MP Commentator: On the 20th Anniversary of ROCOR’s “Suspension” of Eucharistic Communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarists

Alexey Rodinov | September 6, 2026

 

 

On September 6, 2006, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR adopted a resolution suspending communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist Churches. I will quote from the book by Andrei Kostryukov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, published in 2024, “History of the Russian Church Abroad (1920–2007): A Textbook”:

The severance of ROCOR’s communion with the Old Calendarist groups in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania was one of the principal conditions set by the Moscow Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarchate’s commission proposed that the Church Abroad approach the hierarchy of the Old Calendarist communities with a proposal to reconsider their relations with the Local Churches in whose territories they operated and to begin negotiations on communion. For its part, the Moscow Patriarchate was prepared to appeal to the heads of the Local Churches to enter into negotiations in a spirit of economia. The letter drafted by ROCOR was approved at the meetings of the commissions and sent to the addressees. No reply was received—the Old Calendarist groups’ opposition to the negotiations between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR was well known. Moreover, the problem in the relations between the Old Calendarist groups and their respective Local Churches concerned not only, and not so much, the calendar as ecumenism and modernism.

Since 2001, the Greek “Synod in Resistance” under Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) had repeatedly addressed ROCOR with objections to its rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate. After negotiations began in 2004, Metropolitan Laurus’s name was removed from the diptychs of the “Synod in Resistance,” and in October 2005 it adopted a decision “to sever ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia completely and decisively.” However, this decision was communicated to the Church Abroad only on December 5, 2005. For its part, on December 8, 2005, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR decided to suspend communion with the “Synod in Resistance” pending a decision on the matter by the Council of Bishops. The question of continued communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarists also needed to be resolved. It was psychologically difficult for the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad to sever relations with them. (Kostryukov, A. A. History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1920–2007: A Textbook. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2024, pp. 418–419.)

At its regular meeting held in New York from February 21 to 23, 2006, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR adopted, among others, the following resolution:

Having heard the report of Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, His Eminence the President and the Right Reverend members of the Synod of Bishops expressed satisfaction with the work accomplished by this commission during the intervening period, as well as gratitude to its members for their labors. The Synod of Bishops decided to express special gratitude to Mitred Archpriest George Larin and Ekaterina Yuryevna Larina and their assistants for their labors and efforts in arranging the latest joint meeting of the church commissions, held at the Church of the Protection of the Mother of God in Nyack.

On February 21 [2006], the Synod of Bishops considered the latest letter from Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili and the Holy “Synod in Resistance,” which announced that their Holy Synod had resolved to terminate completely and decisively all ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Church Abroad. According to this letter, the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, “was removed from the diptychs” last year. In view of this, the Synod of Bishops resolved to recognize communion with the “Synod in Resistance,” presided over by Metropolitan Cyprian, as severed. The Primates of the Old Calendarist Churches of Romania and Bulgaria will be informed of this through a clergyman of the Russian Church Abroad dispatched for this purpose. (Source)

On April 20, 2006, an official report on this trip to Romania and Bulgaria appeared on the official website of the ROCOR Synod. But since Archpriest Alexander Lebedev knows neither the local languages nor the realities of church life in Romania and Bulgaria, I had to make corrections to the text, rectifying obvious errors in names and place names, adjusting the style here and there, and adding explanations [in square brackets]:

In accordance with a resolution of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev was sent to Romania and Bulgaria for official meetings with the Primates of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist Churches. On the way, at the direction of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev visited Switzerland, where he met with His Grace Bishop Ambrose [Cantacuzène] of Vevey and gave His Grace a detailed report on the progress of negotiations with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev arrived in Romania on Monday, April 10 [2006], where he was met at Bucharest Airport by Archimandrite Cyprian, abbot of the Old Calendarist monastery in Galata [a historic district of the city of Iași]. From there they traveled to the Moldavian region of Romania, to the town of Fălticeni, arriving that evening at the home of the local parish priest, Archpriest Vasile Sandu. After viewing the very beautiful church, Mitred Archpriest Alexander and those accompanying him went to the rector’s house, where His Eminence Metropolitan Vlasie [Mogârzan], Primate of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church, arrived shortly afterward.

The meeting with Metropolitan Vlasie, conducted through Archimandrite Cyprian as interpreter, who has a good command of English, lasted almost four hours and took place in a spirit of respect and mutual understanding. Mitred Archpriest Alexander acquainted His Eminence with the contents of the letter addressed to him by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and signed by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and heard his response, which expressed the position of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church. The rector of Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles answered His Eminence Metropolitan Vlasie’s questions about the work of the commissions conducting negotiations between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Metropolitan Vlasie asked that his gratitude be conveyed to His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad for approaching him through a personal representative of the Synod of Bishops, and said that he would soon send an official reply to their letter. A second official meeting, this time with other members of the Synod of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church participating, was scheduled for the following morning, Tuesday, April 11, at Slătioara Monastery.

During the day, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, accompanied by Archimandrite Cyprian, visited several parish churches in Romanian Moldavia, as well as the Convent of the Protection of the Mother of God in Brădățel, where he met with the superior, Abbess Barbara. He also met that day with two other hierarchs of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church, Bishops Pahomie [Morar] and Demostene [Ioniță]. On the way back to Bucharest, Father Alexander and Father Cyprian passed an enormous equestrian monument to the Russian general Suvorov, who is greatly revered in Romania.

Arriving in Bucharest late that evening, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to attend the nighttime service at the Old Calendarist monastery of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, where, according to the typikon, the Midnight Office and Matins begin at precisely midnight. On the morning of Wednesday, April 12, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to tour the monastery and its working facilities. The monastery has a workshop for cutting and polishing marble and granite, fully equipped with modern machinery. The monks produce components for churches under construction, as well as cemetery monuments.

At midday, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev took a short flight from Romania to Bulgaria, where he was met at Sofia Airport by the rassophore monk Panteleimon. Father Alexander was touched to see that a large building at the airport exit bore the Church Slavonic word “Mitnitsa.” This is the local customs office, where, evidently, “publicans” continue to work to this day.

Upon arriving at the episcopal residence on the outskirts of Sofia, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev was welcomed by His Grace Bishop Photii [Siromahov] of Triaditsa, Primate of the Bulgarian Old Calendarist Church, who speaks excellent Russian. The formal discussion was scheduled for the following morning. There were, however, several opportunities to speak with Bishop Photii informally. During the official meeting on Thursday, April 13, the secretary of the commission for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate read aloud and delivered the letter addressed to His Grace Bishop Photii by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and signed by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and listened to Bishop Photii’s thoughts on its contents.

The meeting with His Grace Bishop Photii took place in a spirit of sincerity and mutual understanding. His Grace Bishop Photii expressed his gratitude to His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad for approaching him through a personal representative of the Synod of Bishops. He asked that it be conveyed that he would closely follow the decisions of the forthcoming Fourth All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia immediately following it, on the basis of which he would make his own decision.

In the afternoon, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to visit some of the sights of the Bulgarian capital, including the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. In the crypt of this exceptionally beautiful prerevolutionary church lies the tomb of the ever-memorable Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), who reposed in blessedness in 1950. Archbishop Seraphim is deeply venerated among the Bulgarian people, and crowds come every day to pray at his tomb and leave little notes with their prayer requests.

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev also had the opportunity to visit Bulgaria’s principal church—the Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky, built as a memorial church to the Russian people and especially to Tsar Alexander II, the Liberator. The cathedral stands on the central square, opposite an enormous equestrian monument to Tsar Alexander II, at the foot of which is a large inscription: “To the Tsar Liberator, from Grateful Bulgaria.” The main street itself is called “Tsar Osvoboditel Boulevard” [Boulevard of the Tsar Liberator]. In the crypt of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral is a magnificent permanent exhibition of Bulgarian icons and church furnishings dating from the tenth century to recent times.

