The Beacon of Light: The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (Part 2)

by Protopriest Nikita Grigoriev

Instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, NY  1986-2006

 

 

In May of 2006, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) convened a council in San Francisco, USA, to discuss the possibility of ROCOR entering into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). After four days of deliberation, the Council passed a resolution not to enter into communion with the MP at this time.

This is the quote from the resolution of the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the ROCOR in San Francisco, May 11, 2006: “Our Paschal joy is joined by the great hope that in the appropriate time, the unity of the Russian Church will be restored upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ, opening for us the possibility to serve together and to commune from one Chalice”.

Why did the Council resolve that that was not the appropriate time to unite with the MP on a foundation of Truth of Christ? The reason is alluded to in a statement of the Council of Bishops that followed right after the 4th All-Diaspora Council.

This is the actual quote from the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR: “The draft Act on Canonical Communion was then discussed. This draft was adopted and approved in principle, though with the stipulation that certain points be resolved.”

It is crucial to understand that then, and to this day, these obstacles to union with the MP have not been resolved and not even addressed—but rather—simply ignored.

The first of these “certain points” referred to the Sergian doctrine of total unity of purpose with an atheistic regime, that laid the foundation for the group that is now referred to as the Moscow Patriarchy and the resultant Ecumenism in which the MP was—and still is—deeply involved, despite the fact that they try to downplay it.

This is of utmost importance to understand: The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad did not agree to the union then, nor did the Council of bishops agree to the union, nor did they bless it then. The union with the Moscow Patriarchate was forced through, illegally and surreptitiously, mainly by Met. Laurus and Archbishop Mark during a Synod meeting in New York.

It is also important to realize that the Synod has no authority to make such decisions on its own. The Synod is subject to the authority of the Council of Bishops, which, in turn, needs to respond to and reflect the decision and the will of the All-Diaspora Council. And those bodies had decided that this was not the time to unite with the MP because of the unresolved issues.

Nevertheless, the ROCOR Synod decided to unite ROCOR with the MP on its own. This was a clear usurpation of authority and a violation of fundamental ecclesiastical rules. This amounted to what can be rightly called Neo-Sergianism. That fateful Synod session did not even have the quorum necessary to make any valid decisions. Only present were Met. Laurus, Archbishop Mark, and Bishop Gabriel (of Manhattan, who actually wrote that he did not agree with this then, but later was convinced to agree), who were members of the Synod.

Bishop Peter of Cleveland was present, but not a member of the Synod and not eligible to vote, and Bishop Hilarion called in sick and was not going to attend.

With only three Synod members present, there was not a quorum to make any valid decisions, much less a decision on the fate of the entire ROCOR, which was contrary to the decision of the All-Diaspora Council of ROCOR and the Council of Bishops.

The reason why the language in the All-Diaspora Council resolutions was so vague and obfuscating was because there was great pressure applied on several key members of ROCOR clergy to facilitate the union as quickly as possible. This pressure on ROCOR to capitulate was being exerted since ROCOR’s very beginning in 1920. But it was suddenly, substantially increased in September 2003.

Metropolitan Laurus was in his office in Jordanville when he unexpectedly received a phone call from a representative of Vladimir Putin. Met. Laurus was told that Mr Putin will be in New York, and will meet with the Met Laurus and his Synod of bishops in the synod headquarters in Manhattan.

On September 25th, 2003 President Putin met with Metropolitan Laurus, Archbishop Mark, Archbishop Kirill, as well as several others.

(http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/29418)

This is a quote from the website in the link above: “Mr. Putin stressed the exceptional importance of a rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). It was of extreme significance for the integration of Russia into the world and for the ROCOR”.

Why was the “rapprochement between the MP and ROCOR” of “extreme significance for the integration of Russia into the world”?

Not long before this meeting, Met. Laurus made a rare public announcement after Sunday Liturgy, in the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Jordanville. He said that he had recently made a trip to Russia, unannounced, in order to have a look at the situation with the Moscow Patriarchate there. He astounded everyone in the cathedral by saying that he now realizes that any union with the Moscow Patriarchate is not possible and we must now prepare for a possible martyrdom. The shock of what he said will never be forgotten by the many people present there. People could hardly believe their ears because Met. Laurus had usually been very soft and diplomatic.

However, soon after that, the drift towards union with the MP began to accelerate, despite what Met Laurus had declared in the cathedral. Then, after the meeting with President Putin in New York, the push towards union became feverish. The impression was that this union is of the utmost urgency and must take place as soon as possible, at any cost.

Why did Met. Laurus seem to change his mind so dramatically regarding union with the MP? The answer to that can be glimpsed from the response Met. Laurus gave to a lawyer who was questioning him on the witness stand. When the attorney asked Met. Laurus, “What would have happened if you had refused to unite with the MP?”

Met. Laurus replied emphatically, even slamming his fist on the bench, “They would have killed us!”

Met. Laurus seemed to believe that the Moscow Patriarchate was going to take over the ROCOR one way or the other, regardless of whether ROCOR agreed or not. He felt that it would be much less detrimental to ROCOR if it submitted peacefully. He was by nature extremely averse to any kind of confrontation. It seems possible that Met. Laurus was interpreting, in his own way, the words of Christ:

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” (Luke 14:31-32)

A scant two and a half months after Mr. Putin visited the Synod and impressed upon the ROCOR bishops the urgency of their union with the MP, the ROCOR administration organized an All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference in Nyack, NY. The object of this conference was clearly not so much to discuss whether, or how it may be possible to unite with the MP but to convince the ROCOR clergy that there were no longer any real obstacles for uniting with the MP and the time for unification had arrived.

For this purpose, three high ranking MP clergy were brought to the Nyack, NY Pastoral Conference to promote the MP as the “Mother Church” from which the ROCOR had separated and now needed to “re-unite” with (in fact the Russian Orthodox Church was never united with the Sergianists but rejected them). These three were each given time for lengthy speeches to deliver the MP message to the ROCOR clergy. Several of the ROCOR bishops, who were now totally pro-union, also gave long speeches.

The rest of the ROCOR clergy were allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak. The original reason for the schism in 1927 was not discussed. Why did the senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, Met Kyrill of Kazan, Met. Peter of Krutitsk and most of the other bishops and clergy, refuse to serve with Met Sergius, and warned others not to follow him? All attempts to discuss the fundamental reason for the separation of Met. Sergius and his followers from the Russian Orthodox Church were ignored. Those very same reasons that the Russian Orthodox Church rejected Sergius in 1927 are not only present today but have solidified over time.

This All-Diaspora Clergy Conference was a perfunctory exercise to begin preparing the ROCOR clergy for the union, since the decision to unite with the MP had already been made, despite Met. Laurus telling everyone that there will be no union.

Another result of this Conference was the formation of a “negotiating committee” to negotiate with the MP the terms of union.

Before the start of the first session with the MP, the ROCOR “negotiating committee” was clearly told by the MP that there will be no discussions of Sergianism nor any of the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church did not recognize the Sergianists. In fact, no mention of Met. Sergius’ name will be allowed. Thus, the whole reason for the separation from the MP was to be ignored and forgotten.

Several prominent ROCOR clergy, who had hitherto been clearly against union with the MP suddenly began to actively promote it. Those who still maintained the traditional view of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding Met Sergius and his group of “Living Church” revolutionaries, were ostracized and sidelined. This was all in preparation for the 4th All-Diaspora Council, where the decision to unite with the MP had to be pushed through by any means necessary.

To this end, many of the clergy, and even some laity, who were pro-union were invited to read speeches promoting the union, whereas those who would have given clear reasons why this union cannot take place were not permitted even to attend.

Remarkably, the original Resolution of the 4th All-Diaspora Council had been prepared ahead of time. However when it was presented at the Council, there was such an outcry of resistance that it was withdrawn. Even so, the final Resolution was never voted on in its entirety, but rather piecemeal and in parts.

What was eventually presented as the Resolution of the 4th All-Diaspora Council was a carefully crafted document with sufficient ambiguity for both sides to understand it each in their own way. The following quotes are some examples.

“…we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force”.

