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

Prayer Against Inquisitive and Perplexing Thoughts

Almighty God, my Maker and Protector, who hast graciously sent me into this world to work out my salvation: enable me, by the assistance of Thy Holy Spirit, to root out all such unquiet and perplexing thoughts as may mislead or hinder me in the practice of those duties which Thou hast required. When I behold the works of Thy hands, and consider the course of Thy divine providence, give me grace always to remember that Thy thoughts are not my thoughts, nor Thy ways my ways. And while it shall please Thee to continue me in this world, where much is to be done, and so little to be known, teach me by the Holy Spirit to withdraw my mind from all unprofitable and dangerous inquiries, from difficulties vainly curious, and from doubts impossible to be solved. Let me rejoice in that light which Thou has imparted; let me serve Thee with active zeal, and humble confidence; and wait with patient expectation for the time, in which the soul that Thou receivest shall be satisfied with all knowledge, and welcomed to those mansions of eternal glory, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it even entered into the heart of man to conceive. Grant this, O Lord, for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.

- Samuel Johnson (+1784)

A review of the book ''Heresies of Patriarch Kirill''

The Complete Collection of Heresies

by Lera Furman,

Editor of the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta (New Newspaper)

 

 

American Orthodox activists Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris have published a book analyzing (and deconstructing) the religious teachings of Patriarch Kirill.

Putin's reign in Russia coincides with the most scandalous patriarchate in Russian history, embodied by Kirill (Gundyaev). Perhaps the most comprehensive analysis to date of his specific teachings and views has become publicly available —a book by Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris, "The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill." It is also available in Russian translation.

The hero and the authors

"The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill" is one of those books that would be a thankless task to retell. With astonishing meticulousness, the authors have compiled all available evidence of the incompatibility of Patriarch Kirill's teachings with Orthodoxy and Christianity in general, using the official resources of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. And as a response, they use the Bible, the canons, the sayings of saints, and other authorities on the subject.

Mr. Gundyaev's ideology has been subjected to theological and philosophical criticism before, but perhaps no one has yet taken the trouble to bring all his ideas together and present them as a system of views. And, it must be said, the resulting picture is both compelling and frightening. After reading the book, Patriarch Kirill's admission that we live in apocalyptic times and that he himself is a herald of the Apocalypse becomes more serious.

Kirill lacks any formal education; in 1970, he earned a diploma from the Leningrad Theological Academy almost automatically, thanks to the patronage of his mentor, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). However, history decreed that Kirill would become the chief prophet of the religion that plunged Russia into the abyss of militarism, xenophobia, chauvinism, and mass psychosis. While daily calling for an escalation of military conflict with the Orthodox Ukrainian people and the entire "satanic" West, Kirill continues to lead the world's largest Orthodox Church, uniting millions of believers, tens of thousands of clergy and parishes, proclaiming its monopoly on truth, and backed by the full might of the repressive apparatus of Putin's dictatorship.

The book's authors, Silouan Wright and Panagiotis Makris, are not professional theologians, which only enhances the value of their research. Their perspective is sincere and direct, devoid of the professional cynicism of specialists who have experienced the contradictions of Christian history. Wright, 38, comes from an African-American family and lives in a small town in Missouri. He converted to Orthodoxy seven years ago, cherishes Russian saints, and corresponds with Russian political prisoners.

Silouan Wright was the driving force behind the book's creation: he quit his day job for six months to write it, spending 70 hours a week researching the material. His co-author, 32-year-old Panagiotis Makris, was born into a traditional Orthodox family and remains a parishioner of the Greek Church, critical of its leadership's compromising stance. The authors saw their goal as presenting the reader with a contrast between the "patristic consensus"—traditional Orthodoxy—and the new teaching constructed by Kirill to satisfy the Kremlin's demands. "We made absolutely no profit from this; we offer this book as a burnt offering to our God," Silouan and Panagiotis admit.

