With the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Photii of Triaditza, Reader Constantine Todorov (later Bishop Victor of Nicopol, d. 2021) responds to the issue regarding the veneration of Archbishop Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky). The text is compiled from talks by His Eminence to the faithful in 2016 during his pastoral rounds of the Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church parishes in Varna, Sliven and Stamboliyski.
How should we
regard the official glorification of Archbishop Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky) by the
Moscow Patriarchate (MP)?
First of all,
our Church (Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria) considers how Archbishop
Luke is regarded by our Sister Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
(ROCA). [1] He was not among the martyrs and confessors glorified by the
ROCA in 1981. Likewise, he is not included in our Menology and we do not treat
him as an Orthodox saint. The basis for the ROCA’s decision was that Archbishop
Luke was unambiguously involved with the church policies of Metropolitan
Sergius (Stragorodskiy) d.1944, implemented to satisfy the Soviet authorities.
It is important to explain why the ROCA desisted from glorifying clergymen
involved with Sergianism.
We know, from
the history of the Russian Church in the period after the 1917 revolution, that
the Soviet secret police frequently attempted to initiate schisms in the Church
in order to destroy her. At first, the aim of the Bolshevik powers was to
uproot all faith in God, to erase the name of God altogether. This ultimate
goal was very explicit and was laid out officially in their party programme.
The Bolsheviks commenced their war against the Church with ruthless repression
against the clergy and the faithful.
However, they
soon understood that this approach would not achieve the desired outcome of
severing people from the faith. Instead, the repressions forged new confessors
and martyrs, from among the clergy and laity, whom the faithful honoured for
their struggle for piety, thus increasing the spiritual authority of the
Church. The persecution, therefore, did not achieve its objective but rather
the opposite.
Consequently,
the Bolsheviks attempted to infiltrate the Church hierarchy by promoting
collaborators to positions within the Church administration. The secret police
instigated the so-called ‘Renovationist' schism by utilising a movement already
in existence in the Russian Church before the revolution. This Renovationist
movement consisted of people with liberal orientations who were in favour of
married bishops, permitting priests to marry a second time, the weakening of
the fasts and so on. These impious innovations, however, were rejected by the
Church’s faithful. Only a small minority supported the movement. With the help
of the authorities, the Renovationists seized control of two-thirds of the
churches in Russia, but the faithful would not attend their services, and would
only attend churches served by priests loyal to Patriarch Tikhon. [2] This
schism did not succeed, although many priests and bishops did submit to the
Renovationist hierarchy from fear of persecution.
The Church
became even stronger during this trial, because the weak, fainthearted or
liberal-minded transferred to the Renovationists and the Body of the Church
shook off those members who would have caused greater decay from within. As the
schism was developing, Patriarch Tikhon was arrested and held under strict
house arrest for one year. Following his release, and his First Exhortation to
the Faithful, priests who had submitted out of fear began to return to the
Patriarchal Church en masse and the Renovationist leadership was
weakened.
Subsequently,
the GPU [3] tried to harm the Church in various ways by instigating
schismatic movements, such as the Gregorian schism (an attempt to introduce the
New Calendar into the Russian Church). These, however, met with failure because
the Church hierarchy, which the Soviet authorities appointed and legally
registered, did not receive the backing and recognition of the Church’s
faithful.
The Orthodox
flock rejected the Renovationists precisely because the latter unhesitatingly
endorsed and collaborated with the openly atheistic Soviet government. Any
faithful member of the Church naturally could not consent to be led by pastors
who were collaborators with the secret police (who in turn were endeavouring to
destroy the Church).
Of course, the
bishops and priests who did not wish to submit to the Renovationist leadership,
being unable to appeal openly to the government, reasoned thus: “we cannot
accept the Renovationists because they are uncanonical and unlawful in the eyes
of the Church.” However, on their part, the Bolsheviks simply changed tactics
to achieve their goal. Eugene Tuchkov, [4] the head of the GPU department
concerned with the destruction of the Church announced the following: “Very
well, I will give you your own canonical first hierarch, but after this there
will be no mercy for those who don’t submit to him.” The Bolsheviks understood
that it wasn’t enough simply to impose an agreeable ecclesiastical
leadership that they could control; these leaders would have to be canonical in
order for the faithful to accept them.