The Russian Church Abroad always considered itself to be a part of the Local Russian Church. The canonical basis for this was, and still remains, the Decree #362 of Patriarch Tikhon. This is true and was perfectly acceptable to the members of ROCOR. The Local Russian Church was never accepted by ROCOR to mean the current Moscow Patriarchate, which was a schismatic group created by the godless Bolsheviks to destroy the Local Russian Church and then to replace it.

However, after an intense campaign of propaganda and indoctrination, prior to this Council, the pro-union supporters began to promote the MP as not only the traditional Local Russian Orthodox Church, but even as the “Mother Church”, an odd but useful slogan for propaganda purposes.

Another quote from the Resolution concerned the active role of the MP in the ecumenical movement, which the ROCOR under the leadership of Met. Philaret, had declared to be a heresy:

“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”.

Most ROCOR people, who understand the nature of the MP, realize that asking the MP to cease its ecumenical activities is akin to asking a fish to stop swimming in water. The very purpose for the creation of the MP by the atheistic regime was infiltration, gathering of intelligence, and control.

The final point in the Resolution states: “We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.”

These “remaining unresolved church problems” needed then to be resolved, as they still need to be resolved, at a Local Council of One Russian Church. Clearly, as the Council stated, they need to be resolved prior to any union with the MP. What was understood by a “Local Council of One Russian Church” was a genuine and true Council of the entire Russian Orthodox Church.

This needed to include the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Catacomb Church and the MP. All needed to be properly and fairly represented. The Local Council then would need to examine Met. Sergius’ decision to unite with the atheistic Soviet government and the subsequent creation of the MP by Stalin and their history and current situation, as well as the position and history of ROCOR, and also the position and history of the Catacomb Church.

Needless to say, the MP was not in the least interested in such a Council because they know full well that their founder Met. Sergius illegally usurped authority in the Church and fully collaborated with the NKVD, striving to subjugate and destroy the real Local Russian Church, including the ROCOR and the Catacomb Church.

The “hope” that the Council of the One Russian Church was actually “forthcoming” was very much wishful thinking, more like a prayer for a miracle. It was really not much different than hoping that the Pharisees of the time of Christ would have an honest council with the Apostles to discuss why they had decided to crucify Christ.

There is no doubt that the Local Russian Church needs to be united. We, as Orthodox Christians, believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in order to be One, the Church absolutely needs to be Holy.  This is where that stipulation of the 4th All-Diaspora Council for union “upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ” comes in. The Truth of Christ is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

The Church lives by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. There can be no lies, no deceit, no guile, nor any compromise with lies whatsoever in the foundation of the Church, for the Church is the foundation and the pillar of Truth.

The current problem of division in the Church stems from the fact that there are two very different views as to what the Church of Christ actually is. This is born from an indifference to the Truth of Christ and the absolute necessity to take up one’s cross to truly follow Christ, a path that the real Church of Christ has always taken. The majority of people regard the Church as a human institution, that can be changed or adapted to changing circumstances, as needed.

The traditional, Patristic and truly Orthodox Church is actually a living organism, comprised of God, the Holy Spirit, and also humans. This marriage of God and humans is the new spiritual and physical being that God created with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles on Pentecost. The Holy Church of Christ is the marriage of God and man, where Christ is the groom and the human portion is the bride.

Thus, the real Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, has Jesus Christ Himself as the Head of the Church. He is with us always, as He promised, protecting and leading His Holy Church with the Holy Spirit. To this Church He promised absolute invincibility, even against the gates of Hell.

As the gates of hell are now swallowing up almost the whole world, we, as Orthodox Christians, must hold dear more than ever the words of Christ: “Take heed that no man deceive you. (Matt 24:5b) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matt 24:24) (See also Mark 13:5-22)

As Orthodox Christians we must never forget that the Holy Orthodox Church is not ours to negotiate or compromise with anyone. It is led by the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from God the Father. This is the Spirit of Truth and He will not tolerate any compromise with lies or distortions of Truth. As soon as lies or distortions or compromises are accepted knowingly, the Holy Spirit departs the party that accepted them.

Christ has already defeated Satan and hell. All power has been granted to Him in Heaven and on earth. Satan is powerless to do anything without permission from Christ. We need not worry about saving the Church from its enemies or from extinction.  Christ has already done that and He promised it will not be prevailed against.

What we do need to be very concerned with is that we remain faithful to Christ and his Truth. No one can follow Christ unless they deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Christ. For many shall be deceived and seduced away from Christ and His Holy Church because the Love of many shall grow cold. Apathy and indifference to the Truth of Christ is the main reason people can be deceived and fall away from the real Church of Christ.

Many end up in facsimile churches because they love something or someone more than Christ. Christ said that anyone who loves his father or mother or brother or sister or son or daughter more than Him, is not worthy of Him. That, of course, includes loving your career or your friends and society or your lifestyle or even your country more than Christ and it will definitely be used by Satan to separate you from Christ.

Hence those terrifying words of Christ, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:22-23)

Christ also did say that towards the end times His Church will become smaller and smaller. He even said, “When I return, will I find any Faith on the earth?”  But His Holy Church will definitely remain, albeit very small and persecuted but full of True Faith, to greet Him when He returns with trumpets and surrounded by the glory of countless Angels.

Christ said in the Old Testament: “I have set before you Life and death… choose Life.” (Deut 30:19b) Now, in the same vein, He sets before us Life, which is the Truth of Christ—or death—which is the deceit and guile of Satan. Let us choose Life in the Truth of Christ. The Truth of Christ was what the Russian Church Outside of Russia and the Council of Bishops chose in San Francisco in May of 2006, when it rejected the union at that time precisely because it was not “on the foundation of the Truth of Christ.”

The True Russian Orthodox Church Abroad remains as it was. It continues as before, to serve only Christ God and not the powerful of the world. In May of 2007, almost three quarters of the Church members were pulled into an uncanonical and illegal union with a Church whose leadership serves only the civil authorities and still persecutes the Russian Orthodox Church, whether abroad or in Russia.

This account was written in response to many requests for a factual historical presentation based on documents and eyewitnesses. This was not written for those who have already made up their minds and are comfortable with having joined the MP.

This was written for those whose conscience is not at ease with the union with the MP and who care enough to want to know the truth as to what happened and how. Many people felt in 2007 that the union with the MP was rushed and carried out under duress—that it was more like a hostile takeover rather than the will of God and not with the agreement and blessing of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. They are right.

Some people are still having doubts and even regrets about having been swept up in the optimism of a unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, as it was presented in 2007. With some, buyer’s remorse is setting in as they see the fruits of this takeover. These people need to know that the True Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is still here and although much smaller in number, nevertheless is still faithful to Christ and to Her mission abroad.

This is the Church that they left to join with the MP and this Church is waiting and praying for their return. There is no greater joy than when a soul returns to the flock of Christ.

The only way to help Russia is to restore the Church in Russia - The True Russian Orthodox Church of Patriarch Tikhon.

The modern-day MP is definitely not the Russian Orthodox Church, but rather a false church created by the Bolshevik godless authorities to destroy the real Russian Orthodox Church and to replace it. The words of Christ that He spoke to the Pharisees fully apply to them now: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matt 23:13b)

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is still the Beacon of Light to the world, because darkness cannot destroy Light. Lies, corruption and hypocrisy cannot be defeated by joining with them. Christ already defeated them by His death on the Cross and by His glorious Resurrection. To dispel the lies and hypocrisy of the prince of this world, we must deny ourselves, take up our Cross and follow Christ.

That is the thorny and narrow path that the true Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is following and it entreats all of its faithful members, and those who may have been misled or have strayed, to stand firm with Christ in His Truth. Only in the Truth of Christ is Salvation.

 

Source: http://rocana.org/archives/15144

 

MP Professor A. A. Kostryukov on the Canonization of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)

May 21, 2026

 

On May 2, 2026, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia blessed the process of preparing for the church glorification, in the rank of venerable fathers, of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose). We asked Doctor of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Theology, Chief Research Fellow of the Department of Contemporary History of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Professor of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov to comment on this decision.

 

 

— Andrei Alexandrovich, although the name of Hieromonk Seraphim is known to many, to some it will mean nothing. Could you remind us what makes this man interesting?

