Conclusion: The Essence of the Moscow Patriarchate
Summary chapter from the book by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedev of the ROCOR-MP, Плод лукавый. Происхождение и сущность Московской Патриархии, ["The Evil Fruit: The Origin and Essence of the Moscow Patriarchate"], Swan Press, Bell Canyon, California, 1994. Full text: https://web.archive.org/web/20171214140215/http://www.russia-talk.org/cd-history/lebedeff.htm
In all the material presented above, the profound difference should be clear between the confessing Church, represented by such hierarchs as Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Benjamin, Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Cyril, and a host of other new martyrs and confessors, and the Soviet Church, represented by Metropolitan Evdokim, Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius, and Patriarchs Alexy I, Pimen, and Alexy II. The former spoke the truth and were ready to suffer for Christ (and they did suffer!). The latter spoke and continue to speak lies, having sold the priceless gift of God— the spiritual freedom of the Church—for the lentil stew of "recognition," or, more precisely, tolerance, on the part of the God-fighting authorities.
We have provided numerous examples of fearless and truthful statements made by confessors of the faith, as well as several examples of false statements made by official representatives of the Soviet Church, both in its first incarnation—the Renovationist Church—and in its second—the Moscow Patriarchate. In the latter case, we have barely scratched the surface of the bottomless barrel of lies and sycophancy that the Soviet Church filled with its statements throughout its existence. Material of this kind is not difficult to find: one need only open any issue of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, and everything is there in plain view.
Let us take a few examples demonstrating the profound difference between the approaches of the Soviet Church and the Orthodox Confessing Church:
The Soviet Church:
"We declare that we fully support the activities of the Church Administration, consider it the only canonically lawful Supreme Church authority, and regard all directives issued by it as entirely legitimate and binding. We call upon all true pastors and faithful sons of the Church, both in our entrusted dioceses and in others, to follow our example." (Metropolitan Sergius, 1922).
The Soviet Church:
"Let us offer our prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord, who has so graciously favored our holy Church. Let us publicly express our gratitude to the Soviet Government for such attention to the spiritual needs of the Orthodox population." (Metropolitan Sergius, 1927).
"In certain foreign circles, some individuals hostile to the USSR have spread and continue to spread slander about the alleged restriction of freedom of conscience in the Soviet Union. They have spread and continue to spread lies that clergy and believers in our country were supposedly subjected to, and continue to be subjected to, persecution, including judicial prosecution, by state authorities for their religious activities. This lie and slander have been categorically and long since refuted..." (Moscow Patriarchate, 1958).
The Confessing Church:
"We forbid recognizing the All-Russian Church Administration as an institution of the Antichrist, in which are the sons of disobedience to Divine Truth and the holy canons of the Church. We write this so that it may be known to all of you that by the authority given to Us by God—we anathematize the All-Russian Church Administration and all who have any communion with it." (Patriarch Tikhon, 1922).
The Confessing Church:
"The Orthodox Church cannot, following the example of the Renovationists, testify that religion within the USSR is not subjected to any restrictions and that there is no other country where it enjoys complete freedom. It will not proclaim to the whole world that shameful lie, which could only be inspired by either hypocrisy, servility, or complete indifference to the fate of religion—worthy of boundless condemnation in its ministers. On the contrary, with all justice, it must declare that it cannot recognize as just or welcome the laws restricting it in the fulfillment of its religious duties, the administrative measures that multiply the oppressive weight of these laws many times over, or the patronage given to the Renovationist schism to its detriment." (Solovetsky Bishops, 1927).
The examples were provided to demonstrate with complete clarity the difference between the Confessing Church and the church of traitors. Having become acquainted with the documents, no one can claim that the Moscow Patriarchate is the spiritual heir of Patriarch Tikhon's Church. On the contrary, one can come to only one conclusion: the Moscow Patriarchate differs from Patriarch Tikhon's Church as darkness from light, as black from white, as falsehood from truth.
However, it can be clearly determined that the Moscow Patriarchate is the spiritual heir of another organization calling itself the Russian Orthodox Church—namely, the Renovationist Church. Reading excerpts from the official statements of the Renovationists and comparing them with the official statements of the Moscow Patriarchate, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that they seem to have been written by the same hand, which, in essence, corresponds to the truth.
