Subdeacon Kirillov Vladimir Yurievich | March 15, 2008
[Written on the occasion of further extremist
divisions within Russian True Orthodoxy at the time.]
“The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was,
by Divine Providence, placed in a very favorable position in order to preserve
the ‘royal path’ amid the confusion of Orthodoxy in the 20th century.”
“In order to remain in the true tradition
of Orthodoxy, we must be zealous and firm in our Orthodoxy, but at the same
time we must not become fanatics.”
Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)
In the Russian Church Abroad,
there have already been periods when individuals, considering themselves
authoritative “judges of the universe,” attempted to lead Her away from the
“royal path” of true Orthodoxy, to infect Her with the spirit of “super-correctness,”
to instill, detached from Her traditions, their own subjective “truth,” while
declaring those who disagreed with them to be “enemies of the Church.”
Thus, in the 1970s–1980s, a
prominent representative of the “super-correct” was the well-known “zealot” of
Orthodoxy, the former archimandrite Panteleimon of Boston, who departed from ROCOR
with his group into schism and organized his own “Holy Orthodox Church”
(HOCNA).
In 2006, a “burst” of “super-correctness”
or “exclusive-truthfulness” also occurred in ROCOR(V), as a result of which the
[Bishop Victor] Pivovarov – [Bishop Anthony] Orlov group, having “abolished”
ROCOR, declared itself to be the unique “Russian Orthodox Church” (which soon
split into two opposing ROCs).
But despite the sorrowful lessons
of church history, the virus of “super-correctness” has not yet been
eradicated, and there remain in the Church those who try to infect others with
the corrupting Pharisaic spirit.
To understand the essence of this
painful phenomenon, I will present excerpts from the letters of the disciple of
St. John (Maximovich), Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), who in the 1970s fought
against the “Boston” spirit of pseudo-zeal:
“We were grieved
first and foremost because we saw that within the depths of our Church a
political party had been formed, and those who ‘do not conform to the party
line’ are removed, consigned to oblivion, or—what is worse—used to frighten
others.”
“Another
favorite political trick of the party was slander: a rumor would be spread,
saying that such-and-such an article or such-and-such a person does not conform
to the party line.”
“Super-correct
pastors give simple answers to complex questions, which greatly appeals to
those who are not yet firm in the faith... Many newly converted are drawn to
‘correctness’ as an infant to a pacifier. In my opinion, it would be far more
beneficial for their soul’s salvation to step back a bit from ‘typikonism’ and
to increase in humility.”
“They built
themselves a career in the Church on a shaky, though outwardly beautiful,
foundation: on the presupposition that the main danger for the Church lies in
insufficient strictness. But no—the true danger lies deeper: it is the loss of
the fragrance of Orthodoxy, something they themselves contribute to, despite
all their strictness... That strictness will not save us if we do not ‘touch’
and ‘smell’ Orthodoxy.”
The “super-correct”
“want to simplify everything, to present it as either white or black. They
demand that Vladyka Philaret and the Synod declare the sacraments of the
Churches adhering to the new calendar, and those under the yoke of communism,
to be invalid. These people do not understand that the Synod does not have the
right to issue decisions on such complex and delicate matters.”
“Now there is a
spirit of zealotry in the air; it has even become fashionable in the
English-speaking wing of our Church, and the more moderate position of our
bishops will now seem unacceptable to those who reason ‘logically’...
“Boston-style
Orthodoxy is nothing other than the right wing of ‘Paris Orthodoxy’—reformed,
‘correct,’ born of human logic, outside the patristic traditions. This is a
terrible temptation of our time...
“The ‘right
wing’ of Orthodoxy will likely, in the future, split into many small
jurisdictions that will fight with one another and anathematize one another.
For us, it would be sufficient if our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad could
remain intact and preserve the right course—without veering to the left as a
reaction against the zealots. We must maintain living contact with the older
generation of Russian clergy, even if some of them may seem to us too liberal;
otherwise, we will simply lose ourselves in the jungle of zealotry that is
spreading around us.”