The life of Hieromonk Seraphim, Eugene Rose in the world, is very interesting and in some respects recalls the path of the ancient saint Justin the Philosopher, who sought the truth in various teachings and found it in Christ. Hieromonk Seraphim did not come to Orthodoxy immediately. He was born into an American Protestant family, but in his youth became interested in Eastern teachings, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, and wanted to study these religions, including by coming to know them in practice. Eugene Rose had an aptitude for studying languages and therefore tried to study religious texts in their native language. But Eugene did not find the truth in any of these teachings. Only when he came to an Orthodox church did he understand that the search was over: the truth had finally been found in the Orthodox Church. Saint John (Maximovitch) and another ascetic of the Russian diaspora, Bishop Nektary (Kontzevich), who became his spiritual father, had a great influence on Eugene Rose. Conversion to Christ also changed Eugene’s life, which had previously been far from moral ideals.

In 1962, Eugene converted to Orthodoxy; in 1970 he became a monk; and in 1977 he was ordained a hieromonk in the Russian Church Abroad. For a long time, Father Seraphim lived in a skete near the settlement of Platina in California, learned Russian, studied Orthodoxy, engaged in translations, carried on extensive correspondence, and composed akathists to Saint John (Maximovitch) and Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky. Father Seraphim died in 1982 at the age of 48.

— Father Seraphim is also known as the author of many writings. Why are they important?

I must repeat what I have said more than once: it was precisely the Russian diaspora that helped us with literature and textbooks in the first years after the fall of communist rule. For almost seventy years, theological and ecclesiastical-historical scholarship in the Soviet Union had been suppressed. Textbooks and studies appeared in emigration, and in the 1990s they came to be in demand. The books of Father Seraphim (Rose) also proved useful. Let me recall that, in parallel with the revival of the Church in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there began an influx of dubious teachings. People who had grown up over the decades of Soviet godlessness thought that everything unusual was from God. And therefore, both Eastern cults and charismatic practices unacceptable to Orthodoxy gained popularity. It was not easy to resist this onslaught, and the works of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) helped the Church considerably. These include, for example, the books The Soul After Death, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Genesis: Creation and Early Man, and others. I remember how, during my studies, I wrote a term paper on glossolalia, the gift of “speaking in tongues,” and this was not even at the beginning, but at the end of the 1990s. There were major difficulties in finding literature on the subject; it turned out that, apart from Protestants, almost no one had studied this question in particular. Almost the only Orthodox work on this topic was the work of Father Seraphim (Rose).

— Hieromonk Seraphim is sometimes accused of radicalism, of an overly harsh attitude toward non-Christian religions and non-Orthodox confessions. How fair are these accusations?

Yes, Father Seraphim insisted that salvation is only in Orthodox Christianity. But I think there is no basis for dispute here: this is the foundation of our faith, although the Jubilee Council of 2000 did indicate that the action of grace among the non-Orthodox is a mystery of God’s Providence. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to accuse an Orthodox ascetic of having been too straightforward on this question.

Personally, I have not formed the impression that Father Seraphim was a fanatic or an obscurantist. On the contrary, he emphasized that the study of theological sciences must be joined with the raising of one’s cultural and educational level, and he warned against a “sudden leap into theology.” Along with patristic literature, he advised reading classic writers for the softening of the heart. And among such classics he named not only Orthodox authors, for example Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but also non-Orthodox ones, for example Charles Dickens.

— What was Hieromonk Seraphim’s attitude toward the Local Churches? After all, he belonged to the Russian Church Abroad, which, as is well known, at times sharply criticized both the Church of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

Father Seraphim indeed made quite a few sharp statements both regarding ecumenism and regarding the compromises which hierarchs were forced to make. At times Hieromonk Seraphim was unsparing. But I would not generalize. First, he was not the only one to speak this way: we have both New Martyrs and ascetics numbered among the saints who were extremely uncompromising toward compromises in matters of faith and in relation to totalitarian regimes. Second, Hieromonk Seraphim could express himself both more and less radically. It is understandable that at first, having come to the faith, he was more categorical, but gradually his views began to soften. This is evident, for example, from his letters published in Jordanville in 2005.

For example, analyzing the failure of the mission of the Russian Church Abroad in Alaska, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that this mission should be taken upon itself by one of the Local Churches, the Orthodox Church in America, although the attitude toward it on the part of the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad was generally negative.

In another letter, Hieromonk Seraphim wrote that the Church Abroad should be open to all Orthodox Christians. Here Father Seraphim held the view of Saint John (Maximovitch). Hieromonk Seraphim believed that the Church Abroad should admit all Orthodox Christians to the Chalice, regardless of their calendar and other manifestations of modernism. According to Father Seraphim’s thinking, the Church Abroad was thereby to become a source of support for those who were struggling within their own Churches against unreasonable innovations.

I will quote words from one of Hieromonk Seraphim’s letters: “We must maintain living contact with the Russian clergy of the older generation, even if some of them seem too liberal to us; otherwise, we will simply lose ourselves in the jungles of zealotry, which are growing up around us.” The understanding of zealotry, that is, fanatical conservatism, as “jungles” is very telling. Elsewhere Hieromonk Seraphim called zealotry a monster and predicted that right-wing radicals in the Orthodox Church would split more and more. As we see, Father Seraphim proved to be right.

— Were there other cases of such discernment?

I think that what is at issue here is not a miraculous gift of clairvoyance, but knowledge of Church history and an understanding of historical patterns. For example, in the 1960s a group of radical Greek Old Calendarists, headed by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), entered the Russian Church Abroad. Before long they began drawing the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad into their radicalism as well, including its head, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). Hieromonk Seraphim directly called this group “university boys playing at Orthodoxy,” and predicted that they would not remain in the Church Abroad. And that is what happened: in 1986, the group of Archimandrite Panteleimon accused the Church Abroad of modernism and ecumenism and created its own schism, which went down in history as the “Boston” schism.

— You mentioned Father Seraphim’s work on the creation of the world. What views did he hold on the question of creation?

Here we have come to a very important point in the legacy of Hieromonk Seraphim. As far as I have been able to follow the polemics on social networks, there is an accusation against the hieromonk of interpreting the biblical words about creation literally. Yes, Father Seraphim was a creationist; he was an opponent of evolutionary views. But here is where I see the problem. In past centuries, when a saint was canonized, his attitude toward the creation of the world was not a current issue, since everyone was a creationist, except that some inclined toward a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, while others inclined toward a more or less allegorical one.

Now, however, the situation is different. In connection with the development of science, the question of creation will be raised more and more often at canonizations. After all, an ascetic who received an education in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and left a written legacy can no longer remain aloof from various theories. And now we will encounter the fact that a person who speaks in favor of one of the theories will be subjected to attacks from the other camp. Perhaps the question is already ripe for the Church to prepare an authoritative document on its attitude toward theories of the creation of the world and the origin of life? But in general, figures of the Church, including saints, often held the same opinions as the science contemporary to them. And if these opinions are now outdated, this does not diminish the authority of the saints.

Or another question: that of “Unidentified Flying Objects” (UFOs). We remember what a sensation stories about flying saucers and contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence caused in our country at the end of the 1980s. Long before this, Father Seraphim wrote that, if such phenomena do occur, they are manifestations of demonic activity, and he substantiated his view with examples from Church tradition. Now, however, such an explanation of the “UFO” phenomenon is leading to new attacks on Hieromonk Seraphim. But I am certain that if he had said that he believed in extraterrestrials, this would have caused incomparably greater indignation.

— That is, the views of Hieromonk Seraphim cannot affect his glorification?

It is known that for glorification there must be such criteria as a holy life, irreproachable faith, popular veneration, and, finally, testimony to holiness—usually, help received through the prayers of the ascetic. He was faithful to Orthodoxy; the Council of Bishops of ROCOR has stated that he lived an ascetic life. As far as I know, veneration of Father Seraphim exists; some time ago there was even information that Father Seraphim had been glorified in one of the dioceses of the Georgian Church. Although the information proved to be false, the tendency toward his glorification is clearly present. As yet there is no official canonization; the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad has only blessed its further preparation. Therefore, polemics concerning the life path and views of Hieromonk Seraphim are still possible. The main thing is that this polemic be serious. And the final decision will be rendered by the Church.