Therefore, the essence of the Moscow Patriarchate can be very simply defined: the Moscow Patriarchate is nothing other than the Soviet Church, a creation of the godless authorities, built on falsehood and guided by lies in all its manifestations. It is the direct heir of the Renovationist Church, the first "trial" creation of the Soviet authorities, as well as of the Red-Clerical movement of revolutionary priests at the beginning of this century.
As Father George Edelstein beautifully, succinctly, and clearly expressed:
"Sergianism is the Red-Clerical Renovationism, nurtured by communists and GPU agents, within the framework of respectable Orthodoxy."
(Edelstein, Fr. G., "The Russian Orthodox Church Today in the Eyes of Foreign Historians and Witnesses," New York-Montreal, 1991, p. 8.)
All of its prominent hierarchs are entirely compromised by their collaboration with the KGB. Even if some of them are not direct agents of this notorious institution, they are its appointees, since not a single episcopal consecration since Metropolitan Sergius's Declaration has taken place without the corresponding directive from the authorities.
The ideology of the Soviet Church is quite simple: not only can the Church be saved through lies, but it must be done so.
The principle that "the end justifies the means," completely alien to true Orthodox teaching, has become the cornerstone of the ideology of the Soviet Church.
This is why even now, when virtually all other Soviet institutions are opening their archives and candid articles about their activities under the former communist regime are being published, the Moscow Patriarchate stands alone. Do not even think of expecting any transparency about its actions!
Fr. George Edelstein, reporting on candid statements by former KGB generals about close cooperation with church hierarchs and revealing which of the latter, under their cassocks and panagias, wear KGB general's epaulets, writes:
"The generals confirm that the KGB appointed the leaders of religious organizations, while the Moscow Patriarchate denies the obvious. It is shameful to admit, but today the KGB is a more transparent and truthful institution than the Moscow Patriarchate..." (ibid., p. 4).
At a time when some state archives had already been opened, and documentary evidence had emerged about the participation of the highest hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate in KGB activities— even revealing the code names of these agents (including Patriarch Alexy II, whose agent codename was "Drozdov")—it is entirely inappropriate for the Moscow Patriarchate to remain silent about these distressing matters.
The Moscow Patriarchate would have embarked on the path of truth and openness if it were truly the Russian Orthodox Church. But, being essentially a Soviet Church, it cannot act otherwise.
As Fr. George Edelstein writes regarding Metropolitan Sergius and the path he charted:
"If any of the Sergianists wish to object that the 'wise elder' and his like-minded followers were forced to lie, that at that time it was impossible to act otherwise, I must disappoint them: Sergianists lie not because they might be sent to a labor camp, nor because a gun is held to their heads, but simply because they are Sergianists. That is their doctrine; they believe and confess that the Church must be saved through lies. This is their first and greatest commandment..."
(Edelstein, Fr. G., "Reading and Rereading the Classics," New York-Montreal, 1992, p. 5.)
On the fact that an institution created by a God-fighting authority cannot possibly be the true Orthodox Church but must be something else, something distinct, Z. Krahmalnikova writes vividly:
"This was a grand design: to create a new breed of people, to arrange a church for them in which the clergy would be KGB agents. And thus, to put an end forever to all morality and spirituality.
For this new religion, it would be necessary to recruit those seeking clerical rank who do not believe in its sanctity, so they would feel no shame in receiving this rank upon the recommendation of those with whom a corresponding contract would be made. And the angelic monastic name would be desecrated by an agent's codename.
Everything in this so-called Orthodox church would appear 'normal'—repentance (if needed), services, rituals, customs. Fasting, prayers, memorial services, the same vestments, and countless candles—millions, if not billions—buy and light as many as you wish! You are free. And the churches would be full of people. Visiting foreigners would be touched, seeing crowds filling the temples, and they would call this 'Holy Russia.'
But the faith would be different, even though it would still be called by the old name: Orthodox. A special breed deserves a special faith, as well as special pastors. This would be faith in another god, a god who requires no particular effort to betray—not only for lower, selfish goals but even for higher ones. For instance, for the 'salvation' of the Church.
The bearers of this new faith would take pride in it and strive to seize all the cathedrals and churches in Russia to implant their faith everywhere, believing, like those who recruited their pastors, that it is the most Orthodox faith.
Unlike the faith of those who went into the catacombs, abhorring betrayal and ecclesiastical falsehood. And unlike those in the Diaspora who also refused to accept the new faith."
(Krahmalnikova, Z., "Scandal in the Noble Family," Orthodox Bulletin No. 52–53, Montreal, 1992).