History of the Heresy

In the first weeks of full-scale military action in Ukraine, on March 13, 2022, more than 500 Orthodox theologians from various countries (including seven from Russia!) signed a declaration criticizing the false teachings used by the Russian Orthodox Church leadership to justify the war. They believed these false teachings stem from a single root: "a totalitarian variety of Orthodox ethnophyletic religious fundamentalism known as the ' Russian World.'" The theologians characterized it as a heresy that replaces "the Kingdom of God, seen by the prophets, proclaimed and revealed to us by Christ, preached by the apostles... with a kingdom of this world," called "Holy Russia."

“We resolutely reject,” the theologians wrote, “all forms of government that deify the state… replacing obedience to the crucified and risen Lord with submission to any leader vested with authority.”

The heresies of the Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill have also been discussed at a higher Orthodox level —for example, by the heads of local Orthodox churches, including the "first in honor" Ecumenical Patriarch (of Constantinople), Bartholomew. Speaking at an international conference in December 2022, he suggested that Putin would not have attacked Ukraine if Kirill had not presented him with a ready-made doctrine of the "holy war of the 'Russian world.'"

One of the most erudite Russian theologians, Deacon Andrei Kuraev, exiled from the Russian Orthodox Church and Russia and accepted into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, has argued for many years that the religious views expounded by Kirill in his sermons are not Christian. They are a mixture of elements of late Soviet occultism (the theory of bioenergetics), atheism, and nationalistic paganism. Gundyaev secured the transfer of valuable icons from the Tretyakov Gallery collection to the Russian Orthodox Church because he believed that such icons accumulated enormous energy, which should be used as a weapon against the enemies of the Russian Federation. Kirill views worship, sacraments, and the church exclusively from a "bioenergetic," magical perspective: "The more people there are, the greater the likelihood that at every moment an energetic spiritual flow emanates from the church." He also perceives icons in an occult, materialistic way: “This ordinary physical substance, wood covered with paint, absorbs this energy and then gives it to people... A real flow of human energy towards God.”

Mr. Gundyaev also magically equates his own person with an icon: when people pray with the patriarch, he asserts, "an energetic message coming from the outside, like the most sensitive radar, picks up the signaling system." He knows of no spiritual life that doesn't fit into material manifestations: "Biochemical processes, as scientists say, the body performs certain functions of spiritual life." Kirill hopes that, in time, scientists will explain to us what prayer and grace are—apparently, the explanations given in the Bible or church tradition are unknown or uninteresting to him. From Kirill's perspective, a nation is also a bioenergetic unity that forms in the energy field of a church: "In holy places, the spiritual power of a people is concentrated. In our churches, people prayed to God, they transmitted their energy to Heaven. There is a certain energy here." Refuting the key Christian dogma of the Trinity, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church taught: “The Holy Spirit is a spiritual energetic force that encompasses the entire universe.”

Kuraev interprets Gundyaev's views as "one of the most enduring pagan beliefs: religion and ritual circulate the same energy... Maintaining order in the world, keeping the 'cosmos' from disintegrating into 'chaos,' requires considerable effort from the pagan gods. The gods' powers, however, are not limitless... The gods, exhausted by the labor of preserving the cosmos from disintegration, must be supported by humans." Kuraev considers another of Kirill's doctrines—on concentrating the energy of meditation in a material object—to be Buddhist and occultist, quoting St. Augustine: "To bind invisible spirits to visible things by some art means to create gods."

Father Andrei admits that, having become patriarch, Kirill tried to appear more respectable, “but the language of Juna, with whom Kirill was friends in the 1970s and 1980s, still ingrained him. And it is impossible to separate language from worldview... No one except Father Kirill preaches in this jargon.” Kuraev recalls an elementary Christian truth: “An icon does not work miracles. None. God works miracles.” The worship of a material substance that accumulates material energy (which Kirill preaches) was anathematized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). You don’t have to be a high-brow theologian to see through the “heresy of Kirill.” Ordinary listeners to his sermons quip:

"At the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, the Patriarch was guarded by National Guard soldiers with Kalashnikovs at the ready and extra ammunition in a pouch on their belts... The Patriarch talked about an 'invisible energy field,' but he himself remained unconnected to it?"