 

Russian source:

https://pstgu.ru/news/main/professor-pstgu-a-a-kostryukov-o-kanonizatsii-ieromonakha-serafima-rouza/

Shared by:

https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/436777.html

The Refined Life of Observant Orthodox Traditionalism

Transcribed from a sermon by Archbishop [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Etna (+2019)

 

 

What exactly is the observant life of an Orthodox traditionalist? We might approach this question by asking two other questions: first, “What constitutes ‘observance’ for the Orthodox Christian?”; and second, “What is Orthodox traditionalism?”

Observance is inseparable, in fact, from the issue of traditionalism. Following the teachings and instructions of St. Gregory Palamas, an ob­servant Orthodox Christian is one who follows Holy Tradition: the laws of God, beginning with the Ten Commandments, the command­ments of love set forth by Christ Himself (that is, to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as one loves himself), and the Sacred Canons of the Church. St. Gregory, in various writings, also tells us, in keeping with the con­sensus of the Fathers, that the traditions and customs that constitute the Holy Tradition of the Church must be observed in toto—not se­lectively and, as is usually the case today, with a self-serving application of the oft-made dis­tinction between Holy Tradition and “tradi­tions” with a small “t,” the latter supposedly a matter of choice and the former binding. While the distinction between Holy Tradition and certain ecclesiastical customs of an incidental kind, or small “t” traditions, can be useful, it is in fact unknown to the Church Fathers in their definitive and punctilious comments about Holy Tradition per se. Moreover, it assuredly has no application to inspired Canons concerning matters of faith and of revealed doctrine. Indeed, at a universal or encompassing level, St. John Chrysostomos says of what has been handed down to us in the Church the following: “It is tradition, ask no more.” Observance also goes beyond the law and touches on our spiritual commitment, our loyalty to those who serve as our spiritual guides, our fidelity to the living Body of Christ (those who are our co-believers), and, of course, beyond that to all men and women, whatever their religion. Indeed, if we are called to be a sepa­rate and sui generis Christian “race,” the “New Israel,” it is for the purpose of also calling all others to participate in that to which we are separately and peculiarly called. These things, too, are part of the Holy Tradition which we are enjoined to observe.

As to the matter of traditionalism itself, there are those who quite wrongly believe that it is enough to be Orthodox: that a mere confes­sion of Orthodoxy is the sine qua non of παράδοσις, or of receiving that which has been passed down from Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers themselves, and that Orthodox traditionalism is a conceptual redundancy. This is faulty reasoning that is sadly meant, in most cases, to excuse one from all that follows on the confession of correct doctrine (ὀρθοδοξία); that is, from all that is demanded by the requisite practice and observance of the Faith, or orthopraxy (ὀρθοπραξία). Tradition is, in fact, an active process of direct engagement with life. It is a dynamic passing-on of the very em­pirical experience of the Church. Indeed, the term “traditionalism” describes that inseparable bond between confession and practice, which correctly captures the πληρότης τῆς πίστεως, or the “fullness of the Faith.” Any division between faith and works, confession and effort, and believing and living is what has, in fact, separated those who are Orthodox in name and confes­sion from the True Orthodox faithful, the latter distinguished by the spirit of traditionalism underlying their witness. In the same way that they dis­miss Orthodox traditionalism as conceptually redundant, the former also accuse True Orthodox Christians of pleonasm and tautologism, arguing that “Orthodoxy” is by its very definition “true.” However, only when one comes to understand that observance brings true belief and its application in practical action together does he come to see that there is a nominal Or­thodoxy of mere confession and a True Orthodoxy of essence that entails the implementation of the truths of the Faith in observance. As the late Fa­ther Georges Florovsky observes, it is not enough, in claiming Orthodoxy, to recite a correct credal formula or to adhere to a correct theology; rather, one must attain to the φρόνημα τῶν Πατέρων, or the “mind of the Fathers,” through the dianoetic, noetic, and practical application of Orthodox Truth as a “theology of facts”; in short, one must make the Faith empirical by way of experiencing and living it. One must be truly Orthodox.

It is on the basis of all that I have said about observance and tra­ditionalism that the Church Fathers, in unanimity (as though with one mind—unus animus) and with adamantine resolve, tell us that Orthodoxy is not just about how we believe, but about how we walk, talk, dress, and conduct ourselves; and this not only in Church and in private, but in our worldly lives, in our work, and even in the entertainment and diversions which we allow ourselves. A correct confession of Faith without these things—and, assuredly, without strict, sincere fasting, without prayer (incessant inner prayer, moreover), and without adherence to the Sacred Canons and Divine Traditions of the Church (if not by their exactitude, at least in the desire for that perfect adherence and not in a spirit that seeks every reason to avoid perfect observance in the service of personal pleas­ure and unbridled worldliness)—is of no avail to us. We will be judged “where we are found,” as a spiritual axiom has it, and not by our words and pronouncements; i.e., we will be judged by our spiritual state, by our love for Holy Tradition and observance, by our love for our fellow man, and by our quickness to find fault in ourselves and not in others (another aspect of observance and one of the highest forms of self-denial). If we lie, slander others, justify ourselves at the cost of denigrating our brothers, and seek that which serves the self, we will have by nature deviated from the spirit of observance and will find ourselves inwardly estranged from the “Faith of our Fathers” (the Faith as it is transmitted in spiritual suc­cession), however “exact” our confession and however much we may feign a certain public or “external” commitment to traditional observance. We will be, as the Desert Fathers tell us in a frequently-cited simile, like trees with beautiful leaves that, nonetheless, bear no fruit.

Having said what Orthodox observance is, and having comment­ed on the attributes of the observant traditionalism of True Orthodoxy, I would like to comment in greater detail on the refined way of life that the truly observant Orthodox Christian can live, seeking therein, in this im­perfect world, perfect transformation and union, by His Grace, with God (which constitutes salvation, as the Orthodox Church envisions it). In so doing, I do not mean to chastise anyone (for were I to do so, I would have to chastise myself first); nor are my critical comments offered in the rude spirit of condemnatory judgmentalism that, sadly, too often marks putative Orthodox traditionalism today. My purpose is to emphasize that, in seeking higher spiritual things with sometimes woefully immature zeal, we must constantly seek to refine ourselves, both spiritually and in our daily interactions with the world and with others. Never should we for­get the centrality, in our observance of the Faith, of good manners; of obeisance to our spiritual (and, indeed, social and political) superiors; of a sense of decorum; and of the ability to rise above, first, our own pettiness and, second, the smallness of our detractors, whether the meanness of the latter (or our own, for that matter) be motivated by jealousy, animus, de­monic energies of one kind or another, or the tragic tactics of contempo­rary Church politics and the human foibles and deficits that often mar and stain the honor of service to the Church. If we seek refinement as a first step in our higher spiritual pursuits, we will not only avoid the crude and fetid weaknesses to which I have referred, but we will, in fact, find that, in the same way that the ills of the body and soul are often intercon­nected (sometimes, by God’s Providence, in a positive way, at other times, because of our sins, in a negative way), so the external behaviors of the Christian often impede or enhance him in his search for virtue. Refine­ment can be a path to enlightenment: a first step, in the mundane realm, that can facilitate and foster spiritual growth.

Orthodox traditionalists have, for some curious reason, developed the perfidious idea that a genuine commitment to the Faith somehow makes them the “guardians” of that Faith, if not upholders and confes­sors of the Truth. Spouting with what is frequently disingenuous piety the admonitions and chastisements of the great Fathers and Confessors of Orthodoxy, but lacking the Grace and wisdom with which the Church Fathers utter such things, these unwisely zealous individuals create an im­age of crassitude and vulgarity that is wholly foreign to the refinement that characterizes the whole of the Orthodox Patristic tradition. Lacking charity, hospitality, and external social graces, they defile the very tradi­tions that they imagine themselves to be defending. Worse yet, they often appoint themselves public procurators of the Faith, imagining that, before correcting themselves and acknowledging their own sins, they have the right—and even responsibility—to act as investigators and judges of the clergy, their fellow believers, and the various “heretics” and “defilers of the Faith” upon whom, as one Saint expresses it, they presumptuously believe that they have the right to “rain down fire” from on high. They frequently go beyond criticism, beyond the sharpness of words sometimes needed to correct the errant, and become contumelious critics of everyone, using crude, insulting, and rude language from the streets in the name of the Faith. This lack of refinement is one of the telltale signs of spiritual imma­turity, of a lack of discernment and discretion, and of spiritual delusion. It is absolutely inconsistent with Orthodox observance and is characteristic of crass and uncouth behavior. It must be avoided if one wishes to pursue an observant Orthodox life.