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to attend services at the monastery attached to the episcopal residence, as well as at the large Old Calendarist Cathedral [of the Dormition] in Sofia. After the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on Friday, April 14, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev set out on his return journey via London to Los Angeles, arriving in time for the All-Night Vigil on the eve of Palm Sunday. (Source)

Note that Archpriest Alexander Lebedev merely “visited” and “was present” at services in Romania and Bulgaria, but never once concelebrated. In other words, communion had already been severed de facto by that point. There was, however, no talk yet of contacts with the New Calendarist Romanian and Bulgarian Churches. Bishop Photii (Siromahov) spoke about this meeting in November 2006 in far less diplomatic terms:

Unfortunately, the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate proceeded entirely along a single track, on a basis wholly unacceptable from the standpoint of a consistent and principled Orthodox ecclesial consciousness. I stated this in an appropriate manner, but quite openly, to the official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, who visited our Church in April of this year to inform us officially of the progress of the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. It is obvious that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia itself will break off relations with us, perhaps without even announcing this officially: only yesterday we were, in its eyes, a sister Church with which it enjoyed full ecclesiastical communion, while tomorrow we will be, in its eyes, a sectarian, schismatic gathering outside the Church, because it will enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and, through it, with all the other Local Churches. We remain firm in our positions, while the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in the person of its hierarchy, is changing its position by 180 degrees. (Source)

In his letter to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated June 29, 2007, the tone was even sharper:

“As for me personally, during our official conversation, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev asked me directly how I viewed the possibility of heading an Old Calendarist diocese incorporating all our parishes, churches, and monasteries within the Bulgarian Patriarchate. I replied that such an approach was unacceptable to me in principle, since it transfers the logic of Latin uniatism onto Orthodox soil, especially since, for our Church, the criterion for establishing Eucharistic communion concerns the confession of faith and spiritual substance, rather than mere administrative form—as though our incorporation into a patriarchate engulfed in profound processes of apostasy would ipso facto transform us from ‘schismatics’ into ‘canonical members of the Church.’” (Source)

Meanwhile, in May 2006, the Fourth All-Diaspora Council took place, followed by the Council of Bishops of ROCOR, after which the restoration of Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate became inevitable. It is highly revealing that at the Fourth All-Diaspora Council there were not only no representatives of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist Churches, but not even [any mention] of them. They seemed to have been completely forgotten… And yet it remained unclear how to proceed with them. After all, one could hardly pretend that “nothing had happened” between 1992 and 2006! But the Synod of ROCOR had no intention of “repenting” of its ties with a “sectarian, schismatic gathering” either. Nor does it intend to do so even now.

Here I once again give the floor to Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov:

“Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) proposed a way out. In June 2006, during a meeting with the commissions, he advised the Church Abroad not to announce a break with the Old Calendarist Churches, but to declare a suspension of communion with them until they regularized their relations with the Local Churches in their respective countries. The Synod of Bishops of ROCOR heeded this advice and, on September 6, 2006, adopted a resolution suspending communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist groups. Thus, one of the last obstacles on the path to unity with the Moscow Patriarchate was removed.” (Kostryukov, A. A. History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1920–2007: A Textbook. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2024, p. 419.)

It is particularly noteworthy that neither the Bulgarian nor the Romanian “Old Calendarist groups” were officially notified of this decision. Apparently, it was assumed that everyone read ROCOR’s official website. But, as it turned out, this was not the case: “By its decision of September 6/August 24, 2006, the Synod of ROCOR resolved to terminate ecclesiastical communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches without notifying the Primate of the Bulgarian Old Calendarist Orthodox Church either in writing or orally. Bishop Photii learned of this act of the Synod of ROCOR almost six months later from other sources.” (Source). It is difficult even to say whether this was forgetfulness or deliberate distancing. In either case, however, it reveals an obvious lack of professionalism on the part of ROCOR’s Synodal Chancery.

Here is something else of interest that turned up about the Romanian Old Calendarists. This message was written in English by Archpriest Alexander Lebedev on May 8, 2008, in the private Yahoo group orthodox-tradition:

Perhaps it would be interesting to members of the list to note that the Romanian Old Calendarist Church under Metropolitan Vlasie has a very good relationship and long-standing with the Moscow Patriarchate -- in fact, by mutual agreement, all of the future Romanian Old Calendarist clergy receive their theological education at the Kishinev Seminary in Moldova, which is under the Moscow Patriarchate.

When I was sent by the Synod of Bishops in 2006 to meet with Metropolitan Vlasie, I met quite a number of priests and seminarians, who all had spent, or were spending five years at the Moscow Patriarchate Seminary in Moldavia (where all of the instruction is in Romanian).

During their Seminary years, they all participated fully in the life of the Seminary, receiving Holy Communion there, and, as is usual in Seminaries, in their final year, they were tonsured Reader by a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, and then would return to Romania and be ordained by Metropolitan Vlasie or another of his bishops and sent to serve in parishes.

This arrangement has been going on for years.

Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk, the Head of the Department of External Relations of the MP, told me that the Moscow Patriarchate thinks quite highly of the Romanian Old Calendarists, and respects them for their dedication to tradition (remember, the MP is staunchly Old Claendar [sic]), and their standing up against the ecumenical excesses of the Romanian Patriarchal Church.

It should also be remembered that the Moscow Patriarchate has extremely strained relations with the Romanian Patriarchal Church for another reason -- the Romanian Church has set up a parallel ecclesiastical structure in Moldova, which the Russian Church considers its canonical territory.  (Source)

It is a pity that the Romanian Old Calendarist Church lost its former sobriety of judgment and slid into Matthewism. Perhaps the reason is that, since opening in 1991, Chișinău Theological Seminary has never been distinguished by a high standard of education… Nevertheless, even after the official break, the two sides continued to correspond…

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/484974.html

 

The Infallibility of the Orthodox Church: “Concluding Remarks”

Source: The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, by Stylianos Harkianakis (future Archbishop of Australia and infamous ecumenist), published by ATF Press and St. Andrew’s Orthodox Press, Adelaide, Australia, 2008, pp. 245-250. From the author’s 1965 doctoral dissertation on ecclesial infallibility, in which he refutes the errors of Roman Catholicism and Russian theologian A.S. Khomiakov (+1860) on the issue of infallibility.

 

 

Briefly summarising all the findings made in this entire work on the subject of the infallibility of the Church, we are now in a position to write the following points in the form of logical outcomes:

I. The infallibility of the Church constitutes, both from a subjective as well as from an objective viewpoint of religion, the most central postulate and the most essential presupposition not only for the correct meaning of the religion of revelation par excellence, namely Christianity, but also for its purpose, so that, as the visible Church, it may guide the human person to the truth and salvation brought about by the incarnate Logos and Son of God.

II. The presuppositions of the infallibility of the Church, as an article of faith, are provided gradually, already from the very early sources of divine revelation; but this truth of the infallibility in the Church is testified clearly and conclusively in the New Testament and in the sacred doctrinal Tradition of the Church.

III. Distinguished from the concept of divine inspiration, the infallibility of the Church is, in the final analysis, a gift of God’s grace towards the Church established by Him. As an empirical criterion, infallibility presupposes fidelity to the truth handed over, and is not hindered by the sinfulness of the human factor in the Church. For this would signify an extremely moralistic evaluation of Christianity and would dangerously confuse the physical order with the kingdom of grace. However, even on this point, the words of St Paul acquire crucial significance: ‘But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us’ (2 Cor 4:7).

IV. A brief analysis of the nature of the Church in its two aspects, both as centre or instrument of salvation, on the one hand, and as communion of faithful, on the other, has proven that the spiritual nature of the Church would hardly exclude the concept of law, and external authority or power. On the contrary, the visible Church possesses—as an indispensable presupposition for its existence and for the application of its divine aims in the world—an external instrument of authority, as a normative measure in its activity. This consists in the canonical hierarchy of the Church established through apostolic succession, and especially in the episcopacy. This, however, does not imply a division in the body of the Church but rather the definition of its sacramental instrument.

Similarly, the most central concept of the Church as the body of Christ does not in the least exclude the distinction of its particular members, because it is precisely through the distinction and differentiation of these that the harmonious functioning and life of the body is possible. On the contrary, if every distinction between the members of the Church were to be removed, then we could no longer speak of a living body and organism, but rather of an inanimate mass, in which the particular would be added externally to the whole, without any organic and living bond.

V. As a quality, infallibility belongs to the whole Church, namely to its plenitude, both to its clergy and laity. Accordingly, no voice of any member can be ignored concerning the thought and life of the Church. At this point, however, a distinction should be made between the notions of bearer and instrument of infallibility. Bearers of the faith of the Church are all its members indiscriminately, but not all are authentic instruments of its formulation. The instrument of the infallible and authentic formulation of the faith of the Church is the institution of the synod, and especially the Ecumenical Synod. Similarly, the laity also has its own place in the synod by taking part in the discussions but without the right to vote. It is for this reason that already from the Apostolic Synod, in which the entire community participated—both the apostles and all people without distinction—and in which ‘much debate’ took place (Acts 15:7), the discussion was finalised by the teaching authority of the apostles. And it is for this reason that the sacred text of Acts designates the decrees enacted at the synod as ‘determined’ by the apostles and the presbyters: ‘As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been determined by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem’ (Acts 16:4).

Accordingly, the entire Church is primarily infallible, that is the plenitude of the clergy and the laity. From this infallibility then, it also follows that the instrument of the Church, namely the consensus of the bishops whether acting in synod or as individual members of the synod, is likewise infallible.

