to undermine the Renovationists and uproot their schisms and safeguard believers from their sectarian errors and alienation from the Church.
St. Tikhon had tried to effectuate a concordat with the Soviet state and wanted to procure legal status for the Patriarchate to stave off the Bolshevik inspired and controlled Renovationist schisms and to attempt (futilely) to maintain an ecclesiastical structure during the Bolshevik era in order to survive and await better times.
So Metropolitan Sergius was confronted with the necessity of ministering to faithful who were both Socialists (or loyal to the state) and creating an ecclesial structure to exist legally within the state while at the same time weighing the fact that there were other Orthodox tendencies which were at odds with the militant godlessness of the Bolshevik state while weighing St. Tikhon's legacy and his intention for the direction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Metropolitan Sergius understood the total infiltration into parish life and the patriarchal chancery that the Bolsheviks had accomplished. He understood that the Renovationists would eventually gain acceptance (via state coercion and repressions, martyrdoms), and the ecclesial structure of the Patriarchate would not be maintained. He understand that the Bolsheviks had absolute power and murdered clergy and faithful on a whim, often with the judicial system aiding and abetting. He understood the Soviet government was not going to pass out of existence any time soon.
One of the last decrees of St. Tikhon was recognition of the Soviet state. He was essentially attempting to forge an identity of the MP as the authentic Russian Orthodox church within the Soviet Union which accomodated its believers and allowed them to be patriotic citizens to their nation. As the years went on, he increasingly had to maintain contacts with the Bolsheviks and they applied more and more pressure on the Patriarchate. More than anything else in his last years St. Tikhon sought legal status for the Patriarchate as a means of surviving "until a better day" and as a means of delegitimizing the Renovationists. None of this could have been accomplished "independently" and the myth of "independent" action on the part of Patriarchate is dispelled by the sheer fact that such an independent body would have been easily liquidated because it had no legal standing.
So there was no way for Metropolitan Sergius to side with an opposition opposed to Soviet power which clearly would have been liquidated (and was) with Renovationist heretics put in its place endangering the souls of Orthodox believers and potentially establishing their brand of Protestantism in the place of the Church on Russian territory. Moreover, St. Tikhon wanted a legal status and framework for the MP to be able to function in Russia without the label "counter Revolutionary" or "Tsarist." Metropolitan Sergius understood that policy decisions vis a vis the Bolshevik state must be directed along these lines. Renovationism was the Brest Unia of the twentieth century assaulting Russian Orthodoxy in the Soviet state.
Thus he signed the declaration (whether or not he wrote it is up to dispute). In it is written that the "joys and sorrows of the Soviet state are the joys and sorrows of the Russian church." Was that true? Did Russian Orthodox emigre activity cause reprisals by the Bolsheviks against the Patriarchal church in Russia and empower the Renovationists? Yes. Were the believers in the Patriarchate Soviet citizens and was the majority of the Soviet citizenry loyal to their government? Yes. Would/did the state act to repress the Church fearing (or feigning fear of) threat of foreign intervention as a "counter Revolutionary organization"? It did. Were there thousands of martyrdoms by the time of the declaration? Yes. So the statement seems to be accurate.
Metropolitan Sergius said a heretical thing to St. Joseph. He said, "We are saving the Church." Well, no, the Church doesn't need saving. It saves us.
But what he probably meant to say, as he was being monitored during the audience, was "We are saving the ecclesial administration," for it is clear that total annihilation of the Patriarchal church would have been undertaken which would have enabled the heretical Renovationist counterfeit to easily assume its position and take over (Something along these lines happened during the Khruschev persecutions with the rise of the Nikodimites actually and is to be kept front and center with the triumph of their sectarian party in our Patriarchate today).
What was the cost of Bolshevik persecution of the Church? It wasn't just buildings, Church vessels and institutions. It was millions of New Martyrs. It was blood.
From this standpoint, this concordat, as malodorous as it is with the blood it has on its hands, becomes a response to persecution which is not illegitimate.