Another divergence from observance which has become a part of so-called traditionalism is the habit of inquiring into the personal lives of others. Refined, civilized people are taught from their childhood not to stare at others in public, to mind to their own affairs, and not to be overly curious about the personal lives of others. Even the Church Can­ons advise us not to be overly curious about the “personal” failings of our Church leaders. Yet, in this age of the emergence of unrefined and ill-bred habits, not only are such standards of comportment ignored, but nosiness is widely accepted. Almost universally, people “Google” one another now­adays, trying to collect, in their voyeuristic perversity, information on oth­ers. And this is done in the Church, as well, as though some hypocritical “need to know” or the “right of the People of God” somehow negated the Lord’s message that such things should be of no concern to those whom He calls to “follow Me.” Psychologists and psychiatrists, in the context of their professional duties and in the defined arena of their offices, may have the right to pry into the personal affairs of others. But this, aside from entailing strict standards of confidentiality which, when violated, can lead to the suspension by state medical boards of one’s license to practice, is for the purpose of helping others and of curing their ills, and has nothing to do with prurient interest in the weaknesses and sins of one’s fellow man. The Christian is called to a different kind of therapy: that of covering the sins of others and of attending first and foremost to his own affairs, avoid­ing, as the Fathers advise us, the deadly sin of being overly curious about “our brother’s sins.” A sign of refined people is that they keep their private affairs to themselves and that they respect as sacred the privacy of others. This is also one of the marks of an observant traditionalist, despite the contrary behaviors that prevail among so-called traditionalists.

At a more mundane level, this forgoing refinement in behavior is accompanied by traits which observant Orthodox should pursue and cul­tivate, since they both support and reflect proper demeanor. An observant Orthodox Christian should constantly strive to live an enriching and el­evated life, reading good literature, listening to uplifting music, enjoying good art, and pursuing intelligent conversation. This applies not only to spiritual reading, Church psalmody, Iconography, and spiritual discourse, but also to the secular realm. Though a crude kind of anti-intellectual­ism has surfaced—and wholly improperly and inappropriately—in the Church under the guise of Orthodox observance and traditionalism, it behooves us to refine the mind and the intellect (the dianoetic faculty) with the same care with which we seek to develop our noetic or spiritual faculties. There is, of course, nothing demonic or “worldly” about good literature, classical music, traditional folk music, uplifting and inspiring art (including even some of the more tasteful traditions of modern art), or dressing and grooming oneself in a style which, while avoiding the ca­price of changing modes, excessive hair cutting and styling, and gaudy ornamentation, is attractive, dignified, classical, traditional, and modest (in terms of avoiding the accentuation of the body in a cheap and vulgar way). Quite to the contrary, these things can help develop one’s spiritual sensitivities. If there is anything demonic to be said about them, it is that demonic blindness can lead one to imagine that they are somehow evil or inappropriate, since their contribution to the refinement of the soul is so direct and indisputable, both from the psychological and spiritual standpoint. To be sure, attendance at concerts and dignified, sober en­tertainment are not evil; they can be beneficial to the soul. This is also true of other social activities, such as preparing and enjoying good meals, setting a proper table where they can be enjoyed, and engaging in social conversation in settings that are elevating and formal. These things are not invitations to gluttony and worldliness, but are, in fact, means by which these sins can be checked and monitored. An observant life in the Ortho­dox tradition calls us to raise ourselves up and to become noble, not only in spirit, but in our daily comportment and activities.

Aside from these general traits that the observant Orthodox tra­ditionalist should cultivate, there is a very specific activity which all Or­thodox—if not the heterodox population, as well—should avoid as de­structive to a refined way of life. It behooves even a marginally civilized individual to avoid the “public life” of the Internet, a wonderful contem­porary tool for intellectual resources, if rightly used, but an increasingly obscene and depraved public platform for discussion that is destroying minds and souls. On the Internet, one sees letters of condemnation, open attacks, references to matters that even two decades ago would have never have been mentioned—let alone discussed—in polite circles or in public, but which are now approached as though they were matters of perfect­ly upright concern. One encounters opinions expressed by persons who, were they under peer review or scrutiny, would, much to the benefit of society, never be heard. Individuals with no intellectual gifts whatsoever, no spiritual learning, and mediocre educational credentials, puffed up in their fantasies, put forth ideas that mislead their readers, introducing into the supposed body of knowledge, unfortunately, nonsense, inane specula­tion, and idiosyncratic personal views seldom worthy of a second thought, often while challenging sober spiritual voices or trained and competent scholars. Yet other contributors to the sewer of Internet gossip are beset by lascivious interests in the lives and affairs of others (Internet voyeurs and gossips); the mentally ill, sociopaths, borderline personalities seeking an identity in the relative anonymity of online “life,” and bored misfits, who can assail others with impunity in the fantasy world of cyberspace, hold court in various forums and lists, violating the protocols of civilized behavior and returning anyone who indulges or shares their mental and social deficits to the primitivism of what Darwinians would call pre-so­cial simianity. One cannot imagine the possibility of being an observant Orthodox traditionalist and participating in such things. Those who do, whether out of pathological interests or proclivities, or because they are addicted to the religious pornography of the Internet, are slowly destroy­ing their Orthodox consciences and confirming arguments for the social devolution of man.

At the level of confession, the deontic dimensions of living a life of observant traditionalism within Orthodoxy—both with regard to what one “should” and “should not” do—must center on religious tolerance within the context of preserving the integrity of our Faith and seeing, as the Sacred Canons dictate, that we do not compromise it in any way with an admixture of extraneous beliefs. We must develop the ability to stand firmly for the Faith, unmoved and unaffected by sophomoric babble about “official” Orthodoxy (a product of the religious syncretism and the hokey, superficial, and worldly spirit of the ecumenical movement), unafraid to diagnose heresy for what it is, but, at the same time, ready to call those in­fected by heresy to correct belief, though with­out calling them heretics and without insulting them. We should treat unbelievers respectfully, enlightening them by our love and our proper behavior. Above all, we must at all times avoid inflammatory fundamentalistic language, con­demning people to Hell, and dismissing the worth of those who believe differently than we. These are things foreign to the ethos of our Faith. In addition, we must be careful not to appear parochial and to preach provincial and reactive tribalism (passing as “triumphant ethnicity”) and exalt local ecclesiastical pre­rogatives borne of human pride (and, subcon­sciously, human inferiorities), thinking somehow that the weakness of our human affinities, which God allows to us by condescension, are of greater import than the catholicity of the Church. Finally, we should never ex­press our opinions about True Orthodoxy and observance in a contentious manner; rather, in following the Apostles Paul’s advice to St. Timothy, we must with inexorable patience “not strive, but be gentle unto all men.”

The refined life of Orthodox observance is not for those who are an­gry and aggressive, because we traditionalists must admit our weaknesses; it is not for those who would seek in the guise of traditionalism some path to importance or “special status”; and it is certainly not for those who feel that, in admitting, in their spiritual struggles, to being marred by uncleanliness and imperfection, flawed by sin, and burdened with heavy consciences, they have lost, rather than gained (as they have). It is a life for those who wish to begin the divine ascent without prerogatives, preten­sions, and presuppositions; for those who wish to prosper in spiritual pur­suits by refining, first, their minds, bodies, thoughts, and personal desires; and for those who, by becoming good and decent people, have stepped up on the first rung of the ladder of Divine ascent towards transformation or θέωσις, held above the ground of sin and ego by humble submission to Church law, to Holy Tradition, and to the guidance of those who, how­ever imperfect they themselves may be, call others to upright, moral, lofty, and observant external lives, that they might, by God’s Grace, ascend the ladder of the heart to the essence of existence, which lies in the inner life of the spirit. In response to those who spurn, dismiss, ridicule, or even de­spise this observant life, let us respond with the very refinement by which we are called to True Orthodoxy: with silence in the face of slander and personal attacks, commitment in reaction to condemnation, and firm but gentle confession in answering the prattle and deceitful words of any who would justify innovation and the abandonment of all that has, for two millennia, produced holiness and transformation in God.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Volume XXIV (2007), No. 1, pp. 21-27.