Patriarch
Tikhon reposed in 1925. For the next two years, the government tried, without
success, to break the will of those hierarchs who stood at the forefront of the
Church’s leadership, or who had a canonical claim to receive the primacy. These
were Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) d.1937, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh)
d.1937, Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky) d.1928, Archbishop Seraphim
(Samoylovich) d.1937 and Metropolitan Cyril (Smirnov) d.1937. These hierarchs
were removed, sent into exile, imprisoned or placed under house-arrest.
Eventually,
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodskiy) accepted the GPU’s conditions and in the summer
of 1927, he published his notorious Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet
government on behalf of the Church. He instigated a new ecclesiastical policy
of collaboration with the Bolsheviks. This Church position and policy is known
after him as “Sergianism”. It is important to understand what Sergianism is
because, together with ecumenism, it is the main reason for our separation from
official Orthodoxy. I will give an example to show the level of treachery
by this new project of the GPU.
When Tuchkov
was trying to corrupt the Metropolitan of Kazan, Cyril, he told him the
following: “I will give you a list of people with which you will form a Synod.
Additionally, you are to cooperate with us in everything. Then we will allow
you to exist legally. And what do we mean by ‘cooperation’? If a certain
hierarch is unacceptable to us, we will inform you and you must remove him from
his see.” But the “unacceptable” ones were the genuine hierarchs, the real
shepherds, who defended the faith and were supported by the faithful.
Metropolitan Cyril responded: “Very well, and what am I to do in such an
instance? Do I summon him and tell him: ‘Brother, I don’t have anything against
you, but the authorities don’t like you, they don’t want you, so I have to
replace you.’” Tuchkov exclaimed: “Not like that! You have to find your own
ecclesiastical grounds and remove him discretely, as if it were your own idea.”
Metropolitan Cyril replied as following: “Eugene Alexandrovich, you are not the
cannon and I am not the shell with which you’d like to demolishing the Russian
Church.” For this response he immediately received a further three years of
exile in Siberia. Using the Church pastors as a tool to destroy the Church is
demonic treachery. It buries the spiritual authority of the hierarchy in
the eyes of the populace; the people realise that their pastors are starting to
cooperate with the persecutors, having compromised their positions. In fact,
such treachery breaks the spiritual moral strength of the faithful and crushes
their firm resistance – not by depriving them of their hierarchs by
slaughtering them as martyrs or sending them into exile as confessors – but
through seeing them morally broken and betraying the Church to please the
persecutors. As we can see, compared to Renovationism, Sergianism is a much
more deceptive and difficult challenge for the clergy and for the entire flock.
Once it became
clear that Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod had agreed to play the role the
authorities had proposed, the most steadfast hierarchs, clergy and laymen
severed communion with him. At one stage, this movement numbered around forty
bishops, and these were the best part of the Russian Church. Even the
Sergianists themselves admitted that the highest regarded hierarchs had
separated from them. The aim of this resistance was to protect the freedom of
the Church, because she is only able to truly prosper when she is free from
within and when her leadership is not dictated to by external forces that seek
her destruction. Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) blessed the commencement of
this movement in Petrograd and his followers become known as “Josephites”; they
were also called “Tikhonites” (after Patriarch Tikhon) or “True Orthodox”. [5]
However,
the majority of hierarchs remained in submission to Metropolitan Sergius for a
number of different motives. A large remnant stayed in administrative
submission although they did not approve of his actions and protested against
them. These “non-commemorators” refused to commemorate the Soviet authorities
in church services — something which Metropolitan Sergius had ordered in
an Ukaz. [6] Before, the Tsar had been commemorated in the Church
services but now the Sergianist hierarchs were demanding the commemoration of
the Soviet government. During the litanies, the faithful would hear the priest
praying for the success of the Soviet authorities, who were striving to destroy
the Church. Some of the “non-commemorators” would not even commemorate
Metropolitan Sergius, but only Metropolitan Peter, the Locum Tenens of
Patriarch Tikhon. [7] At that time, the authorities had exiled Metropolitan
Peter, and Metropolitan Sergius was acting as his Locum Tenens.
Most of the
hierarchs continued in submission to Metropolitan Sergius simply because they
could not endure the repressions any longer. Father Michael Polsky relates the
following concerning a bishop of his acquaintance who had lived through years
of exile. He related to Fr Michael: “I know very well that all Sergius is doing
is abominable, and I can’t stand him, but I’m exhausted and at long last I want
to go home.” He had been sent from exile to exile. Some people felt they could
not endure the giant wine-press of persecution any longer.