During the era of the Imperial Church, apostate and heretical emperors were prayed for. Why not prayers for "Red" emperors?
Thus, Metropolitan Sergius' activity was not an act of apostasy or schism, even though the clear majority of Katakombniki disagreed with it. Some did even send their faithful to "sergianist" churches. None of the locum tenentes anathemized the "sergianist church" or declared it "graceless."
During the War and post War era, Patriarch Sergius and his succesors acquitted themselves in confession of Orthodoxy and at attempting to minister to the Orthodox people and Russia. He shows his true character. (Even though he does do so as a clear lackey to Stalin--it was clear he had no choice).
I am not rehabilitating Patriarch Sergius but providing a fuller explanation of the sad events of the era. You will note that I call those words "heretical," sergianism "malodorous compromise" and say that his compromises put blood on his hands and left him in disrepute. I am simply trying to give a fuller picture of the acts and the era where some were not heroes, but at the same time, not totally goats either.
What Patriarch Sergius did was obtain a legal status for the Patriarchal church which later had the Patriarchate restored while succeeding in uprooting the heretical Renovationist schisms (until Khruschev and now Medvedev). What this means is that the Patriarchal ecclesial structure survived to minister to the Orthodox people and that it maintained a fidelity to the Holy Canons and the Orthodox Tradition. It also reconciled with some of the Katakombniki, who never had legal status vis-a-vis the state.
So on the basis of those three considerations, one is forced to conclude that the MP is not only a church, but THE Russian Orthodox church to which all Russian Orthodox Christians are called to return. YET they are called to return in pure confession of Orthodoxy, something which is still not the case in the MP, especially as a result of the Khruschev persecutions and the rise of the Nikodimite party.
St. Tikhon was not in Communion with the Church Abroad and did not recognize it. Likewise, the locum tenentes did not. The Katakombniki eschewed the ROCOR missions (few that there were) on German occupied territories as "collaborationist" and "political."
Whereas, by the late 1930s, with war with Germany looming and emigre propaganda reaching a high, all the locum tenentes were martyred, most of their communities were uprooted and very few clerics were left as a result of the persecution. Their witness was extinguished, for the most part, by brutal force.
Even Struve stated in the late 60s that the IPTs had become "fringe minorities," fractured and disunited, and compromised by uncanonical and sectarian practices.
While I am advancing that the Russian dissident factions be restored to the ROC where their views can be heard and final resolution of these divisions can be reached in confession of Traditional Orthodoxy. IF the dissidents were to return and form brotherhoods and speak out, more could be accomplished than registering and restoring churches which are later confiscated and praying in the homes of elderly villagers while maintaining Vagante claimes that can not be supported. The dissidents need to see the writing on the wall and that their efforts will lead them to exile and their concerns will be silenced in the ROC, while some of these concerns are quite crucial in resolving properly.
As you have witnessed, the Neo Liberals and Nikodimites tolerate years of statements from dissidents and all their criticisms but movements from within they act to stifle and crush quickly. Why? Because only from within can their power be challenged and Orthodoxy restored. They recognize this. Thus, they act to destroy their enemies.
This is my view and how I look at the situation. It is clear there are MANY at odds with this view. Their voice was not given due consideration.
Fr. LebedeV distorted history and tried to achieve the "real ROCOR position" by decontextualizations and outright falsehoods. He tried to stress that HOCNA (or "Boston" as it was referred to then) was responsible for the creation of a "confessor jurisdiction" by coopting ROCOR, that the "tired old Russian Bishops and clergy" were simply "overwhelmed," never sought out to be "confessors." ROCOR, according to the Lebedevite sectarians, was intended to be a diasporan ethnic organism with a political tinge, but not a "GOC/Old Believer" "confessor body": ROCOR according to them was meant to be "phyletism in diaspora." What demeaning tacit slander of the luminaries of old ROCOR! Somehow, I never saw a ROCOR document from Synod penned by its hierarchs in Greek, either in "new calendar" or "Old Calendar" jargon. Nor was it ever the case that ROCOR was exclusionary and stuck in a ghetto as it received communities of different ethnicities and was missionary in its witness TO ALL NATIONS at the outset of its existence. Fr. Lebedev lied and distorted as usual to present a picture of his views of ROCOR which matched his ambitions and realpolitik.