A popular Orthodox blogger from Vienna, Nun Vassa (Larina), draws attention to Kirill's heresies, directly related to the "SVO": "The Patriarch calls the aggressive war, the shelling and bombing of civilians, a 'Holy War'; he promises those who kill in this war that all their sins will be washed away if they themselves are killed, and he does this publicly... If I had children, I would do everything I could to protect them from contact with anyone or anyone who proclaims such lies from the church pulpit, from a holy place," writes Vassa. "This is 'an abomination of desolation in a holy place' (Matthew 24:15), from which the Lord commanded us to 'flee to the mountains.'" The nun draws attention to the replacement of the dogmas of the Christian faith in the Russian Orthodox Church with pagan imperial-chauvinistic teachings: the Holy Trinity is a prototype of the "trinity" of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples, and the meaning of life is not God, but "Russian tradition, the shrines of Russian civilization, and great Russian culture."

Russian Orthodox Church of the State

Wright and Makris begin their book with the traditional critique leveled at the Moscow Patriarchate by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Orthodox underground in the USSR. Its key point is known as the "heresy of Sergianism," named after the first leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recreated in 1943 by Stalin's order, Metropolitan (or, according to the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky). In 1927, Sergius signed a "declaration of loyalty to Soviet power," completely subordinating his administration to the "church department" of the OGPU. In 1930, he gave an interview published in Izvestia, in which he denied religious persecution in the USSR, claimed that churches were being closed at the request of believers, and called his arrested compatriots political criminals. Under wartime conditions, the Stalinist regime reevaluated the functions of the puppet church, particularly in the spheres of foreign policy and propaganda. Sergius's ideology—preserving the remnants of the church organization at the cost of its complete subordination to external (Chekist) control—was not supported by the vast majority of the hierarchs of his time, including the nominal primate, the imprisoned patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). Nevertheless, Sergius continued his line, proudly declaring, "I am saving the Church." The book cites numerous statements by holy new martyrs, including those canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church itself, who condemned Sergius and his policies.

Sergius' actions became the prototype of modern practices of the Russian Orthodox Church.

During World War II, he issued decrees condemning hierarchs and clergy serving in German-occupied territories. These clergy were repressed. The current Moscow Patriarchate publicly distanced itself from anti-war clergy, after which they were subjected to government repression (as was the case, for example, with Hieromonk John (Kurmoyarov), declared a "schismatic" and imprisoned for "discrediting the Russian Armed Forces").

Patriarch Kirill emphasizes his ideological connection with the Stalinist patriarch, calling him a “confessor” who “worthy walked his way of the cross.”

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church consecrated a monument to Sergius in his birthplace, Arzamas, and called criticism of "Sergianism" by saints martyred by the NKVD "false slanders."

Kirill claimed that Sergius' critics were "in a state of personal security," while they were imprisoned and exiled and ended their lives as martyrs. But this is not the path of today's Russian Orthodox Church.

While Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Local Council anathematized the Soviet regime in early 1918, Sergius and his successors (including Kirill) sacralized it, regardless of its crimes. The book's authors argue that the relevance of "Sergianism" is evidenced by Kirill's many years of service in the KGB under the pseudonym "Mikhailov" (as reported in Swiss media), his veneration of Soviet symbols (primarily the "eternal flame"), his sympathy for totalitarian regimes (for example, Cuba, China, and North Korea), and his unconditional acceptance of the power and authority of Putin, who is never wrong about anything.

For 20 years before his appointment as patriarch (since 1989), Kirill headed the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP), created at the suggestion of Lavrenty Beria in 1946. According to many former employees, the department was staffed 100% by KGB agents, primarily from the First Chief Directorate (foreign intelligence). "The employees of my department were KGB agents, including me," said Father Andrei Rybin, now serving in one of the "alternative" Orthodox churches, at a press conference in Moscow in February 1992. "I was recruited while still a seminarian. It was impossible to find work in this department in any other way" (Orthodox Life, vol. 42, no. 3). The specific nature of the DECR MP is noted in the KGB USSR document of July 28, 1970, “On the use by KGB bodies of the capabilities of the Russian Orthodox Church in counterintelligence activities within the country and abroad.”