VI. After the definition and distinction between bearer and instrument in the infallibility of the Church, the most significant truth is also that which concerns the scope or object of infallibility. The scope or object of the infallibility of the Church is only what relates to the eternal and unchangeable truth of the Church, namely the truths about doctrine and morals. Here the infallible activity of the Church has first and foremost, as scope or object, not the letter and the symbol—since they are, at any rate, of human origin and often change according to the literary and philosophical presuppositions of people from time to time—but the spirit and the meaning of the truths of the Christian faith and teaching on doctrine and morals.

VII. As the main deviations from this teaching on infallibility we could designate the Roman Catholic understanding concerning the infallibility of the pope, and the Protestant extremity of the Russian A.S. Chomiakov, with the so-called sobornost theory.

Both these erroneous extremities and heretical views have, as a common starting point, the fact that they confuse the notions of bearer and instrument of infallibility. In the first case, the confusion is at the cost of the bearer (where even the instrument is mutilated, since it is taken individually and not, as should be, synodically); and in the second case, the confusion is at the cost of the instrument, which is at first broadened at the risk of levelling the clergy and laity in the Church, and which is finally removed altogether, because in Chomiakov’s sobornost theory, no external authoritative instrument has any place in the Church.

VIII. In the refutation of the two deviations from the correct teaching of the Church on infallibility—namely that of the Roman Catholic error concerning the infallibility of the pope, and of the Protestant extreme view of Chomiakov—special emphasis was given in this work to refute Chomiakov’s sobornost theory, and this was done primarily for two significant reasons:

a. Chomiakov’s heretical extremity finds itself within Orthodoxy and directly affects the Orthodox Church, which has been the primary focus of this study.

b. Whilst the Roman Catholic perception of the infallibility of the pope has been attacked and refuted repeatedly since 1870—both from an Orthodox and non-Orthodox viewpoint—by a multitude of special treatises, this theory constitutes a known and identifiably erroneous belief. Yet Orthodox theology has not, to date, been informed about the dangers entailed in Chomiakov’s theory.

X. The dangers of the sobornost theory could briefly be summarised in the following points:

a. Mysteries (sacraments) and ‘word’ are not considered in their unified authenticity as two different forms of the same will of the one Lord Jesus Christ, but are separated from each other, so that the province of the mysteries is given to the clergy whilst that of the word is given to all the faithful.

b. A complete levelling is brought about between clergy and laity by the obvious denial of the divinely established New Testament polity of the Church, which is ultimately regarded as a matter of external order and not as the guarantee of the purity of the faith and teaching, through the significance of apostolic succession.

c. By an unrestrained mysticism, a moralistic evaluation of Christianity is sought, such that the boundaries between the natural order and the order of grace are confused.

d. An unrestrained subjectivism is proclaimed to the point of inconsistency, because although the sobornost theory seeks truth in the whole, nonetheless, no normative dimension whatsoever can control or restrain the inner experience of the faithful.

e. The fatal consequence of the sobornost theory is absolute agnosticism and uncertainty in matters of faith.

As we have seen, Chomiakov’s theory is refuted by the Holy Scriptures, the evidence of the Ecumenical Synods, the entire ecclesiological teaching of the Fathers of the Church, as well as contemporary Orthodox theology through its most renowned representatives.

Thus, we conclude the present study on the infallibility of the Church, without at all entertaining the belief that the matter has been finally resolved. However, we believe that the most important aspects related to the theme have been exposed in all their acuteness. Now if, as has been rightly observed, not only those books that bring solutions to problems, but also those that indicate and define the problems, should be considered as valuable contributions to academia, then the hope is perhaps justified that the present study will best contribute its findings towards more accomplished research towards the subject of the infallibility of the Church in Orthodox theology.

 

 

 

 

Blessed Averky of Jordanville: “We must break decisively with ecumenism and have nothing in common with its fellow travelers.”

 

[…]

But the greatest danger in our time, both to the pastor of today and to his flock, comes from the Satanism that is now already close to triumphing in the world, and that most cunningly clothes itself in garments of light under the deceptive guises of “humanism,” or, among us, “Tolstoyism,” service to the welfare of humanity, universal unity, “peace,” and even “Christian love.”

Alas! Very many Orthodox pastors have already, in one way or another, to a greater or lesser degree, become entangled in the nets of this skillfully camouflaged Satanism, which, like the two-faced Janus, now appears in two forms: as “Marxist Communism” in countries enslaved by its God-fighting power, and as “ecumenism” in the countries of the so-called “free world,” which in reality is not free at all. They have a common father—Satan himself, who is now strenuously preparing his faithful servant, the Antichrist, to reign over the world.

We must know and remember: a true pastor of the true Church of Christ can have no contact, no relations, direct or indirect, with either of these two forms of world evil.

Yet this evil entices many pastors and members of their flocks with all manner of handouts and promises of earthly benefits, for which people are so eager, especially in our day.

A true pastor must take every care to guard himself and his flock against this very dangerous temptation, which usually cloaks itself in “charity.” Here we must constantly remember the apt Russian proverb: “Once a claw is caught, the whole bird is lost.” Many have already become deeply entangled in one or the other of these nets and would sometimes like to free themselves, but can no longer do so. Satan holds his prey firmly in his grasp.

We Russians living in exile know more or less well what Communism is and are, to a considerable extent, somewhat shielded from it. But by no means everyone has clearly understood that “world evil” is not confined to Communism, that Communism is only a derivative evil, merely an “offspring,” while more terrible still is its parent, which has begotten an evil no less—and perhaps even more—dangerous and destructive: so-called “ecumenism,” headed by the “World Council of Churches.” It is far from accidental that the “World Council of Churches,” which formerly lured the Orthodox into its ranks under the pretext of the need for a common union in the struggle against advancing godlessness, now takes such a conciliatory attitude toward God-fighting Communism and does not even breathe a word at its conferences about any struggle against it, having readily admitted into its ranks representatives of Orthodox churches who are obedient instruments of Communism.

At present, we pastors of the Russian Church Abroad, whose existence finds its meaning and justification only in the resolute rejection of “world evil,” stand, as it were, at a crossroads. Until now, we have for the most part modestly kept silent, without publicly proclaiming in full the entire ideology for the sake of which we exist. Only our [periodical] “Orthodox Rus’” has always written very decisively and unequivocally, which some people even disliked. But now matters have gone too far, and “ecumenism” has revealed itself so fully that we now have a whole series of official documents that place considerable obligations upon us. These are, first of all: 1) Three epistles of our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret: those addressed to Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and to the Greek Archbishop Iakovos of North and South America, and the “Sorrowful Epistle,” addressed to all the heads of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches and all the bishops of the Orthodox Church; 2) The epistle of the Ninth Diocesan Assembly of the Western European Diocese, signed by His Eminence Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Iakovos; and 3) The report on the most recent conference of the World Council of Churches, entitled “Uppsala and Orthodoxy,” by Protopresbyter Father George Grabbe, who oversees the external relations of the Synod of Bishops. To these must also be added 4) His Eminence Archbishop Vitaly’s report to the Council of Bishops of 1967, entitled “Ecumenism,” published in the Canadian Diocese’s journal “Orthodox Review,” no. 40, June 1969.

These documents of exceptional importance show that we have already sufficiently recognized the thoroughly corrupt and pernicious nature of ecumenism as a movement leading humanity toward the Antichrist.

Now, therefore, we must show that we are not content with words alone, with mere assertions, but that our words are followed by corresponding deeds that confirm their truth.

We must break decisively with ecumenism and have nothing in common with its fellow travelers.

Our path is not theirs. We must say this decisively and demonstrate it in our deeds. A time of true confession of the faith is approaching for us, when we may find ourselves alone and subject to persecution. Since all the local Orthodox churches have now joined the “World Council of Churches,” thereby betraying Orthodoxy and bowing down to Satan, the time has come for our complete separation. We cannot and must not have any communion with apostates from true Orthodoxy, and we must be ready, if necessary, to withdraw into the “catacombs,” like the “True Orthodox Christians” in our homeland.

Our position as champions and confessors of the pure and uncorrupted truth of Christ places great obligations upon us, greater than ever before.

[…]

 

Excerpt from “The Essence and Methods of True Pastoral Ministry and Our Time,” an address by Archbishop Averky at the pastoral conference of the clergy of North America and Canada, August 21 / September 3, 1969.