The clear retort to him and what gives the dissidents more credence is that it was NOT HOCNA's influence that impelled a "confessor" orientation but that of those absorbed during and after the war from the MP and the Katakombiniki. These people influenced HOCNA. They influenced the Russian AND GREEK Priests and Bishops by reporting their sufferings amid the persecution, corruption, and subjugation of the Russian church--they shaped a "confessing opposition" to Soviet institutions, for they were for the most part anti-Communist and survivors of Stalin's hell. That point is totally neglected by Fr. LebedeV and his neo liberal soratniki while rabble rousers like Vladimir Moss don't get it either. It is the first retort to restoring the position of the dissidents in their dialogue with the neo liberals and restoring the reservations of Old ROCOR to the compromises of the Patriarchate and a need for immediate reassessment of what was done.
When Boston entered ROCOR, they were received after having been left stranded by the Metropolia. They did not have a "confessor" or "GOC" consciousness at the time. Their opposition to the Greek New Calendarists at Holy Cross, which drove their origin, was centered in them being able to not kneel on sundays and being able to observe the fasts. No, their acquaintance with living witnesses of persecution of Orthodoxy is what shaped them and ROCOR into a "confessor synod" with an Orthodox agenda. As always, Fr. LebedeV and his lackeys have distorted things and LIED for their own ends.
Why are these reservations important? For they establish a path by which the ROC can be reunited with a more correct relationship between Church and state and a path by which a blueprint for restoration of Traditional Orthodoxy can be followed. Due consideration to these views will return faithful to the Patriarchal church and put to rest the need for dissidency.
Patriarch Sergius' chief accomplishment was the uprooting of the Renovationists and he opposed them as best he could.
Blessed Metropolitan Philaret has had many words put into his mouth, and most of them are fraudulent. While it is clear Metropolitan Antony did not pray with the "sergianists," he never asserted their Mysteries as "graceless." Yet Metropolitan Antony did pray with clerics of local churches who were persecuting Old Calendar Confessors, churches which recognized the Renovationists and pardoned the persecution of Orthodox believers in Russia--he maintained Communion with them "for fear of schism." ROCOR did indeed have a history as an "official (or world) Orthodox body.
Most of these forgeries in Blessed Metropolitan Philaret's name are clearly diminished by the fact that Blessed Metropolitan Philaret's father died a confessing hierarch of the Patriarchate and that Blessed Metropolitan Philaret never once proclaimed an anathema against the Patriarchate from the amvon. Sergianism, yes. But in his writings, he is clear in asserting that "he speaks as a free voice of the persecuted and enslaved Russian church," of which he is a PART, and he hopes for the day that "it will be free."
Moreover, since ROCOR was a diocese, by all effects, of the Serbian church (The 39th. Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council essentially states that that is how ROCOR could function under the patronage of the Serbian local church. Moreover, with the accords which united the Russian Orthodox diaspora in 1936, it was understood that ROCOR would eventually be absorbed into the Serbian church.) , it did indeed recognize the Mysteries of the Patriarchate as it had no other choice. Metropolitan Anthony maintained Communion with Greek Churches who recognized the Renovationists and condemned St. Tikhon so there is no way his temperament would have allowed positions on the gracelessness of "Sergianist" Mysteries to be expressed. Moreover, the canundrum faced by extremists when they maintain that ROCOR "never" recognized the Mysteries of the sergianists is that their patron, the Serbian church, did and that ROCOR concelebrated with local churches which recognized the Renovationists schisms (and their "mysteries") which were clearly anathemized by St. Tikhon and declared to be graceless.
One could call into question Metropolitan Antony's heretical "Dogma of Redemption" and recognition of Anglican orders, etc. if one wanted to speak about actual error (Renovationism), but theologically and canonically Patriarch Sergius was much closer to Archbishop Theophan of Poltava than Metropolitan Antony. As a matter of fact, his patriarchal administration unequivocally condemned the WCC decades before ROCOR did.