 

Father Ioakeim of Mount Athos (+March 8/21, 2003)

Archimandrite Sergios Gregoriosinaitis | March 11/24, 2003

[now Bishop Emeritus of Portland]

 

 

Monday in Saint Gregory Palamas week, the 24th (11th on the Church calendar) of March - and we are celebrating the Memorial Service for the renowned Athonite Elder and confessor, Archimandrite Ioakeim [Joachim] of St. Evthymios Skete in the desert at the end of the peninsula, next to the Cave of St. Neilos the Myrovlite, who reposed on Friday the 21st (8th).

I met Father Ioakeim in January 2000 under challenging circumstances. A blizzard had blown up after the small boat carrying me from Daphne to Kavsokalyvia had left port, and instead of disembarking at the Kavsokalyvia port, the boat discharged all passengers at the port of Katounakia, far distant from my intended destination. By the time I had clambered up a sharp ascent from sea level to the top of a rock face along lightly-indented steps cut into the rock, the snowfall was accumulating alarmingly, cutting off the mid-afternoon light and leaving me wondering when - and eventually if - I would find shelter before sundown locked all the gates on Athos.

And, although I arrived after sundown, the famous zealot Skete of Saint Basil had left its gate open, and took me in, finding room in an upstairs hall usually occupied by one of the many young novices crowding this small facility in recent years. More than half the monks living on Athos live in the deserts, not in the ruling monasteries, and the vast majority of the desert-dwelling monks will not commemorate the ecumenist Patriarch of Constantinople, a matter which divides the contemporary Athonite community tragically.

By morning, the snowfall was a meter deep on average, and the Skete Fathers forbade me to attempt to continue my journey. But by 8 am I had convinced them that the inexorabilities of a fixed-date airline return ticket necessitated my attempting to move on and, promising to return at the first sign of trouble, fortified by toast and jam and raki, and several cups of hot "nes", the updated form of coffee on the Holy Mountain, I set out, arriving at the katholikon of the great Kavsokalyvia settlement on the eve of the Feast of Saint Maximos of Kavsokalyvia, whose intense freedom from attachment to the comforts of this world took the form that gives the settlement its name - he periodically burned down the hut he happened to be living in, with all its contents (they could not have been many, given the austerity of this monk) and moved on.

He had lived around these steep, forbidding parts in the 14th century, he was a contemporary of our Saint Gregory of Sinai, and a famous conversation held by these two great hesychasts, recorded by a disciple, forms part of our modern Philokalia. I spent the festal eve with the Fathers of this Skete, well-supplied with a feast prepared for an expected 100 pilgrims, none of whom came given the storm, and slept in a large guest dormitory - also well furnished for the multitudes - by myself. Early the next morning, after the Liturgy and another overly-laden table, I went to a cave once inhabited (and not burnt!) by Saint Maximos, and thence on to the Skete of Saint Evthymios, laden with greetings from a monk in Boston who had lived with Father Ioakeim for some time, and with other greetings and gifts.

Father Ioakeim was ill when I arrived but insisted on sitting up in the spartan arkhondariki - the guest reception room - in a very small, dilapidated stone building, in process of rehabilitation by the 4 or 5 young monks and novices who formed his Brotherhood. While reduced to a real minimum of elaboration, the building, its rooms and furnishings were scrupulously clean and the small guest area, accommodating 5 guests in a single, and two bunk beds, was thankfully supplied with a small wood stove to take the damp chill out of the low-ceilinged room in the evening.

The first thing one noticed about the Elder was his voice - clearly coming from within and, at the same time, in a most amazing way, coming from a place not within himself - truly a voice from another age. He was entirely calm at all times, and fixed his attention both on the Skete's daily program of activities, and on its guest, and at the same time, on a deeper level, his attention was always clearly somewhere else. It was an entirely wonderful 2 hours' conversation, made more wondrous by his strange gift for making himself understood to someone not fluent in Greek.

Father Ioakeim was a strikingly handsome old man, and shows up here and there in the standard photograph books on Athos - twice in a volume called "Athonite Moments" published in German and English, on page 101 (over the caption, "Fromme Gestalt - A Saintly image") and on page 196 (over the caption, "Asketen" - "Ascetics"). The photographs are accurate and show a face dominated by large, ikonic eyes, just as he really was in life, his austere face framed with a great white beard and hair. The photographer saw what truly was to be found in that face, in those eyes - meekness, humility, charity, and the courage that these virtues engender - a face, really, on which is written St. John of Sinai's wonder-working book "The Ladder of Divine Ascent", a face on which is imprinted the Gospel, for which he had ears with which to hear. What the photos do not capture is the transparency of the face and hands.

Any who can consult these books will also see, in the photo on page 196, one of his own monks, in fact his eldest monastic son, Father Evthymios, to the far left (the other two are neatly-attired visitors from elsewhere) and it was the vigourous Monk Evthymios who acted as my guide to the immediate region of St. Evthymios Skete, taking me on a hair-raising climb down into the Cave of Saint Neilos the Myrovlite on my first two visits, he skipping like a goat, and me lagging far behind in vertiginous terror at the great height of the place, and the sheer drop into the sea.

In discussions of the contemporary crisis in the Church at large and on Athos, Father Ioakeim was dispassionate, never evincing the slightest anger or passion of any kind, but maintaining always a complete and, one could say, saturated peace, reminding me of that peace in the heart spoken of by Saint Seraphim of Sarov. When mention was made of some clear breach of faith on the part of Bishops or Athonites still claiming the name of Orthodoxy while embracing the heresy of ecumenism, he would merely gesture quietly heavenward with his hand and, pointing there, say in the mildest voice, "O Theos" (God), or again, "God will judge".

When a currently-famous remark of a well-known Elder, to the effect that the Virgin Mary had advised the man, in a vision, to support the program of the current Ecumenical Patriarch, Father Ioakeim said, again in an entirely uncombative voice but with firmness and with the complete confidence that comes only from an authentically humble heart, "Psemmata" (Lies), as the content of this well-known tale was repeated, clearly not for the first time, in his hearing. It was very odd to hear such a strong word of condemnation spoken with a complete absence of rancour, bitterness or anger: it was not only Father Ioakeim's face that was "ikonic"!

Father Ioakeim had a great respect for the founder of the venerable monastery in Boston, Holy Transfiguration - Archimandrite Panteleimon - and spoke of his remarkable achievement in founding a truly Athonite house in the uncongenial environment of the contemporary, paganized culture of the U.S. He was particularly concerned that his admiration and support for Father Panteleimon and his work be realized.

I visited again in January of 2001, and last year in July. With each visit, I became more familiar with this small, intense community, some of whom hailed from traditional Orthodox families in villages, and two of whom were the sons of new calendarist families in Thessaloniki. Quiet, self-effacing, given to the hard work days required for survival in the desert of the Athonite peninsula, without self-pity or sentimental expression, an air of quiet, sober joy permeated the place where prayer without ceasing reigned in the hearts of all who dwelt there.

When, a few years ago, Father Ioakeim made the demanding trek from his Skete to Great Lavra, from which the Skete is leased, to have his youngest monk written in according to Athonite custom, the Fathers at Great Lavra refused to accept the name, as the policies of the current Ecumenical Patriarch harden against those who will not commemorate the name of an ecumenist Ecumenical Patriarch. Father Ioakeim shrugged peacefully, turned and said to the young monk, "Well, the Panagia will write you in" and they departed, after venerating the relics in the Katholikon.

What will now be the fate of these young, dedicated monks of true confession, in the increasingly rigidly-polarized world of the Holy Mountain?