In addition,
Metropolitan Sergius personally initiated aggressive methods against those who
did not recognise his authority and who protested against his actions: clergy
were prohibited from serving or defrocked, and he even forbade funerals to be
served for laity who had separated from him. He did not hesitate to put under
ban the most senior hierarchs of the Russian Church, beginning with Cyril
Metropolitan of Kazan, appointed by Patriarch Tikhon in his will as first Locum
Tenens. By this action, Sergius declared that anyone not in communion with
him had fallen away from the Church. Of course, for the steadfast confessors,
his sanctions and threats had no authority, but the majority of others
stumbled: “Are we really going to fall away from the Church? Of course, what
he’s doing is outrageous. However, on the other hand, he is lawful and is not
violating the dogmas of the Church. Do we have a legitimate reason for
separating from him?” Sergius himself insisted, “You can’t accuse us of
anything, we are canonical. We are the legal Church authority, and moreover we
aren’t breaking the Church canons or her dogmas. It is you who are separating
yourselves from the Church.”
Meanwhile, the
other Eastern Patriarchates, driven by their own ecclesiastical-political
interests, recognised the Church authority of Metropolitan Sergius. He
presented his question to the confessors as follows: “Who are you with? You are
outside the Church! And not just because the Synod and I are your
ecclesiastical leadership, but because we are in communion with all of the
Eastern Patriarchates — Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch —
each one of them recognises our ecclesiastical authority.” This proved an
enormous trial for the Russian faithful, demanding the highest level of
spiritual discernment in order to navigate through such tempestuous times.
At the same
time, Metropolitan Sergius declared to western journalists: “There is no
persecution of the Church in Russia. It is true that many religious figures —
hierarchs and laymen — are imprisoned, but these are not being punished for
their faith, but for their political rebellion against the authorities.” Thus
the martyrs for the faith were affirmed as political criminals. The confessors
who separated themselves from Metropolitan Sergius all declared to him: “You
pronounce blasphemies against the confessors and martyrs of the Church. You lay
all the blame of persecution on us, on the Church herself, but you excuse the
Bolsheviks.”
Despite all
this, however, the Metropolitan continued to demand submission, maintaining his
position: “The Church canons say that you can only separate yourselves from the
church hierarchy if we break the canons and dogmas of the Church, but we
haven’t broken them.” See here what the Sergianists consider to be
“canonical”. At this time, Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd wrote: “who
is worse, the heretic or the murderer? The heretic thrusts a knife into the
very heart of the Church, he surrenders the Church and her freedom into the
hands of the atheists.”
As I have said,
the bishops and priests who remained in submission to Metropolitan Sergius had
various reasons. Some of them, however, were not simply crushed, broken or
confused, but active supporters of Metropolitan Sergius. Unfortunately,
Archbishop Luke belongs to this category. He had a very hostile attitude
towards the leading martyrs and confessors, and in his opinion, they were
simply “sectarians.” After the Second World War, Archbishop Luke became an open
supporter of Soviet state policies, and he made a series of public
announcements praising Soviet foreign policies as “fair”. In current
hagiographies these things are passed over in silence. Many incidents which he
includes in his autobiography are also not mentioned. For example, he actually
renounced his ministry as a hierarch for many years, in order to be permitted
to work as a doctor. We read in hagiographies that he too was in a prison camp;
he too was persecuted. It is true that he was sent into exile three times and
also declared himself against the Renovationist schism. But afterwards he
declared himself against the Josephites and against the Catacomb Church, in
support of Sergianism, and collaborated with the persecutors of the confessors.
As I said, in
the beginning the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the entire Church, without
trace. They had as much dislike for the Sergianists as for the Renovationists;
they had no need of any Church whatsoever. Their policy was to “divide and
conquer”, using either enticing promises or repressions in order to set one
part of the clergy — the Renovationists and the Sergianists — against those
prepared to defend the freedom of the Church until the very end. Once the
Soviets had dealt with the Josephites (Tikhonites), the Sergianists were next
in line. The latter had been hoping that by their submission and collaboration
they would receive recognition and be able to exist in a Soviet atheistic
state, but those calculations were wrong. Since they no longer had need of the
Sergianists, the Bolsheviks submitted them to the same mass oppressions as the
genuine Orthodox.
The current
Moscow Patriarchate (MP), the direct descendent of the Sergianist Church, today
very cunningly erases any distinction, mixing truth with falsehood. It erases
the difference between the steadfast and leading confessors and those who
suffered as a consequence of communist repressions, whilst remaining under
Metropolitan Sergius. The MP has glorified many of the hierarchs who opposed
Metropolitan Sergius, ranking them together with Sergianists who suffered
persecution. The position of the MP is currently as follows: “Yes, at that time
the two sides had their differences, but now, looking back we can say that both
one and the other were right: One group took one path, and the other group took
a different path; both paths earned them a crown as a confessor for the
Orthodox Faith.”