Some "orientations" in ROCOR didn't arise until late in ROCOR's history as far as those who questioned "Mysteries" of the MP. None of them turned out to be any of ROCOR's luminaries like St. John of San Francisco or Metropolitan Anastassy or Archbishop Andrew of Rockland. Why, Fr. Alexander Lebedev was affiliated with those circles.
It is true that beginning in the 90s with FROC activity that some currents did begin "revestings" and whatnot. They did not become the norm and were not what was historically observed in ROCOR, which after the War treated members of the MP, laity, monastics, clergy as our own.
(I have no animus toward Metropolitan Anthony, but at the same time do not find myself enamored of his orientation and administrative style where I am much more comfortable with Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, who was the true Confessor of Orthodoxy of the era).
The Blessed Metropolitan Philaret I know stressed Podvig and pastorship as the mode of Orthodox Confessorship. He did not condemn Elder Tavrion and Fr. Dmitri Dudko.
While during that era, there were others, Russian and Greek, who did pressure him and did obtain denunciations of Elder Tavrion and Fr. Dmitri Dudko.
In Platina, they were celebrated as Confessors of the Faith. In Boston as apostates and heretics.
I tend to believe Fr. Seraphim, of blessed memory, when it comes to these things and the real attitude of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret.
BTW, at this time, Fr. Alexander LebedeV was one of the chief anti-sergianists and baiters of all things MP while Fr. John Shaw made no waves or accusations and just nodded not taking a side. Fr. Lebedev was one of the "intelligentsia" of the "authentic Orthodox" and even stressed his diocese "had the most grace" in ROCOR, while openly baiting and attacking "schizophrenic" "ecumenists" and "sergianists" like St. John of San Francisco (St. John was an "ecumenist" to Fr. LebedeV because he prayed with other Orthodox Christians and was a "sergianist" for having commemorated Patriarchs Sergius and Alexis I in China). So what was "authentic Orthodoxy" in ROCOR really when it was led by people like Fr. Alexander LebedeV in its nascent stages. He is a Nikodimite today who maintains that Orthodox Baptism is not necessary to enter the Orthodox Church and that heretical "sacraments" have grace, which according to his sectarian lies and lack of understanding, he believes the ROC has always believed (even when he is confronted with evidence to the contrary). So much for "authentic Orthodoxy" and its currents in ROCOR.
Sergianism is not synonomous with the Patriarchate. Throughout the era of Old ROCOR prayers and petitions were offered for the "Orthodox Episcopate of the persecuted Russian church." The understanding was not that fallacy of composition asserted that if a hierarch or hierarchy has fallen into error, that all the believers and the institution itself is heretical, but that the MP was enslaved, forced into sergianism, and that when freedom came its clergy, monastics and people would reject it. No, Old ROCOR was one with the Russian Orthodox people and the right believing clergy, monastics and hierarchs of the Patriarchate.
So, V., I present you with my take on the circumstances which concern so many of us today and offer my understanding. Please consider what I have written and share with me your views and how you think disparate interpretations can be reconciled and constructive engagement can occur which reunites the dissidents to the Russian church and has their views considered, addressed, where we all share in a feast of Faith as a result.
We both honor and respect not only the legacy of ROCOR, but also the Catacomb Church, and we both have a Tikhonite orientation. We both are appalled at the compromises made in the MP and with the current leadership. We both want an All Russian renewal and not only condemnation of sergianism, renovationism, ecumenism, but an anathema of all of it and its representatives retired, sent to spend the rest of their days in a monastery in the north or left to leave the priesthood and live in the world. We agree on all these things.
By no means should it be contended that I am a "company man" here, as my views have the same popularity as that of Bishop Diomid's or Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg's with the current administration in the MP or in ROCOR. They kicked me off a site and had me censored for making a point that a freemasonic Metropolitan in ROCOR is unacceptible. You can imagine what I think of a Nikodimite crypto-Uniate as Patriarch.
