Metropolitan Philaret of New York on the Moscow Patriarchate and Grace

From the Unpublished Letters of Metropolitan Philaret

Metropolitan Philaret on the Moscow Patriarchate and Grace

 

December 7/20, 1981

Beloved in the Lord, Fr. Veniamin!

Taking advantage of some free time during the voyage, I want to write you a few lines regarding the Synod's Epistle and your related concerns.

After rereading your letter-report (or whatever else it might be called), I see that my response will somewhat resemble that of Fr. George Grabbe.

First of all, you can be absolutely assured of our episcopate's stance on the Moscow Patriarchate - on its hierarchy. It is unanimous and negative. And if we say that we do not condemn the Soviet hierarchs, we are speaking of a personal moral judgment (or lack thereof), because in the history of humanity there has never been such a deceitful, blasphemous, malicious, and treacherous power as the communist regime. One must be under its pressure to judge the personal moral culpability of these hierarchs! But while we do not judge them personally, we absolutely reject their actions and position on principle, and we do not consider them representatives of the voice of the Russian Church.

It seems to me that Fr. George is right in pointing out that you did not sufficiently compare the Synod's Epistle with its fundamental definitions. You write about the Patriarchate as a false Church. But didn't you notice the Synod's resolution regarding the election of "Patriarch" Pimen? The Synod declared the elections invalid; therefore, Pimen is a false patriarch. This characterizes not only him but also all those who elected him, doesn't it?

When the Synod spoke approvingly of B. V. Talantov's statements, it did not mean that the members of the Synod were in 100% agreement with him. The Synod pointed out the emergence of courageous new voices in Soviet Russia, highlighting the undeniable spiritual movement among the people in defense of the faith.

We must also take into account that the Russian people now have a psychology very different from ours. While we, free from the pressure of the communist regime, clearly see the deformity of the state system and the corrupt wrongness of the position taken by the Soviet hierarchy, those living there, in the unfortunate USSR, are accustomed to seeing only one state authority and one church hierarchy. The Catacomb Church is deeply hidden in its secret existence, unknown to the believing masses, and this is a mercy of God's Providence, for if many knew about it, what is hidden would inevitably become known, and it would be destroyed. The overwhelming majority of believers only know the "legal" hierarchy.

The faithful receive sacraments from this hierarchy... 

Let's be clear. If the entire Church, in all its components, in the USSR is a false Church (of course, with the exception of the Catacomb Church), then there are no sacraments, no grace, and no church life within it. I personally cannot bring myself to make such a dreadful assertion. Could it really be that the Lord, because of Sergius, his company, and their successors, has left the multimillion Russian people without sacraments, without the grace-filled means for salvation?...

Could it really be that sincerely believing people, who approach the Chalice of Life with deep faith, are partaking of the food of demons instead of the Heavenly Bread? (This is how the Holy Fathers define a graceless false Eucharist). 

Who would dare to assert this?...

The Blessed Metropolitan Anthony pointed out that God's grace can pass through unworthy vessels, spiritually burning them to their destruction, while being communicated through them to those who receive it with faith. The betrayal of Orthodoxy by the hierarchy is not yet a betrayal of the Church itself. The guardian of the true faith and piety is the believing people themselves, as precisely stated in the encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. When the entire Church, through the voice of an Ecumenical Council, condemned as heretics the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, and his many like-minded followers, this condemnation did not fall upon the entire Church of Constantinople and its flock. In making their heretical statements, Nestorius and his companions were not expressing the opinion of the Church of Constantinople. Similarly, the Soviet hierarchy, in its erroneous actions, does not represent the true voice of the Russian Church. In the time of Nestorius, there was no state pressure or persecution, so the Church of Constantinople at the Council freely expressed its true opinion, apart from and against its Patriarch, condemning him along with the entire Council. In the USSR, this is impossible; but just as Nestorius in ancient times did not represent the true voice of the Church, neither do Sergius, Alexy, and Pimen represent the true voice of the Russian Church today. If the Church were free (as it was during the time of Nestorius), it would speak its word. Long ago, when the Russian Metropolitan Isidore joined the Union and began commemorating the Pope, Grand Prince Vasily publicly called him a heretic and imprisoned him, with the full approval of the flock. But now, the rulers are different, and the Church is voiceless, while its hierarchy lies, presenting itself as its representative.

As you know, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) accepts clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate through repentance and a corresponding statement on their part. However, it does not reordain them. Would this be conceivable if they were deprived of grace, having been ordained in a false Church?

Overall, your letter is written sincerely and is persuasive in many places, reflecting a spirit of true devotion to the spirit of Orthodoxy and the Church. May the Lord save you for your lively, passionate commitment to what is "the one thing needful" and for your defense of Church truth. May God's blessing be with you!

From me—blessings and regards to your wife and your wonderful daughters.

With love,

Metropolitan Philaret

P.S.: The late Vladyka John strongly disagreed with Archimandrite Fr. Konstantin, who did not recognize grace in the Moscow Church, and Vladyka John firmly opposed this, as Fr. K. himself told me.

Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=824&Itemid=178