Russian source:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Averkij_Taushev/sushhnost-i-metody-istinnogo-pastyrstvovanija-i-nashe-vremja/

 

Patron Saint of Extreme Zealots: Lucifer of Cagliari (+370)

 

LUCIFERUS I., bishop of Calaris (Cagliari), in Sardinia, a confessor whose dogmatic zeal was too intolerant for Athanasius or Jerome, and led him to renounce communion with Catholics of the purest orthodoxy as tainted by compliance with Arianism. The earliest mention of him is in a letter of pope Liberius, addressed to Eusebius of Vercellae. Moved by great anxiety about the efforts that were then being made (A.D. 354) to procure a condemnation of Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer had come from Sardinia to Rome to consult with Liberius, and had offered to go as an envoy of the bishop of Rome to the emperor Constantius to ask him to summon a council. Liberius accepted the offer, and sent him, accompanied by the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilarius, on a mission to the emperor. They took with them a letter to Constantius, and another to Eusebius, asking this zealous orthodox bishop to join them on their way and to do what he could to bring anti-Arian influence to bear on the emperor. The council was granted, and met at Milan in A.D. 354. The Arian party, supported by the emperor, was strong in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius was immediately brought forward; but it was resisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that the first day’s meeting broke up in confusion, and his opponents prevailed on the emperor to confine him in the palace. Some particulars of the subsequent history of this council are to be found in Lucifer’s writings, in Athanasius, Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, and in a Life of St. Dionysius of Milan (Bolland. May 25, pp. 46, 47). This life, though probably belonging to a much later date, gives details which have an air of genuineness. It is said that on the second day the people missed Lucifer, and asked where he was. Dionysius replied that he was shut up in the palace, but that Jesus Christ could not be prevented from being there with him. On the third day a letter was brought from Lucifer to Dionysius and Eusebius, and the people asked that it might be read to them. But the Arians raised such a clamour that the letter could not be heard till nightfall. On the fourth day three eunuchs came from the palace to ask what Dionysius and his friends desired of the emperor. They replied that they wished for liberty of discussion with the heretics, and for the restoration of Lucifer to their company. This latter request was granted, and Lucifer was received with joy both by the bishops and by the people.

The subsequent discussions of the council were held in the palace, and Constantius himself appears to have taken part in them. The proceedings were irregular and disorderly, and the end of some personal altercations between Lucifer and the emperor was that Lucifer was sent into exile. His banishment lasted from A.D. 355 to A.D. 361; and the greater part of this time he spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, where he was subject to the persecutions of the Arian bishop Eutychius. (See the petition to the emperor of Marcellinus and Justinus, two Luciferian priests, in Sirmond, Opera Varia, tom. i. p. 234.) It was during his banishment, and probably at Eleutheropolis, that his successive books or pamphlets on the controversy in which he was engaged were written. The following are the titles of them:—Pro sancto Athanasio Libri ii.; De Regibus Apostaticis; De non conveniendo cum Haereticis; De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus; Moriendum pro Filio Dei. Lucifer addresses Constantius in these writings with a remarkable vigour of denunciation. It is evident that he courted persecution, and even martyrdom. He compares the emperor to the worst kings that ever reigned, and makes him out to be more impious than Judas Iscariot. And he sent his vehement invective by a special messenger to Constantius himself. Astonished at this audacity, the emperor ordered Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the book back to Lucifer and ask him if it were really his. The intrepid bishop replied that it was, and sent it back again. Constantius, on his part, must be allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving these violent effusions unpunished. There may however have been some additional hardship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine to the Thebaid, where he remained till the death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his arrival in Egypt, Athanasius wrote him a letter from Alexandria, full of praise and congratulations, asking him to let him see a copy of his work. After receiving and reading what his champion had written, Athanasius replied, and thanked him in a second letter. In this he is still more laudatory. He tells him that he was called the Elias of the age, that he was truly a Lucifer, who had brought the light of truth and placed it on a candlestick that it might give light to all; that he had proved the words of the Arians to be nothing but phantasy, and had taught that diabolic gnashing of teeth was to be trampled under foot.

Very soon after his accession, A.D. 361, Julian gave permission to the exiled bishops to return to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercellae were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed his friend to come with him to Alexandria, where a council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius, and where it was especially intended to take measures for the healing of a schism at Antioch. Lucifer, however, preferred to go straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to act for him at the council. Taking a hasty part in the affairs of the much divided church at Antioch, where the Catholic party was itself broken into two sections, the followers of Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bishop of the church. When Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing with him the synodal letter of the council, and prepared to settle matters so as to give a triumph to neither party, he was distressed to find that he had been thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. Unwilling to come into open collision with his friend, he retired immediately; Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian council. By this council it had been determined that actual Arians, if they renounced their heresy, should be pardoned, but not invested with ecclesiastical functions; and that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism under pressure should remain undisturbed. It was this latter concession which offended Lucifer, and he became henceforth the champion of the principle that no one who had yielded to any compromise whatever with Arianism should be allowed to hold an ecclesiastical office. In the ardour of his orthodoxy he separated himself not only from those who had thus yielded, but also from those who consented to the policy which Athanasius put forth in the name of the council of Alexandria (Rufinus, lib. i. cap. 30; Socrates, lib. iii. cap. 11).

After remaining some time at Antioch, Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome (Chron.) states that he died in the year 371. To what extent he was an actual schismatic remains obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that “he had separated himself from our communion” (De Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47); and St. Augustine, “that he fell into the darkness of schism, having lost the light of charity” (Epist. 185, n. 47). But there is no mention of any separation other than Lucifer’s own repulsion of so many ecclesiastics; and Jerome in his dialogue against the Luciferians (§ 20) calls him beatus and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the Mémoires de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p. 247.)

The titles of Lucifer’s controversial pamphlets have already been given. They are marked by a peculiarly bitter and defiant treatment of Constantius, to whom they are addressed. The substance of them consists of appeals to Holy Scripture, and they contain a very large number of quotations from both Testaments. There are many variations from the received text in the passages quoted; but as it seems probable that Lucifer wrote them down from memory, the variations cannot be said to have any critical value. The first printed edition of the writings of Lucifer was that of Jean Tilly, Paris, 1568. They have been printed since in several collections, and will be found in Migne’s Patr. Lat. tom. xiii. The followers of Lucifer, if they ever formed a distinct organisation, disappeared in a few years. Jerome’s dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports to be the report of a discussion between an orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The dialogue was written about 378, seven years after the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later an appeal was made to the emperor by the Luciferian presbyters. [FAUSTINUS (33).]

[J. Ll. D. (John Llewelyn Davies, M.A.)]

 

Source: A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, edited by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D., and Henry Wace, B.D., D.D., Volume III, John Murray, Albemarle Street, London, 1882, pp. 749-751.

Dimitrios Panagopoulos (+1982): Let Us Guard Our Souls!

 

Our soul is the image of God, but when we defile it with sin, what are we doing? We are casting the image of God into the mire. O our soul, how we despise you! O God, how You endure such contempt! We honor the image of a king or ruler, yet we do not honor our soul, in which You have engraved Your image. Nothing is more precious than the soul, and yet for a fleeting pleasure, a passing honor, or the acquisition of a little wealth, we sell our soul, this precious treasure.

If we had many souls, we would still have another left, but we have one and only one soul, for whose sake all things in heaven and on earth were made, for whose sake nature labors, the heavens move, the sun shines, the earth bears fruit, plants and animals come into being, and for whose sake Paradise was created, the Kingdom of Heaven prepared, along with unending blessedness, boundless glory, and all those blessings of eternal life “which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the human heart” (1 Cor. 2:9). And if we lose our soul, we lose everything: earth and heaven, the world and Paradise, both this temporal life and eternal life.

To test the patience of righteous Job, God gave the Devil permission to tempt him, to cause him loss and sorrow, and to afflict him in his wealth, his children, and his health—but not to touch his soul! “Behold, I give you all that he has; only spare his soul.” In the twinkling of an eye, the immensely wealthy Job became poor; his countless animals, small and great, were burned up; his lofty palaces were demolished by a violent gust of wind; his children met an untimely and sudden death within a single hour; and he himself, impoverished and covered with sores from head to foot, lay on a dung heap outside the city, scorched by the sun’s blazing heat by day and tormented by the frost by night. Job lost everything.

No, Job lost absolutely nothing, because he did not lose his soul. What does he say? Have I lost my wealth? But I was born naked; what is so strange if I die naked? “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there.” Have I lost my children? But “the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away.” Have I lost my health? This was pleasing to my God: “As it seemed good to the Lord, so it came to pass.” I have lost everything, yet I have lost nothing, because my soul has remained intact; despite all my trials, I am righteous before God, and for this I glorify, thank, and bless His holy name. “Blessed be the name of the Lord!” (Job, chapters 1–2)

What providential care the Lord, who loves mankind, shows when He permits afflictions, either to test us or to discipline us, giving the devil permission to tempt us and harm us in everything except our soul! “Spare his soul.” He must not harm the soul, this only-begotten daughter of Jesus Christ, the heiress of His Kingdom, whom He even entrusts to a guardian angel to shelter and protect “from the terror by night, from the arrow that flies by day, from the thing that walks in darkness, from calamity and the noonday demon” (Ps. 90:5–6). And why? Because all other things—says St. John Chrysostom—are, first of all, many, and if one is lost, another remains: “Whichever of these is damaged, we meet our need through the other”; and second, if we lose them today, we can find them again tomorrow, just as Job recovered everything twofold. But the soul is one, and if we lose it, everything is lost: “If we lose it, by what shall we live?”