In general, the absolute majority of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet era were recruited: according to the deputy chairman of the KGB of the USSR, Anatoly Oleynikov, only 15-20% of ordinary clergy managed to avoid cooperation,

But the leading church positions were occupied exclusively by secret service agents (Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Basic Books, 1999, p. 490). This fact was confirmed by a commission of the Supreme Soviet of Russia, headed by Lev Ponomarev and Father Gleb Yakunin, which worked in the KGB archives in early September 1991: thanks to them, the agent nicknames of the current hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, including Patriarch Alexy II (agent "Drozdov"), became known. The late Archbishop Chrysostom (Martishkin), the only hierarch to publicly repent of collaborating with the KGB (agent “Restorator”), described his brother, Metropolitan Methodius (Nemtsov) (agent “Pavel”), who now occupies the Perm diocese, as follows: “A KGB agent, an atheist, a depraved man” (Russkaya Mysl, April 24, 1992).

The Russian Orthodox Church's missions, monasteries, and churches abroad remain important intelligence centers for Russian intelligence agencies, as Novaya Evropa has reported. Wright and Makris cite the example of Priest Pavel Makarenko, rector of a newly built Russian Orthodox church in Västerås, Sweden. In November 2023, he was officially awarded the SVR medal "For Interaction" (No. 4023-PN), which was presented to him by the current head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Anthony (Sevryuk). At the same time, Archimandrite Vassian (Zmeyev) was expelled from Bulgaria "for activities incompatible with the status of a clergyman," and Archpriest Nikolai Lishchenyuk from the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky stated that the Russian Orthodox Church "is part of the Kremlin's repressive apparatus, involved in Russian influence operations."

The fruit of the poisonous tree

The "SVO theology" is the apotheosis of "Sergianism." The Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill personally had long been approaching a theological fusion of the army and the church; all that was missing, in the patriarch's parlance, was a powerful blow sufficient to erase the boundary between them. This blow was the attack on Ukraine, declared a "holy war," opening the way to paradise for all who enlist in the Russian Armed Forces and give their lives for Putin's "denazification." Last year, in a sermon at the "main church of the Russian Armed Forces" in Patriot Park near Moscow, Kirill proclaimed the Russian Orthodox Church and the army "a single, unified organism," pointing to the liturgical commemoration of the "host" at every service. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church theologically bases Russia's military actions on the territory of other states on the doctrine of the "restraining force" (in Greek, "katechon"). Apostle Paul uses this term in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (chapter 2, verses 6–7), warning that our world will not be destroyed as long as "the one who restrains" remains in it. Although the Russian Federation and the Russian people did not exist in Apostle Paul's time, Kirill boldly applies the prophecy about the "restrainer" to them.

The starting point of the patriarch's argument is Putin's statement that there is no need for a world without Russia. "The patriarch's formulations," the book's authors note, "verbatim repeat the president's political manifesto; the source of the doctrine becomes obvious: the Kremlin." The Russian Orthodox Church "has sacralized the state to such an extent that political dissent has become a religious crime. The logical conclusion is the deification of the national leader," who is perceived as a new messiah. Congratulating Putin on his latest "accession to the throne" on May 7, 2024, Kirill, citing his patriarchal charisma, predicted his reign "until the end of the century" in the biblical sense, reducing the formula "There is no need for a world without Russia" to "There will be no world without Putin."