“In the depths
of our hearts we view all this quite peacefully, for we know that the Church is
stronger than all those who are deceived and have imagined themselves to be the
Church, and they always fall away in the end, helping those who remain to become
more sober.”
(Hieromonk
Damascene, The Life and Works of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), pp. 497–499,
504, 705–708. Letters of Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Orthodox Russia No.
4, 2002).
Now, from the “super-correct” or
“exclusively-true” — just as previously from the schism-teacher Panteleimon and
his followers — come calls for a certain revision of the historical path of
ROCOR and, in particular, the demand to do what, in their opinion, was
previously neglected, namely, for the Synod of ROCOR to declare the MP and the
Churches of so-called “World Orthodoxy” to be without grace — without
considering that this is tantamount not only to a rejection of its own past
(its tradition, heritage, continuity), but also to its condemnation.
The “exclusively-true” cannot
understand, just as the Bostonians could not understand in their time, that
“the Synod does not have the right to issue decisions on such complex and
delicate matters” (and that an incorrect resolution of this question without an
appropriate, authoritative Council will bring no benefit, but will only lead to
further division); and that, in general, it is ruinous for the Church as an
“organism” when some party “organization” attempts to dominate and impose upon
Her an alien “zeal not according to knowledge.”
Just as in the time of
Metropolitan Philaret, so also now, “zeal not according to knowledge” demands
simple and unambiguous answers to complex and multifaceted questions. Those who
seek from the metropolitan and the Synod of Bishops judgments about the “lack
of grace in the Mysteries” of Orthodox churches that have adopted the new
calendar or have fallen under the heel of communist power fail to realize that
such questions lie beyond the competence of the Synod; that the ecclesiastical
disorders of our time cannot be resolved in this manner — they are too vast and
deep; that anathemas, aside from a few indisputable cases, only worsen the
illness.
There are also those who await
the resolution of all problems through some official statement, such as:
“Outside of us,
there are no true Orthodox left,” and they attack those who hold to a moderate
line from the standpoint of a completely un-Orthodox formalism — saying, for
instance, that if “they” have grace, then why do we not unite with “them”?
The Russian
Church Abroad has repeatedly warned and restrained its members from communion
with certain Orthodox groups, and has, on principle, no communion with the
Moscow Patriarchate; likewise, other Orthodox bishops warn against contacts
with those inclined toward renovationism — but by no means on the basis of some
formal criterion of allegedly absent grace-filled Mysteries, rather solely out
of concern for the faithful, who receive them out of respect and obedience,
without the slightest need for purely formal arguments.”
(Hieromonk
Seraphim [Rose], Metropolitan Philaret of New York)
Now the “exclusively-true,”
having gone astray “in the jungle of zealotry,” accuse all those who refuse to
take part in their vigilante tribunal of “corrupt heresy” (based on their own
“criterion of gracelessness”): those who believe, for example, that the
anathema against Sergianism applies only to those who consciously adhere to
that pernicious practice; those who, ultimately, await a lawful judgment upon
the Moscow Patriarchate, and not a parody of such, like the Orlov-Pivovarov
“decision.” The “super-correct judges” cannot understand that “zeal not
according to knowledge” is ruinous and, in the end, leads its followers to fall
away from the Church just as surely as modernism and ecumenism.
“And we do not want to judge
anyone,” Metropolitan Vitaly seems to answer the unrestrained “zealots,” “...
And may God not allow us to think that we are the salt of the earth and have
the right to judge anyone. We are placed here by the Lord as a witness. And
grant us strength, O Lord, not to stray from this path!” (http://cherksoft.narod.ru/mtc99.htm)
“We, the bishops
of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, being only the free part of the Russian
Church, have never intended to clothe ourselves in the mantle of such judges.
However, there is cause for reflection, because by our very existence we
reproach Moscow, and even if we were completely silent, we would still, both de
facto and de jure, remain their silent judges. And our present place
is not yet on the judgment seat, but only upon the conscience of the rulers of
the Moscow Patriarchate. And it is not we who placed ourselves in this
spiritual realm of conscience, but the Lord Himself.