If we have an only child, how careful we are to ensure that no one harms or grieves that child, even though our salvation does not depend on them! Likewise, if we have a precious stone, we guard it with great care, even though we cannot buy Paradise with it. But if we lose our soul, nothing will benefit us, for it is for its sake that we human beings live in this world, and with it that we hope to live in Paradise. If we lose it, everything is lost—and then? “If we lose it, by what shall we live?”

The great privilege of our soul is that it is immortal. This vain and perishable world, with everything beautiful, good, and precious in it, will one day come to an end. “For the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). Sooner or later, death will come, bringing an end to everything. Whatever we have in this world is either lost or left behind, for “all flesh is like grass, and all human glory like the flower of grass; the grass withered, and its flower fell” (1 Pet. 1:24). Our soul alone remains immortal, lives eternally, and never dies. What benefit is there, then, if a person gains the whole world, which will one day come to an end, when so great is the loss if he loses his soul, which endures forever? If a person loses his freedom, he can buy it back; if he loses his health, he may be healed; even if he loses his life, he can be raised from the dead; but if the soul is lost, it cannot be ransomed.

God entrusted the keys of Paradise to human hands: “And I will give you”—He said to Peter and all the Apostles—“the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 16:19). He did not give the keys of Hades to any human being or angel, but kept them Himself, as He says in Revelation: “And I have the keys of Hades” (Rev. 1:18). And why did He give the keys of Paradise, which is God’s royal residence, the royal palace of glory, into human hands, while He Himself, God, the King and Lord, kept the keys of Hades, that dreadful prison of outer darkness, that place of torment for condemned souls? So that we may learn that in this life, whenever we wish to open Paradise to keep our soul safe within it, the keys are easy to find. He has entrusted them to human beings here on earth; if we seek them, we find them in the hands of every spiritual father. But if death, whether sudden or natural, comes and finds us either laden with the burdens of this world or bound by the chains of sin, and we die without amending our lives, without repentance, without confession, and without Communion, where will we find the keys of Hades to free our imprisoned soul? No human being has them; no angel has received them; God Himself holds them. The Judge then shows no mercy and does not open, for the door has been shut. There is no hope of release, for in Hades there is no repentance.

But, O soul, you are the most perfect and beautiful creation, for you are the image of God; you are the most precious possession, for you are immortal. The crucified Jesus, the Son of the living God, shed His priceless blood to redeem you, gave the font of holy baptism to wash you, ordained another, “second baptism”—repentance—to cleanse you, prepared the table of His immaculate Mysteries to nourish you, established the Church here in this world to sanctify you, and created Paradise there so that you might live in blessedness forever and ever.

In His boundless goodness and compassion, He did everything possible to save our souls, yet we do whatever our utter wickedness dictates to lose our soul. But it is better to lose everything the world offers and save our soul; for “what will it profit a person if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Or what will a person give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26).

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/prosochi-tin-psychi-mas-dimitrios-panago/

St. Nikolai Velimirović: We Have Trampled Underfoot Everything That Was Sacred to Our Fathers

 

My brethren, we sinned and were subsequently purified. We offended our Almighty God, and for this we were punished. We defiled our souls and washed away every sin of ours with our blood and tears.

We trampled underfoot everything that was sacred to our fathers, and for this we ourselves were subsequently trampled underfoot.

Our destruction was to be expected, since our schools were without faith in God, our politicians were without integrity, our army was without patriotism, and our rulers were without the blessing of God. Thus our schools, our army, and our entire state were destroyed.

For twenty years we showed no respect for our traditions, and now foreign peoples have deprived us of the light by means of their darkness.

For twenty years we mocked our forefathers, who through their piety attained the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet with the measure by which we judged God and our forefathers, by that same measure we too were judged.

Nevertheless, God forgave us.

Our blasphemous thoughts, words, and deeds—our endless offenses against Almighty God during the period of the two World Wars—initially condemned our people to death. The sentence was carried out, and one in every eight Serbs was executed during the first two years of the German occupation of our country.

Thereafter, the executions ceased, and the sentence was reduced to lifelong enslavement. We were condemned to remain forever subject to the Germans.

Only when our poor people, with their weakened hands, began to light candles and pray did their prayers move the angels and saints to intercede for God’s mercy. Then the All-Merciful God once again reduced the sentence—from lifelong enslavement to two years. The Serbian people were sentenced to two years of captivity, though they had lived a sinful life for twenty years. Is this not mercy? Is there any earthly king who would endure being insulted and mocked for twenty years and still forgive his people? Never and nowhere. Only our God possesses such mercy.

My brethren, what then are we to do now? Let us do anything other than what we did during those twenty years.

Let us not sin, lest we suffer again.

Let us not offend God the Almighty again, lest we incur an even greater punishment.

Let us not defile our souls with sins, lest we have to purify them once again with our blood and tears.

Let us not trample underfoot the sacred things of our forefathers, lest we ourselves be trampled underfoot.

Let us build schools founded upon faith; let us have honorable rulers, a patriotic army, and a state that possesses the blessing of God.

Let each of us return to God and to his own true self. Let no one remain far from God, lest he lose his light beneath the onslaught of the terrifying darkness of foreign peoples with their “beautiful” names and “showy” garments.

Let each of us strive to attain the Kingdom of Heaven. Only in this way will our state endure upon the earth for a longer time. If we are righteous, Heaven will watch over our state. In the heavenly Kingdom reign righteousness, faith, love, truth, mercy, wisdom, and purity....

Consider whether you possess these virtues; and if not, strive all the more to acquire them all. Thus you will become perfect, even as your great heavenly Father is perfect.

Thus you will withstand the dark powers of Hades, which struck our state and tormented us like a nightmare—and will continue to torment us for many years.

Armed with the virtues, you will prove your love for your homeland and show yourselves worthy of the name of Orthodox Christian. May the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit help you unto the ages of ages. Amen.

(Messages to the People from the Concentration Camp at Dachau)

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/agios-nikolaos-velimirovits-podopat/

Chekists in Cassocks: The Orthodox Church and the KGB (1993)

Keith Armes,

Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy, Boston University

 

 

Of all Russian central institutions, the Russian Orthodox Church and the security bureaucracies alone have survived the collapse of the Communist system. In fact, the last six years have seen an impressive revival of religious life throughout the former Soviet Union. Despite this rebirth, the institution of the church, in particular the Moscow Patriarchate, is having difficulty maintaining its identity and credibility after seventy years of faithful service to the Communist Party. Today, the church faces not only the ugly confirmation of the KGB's active role in its day to day affairs and the personal corruption of some of its highest leaders, but also the establishment of an independent Ukrainian church, a bid for the loyalty of its flock from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, an invasion of well-financed Protestant evangelists, and a backlash against its ecumenical policies. Thus, on the one hand, the Russian Orthodox Church can celebrate its recent advances: 6,000 reopened churches since 1987; the appointment of chaplains to Cossack units which may lead to their integration into the armed services; and the political ascension of former church dissidents like Father Gleb Yakunin to legitimate roles in government. On the other hand, the highest ranks of the institution remain shadowed and marked by a history of allegiance to temporal politics.

The opening of some KGB archives since August 1991 has made available for the first time clear evidence of the subordination of the Orthodox hierarchy to the Soviet government. An investigative journalist, Alexander Nezhny, was able to establish the close relationship between a number of bishops and the “organs,” and to determine the identities of the bishops involved on the basis of the chronology of missions abroad undertaken by hierarchs at the behest of the KGB and references to the agent names (klichki) by which they were known. In particular, the KGB affiliation of three prominent hierarchs is now established: the recently deposed Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev (code name “Antonov”), Metropolitan Yuvenali of Krutisk and Kolomna, who was head of the foreign relations department of the patriarchate (code name “Adamant”), and Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk and Yurev, head of the publishing department of the patriarchate (code name “Abbat”). It is also established that the present patriarch, Aleksi II, served the KGB under the poetic name “Blackbird” (Drozdov).

Investigations carried out in the KGB archives by Lev Ponomarev, chairman of the short-lived Russian Supreme Soviet Commission to Investigate the Causes and Circumstances of the Putsch, and Father Gleb Yakunin, who served as a member of that commission, make it clear that the chain of command for controlling the church ran directly from the Politburo through the CPSU Central Committee Department of Agitation and Propaganda, to the USSR Council of Ministers' Council on Religious Affairs, and finally to the KGB, which had a special subdivision (Fourth Department of the Fifth Administration) for religion. There is abundant evidence of the KGB's control of the church's activities abroad and its success in ensuring that the World Council of Churches (WCC) consistently adopted positions advantageous to the Soviet leadership. Thus in 1980, a KGB report signed by the head of the Fourth Department states, “. . . the secretary general of the World Council of Churches, Philip Potter, has been in Moscow as a guest of the Moscow Patriarchate. A favorable influence was exercised on him by agents `Svyatoslav,' `Adamant,' `Mikhailov,' and `Ostrovsky.' Information of operational interest was obtained on the activities of the WCC.” In 1983, the KGB dispatched 47 [sic] agents to attend the WCC General Assembly in Vancouver. In the following year, KGB reports make it clear that the Uruguayan Emilio Castro was elected WCC general secretary with the assistance of its agents attending the session of the selection committee.