However, when
glorifying the New Martyrs in 1981, the ROCA did differentiate between the two
categories. She did not glorify those who embraced Sergianism because they had
been used by the atheist government to repress the martyrs and confessors who,
until their end, championed the freedom of the Church and her innate purity.
This is the reason that she did not glorify Archbishop Luke.
Here we need to
clarify that the ROCA did not judge Archbishop Luke or proclaim how someone
like him stands in the sight of God. God alone knows. By refusing to venerate
him as a saint she demonstrated that the Church cannot promote his actions as
exemplary for faithful Christians, i.e. he cannot be a role model for us. The
position of Archbishop Luke is unacceptable in the eyes of the Church.
Venerating him together with the saints signifies exactly the opposite: it
means that he is offered to Orthodox Christians as an example to follow in our
lives.
What about his
miracles?
Whenever we
consider contemporary testimonies of miracles, we must be very careful.
Generally speaking, there is a lot of mythology in current hagiography. On
reading accounts of miracles, the faithful are initially easily inclined to
trust in them, and psychologically that is understandable and even natural. The
very notion that an account of a miracle could be made up seems monstrous to
the sincerely-believing Christian; this would be a horrible blasphemy and
completely unthinkable. But the facts are staring at us; many things have
simply been invented and a vast number of these incidents are now well known.
In the 1990’s, after the collapse of Communism, Orthodox literature began to be
published and a multitude of miraculous accounts emerged from the time of the
Second World War.
We have read
how, before the Battle of Kaliningrad, Marshal Zhukov ordered the Kazan icon of
the Mother of God to be brought to the army’s headquarters and a moleben
to be served before it. Subsequently, as the fighting commenced, all the guns
on the German side were silenced periodically, and many German war prisoners
later testified that they saw the Mother of God in the sky above the attacking
Soviet forces. This story, which was publicised very broadly throughout the
1990’s, turned out to be false from beginning to end.
Another popular
legend, regarding Metropolitan Elias of the Antiochean Patriarchate, which was
widely disseminated is also now known to be fictitious. Those who have read it
will recall the story of how, during the war, Metropolitan Elias secluded
himself in a cave, and after having prayed and fasted for three days the
ceiling of the cave opened up and the Most holy Theotokos appeared to him. She
supposedly ordered him to tell Stalin that he is to re-open all the churches,
that he must release from prison and return from the front line all priests,
giving them freedom to serve in the churches. Only with the fulfilment of her
stipulations would they be victorious over the Germans. Apparently,
Metropolitan Elias managed to deliver the message to Stalin. Stalin put his
faith in this directive: his obedience to it and its subsequent fulfilment
allegedly resulted in Germany’s defeat. Now it is very well known that these,
and similar stories, are fairytales.
In the light of
this, it behooves us to deal very cautiously with evidence of miracles,
especially if we perceive in them some agenda. Having the aforesaid stories in
mind, we naturally ask ourselves: why is it necessary to concoct miracles? Who
gains from it? Is a particular motive being pursued by the admission and
circulation of such legends? It is not hard to see, in my opinion, with these
two legends, and a great deal many more like them, that there is an attempt to
unify the mind of the Church with Soviet patriotism. Perhaps this is a
consciously developed agenda aiming to manipulate the faithful?
To many it may
seem conspiratorial to even pose such a question. But let us remind ourselves
of a real, documented and proven story from Soviet times in relation to Fr.
Vsevolod Schpiller and his spiritual children, among whom are Archpriest
Vladimir Vorobyov, the current rector of the St. Tikhon university in Moscow,
the infamous Muscovite Priest Dimitrii Smirnov, the representative of the
department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations with the armed forces, and
other well known archpriests and hierarchs.
At the
beginning of the 1970’s, Archpriest Vsevolod Schpiller, and many Muscovite
Church intelligentsia and young people with him, entered correspondence by
letter with Priestmonk Paul (Troytski). He had suffered a great deal, having
endured Soviet camps, prisons and exiles. At this time, he was in hiding, about
100km from Moscow. A woman who had been through exile with Fr. Paul and who had
taken care of him for many years delivered the letters to and fro. The letters
from Fr. Paul arrived frequently over a period of twenty years until his death
at the end of the 1980’s, so nearly twenty years. Apparently, he was
clairvoyant and in some of his letters he would relate to Fr. Vsevolod how he
was present in the church in spirit while Fr Vsevolod was celebrating the
divine services; he would relate specific incidents, which only a person who
was there at the time could know.