From all that
has been said, it is evident that all the arbiters of the fate of the Moscow
Patriarchate, being unable to be judged by a true, impartial, and unfeigned
Godly Episcopal Council and Court, are handed over to the Judgment of God. And
this is dreadful, for ‘it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the
Living God.’”
(Metropolitan
Vitaly, Before the Judgment of God)
The same was said by Metropolitan
Vitaly regarding the so-called “World Orthodoxy”:
God forbid! We will never go along with such
a mockery—never! The Russian Church Abroad will stand as it has always stood,
entirely alone in an incredible solitude, but we are not to blame for this
solitude. We have not taken a single step to be alone! We are alone only
because all others have departed from the two-thousand-year path of the Church
of Christ. They have departed—and that is a fact.
But the Greeks are always unreasonable, they
always overdo it, always go to extremes… But we do not even think of
establishing any kind of tribunal. God preserve us—we would be a laughingstock
to the whole world if we dared to do this! We simply cannot do it!”
(From a talk with the clergy of the Western
European Diocese at Lesna Monastery, June 24, 1997).
From these excerpts it follows
that the First Hierarch of ROCOR by no means affirmed the presence of grace in
the sacraments of the MP or of the new calendarist ecumenists, but held that it
is altogether unfitting for the Russian Church Abroad to make itself into a
“laughingstock before the whole world,” that is, for the “free part of the
Russian Church” to judge other local Churches whose hierarchs have “slipped,”
i.e., fallen into ecumenism, because this is the prerogative of a proper
“competent Ecumenical Council with the obligatory participation of the free
Church of Russia,” which, at the present moment, is not possible to convene.
And thus, in such a case, for a
Church that has not deviated from the truth, it is sufficient to have no
communion with those who have fallen away, leaving judgment over them to God.
That is precisely what ROCOR has been doing for some time now, refraining from
communion with the new calendarist ecumenists and reproaching the deviations of
certain of its own clergy from this rule:
“The Synod of
Bishops, at its regular session on February 6/19, 1987, resolved to inform the
clergy of our Church through the Diocesan Administrations of the following:
In connection
with complaints that have arisen regarding certain instances of concelebration
by our clergy with the clergy of other Orthodox Churches, the Synod of Bishops
reminds that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad at the present time does not
concelebrate either with new calendarists or with ecumenists, as was stated in
the 1986 Nativity Epistle of His Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly."
(Clarification
of the Chancery of the Synod of Bishops No. 4/61/20).
In this Epistle, in connection
with the polemic against the Bostonians and certain zealots who claimed the
gracelessness of the local Churches, the First Hierarch of ROCOR stated:
“At the present
time, the majority of local Churches have been shaken in their entire organism
by a terrible double blow: that of the new calendar and of ecumenism.
Nevertheless, even in their distressful condition, we do not dare—and may God
forbid us to do so—to say that they have lost the grace of God. We proclaimed
the anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this
we very modestly yet firmly, gently yet resolutely, as it were, invite the
local Churches to reflect. This is the role of our smallest, most modest,
semi-persecuted, ever-watchful, yet true Church. We do not, de facto,
concelebrate either with new calendarists or with ecumenists; but even if any
of our clergy, by economy, has ventured to do so, this isolated fact
does not affect our standing in the truth.”
(Orthodox
Russia, 1987, No. 1)
At the Council of Bishops in
1996, Metropolitan Vitaly expressed the viewpoint of ROCOR on the matter of
communion with the MP, which had by then become traditional:
“The MP wants to
enter into communion with us, but it remains in ecumenism, and therefore there
can be no communion: the MP does not stand in the Truth. We sometimes sin, but
we do not change anything in our faith; we do not participate in ecumenical conferences,
because their participants are not standing on the right path. The whole
essence lies in the Truth, and therefore we have no possibility of entering
into communion with the MP.” (Protocol No. 6 of August 28/September 10, 1996)
In other places, the First
Hierarch also added Sergianism as an obstacle to communion.