Perhaps they will be allowed to continue their lives in this historic Skete. One of the factors motivating commemorating ruling monasteries to allow zealot, non-commemorators to inhabit their sketes, kellia and hesychastiria, is the fact that the zealots take very good care of the ruling monasteries' far-flung properties, rehabilitating them and providing an otherwise economically-unattainable work-force, in the long run, improving the monastery's assets.

Another is the fact that even within the ruling monasteries' in-house communities, there is almost everywhere a significant population in overt or covert sympathy with the zealots' position on the matter of syncretist-ecumenism. The cold expulsion of a small house of zealots can have a disproportionally disruptive effect on the home community, and simply not be worth the trouble.

But finally, the pressure to expel numbers of zealot Athonite Fathers into mainland Greece may also be restrained by memories of the 1920's, when the expulsion of the first generation of so-called "old calendarists" into Greece merely spread the cause of rejecting the uncalled-for - and already often ecclesiastically-condemned, and deeply-divisive - new calendar across the nation. No government in Athens is openly courting the galvanizing of one of the country's most significant, if also most unreported and unacknowledged fissures, especially in times that daily seem more unsettled, above all for a country in as vulnerable a position geographically, socially, economically and politically - not to mention spiritually - as contemporary Greece.

"As God wills", would say the newly-reposed confessor of the faith, and, "God will judge". "Aionia i mnimi tou", we sing in the Memorial Service - "Eternal be his memory". There will be many who, having sung that, will be quickly seeking the intercessions of this dispassionate, confessing monk, this quiet zealot who, already in this earthly life, was a truly heavenly man.

 

Source: https://www.gsinai.com/articles?offset=1124688900000

 

Poisonings in the Russian Church Abroad

Konstantin Preobrazhensky | May 8, 2007

 

 

The absorption of the Church Abroad by Chekist Moscow carries a persistent whiff of criminality. Kremlin intelligence killed quite a few priests of the Church Abroad, and indeed the very best ones.

The first part of this article spoke of the murder of the Russian priest of the Church Abroad, Archpriest Lev Lebedev, at its New York Synod in May 1998. A few hours after delivering an exposé there about the red Moscow Patriarchate, he was found dead.

Former cell-attendant of Metropolitan Vitaly, Fr. Paul Ivashevich, is convinced that Archpriest Lebedev was poisoned.

In 1986 Fr. Paul Ivashevich himself mistakenly ate poisoned food intended for Metropolitan Vitaly, whom the Kremlin also greatly disliked, and whom it subsequently got rid of through its agents in the Synod. At that time Fr. Paul lost consciousness, and the Russian doctor who was called to him confirmed poisoning. Fortunately, Fr. Paul was nineteen years old at the time, and his young body coped with the poisoning. But he still did not fully recover: to this day Fr. Paul has to take stomach medication. At that time he was ordered to keep silent about this incident.

In 1970, a priest of the Australian-New Zealand Diocese of the Church Abroad, Vladimir Evsyukov, accidentally witnessed a certain Soviet intelligence operation at the customs office in the Australian city of Melbourne. Fr. Vladimir worked there part-time when he was free from church services; after all, many priests from poor parishes of the Church Abroad had to seek additional income.

Had he been a professional counterintelligence officer, he would immediately have reported it to the proper authorities and kept his mouth shut before everyone else. But Fr. Vladimir was simply a priest, and therefore he told many of his fellow clergy, and even the bishop, about what he had seen, and only after that went to the police.

But the KGB agent network acted quickly, and Fr. Vladimir Evsyukov’s car was rammed by another car. After this, its driver approached Fr. Vladimir, who was still alive, and performed some sort of manipulations on him. Fr. Vladimir was found with his hand stretched out toward a small icon of Blessed Xenia. Neither this car nor its driver was ever found by the Australian police. I think he was one of the Soviet illegal intelligence officers, an officer of Directorate “S” of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB. Who knows, perhaps I later met him there at festive gatherings...

At that same time, in the 1970s, killers from the KGB chased Deacon Peter Golofaev of the Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ in Buenos Aires through the streets. Born in 1921 in the Donbas into the family of a repressed entrepreneur, he was a descendant of the tsarist general Golofaev, under whom M. Yu. Lermontov had served. A convinced anti-Soviet, Pyotr Kirillovich during the years of the Second World War created an armed detachment for the struggle against communism, the “Hunting Detachment,” which later retreated with the German army and merged into the 5th Regiment of General Shteifon’s Russian Corps.

Deacon Golofaev knew that in the “socialist homeland” he had been sentenced to be shot, and therefore he was always on guard. He immediately recognized the Soviet killers by their clothing in the Argentine crowd, broke free, and escaped from them after they had encircled him as he was getting off a bus. He managed to save himself, but when he returned home, he found a poisoned needle in the folds of his leather coat.

In 1975, Bishop Dionisy of Rotterdam of the MP died in Holland. Shortly before his death, he gathered Dutch journalists and informed them that he was leaving the MP and transferring to the Church Abroad. The occasion was the public statements of the Soviet Patriarch Pimen that people in the USSR were not persecuted for their faith.

Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh, in everyday life a most intelligent and charming man, had a strange connection with his death. During the Second World War he fought in the ranks of the French partisans, the Maquis, who were subordinate to the French Communist Party and the NKVD. At the end of the war, Soviet intelligence officers made contact with him and advised him to establish a patriarchal parish in London, so that, using material from confessions, he could report to the NKVD on the attitudes of the White émigrés. The future Metropolitan Bloom agreed and very soon was made a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This case was told to me by the well-known English church writer Vladimir Moss. Shortly before the death of Bishop Dionisy of Rotterdam, Metropolitan Anthony told Vladimir Moss’s wife, Olga, that he was compelled to go to Holland in order to punish Bishop Dionisy for having caused a serious crisis in the Church.

And a few days later Olga Moss herself ended up in Holland and even met with Bishop Dionisy’s cell-attendant, Fr. Arseny. In tears, he told her that he had left the bishop alone for only a few hours after the Liturgy in order to go visit her parents, and when he returned, he found him dead.

“And do you know that Metropolitan Anthony visited Bishop Dionisy then?” Olga Moss asked.

“I had no idea!” Fr. Arseny admitted in horror.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh was a professional surgeon. God alone knows how he used his skill on Bishop Dionisy of Rotterdam. But it can be asserted that this most intelligent man was also a KGB militant.

However, the most sensational event of this kind was the murder of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret, in 1985. A convinced anti-communist and anti-Soviet, an irreconcilable opponent of any rapprochement with the red Soviet church, he was a thorn in the side of the KGB.

Judge for yourselves how prophetic his words about the MP proved to be, sounding from far-off 1980:

“But it is not true Orthodoxy that is spreading there. There the Russian people, under the guise of Orthodoxy, are being offered Bulgakovism, Berdyaevism, and other nonsense of the Eulogian schism; there, sects are flourishing luxuriantly — Baptists and the like. The official Church preaches cooperation with the God-fighting authority, praising it in every way. The True Orthodox Church has gone into the catacombs — hidden from the masses of the people... Is this the ‘rebirth of Orthodoxy’?”

THE UNFAITHFUL SON — FATHER POTAPOV

The words cited above are taken from a letter of Metropolitan Philaret to Fr. Victor Potapov, the current rector of St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Washington and the main engine behind the transfer of the Church Abroad under Moscow’s authority. At that time, in the stagnant and gloomy year 1980, Fr. Victor Potapov declared that Russia was rising from the dead and that Orthodoxy was being reborn in it. In that year I already held a solid post in the KGB and knew perfectly well that Orthodoxy was under our strict control and that there could be no question of any rebirth of it.

Soviet reality provided no facts that could have moved Fr. Victor to such a conclusion. Such a conclusion could only have been suggested to him by Soviet comrades-communists. Yes, precisely by them, since non-communists were not allowed to travel abroad, although nowadays it is not customary to recall this. Therefore, Soviet communists were already working with Fr. Victor at that time. You will agree that in more than a quarter of a century, something could be achieved.

In this same letter Metropolitan Philaret reproached Fr. Victor for having begun to commemorate one of the Soviet hierarchs at the Great Entrance. His name is unknown to me, but this hierarch was surely a KGB agent, like all his other colleagues, and perhaps even a member of the CPSU, because the upper ranks of the Patriarchate had party cards.