Today, many of
these then-young people hold positions of archpriests and even hierarchs. All
of these testify how, through these letters, their elder guided them from a
distance, in spiritual and even in practical matters; he counselled them when
to accept ordination to the priesthood, what kind of home to buy, who to marry,
with whom to associate, from whom to steer clear. He would also comment on
Church affairs and give instructions on the correct attitude towards the Church
dissidents of the times such as Fr. Dimitri Dudko and others, and political
dissidents like the well-known Alexander Solzhenitzyn. His spiritual children,
to this day, treasure his letters, many of them having been published, but none
of them saw Fr. Paul in person. Contact was only made through the
aforementioned woman whose name was Agripina. Bishop Panteleimon (Shatov) — a
spiritual child of Fr. Paul — relates what occurred after they were notified of
their elder’s death by Agripina in 1990. Based on the descriptions the elder had
given in his letters, Fr. Vladimir Vorobyov and Bishop Panteleimon went to that
village in which they deduced that the elder had lived. They did not find
anything there: neither the house in which he had lived, nor any registration
in the local council, nor a grave, nor anyone who had known a similar person,
not even by a different name.
Shortly after
this, Agripina announced that Fr. Paul had actually reposed before the end of
the Second World War. The spiritual children of the “elder” plummeted into deep
confusion. They questioned her on many occasions, but up until her death in
1991 she stuck to her story. They however, did not want to believe her. They
buried her with much ceremony, having held her highly in honour as their
eldress.
Afterwards they
began uncovering records. The archives were opened in the 1990’s and among the
camp documents was a record of the death of Priestmonk Paul (Troytski) in 1944;
this was a huge shock for the elder’s spiritual children. After some time, however,
the spiritual children of the “elder” — particularly Archpriest Vorobyov —
started to propose a whole series of events, explaining the confusion, which
they defend up until today.
Apparently,
Priestmonk Paul had escaped from the concentration camp in 1944 and a different
man was buried under his name; no doubt his relatives had bribed the camp
administration so that he could be released in secret, or perhaps he was
released simply from his sufferings owing to his ill-health, and so on.
Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov, who, by the way, is a member of the Canonisations
Commission of the MP, more than once insisted on the glorification of
Priestmonk Paul, but the Commission decided that that would not be possible.
The majority of
contemporary researchers, amongst them being Abbot Damascene (Orlovsky) — a
leading figure in the Commission of Canonisation and author of a large volume
of Lives of New Martyrs —are of the opinion that everything indicates that the
entire Priestmonk Paul story was a large scale operation by the secret police
to establish control over the church dissident circles in Moscow during the
1970’s and 80’s. The letters of the “elder” were written by the collaborators
with the KGB and through these letters the secret police not only monitored,
but directed, to its advantage, the affairs of a very large circle of church
figures. Hence, for example, in 1974, Fr. Vsevolod Schpiller sharply condemned
the renowned author and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn in an interview.
(Solzhenytsin had actually belonged to the parish where Fr. Vsevolod served.)
The authorities circulated the interview widely, particularly for the benefit
of the West. There are also extant letters of the “elder” in which he would vehemently
and haphazardly attack those who who criticised the shortcomings of the MP, for
instance Fr. Dimitri Dudko.
Of course, I do
not wish to say that the pseudo-miracles are fabricated solely by the secret
police. In order to create a legend around a certain individual, it is
necessary, above all else, for there to exist an unhealthy spiritual
environment: a hunger for elders, for miracles, for saints. In other words, an
inclination towards unhealthy mysticism, as Fr Seraphim (Alexiev) expresses it
in his book Unhealthy and Healthy Mysticism. An unhealthy spiritual
environment alone, without external influences, spontaneously generates myths
and legends. In the presence of such phenomena there will always be found
someone who cleverly takes advantage of them.
Among today’s
official Orthodoxy, we observe the spread of a similar unhealthy spiritual
life, unrestrained and uncorrected by the hierarchy. Sadly, it is sometimes
even encouraged. This, too, has to be considered in the case of Archbishop
Luke. Of course, sufficient trustworthy information would be needed for one to
evaluate every single witness account. However, on the internet you can see a
vast number of videos in which certain people talk about miracles worked
through the prayers of Archbishop Luke. I would say that, at first glance, many
of these accounts are dubious. It is immediately very clear that we are talking
about an entirely unhealthy spirituality. When a person really strongly wants
to see something, he will see it. The logic behind superstition and prelest
(spiritual deception) is impenetrable.