But at the same time, with my little experience with dissidents I can say that they are the basest khamyo and people who lack all perspective, with heretical ecclesiologies or political motivations for the most part. My politics is more patriotic than anyone terming themselves "White," for I am a monarchist and detest the entire masonic February Revolution and its personages--THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE ULTIMATELY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ORTHODOX RUSSIA AND SOVIET POWER. Even the main pretender to the Throne today has as his direct ancestor a man WHO WORE A RED ARMBAND, was a member of the masonic lodges where the Revolutions were hatched and directed, and threatened the Empress and the heirs with reprisals outside of the Winter Palace with a Revolutionary mob in those evil days of February. HOW DARE SUCH A DISCREDITED AND ODIOUS PERSONAGE MAKE PRETENSE TO THE THRONE OF ALL THE RUSSIAS?! I recently read an account about General Denikin in Paris and found him to be quite loathesome afterwards, not that he failed, but that he was so enamored of February and its "democratic ideals." I don't share them. My stance toward liberal democracy is that of General Vlasov's, whom I see as a tragic figure and not as a traitor.
Sergianism happened. The reality that spawned it cannot be undone. The current reality will not shift to ever accomodate a structure which displaces the MP, for if anything it is the canonical church of Russia. The 1930s are over. The 1960s are over. Communism is over. What Russia has today is a Boris Godunov in a White government very much in the tradition of the February Revolution and very much Western in its orientation with Mssr. Medvedev. So for Whites to fault a government for being White is the height of hypocrisy and at the same time pointless. Nothing can be achieved with the dissidency adovocated by some, but Russia can be lost by it. The task is to gradually prepare for the day when the current personages are gone or disgrace themselves and a shift occurs toward Traditional Orthodoxy (I don't really care about the politics of the situation as there is no one fit to sit on the throne of all the Russias alive today). That means working with the hand history has dealt and not refusing to recognize reality.
I can forthrightly say that I have tried very much to fit within the framework of the dissidents and have looked seriously at almost every group, and each and every one of them reminds me of one of the "Ukrainian" separatist parties, not being sincere or accurate about history, but overly zealous with alienated ambitions and fruitless hatreds of our own people. Stenka Razin failed to "purify" the Russian gene pool: we must attend to people who are post homo sovieticus. We can't purge ourselves of them, as they are the people of Russia today.
There were indeed inequities in imperial times, attitudes and means of administration which turned a blind eye to cruelty, exploitation and at times base poverty, violence. All was not ideal, but at times was improving. For some, all patience had been exhausted and vollens nullens they won the day. Now their day is over and we can have a seat at the table to participate in the conversation. The question is will we extricate ourselves from the 30s and hatred of Stalin enough to sit down and actually drink at the samovar of today's Russia?
I know there were many who were martyred. My own family was dispossesed and murder by the Communists, sent into Siberian exile, murdered by the CHEKA. So I have no love for the Soviet legacy, BUT IT WAS BROUGHT TO BE BY THE VERY SAME WHITES who speak so loudly today, or at least their descendants do.
This is about dealing with reality and the paradigms it sets forth and according history its due in the terms of that reality. That is why I hold to the notions I do.
I hope that I can impress upon you my sincerity and only the greatest of respect for the legacy of the New Martyrs and Confessors, but today we need to think of future successes, in ways which honor the past, which we will able to present to the future as victors and not as "yes men," expendible and derided lackeys or Old Believers.
Russian Orthodoxy lives today, and we must take the best we have inherited from our rich past and honor Russia and engage with our compatriots there in forging a stronger Russia and a great empire. So we must work to strengthen the Russian church, while reconciling the dissidents, but most importantly we must introduce an effective Orthodox paradigm to the faithful of today's Russia (and diaspora) which is a contemporary expression of the Tradition of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Canons, departing not from them but making them alive and vibrant, saving souls in our day.
I hope you and yours are doing well and I am glad the svjatki have been so joyous for you. I wish you ten times those joys for the New Year. I wish that our friendship grow yet stronger.
Jason Bently