Metropolitan Philaret categorically forbade not only prayerful communion with the Soviet church, but even everyday contacts with “Soviet people.” He, as well as Metropolitan Vitaly, who succeeded him as First Hierarch, objected to Fr. Victor Potapov’s unauthorized trips to the USSR as a correspondent for Voice of America, and even, as they say, intended to bring him before an ecclesiastical court.

Both metropolitans cannot be denied discernment. For upon arriving in the USSR, Fr. Victor fell entirely into the hands of only one agency, which was permitted to deal with representatives of the “anti-Soviet émigré center,” as the Church Abroad was called in the USSR. For all other citizens of the USSR, such contact was dangerous.

This agency, however one looks at it, was called the Committee for State Security, and not the Moscow Patriarchate or Intourist at all. Not only the MP hierarchs with whom Fr. Victor associated were from the KGB, but also the chambermaids and drivers, as well as those who did not come into Fr. Victor’s sight: officers of the external surveillance service who tracked his every step, the telephone operators of the OTU, the Operational-Technical Directorate of the KGB, who listened in on his telephone conversations, and the young smirking officers of that same directorate who observed Fr. Victor through the peephole in the ceiling of his hotel room. In KGB language this is called measure “O.”

And if one adds to this the officers on Lubyanka who kept his dossier, and the chiefs who placed resolutions on it and reported to Andropov, then it becomes clear that every visit of Fr. Victor to the Soviet Union provided work for a multitude of “fighters of the invisible front.” By now his dossier already occupies several bookcases. I wonder what Fr. Victor’s pseudonym in the KGB is?

And he has one, since it was forbidden to use the real surname of an object of operational development. I am also certain that this pseudonym is mockingly contemptuous and on the borderline of decency, so that even before reading the operational-development file, the chief would understand what sort of person it concerned.

For every anti-Soviet émigré who arrived in the USSR, an operational-development file was opened. Such a file is opened only on enemies of the state. For those merely suspected of hostility, a softer operational-check file is opened. That can still be closed.

But an operational-development file is the second and final stage of the KGB’s interest in a person. It can end only in recruitment or arrest. Yes, it can also be closed, but then its authors risk a reprimand. The KGB had no intention of passively observing Fr. Victor for twenty-five years; after all, one has to receive decorations sometime. Both the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, intelligence, and the Second, counterintelligence, and the Fifth, the struggle against religion, surely took part in his development. Everyone wanted to get hold of the fat American chick.

Yes, precisely an American one, and not Russian at all. The bureaucratic state of the Russian Federation determines a person’s nationality exclusively by passport, and not by whom he considers himself to be.

To the disappointment of numerous Russian émigrés who are American admirers of the Russian Federation, mostly elderly and never having lived in Russia, I wish to report that the Russian Federation state also considers them only Americans.

It is precisely for this reason that the idea of this pseudo-national commonality is now being energetically implanted among the Russian émigrés by the KGB agent network. Here one can often hear the following idea: let us first unite with our Russian brothers in the bosom of the Church, and then we will explain to them where they are wrong. Alas, respected gentlemen — but certainly not comrades, as people in the Russian Federation still address one another — no one will listen to you! They do not need overseas Soviet sympathizers!

I am certain that the fact that Fr. Victor Potapov was under KGB operational development for more than a quarter of a century has somehow escaped the attention of the American authorities, with their inappropriate political correctness. Soviet intelligence, on the contrary, surrounds with severe suspicion those who consort with Americans, even for work. Therefore we, its officers, were afraid to make the acquaintance of an American abroad one time too many, since this threatened us with just such a stamp in our personnel file: “Was under CIA development.” This predetermined the end of one’s career. The KGB is much stricter with its own personnel than the CIA.

It is especially important to understand this because Fr. Victor Potapov is an American government employee. I think he has access to secrets. He has access both to the White House and to other important government institutions. The instinct of a former assistant to the chief of Soviet intelligence tells me that there Fr. Victor presents the surrender of the Church Abroad to Chekist Moscow as some subtle operation beneficial to America. Supposedly, the Church Abroad will put pressure on the Patriarchate, and the Patriarchate on Putin, and... Alas, his words are received there with enthusiasm.

The re-education of Putin is a favorite project of the Americans. They think that he does not understand all the advantages of Western democracy, and they try with all their might to explain them to him. But in reality, the transfer of the Church Abroad under the authority of the neo-Stalinist Putin state brings America no advantages. On the contrary, it creates a powerful threat to its national security. Now Putin’s intelligence service is no longer afraid to kill U.S. citizens on the streets of Washington. I wonder whether this will finally sober up the American authorities.

Fr. Victor Potapov benefits from the ambiguity of the historical moment, which the Soviet satirists Ilf and Petrov in the 1920s characterized thus: “The era of silent cinema has ended, but the era of sound cinema has not yet begun.” The Russian Federation is already loudly calling America enemy number one, yet America still considers the Russian Federation a friend. But if Fr. Victor were a citizen of the Russian Federation and worked just as openly for America, he would long ago have been imprisoned here for about fifteen years, like Doctor of Sciences Igor Sutyagin and other pro-Western intellectuals.

THE MURDER OF METROPOLITAN PHILARET

The Committee for State Security had long been closing in on Metropolitan Philaret. In the early 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned him that the Soviets were planning to shoot him during the Paschal procession. The Metropolitan nevertheless went out for the procession, but young subdeacons covered him with their bodies, and many Russian émigrés later wondered why Bishop Philaret could not be seen.

In 1984, in the icon-case of the myrrh-streaming Montreal Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, now lost, a listening device was found, disguised as several electric batteries. Experts from the American special services, summoned by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), testified to this.

But why did this fact not become public knowledge? Who benefited from hushing it up, apart from the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation? After all, it was listening to all the conversations held in the Synod meeting hall! And only KGB agents who had access to that hall could have placed those batteries in the precious icon-case.

And then the tragic day of November 19, 1985 arrived. Metropolitan Philaret and all the bishops were poisoned at the meal. All except one, Hilarion, who dined separately. However, the doctor who was called for some reason diagnosed influenza, not poisoning.

Protodeacon Nikita Chakirov, Metropolitan Philaret’s cell-attendant, was also declared ill by him. For sanitary reasons he was strictly forbidden to go up to the metropolitan’s quarters. Thus Bishop Philaret was left there alone for the whole night. There was also not a soul on the entire floor of the Synod building. Nothing like this had ever happened in the whole history of the Church Abroad.

Needless to say, the next morning Bishop Philaret was found dead. He was lying on the floor, and there were traces of vomit all around. They could have indicated poisoning and provided invaluable material in establishing the causes of death.

At the cry of Fr. Nikita Chakirov, who discovered the body, Bishop Hilarion came running — both then and now openly working for Moscow. The first thing he did was send the cell-attendant away. As many émigrés told me, after this he carefully washed the floor, moved the metropolitan’s body onto the bed, and only then called the doctor. Naturally, the doctor certified death from cardiac arrest.

Fifteen years later, Metropolitan Philaret’s tomb was opened, and everyone saw that his relics were incorrupt. Many believers demanded canonization, but power in the Church Abroad had already been seized by Moscow’s appointees. Metropolitan Laurus ordered the relics to be buried and even added the blasphemous phrase that “let him rot like everyone else.” He even forbade the circulation of photographs of Metropolitan Philaret’s incorrupt relics.

A. G. Shatilova, the daughter of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and his longtime assistant in secretarial work at the Synod, told me that shortly before his repose, Bishop Philaret learned that the bishops close to him were deceiving him. Taking advantage of his lack of knowledge of the English language, they slipped him the wrong documents to sign, taking advantage of his lack of knowledge of the English language.

The bishop intended to denounce and even remove certain bishops. But, as usual, death washed away all traces.

The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church glorified Metropolitan Philaret among the saints. Spontaneous veneration of him also exists among the parishioners of the still-existing Church Abroad.

The question is: why is the Church Abroad uniting with its own murderers?

 

Russian source:

https://www.kavkazcenter.com/russ/content/2007/05/08/50882/otravleniya-v-russkoj-zarubezhnoj-tserkvi.shtml