At a major Orthodox Church conference in Moscow in 1988, the “situation among the participants was checked” by clandestine means, and a “positive communiqué was adopted in which a principled appraisal was adopted by the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church of the activities of religious extremists [dissidents] in our country.” The KGB reported on its work at the July 1989 WCC meeting in Moscow, “As a result of measures carried out, eight public statements and three official letters were adopted which were in accordance with the political line of socialist countries . . . Thanks to our agents a positive effect was exercised on the foreigners, and additional ideological and personality data were obtained, [as well as] information on their political views and the positions they occupied in their own countries. Numerous interviews took place that were favorable to us.”

A facsimile document dated November 1987, and published by the former KGB officer Stanislav Levchenko, confirmed in striking fashion the extent of Party control over the Orthodox Church's affairs. According to this paper, the approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the KGB, the Council on Religious Affairs (in the person of its chairman, Konstantin Kharchev), and the CPSU Central Committee's Propaganda Department, was required for the church to send priests to serve Orthodox parishes in Brazil and Uruguay. [1] There is evidence that KGB officers were sent to study at seminaries abroad in order to become priests and serve in the Soviet Union. [2] The KGB paid particular attention to relations with the Vatican. A 1989 report by Col. V. Timoshevsky, head of the KGB's Fourth Department, states, “The most important journeys were those by the agents `Antonov,' `Ostrovsky,' and `Adamant' to Italy for negotiations with the Pope on questions of future relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular the problems of the Uniates.” [3]

The patriarchate's External Affairs Department consisted almost entirely of KGB agents. The department's main ideologist, Buevsky, a KGB officer now venerable leastwise in years, has been responsible for writing the patriarch's public statements and encomia on successive national leaders since 1946. [4]

A prominent priest, Father Georgi Edelshtein, has stated that one-half of the clergy were overt or covert KGB employees through the end of the Gorbachev era. He has confirmed that the hierarchy took large bribes from priests seeking transfers to rich parishes and from candidates for bishoprics. Father Edelshtein comments, “Do you know where our present-day church ends and the KGB begins? The only difference was that some wore hoods and some had shoulder boards.” [5] Until very recently, the conduct of some members of the episcopate showed no trace of aggiornamento. In 1990, a group of students asked the Bishop of Chelyabinsk for help in organizing an Orthodox youth group to look after new converts. This prelate requested a list of the organizers, which he then sent to the local KGB. The KGB, however, wrote back to the bishop informing him that their duties no longer included such “internal matters,” and passed on copies of the correspondence to the city soviet for publication. [6]

Father Gleb Yakunin has stated that within the top church hierarchy, nine out of ten were KGB agents. [7] Significantly, none of the prominent bishops attending a conference in Moscow on 19 August 1991, condemned the putsch. Not one came to the White House to bless its defenders who faced death protecting the legal government of Russia from the overthrow attempt by military forces. [8] It is a reasonable assumption that many hierarchs were recruited by the KGB at the seminary—or even initially sent to the seminary by a patron with blue epaulettes—and marked out from the beginning for a distinguished clerical career. For these men, the practice of religion meant the search for and attainment of warm places and high preferment. So far, however, documentary evidence for such recruiting is lacking. In January 1992, further access to the archives was denied to Supreme Soviet investigative commissions with the approval of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, Ruslan Khasbulatov, after joint presentations had been made to him by the chairman of the Russian External Intelligence Service, Yevgeny Primakov, and Patriarch Aleksi. [9]

Particularly damaging to the credibility and moral stature of the Orthodox hierarchy is the degree to which the current patriarch is morally compromised by a career of subservience to the Politburo. According to the KGB archives, in February 1988, the KGB chairman rewarded Aleksi II with a “Certificate of Honor” for successful performance. [10] In 1965, as Archbishop of Tallinn, Aleksi demanded that Archbishop Hermogen of Kaluga, who at the time was undoubtedly the most courageous of all the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, go into forced retirement for signing a protest against the complicity of the Synod in the Soviet government's campaign of church closures. [11]

The patriarch's behavior during the August coup was a classic case of temporization. After initially failing to condemn the putsch, the following day he released a carefully measured statement: “[The] situation is troubling the conscience of millions of our compatriots who are beginning to question the lawfulness of the newly formed State Emergency Committee. . .We are hoping that the USSR Supreme Soviet will give a principled assessment and take resolute measures to stabilize the situation in the country.” Aleksi was well aware that there was no prospect of the Supreme Soviet's meeting in the immediate future, nor a possibility for taking “resolute measures.” It was not until the afternoon of August 21 that the patriarch, sensing which way the wind was blowing, agreed to sign an appeal that condemned the putsch leaders' shedding of innocent blood and rejected Communist ideology. [12]

Despite repeated calls upon him for a public and formal expression of contrition for his servility to the Communist leadership and lies on its behalf, Aleksi has always declined to make a public declaration of repentance. For those who still hoped for change at the highest level of the hierarchy, a recent episode proved especially discouraging. There is indisputable evidence that in recent months Patriarch Aleksi lied in denying charges that, in November 1991, he had approached a U.S. undersecretary of state to put pressure on Voice of America to change its programming about the Russian Orthodox Church. [13] The patriarch felt impelled to make this extraordinary démarche by his concern about the “bias against the patriarchate” displayed in programs produced by a prominent priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Father Viktor Potapov.

The Church in Ukraine

The career of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia has also gravely damaged the moral stature of the church. Philaret's rise was extraordinarily rapid, and he enjoyed successive preferment to Bishop of Vienna and Austria, and then rector of the Moscow Spiritual Academy. No less an authority than Konstantin Kharchev, former chairman of the Council on Religious Affairs, who was removed in 1989 for excessive independence, has confirmed Philaret's KGB connection. “Otherwise, he could never have pushed his way into a leading position in the Russian Orthodox Church.” As the elected Locum Tenens to the Patriarchal Throne, he had appeared destined to be the next patriarch. However, it was Aleksi who was elevated to the position in 1990.

Kharchev finds the metropolitan's performance to have been exemplary in terms of satisfying the requirements of the Soviet government. “From the viewpoint of a Party official . . . Philaret was the most literate of all the members of the Holy Synod. All the tasks we assigned to him in the area of foreign relations he carried out brilliantly . . . He was a superb executor . . . Naturally it all boiled down to defending and advocating the party's position. Well, you know: `There's no pressure on the church, the church in our country runs its affairs freely,' in other words, pardon the expression, the raving of a gray mare.” [14]

Were it not for the baneful consequences for the church, Philaret would appear a picturesque personage, a prelate who would not have been out of place on the banks of the Tiber when slashed doublets and codpieces were in vogue. He ran his exarchy with a hand of iron, exiling and banning priests who dared criticize him. The prince of the church lives openly with a woman, known to the clerical fraternity as the “First Lady of the Exarchy”—or less reverentially as “Herodiada”—by whom, despite monastic vows of chastity, he has had three children. His consort openly attends church ceremonies in his company and is widely believed to be responsible for making church appointments in Ukraine, including episcopal nominations. [15]

Under the ancien régime in Ukraine, when nationalism was persecuted, Philaret vilified Rukh leaders as “bandits” and “provocateurs,” and campaigned in elections for the CPSU. He prohibited his clergy from preaching in the Ukrainian language. As the strength of the Ukrainian independence movement grew, however, Philaret perceived where the future lay and hastened to serve the new dispensation, attacking the Great Russian chauvinism of the Moscow Patriarchate. At the same time, Philaret conducted a violent campaign against a major rival, the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church, which had been established in 1989. This church is currently headed by the ailing 93-year-old Patriarch Mstyslav, who remains a resident of the United States. Although its canonicity is not recognized by other Orthodox, the church has had considerable success in winning parishes from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow Patriarchal jurisdiction, as well as in securing financial support from abroad for its activity.

As Ukraine achieved political independence from Moscow, Philaret rapidly transformed himself from committed supporter of Soviet internationalism and Muscovite rule to a fervent Ukrainian nationalist. In 1985, Philaret, still a faithful ally of Politburo member and longtime Party ruler of Ukraine, Vladimir Shcherbitsky, rejected an offer of autonomy. However, to enhance his position with Ukrainian nationalist political forces, in the autumn of 1990, he obtained autonomous status for the Ukrainian Church from Moscow, and he naturally continued as its head.