Yes, the ideology of the Soviet Church is undoubtedly a new faith, based not on the principle of fearlessly standing for the truth, not on the principle of confession, but on the principle of falsehood.
This is precisely what A. Solzhenitsyn addressed in his Great Lent Message to Patriarch Pimen in 1972:
"By what arguments can one convince oneself that the systematic destruction of the spirit and body of the Church under the guidance of atheists is the best preservation of it? Preservation—for whom? Certainly not for Christ anymore. Preservation—by what means? Falsehood? But after falsehood—with what hands can the Eucharist be performed?"
(Solzhenitsyn, A., Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 183).
No, the Church cannot be saved by lies. For Scripture says: "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 12:22). And in the New Testament: "Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God" (1 John 3:10).
It is no wonder that the Moscow Patriarchate delays so much on the issue of the glorification of the New Martyrs, despite the persistent demands of priests and the faithful. Patriarch Alexy II keeps speaking about the need for some kind of "rehabilitation" of these sufferers for the faith by the government before they can be glorified (see, for example, an interview in Russian Bulletin, No. 33, December 25, 1991, p. 14).
But every reasonable Orthodox person understands that this is absurd. The rehabilitation of those who were unlawfully repressed by the government is a positive matter and deserves encouragement, but why link this to the purely ecclesiastical issue of the public glorification of the host of Russian New Martyrs? After all, the very fact of their martyrdom is already recognized by the Church as testimony to their sanctity. Here there is no need for collecting evidence of miracles or examining relics. It is simple: whoever died for Christ is already a saint.
The Church only needs to establish a day of commemoration, which, incidentally, was already done at the All-Russian Council in its decree of April 18, 1918:
"3. To establish throughout Russia an annual prayerful commemoration on January 25th, or on the following Sunday evening, of all the confessors and martyrs who have passed away during this cruel time."
(Cited in Vvedensky, A., Church and Revolution, p. 216).
By linking the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia to some kind of rehabilitation, the Moscow Patriarchate once again demonstrates its corrupted ecclesiastical worldview—all because it cannot and does not wish to cast off the terrible sin of Sergianism.
Could it be that the Moscow Patriarchate delays the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors because it knows full well that among them are many fervent denouncers of Sergianism, such as Metropolitans Cyril and Joseph, along with a host of others who broke communion with the Soviet Church?
Only a renunciation of this false ideology and sincere, open repentance can transform the creation of a God-fighting regime—essentially a Soviet Church—into a true and Orthodox one.
What, then, should the Moscow Patriarchate be called to do? As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so beautifully put it, it must be called to "live not by lies."
The Moscow Patriarchate must admit that it has lived and been governed by lies throughout its existence. It must renounce all these lies and, moreover, the very principle that the Church can and should be saved by lies. Without such a renunciation, there can be no renewal.
The year 1927 was decisive in the history of the modern Russian Church. Within two months of that fateful year, two documents appeared. The first was the voice of the Confessing Church: the Epistle of the Solovetsky Bishops. The second was the voice of the Soviet Church: Metropolitan Sergius's "Declaration." Both documents set the future course of the Russian Church under Soviet conditions. The first chose the path of truth and readiness to follow Christ, even unto death. The second chose the path of falsehood and willingness to serve the God-fighting regime. Is it not time to admit that the choice of the second path was a colossal sin against Christ’s Church and the Russian people?
The first Soviet Church—the Renovationist Church—despite all the false statements of its representatives, could not lead the true Orthodox Russian people onto a false path. The faithful people knew that, apart from this Soviet Church, there also existed the Church of the Confessors, the true Russian Church, headed by Patriarch Tikhon. This awareness strengthened the people in their faith, even amidst the terrible persecutions.
But in 1927, something dreadful occurred: the one who had assumed leadership of the Church of the Confessors—the Church of Patriarch Tikhon—himself led it onto the path of serving falsehood, transforming it, which was meant to be the pillar and ground of the truth, into a new Soviet Church, entirely devoted to falsehood and the God-fighting government. Truly, this was a great betrayal, for which the perpetrator of this crime and his followers are destined to share the fate of Judas.
"By their fruits you will know them," said the Lord (Matt. 7:16).
The bitter fruits of communist rule in Russia are now visible to all. Unfortunately, among these fruits is the "Soviet Church" obedient to it—the present-day Moscow Patriarchate. It is time to rid ourselves of this deceitful fruit as well.
Russian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.