The authors cite a large body of patristic quotations refuting another of Kirill's dogmas, that death in the "SVO" automatically "washes away all sins," that is, makes a deceased prisoner or Wagnerite a saint. The 13th Canon of St. Basil the Great, part of the canon law of the Orthodox Church, imposes a three-year excommunication from communion on those returning from war (note, defensive, not aggressive). According to St. Nicholas of Serbia, "pagans exterminated each other with pride and arrogance, while Christians go into battle with shame." Comparing himself to St. Sergius of Radonezh, Kirill asks in one of his sermons: should the saint have blessed the soldiers for the battle with the Mongol-Tatars on Kulikovo Field? If he should have, then "I bless you all today for your selfless service." But then it was a question of a defensive war against foreign enslavers, and now, as Wright and Makris emphasize, it is about an “aggressive war against Orthodox Christians.”

Remaining in the Russian Orthodox Church is "technically" impossible for an Orthodox Christian who wishes to fulfill the commandments of the Gospel: "The state, acting through the submissive church authorities, demands your participation in prayers blessing the aggressive war against your fellow Orthodox Christians. If you remain silent and participate, you become an accomplice. If you object, you risk being branded a traitor to both the state and the Church"—with all the legal consequences, as Kirill puts it.

The book refutes another "clue" used by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin to "spiritually" justify the "SVO": supposedly, the canonical children of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine are being persecuted and must be protected. "If Russia invaded to supposedly protect the UOC, why did the UOC completely condemn the invasion?" Wright and Macris ask. "Why did they immediately stop commemorating Patriarch Kirill? Why did they declare independence from Moscow on May 27, 2022? Patriarch Kirill's supporters have no quality answers to these questions, other than ad hominem and accusations of 'anti-Russianness,' Russophobia, and Western espionage."

If we accept the logic of the Russian Orthodox Church, then “any Orthodox country could invade any other where the Orthodox are experiencing difficulties,” Orthodoxy would turn into an eternal war of all against all, worse than any jihadism.

Incidentally, the authors cite numerous examples showing that Kirill is close to Islam in a number of ways, including in its radical interpretations.

"He betrayed us."

While Patriarch Kirill's press service was preparing a response to the American Orthodox study, as if to confirm their arguments, a damning voice emerged from within the very church that the Russian Armed Forces allegedly intend to "defend." Evlogy (Gutchenko), Metropolitan of Sumy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (which the Moscow Patriarchate considers part of itself), gave an interview about the heresies of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He recalled that the concept of "holy war" does not exist in the Orthodox tradition, since "the Church of Christ has never known or accepted the idea of ​​sacralizing armed violence." In the Sumy Diocese, where active military action continues today, several dozen churches have been destroyed, and Evlogy is perplexed: "Is Patriarch Kirill really so cruel?" He deliberately "sided with our murderers... He believed that Ukraine was his canonical territory. After all, it is his flock that is being killed!" The Sumy Metropolitan sees the reason for this un-Christian choice in the fact that Kirill "is not a clergyman, he is a politician. He betrayed us, he renounced us."

At the very beginning of the "SVO," Patriarch Kirill promised Metropolitan Evlogy punishment "not only in the next century, but also in this one." Now these threats have been renewed by the patriarch's faithful disciple, Kirill Frolov, head of the Association of Orthodox Experts: "The liberation of Sumy is coming soon. So, we'll meet, and he'll receive his punishment according to the canons."

"Can anyone imagine an apostle being a KGB agent? The Holy Spirit does not dwell in those who became apostles on the recommendation of the KGB. The New Martyrs of Russia rejected this institution, which we today call the Church (ROC), and therefore this institution rejected the martyrs," Orthodox publicist Zoya Krakhmalnikova, who served five years in prison for her faith, emphasized in the early 1990s.

Perhaps the word "heresy" sounds too academic and, if you like, neutral to describe what the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church preaches. His views can be analyzed theologically, compared with the teachings of the Bible and the saints, as the authors of the book "The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill" meticulously do. But the living human heart, hearing the characteristic metallic voice of Kirill, calling for endless war, hatred, and bloodshed, reflexively flees from it, as described in the Gospel parable of the Good Shepherd (John 10:5). The religion of the "SVO" is based solely on fear and coercion.

 

English translator unknown.

Russian source: https://novayagazeta.eu/.../05/24/polnoe-sobranie-eresei