President Leonid Kravchuk fully realized Philaret's value to his regime, and proposed to Patriarch Aleksi II that the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church be made autocephalous, and that Philaret be elevated to head of the new church. Despite Philaret's political conversion and political allies at the highest level, there continued to be enormous pressure in the press and within his own church to resign, including a public appeal by eight Ukrainian bishops that he lay down his office. Patriarch Aleksi continued to be unwilling to take any action against Philaret, although his scandalous administration of his exarchy and personal behavior damaged resurgent church life in Ukraine and bought the entire hierarchy into disrepute.

Finally in April 1992, Philaret stated his intention to step down, and the following month he formally committed himself to resign at an Episcopal Council in Moscow. Immediately on his return to Kiev, however, he withdrew his promise, stating that he had been subjected to moral torture of the cruelest kind. Following this, a Synod of the Church in Moscow revoked Philaret's ecclesiastical authority and threatened him with trial by an episcopal court. Philaret still refused to step down, and in June another Episcopal Council removed him as head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and revoked his ordination. Undaunted, Philaret responded by calling on the Patriarch of Constantinople to condemn the action and declare the Ukrainian Church to be completely independent of Moscow.

But a more stunning display of political virtuosity by Philaret was yet to come. At a joint press conference on 25 June 1992, with Metropolitan Antoni of the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church, Philaret announced that his church and the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church would form a United Kievan Patriarchate. Patriarch Mstyslav, still absent in the United States, was to become head of the United Patriarchate, while Metropolitan Philaret would occupy the Patriarchal Throne in Kiev as his Locum Tenens. To the amazement of the Orthodox world, Philaret and the Autocephalic Church succeeded in overcoming their violent hostility in order to combine forces against the Moscow Patriarchate. Philaret's spectacular switch of allegiance allowed him to seize the practical authority of the Ukrainian nationalist church on Ukrainian soil after having broken all his bridges with Moscow. Philaret has thus positioned himself to serve the regime of President Kravchuk by continuing the campaign for Ukrainian church independence from the pretensions of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In addition, now that the anti-Moscow church forces in Ukraine are united, it is far more likely that the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople will ultimately consent to grant canonical status to the restructured patriarchate in Kiev, which now represents itself to be the sole Ukrainian national church. In turn, it can be expected that the possession of canonicity would induce large numbers of priests who, due to their detestation of Philaret, had previously hesitated to abandon the Moscow Patriarchate to join the new native Ukrainian jurisdiction. [16]

The extraordinary difficulty the Moscow Patriarchate experienced in removing a metropolitan who had brought profound scandal and discredit on the church typifies the reluctance of the episcopate to deal with the destructive heritage of the Soviet era. The conclusion imposes itself that Philaret knows much that his church colleagues are most reluctant to see revealed. As long as the members of the present Moscow Patriarchate conceal their past conduct, they will remain vulnerable to pressure from those who would prefer not to lance the ulcers on the body of the church.

Whereas the Moscow hierarchy, headed by Aleksi, continues to jeopardize the moral repute of the church, there can be no question of the personal dedication to their flocks of the great majority of the ordinary clergy. Parish priests are frequently overwhelmed by the calls upon them by newly active believers to provide instruction and to celebrate the rituals of the church. The already existing grave shortage of priests has been aggravated by the fact that historically the majority of seminarians have come from Ukraine. With the growth of Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, most of the students have left the Moscow Patriarchate to serve churches in their homeland.

The Russian Church Abroad

Aleksi's sensitivity to criticism of the church by a prominent priest of the Russian Church Abroad reflects the influence that the Church Abroad, although based in the United States, is gaining in Russia. This church (otherwise known as the Synod) was founded by bishops who went into exile rather than subject themselves to Bolshevik rule. Alone among Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, the Church Abroad has always categorically rejected any accommodation with the Moscow Patriarchate. The church's ability to attract prominent converts among intellectuals in the United States has contributed to its influence. Needless to say, both the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate regard each other as uncanonical. The Church Abroad maintains, in particular, that the Moscow Patriarchate's lack of canonicity proceeds from the election of a patriarch under Stalin in 1943, and the impermissible intervention of the temporal power in the supreme church appointment. Although many prominent Synodal clerics and laymen of the Church Abroad consider the patriarchate and thus its sacraments to be devoid of grace (bezblagodatny), it was not until very recently that statements were made by Metropolitan Vitali suggesting that this was the official view of the Church Abroad. Such a position puts the church at risk of being considered sectarian and possibly heretical by many prominent Orthodox. [17]

In March 1990, the Church Abroad proclaimed the intention to extend its jurisdiction to Russia and begin to ordain priests in Russia. It would also accept priests already serving who were ready to abandon the Moscow Patriarchate and join its ranks. Thus within Russia there now exists what is termed the “Free Church” or the “True Church,” owing allegiance to the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

The extent to which the patriarchate is seen as morally compromised and unwilling to make amends for the unprincipled policies of the past makes many priests and faithful receptive to the arguments and witness of the Church Abroad. Seminarians regularly refer to the Holy Synod as the “Metropolitburo.” Moreover, the new concern for Russia's pre-Bolshevik heritage contributes to a readiness to see the Church Abroad as embodying historical religious values. Here an important element is the devotion of the Church Abroad to the Russian monarchy and its canonization of the last tsar, murdered by the Bolsheviks. Also contributing to the sympathy enjoyed by the Free Church among many Russian faithful is its implacable opposition to ecumenism, especially in view of the widespread resentment of the proselytization which is being conducted in Russia by missionaries belonging to Western Protestant churches and sects that combine their substantial financial resources with ignorance of Russian life and culture. [18]

Many Russian clerics reject religious pluralism and strongly condemn the activities in Russia of all non-Orthodox denominations. A Moscow priest is quoted as saying in late 1991, “Moscow isn't a Babylon for second cults, for Protestant congregations who resemble wild wolves rushing in here or Catholics like thieves using their billions to try to occupy new territory.” [19] In addition, many Russian priests are highly unreceptive to theological modernism and “libertarian” trends in Western churches, not to speak of liberation theology. Such tendencies are associated with the World Council of Churches, which is despised for defending the antireligious policy of the Communist government at the instigation of the KGB agents in cassocks, while it did nothing to support the priests and faithful who rotted in the gulag for their beliefs. “That the Kremlin managed to handcuff the largest predominantly Protestant organization in the world is one of its greatest foreign policy achievements since World War II.” [20]

The intransigently anti-ecumenical position of the Church Abroad in contrast to the patriarchate's cooperation with alien Protestant organizations at the behest of the Soviet government permits the Free Church to be seen as a bulwark against Western encroachments on the Orthodox faith.

Needless to say, the Moscow Patriarchate is fiercely opposed to the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of expanding its jurisdiction into Russia. There have been many instances where, at the instigation of the patriarchate, the civil authorities have refused to register Free Orthodox parishes (in violation of the law) or have turned newly opened churches over to the patriarchate at the request of artificially constituted groups of lay persons. It has been reported that KGB agents and police have used violence against believers who wanted to have a priest of the Free Orthodox Church. In one much-publicized episode, a priest in St. Petersburg was persecuted with the cooperation of the city authorities for establishing a parish of the Free Orthodox Church in an abandoned monastery church, while the metropolitan of St. Petersburg threatened his parishioners with excommunication. [21]

The creation of parishes in Russia by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is also opposed by a number of prominent clerics and laymen belonging to Orthodox jurisdictions outside Russia, who are willing to accept the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate in spite of its transgressions. Some opponents object strongly to what they view as the Russian church's “schismatic activity,” and reject any implication that the Moscow Patriarchal Church lacks grace. Prominent Orthodox lay author Nikita Struve writes, “To consider that the Russian Orthodox Church is devoid of grace is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. . .” [22]

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, on the other hand, takes the view that its parishes in Russia have finally returned to the true Orthodox Church. According to the Church Abroad, the Moscow Patriarchal Church must formally renounce Patriarch Sergi's 1927 declaration of support for the Soviet government in order to regain canonical standing. In addition, it must reject the heresy of ecumenism and glorify the “new martyrs” of the faith, including Tsar Nicholas II. The Church Abroad refuses to recognize as a renunciation of detestable “Sergianism” Aleksi's statements that the church's past policies should now be regarded as belonging to history, and that such acts were taken under pressure in order to safeguard the continued existence of the church. To this Bishop Georgi Grabbe of the Church Abroad responds, “The Patriarch is right when he says that the Declaration of 1927 is history. But what is there not in history? In it there are the exploits of the martyrs and the confessors, but in it there is also the treachery of Judas.” [23]

The sensitivity displayed by the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as by non-Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, at the activity of the Russian Church Abroad on Russian soil reveals their alarm at the inroads that the Church Abroad is making among the faithful in Russia. If some priests go over to a church that is not guilty of complicity in the crimes of Stalin and his successors, mainly to escape the authority of a bishop with whom they are at odds, it is not surprising that in other cases parish priests are unwilling to submit to the sway of hierarchs who continue to enjoy opulent office after a career of KGB service, and moreover propagate ecumenism. These defections occur even though the disincentives against deserting the Moscow Patriarchate are great. Not only are such priests frequently subjected to persecution by the local authorities, but these family men who go over to the jurisdiction of the Free Church suffer greatly materially and lose the pension rights they would have otherwise enjoyed as members of the official church.