Again, I will
give an example from the story of Fr. Schpiller and his mythical “elder”. When
“Fr. Paul” gave his blessing for someone to have an operation, and it was
successful, this was received as proof of his clairvoyance. But in 1980, the
imaginary “Fr Paul” counselled Fr. Schpillar to undergo eye surgery with the
outcome that he lost his sight. Despite this, as his son testifies, Fr.
Schpiller undoubtedly and unwaveringly trusted in “Fr. Paul” until the very end
of his life.
There is one
final important point concerning the glorification of Archbishop Luke which
needs to be considered, even if only briefly. For a hierarch to be glorified as
a saint, it is imperative for his Orthodox faith to be without reproach.
Unfortunately, this cannot be said about Archbishop Luke. Now we are no longer
on the uncertain territory of hard-to-verify testimonies. Archbishop Luke laid
down his theological viewpoints in two of his works: Spirit, Soul and Body and Religion and Science, which are still in print. In 2013, his book Spirit, Soul and Body was even translated into Bulgarian. Upon close
examination we discover that this book promotes completely unOrthodox ideas
about human nature. The ideas of Archbishop Luke differ substantially from the
teachings of the Holy Fathers about human nature — about the spirit, about the
soul, about the body, and the relationship between them. His analysis contains
completely worldly and philosophical teachings inspired by the science of his
time. These concepts and ideas are totally unChristian and are not acceptable
from a Christian point of view. The credibility with which he treats the
testimonies of the miracles worked in the “holy town of Lourdes” is very
disturbing. The small town of Lourdes, situated in France near the Spanish
border, is a famous pilgrimage centre of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 19th
century, in Lourdes, a fourteen year old girl called Bernadette Soubirous
supposedly received numerous visions of the holy Mother of God. According to
her testimony, during a period of several months, the Mother of God appeared to
her eighteen times. In contrast we will recall that one of the greatest
saints of the Russian Church, the venerable Seraphim of Sarov, of whom the very
Mother of God testifies “this one is of our kind”, throughout his lengthy
ascetical life had twelve divine revelations. In Lourdes, there have been over
seven thousand witness accounts of miraculous healing but even the Roman
Catholic Church disregards almost all of them and accepts only sixty-nine as
genuine. Nevertheless, this does not sway the faith that Archbishop Luke has in
the miracles which occur in “the holy town of Lourdes”. Perhaps, in this
regard, the Archbishop’s background filters through; he was, as he states in
his autobiography, of Polish extraction and his father was a devout Roman
Catholic. It is also quite disturbing how Archbishop Luke seems to trust the
credibility of spiritual sciences (occult practices of various forms), now
referred to as ‘pseudoscience,’ which in the late 19th and early 20th century
were very fashionable. Archbishop Luke regards mainstream scientists who dabble
in the spiritual sciences as having an indisputable authority. But all this is
another large topic that would require a more in-depth study.
NOTES
1. In 2007, the
majority of ROCA bishops submitted to the MP. Today, the Bulgarian Old Calendar
Church is in communion with that part of the ROCA which did not unite with the
MP.
2. St Tikhon
(Bellavin) d.1925 was the 11th and last genuine Patriarch of Moscow and all
Russia. His feast day falls on the Great Feast of the Annunciation.
3. Secret police,
forerunner of the NKVD
4. Eugene
Alexandrovich Tuchkov was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the
anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU.
5. All these groups
comprise what is commonly referred to as the Russian Catacomb Church. The
ancient Christians under persecution by the pagan Roman Empire were restrained
to worship underground in secret conditions. ‘Catacombs’ are a series of
underground passages and rooms where, in the past, bodies were buried.
6. Ukaz -
a proclamation of the tsar, government, or patriarch that has the force of law.
7. Locum
Tenens - a person filling an office for a time or temporarily taking
the place of another. Tikhon, foreseeing the impossibility of a Church Council
being summoned to elect a new patriarch, designated three leading hierarchs,
one of which (whoever was not in prison or banishment) should become Locum
Tenens (of the Patriarchal Throne upon his own death to safeguard the
external unity of the Church.
Source: http://brookwoodblogger.blogspot.com/2024/10/regarding-veneration-of-archbishop-luke.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.