Despite the pressures on priests to conform to the Moscow line, the number of parishes in Russia under the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad has been steadily growing during the last few years. The Church Abroad now claims fifty-four parishes in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, including six in Moscow, one in St. Petersburg, and three in Nizhny Novgorod. [24] In addition, most priests of the “Catacomb Church” who had gone underground with their flocks rather than subject themselves to the rule of the Moscow Patriarchate, have joined the Free Church. This church will retain its appeal to independent-minded and dedicated priests as long as the Moscow Patriarchate is seen by many as irrevocably morally comprised and more committed to material well-being and the elimination of dissent than the spiritual welfare of the faithful.

Not surprisingly, the Free Church, guiltless of complicity in Communist crimes against Russia and devoted to the monarchy, readily attracts “patriotic” elements. Right-wing political groups endeavor to enlist the support of the church's adherents. As the political struggle intensifies, it will be difficult for the church to avoid association with Russian nationalism. Will a portion of the moral intransigence that the church has displayed in the past enable the Free Church to assert its refusal of co-optation by political factions?

Conclusion

Many senior clerics and lay people in Russia doubt that the Muscovite patriarchal hierarchy is capable of radical reform and spiritual regeneration. The policies of the patriarchate are likely to remain in history as an extreme example of zealous cooperation of an episcopate with an ideologically alien temporal power. In the past, prelates have not always bent the spine before a revolutionary or dictatorial regime. It will be remembered that only seven French bishops took the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1791, and that ten years later almost all the non-juror bishops preferred poverty in exile to subscription to the Concordat of 27 Messidor.

There are signs that in order to assure its future position, the Moscow hierarchy is now seeking political allies on the right to replace its former patrons. It is noteworthy that in his official travels to places of pilgrimage, Aleksi permits himself to be guarded by blackshirted troopers from paramilitary groups of the Russian nationalist extreme Right. Pending a decisive turn of the tide, however, the hierarchy displays an astounding determination to demonstrate its subservience to political authority—even if that loyalty is to the collapsed Communist regime. Metropolitan Yuvenali, chairman of the Synodal Commission on Canonization, holds that martyrs of the church who suffered under Bolshevik rule cannot be canonized until the church receives official certification from the state that they were not “state criminals” and that they have been “politically rehabilitated.” [25]

The crisis of trust in the church greatly reduces it stature and diminishes its capacity to make fitting contribution to building a new Russia. Nevertheless, the hierarchy continues to be resolute in resisting calls for public repentance for past acts and for the establishment of church courts to remove the most compromised members of the senior clergy. Many prominent laymen also hold that only new institutions, such as a radically reformed governing body of the church with greatly expanded membership and the election of priests and bishops at assemblies in which lay persons participate, can restore confidence in the Russian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate. [26] If far-reaching reform measures are not adopted, the influence of less compromised and more vigorous Russian jurisdictions will continue to grow—and the missionary activity of Protestant as well as non-Christian religious groups will find success with the Russian flock. In the meantime, one must agree with the view that the Moscow Patriarchate is an “island of Stalino-Brezhnevite reality.” [27]

 

NOTES

1. The quotations for KGB reports as well as the facsimile report referred to will be found in Stanislav Levchenko, «Pogony pod ryasami» (Shoulderboards Beneath Cassocks), Novoe Russkoe Slovo, 16 April 1992, p. 16. For evidence of WCC General Secretary Philip Potter's unwillingness to condemn religious prosecution in the Soviet Union, see Kent R. Hill, The Soviet Union on the Brink: An Inside Look at Christianity and Glasnost (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah, 1991), p.143-144.

2. Professor Yuri Rozenbaum, quoted in «Kamo gryadeshi, svataya tserkov?» Ogonek, No. 18-19 (May) 1992, p. 13.

3. Alexander Nezhny, «Tretye imya,» Ogonek, No. 4 (January) 1992, p. 3.

4. Information provided by a former employee of the department, Deacon Andrei Ribin. See Orthodox Life, No. 3 (1992), p. 33.

5. Father Georgi Edelshtein, interview, Argumenty i Fakty, No. 36 (September) 1991, p. 7.

6. Father Anthony Ugolnik, Franklin and Marshall College, “The Orthodox Church and Contemporary Politics in the USSR,” unpublished paper, 1991, p. 12.

7. Press conference of the Russian Federation Supreme Soviet Commission to Investigate the Causes and Circumstances of the Putsch (the Ponomarev Commission), 25 December 1991, Foreign Broadcast Information Service [FBIS]-SOV-91-248, 26 December 1991, p. 42.

8. Alexander Nezhny, «Nad bezdnoi,» Ogonek, No. 37 (September) 1991, p. 7.

9. Interviews of Father Gleb Yakunin and Father Vyacheslav Polosin by Kent R. Hill, in Hill, “The Orthodox Church and a Pluralistic Society,” p. 23, Russian Pluralism—Now Irreversible?, ed. Uri Ra'anan et al. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992) p. 181-82. Lev Ponomarev believes that the reason that his Supreme Soviet Commission was closed down was its members' exposure of church hierarchs as KGB agents. («Kamo gryadeshi, svyataya tserkov?» p. 12).

10. Text of document from KGB archive quoted in «Kamo gryadeshi, svyataya tserkov?», p. 13.

11. Jean Besse, «Quelle Voie Pour L'Eglise Russe,» Le Messager Orthodoxe, No. 115 (1990), p. 17.

12. Three Days in August: August 19-21, 1991. Chronicle of a Coup d'État (Moscow: Postfactum & Interlegal, 1991), p. 35; Savik Shuster, “The Role of Radio Liberty During the Putsch, The Impact of Foreign Broadcasts” in Russian Pluralism—Now Irreversible, p. 159.

13. See Alexander Webster, The Price of Prophesy: Orthodox Churches on Peace, Freedom and Security (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992), p. 119-120.

14. Interview of Kharchev by Alexander Nezhny quoted in Nezhny, «Ego blazhenstvo bez mitry i zhezla,» Ogonek, No. 48 (November) 1991, p. 9.

15. Alexander Nezhny, «Ego blazhenstvo bez mitry i zhezla,» Ogonek, No. 49 (December) 1991, p. 21-22.

16. See Ugolnik, p. 54-55, 58-59.

17. Telephone interview with Father Alexander F.C. Webster, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C., 22 June 1992.

18. See Mark Elliott and Robert Richardson, “Growing Protestant Diversity in the Former Soviet Union,” in Russian Pluralism—Now Irreversible? p. 189-203, and “Western Mission Perestroika in Central and Eastern Europe,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, January 1992, p. 8-10.

19. Elisabeth Rubinfien, “Orthodox Revival,” The Wall Street Journal, 20 December 1991, quoted by Kent R. Hill, “The Orthodox Church and a Pluralistic Society,” Russian Pluralism—Now Irreversible, p. 171.

20. Kent R. Hill, The Soviet Union on the Brink, p. 136. See the discussion by Hill of the WCC's policies (p. 135-165), including anecdotal episodes of subservience to Soviet views, written before documentary evidence of KGB involvement with the WCC became available.

21. See Pravoslavnaya Rus, No. 12 (1991) p. 15; No. 16 (1991), p. 11; No. 17 (1991), p. 17.

22. Struve, «Ot redaktsii,» Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya, No. 159 (1990), p. 4.

23. Grabbe, «Dogmatizatsiya Sergianstva,» Pravoslavnaya Rus, No. 17, (1991), p. 6.

24. I am grateful to Father Roman Lukianov of Boston for information on the activity in Russia of the Russian Church Abroad. A list of the parishes of the Free Orthodox Church was received from Bishop Hilarion of New York.

25. «Kamo gryadeshi, svyataya tserkov?» p. 13.

26. See, for example, the program of church reform advocated by D. Pospelovsky, «Russkaya pravosavnaya tserkov segodnya i novy patriarkh,» Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya, No. 159 (1990), p. 227-228.

27. Father Georgi Edelshtein, quoted in «Kamo gryadeshi, svyataya tserkov?» p. 13.

 

Source: Demokratizatsiya, the Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 1 (No. 4, 1993), pp. 72-83.