In the 1970s, the followers of
the Greek Bishop Matthew sent an inquiry to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR
regarding the recognition of the gracelessness of the new calendarists’
sacraments. In response, the following reply was received from Metropolitan Philaret,
which was approved by the Council in 1974:
“As for the
question of the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit among the
new calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider either
itself or any other local Church to have the authority to make a final
decision, which can be made only by a properly convened competent Ecumenical
Council with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia.”
Moreover, in this matter,
Metropolitan Philaret consistently upheld the position of Metropolitans Anthony
and Anastasy, in accordance with which he stated in his reply to the
Matthewites that:
“The Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad regards the introduction of the new calendar as a
mistake that brought confusion into the life of the Church and ultimately as a
cause of schism. Therefore, it has not accepted, does not accept, and will not
accept it, and avoids concelebration with the new calendarists.”
As early as 1932, Metropolitan
Anthony (Khrapovitsky) wrote to Hieroschemamonk Theodosios on Mount Athos:
“I have never
approved of the new style, nor of those who adhere to this style; I hope that
if we survive our time of ecclesiastical turmoil, then the Church, under threat
of excommunication, will demand a return to the old style...”
It is evident that the founder of
ROCOR hoped that the time would come when the Orthodox Church, at a Council,
would demand that those who had deviated return to the centuries-old tradition.
Moreover, he connected this circumstance with the normalization of the
situation in the Russian Church. Until then, he called upon the faithful not to
resort to vigilante judgment (i.e., not to preempt judgment upon bishops), thus
not resembling the priestless groups and schismatics.
([See] Letters of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony, Letter No. 98)
In 1961, Metropolitan Anastasy
stated:
“Our Church
adheres to the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the New Calendar
to be a great mistake. Nevertheless, its policy has always been to maintain
spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches that adopted the New Calendar,
insofar as they celebrate Pascha in accordance with the decision of the First
Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate
or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic, nor has
it broken spiritual communion with them.”
(Letter No.
3/50/1296 of September 27, 1961, to the Greek Old Calendarists)
Thus, all four First Hierarchs of
ROCOR expressed essentially the same point of view, which was only adjusted
depending on the intensification of apostate processes in the Churches that
adopted the New Calendar.
***
What, then, is the reason for the
desire of the “super-correct” to now don the “mantle... of judges,” to judge
the whole world arbitrarily and self-willfully “from the standpoint of a
completely un-Orthodox formalism”?
Certainly, it lies in their “zeal
not according to knowledge,” in their forgetting of their roots (in their
denial of tradition and continuity), in their following the spirit of
exaltation and “spiritual prelest (delusion),” in their belief in their
own special calling and mission, in their supposed “uniqueness” in the work of
preserving the truth, their exclusivity—that is, in their pride, arrogance, and
self-conceit.
Moreover, this kind of zeal
“consists in
more or less harsh condemnation and denunciation of one's neighbors for their
moral failings and for transgressions against ecclesiastical order and
ordinances. Deceived by a false notion of zeal, unwise zealots think that by
giving themselves over to it, they are imitating the holy Fathers and holy
martyrs, forgetting about themselves—that they, the zealots, are not saints,
but sinners. If the saints rebuked the sinful and impious, they did so by the
command of God, out of duty, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not by
the prompting of their own passions and demons.”
(St. Ignatius
Brianchaninov, On Soulful and Spiritual Zeal)
And in this case, wrote Fr.
Seraphim (Rose), “For the Pharisee, who is thoroughly immersed in formalism, in
the letter of the Church laws, the connection with their life-giving spirit—the
spirit of true Christianity—disappears.”
It goes without saying that this
soulish zeal loves to dress itself in bright garments and disguise itself as
holy and true zeal. And Archbishop Averky (Taushev) wrote about this:
“One must not
forget that besides true holy zeal, there is also ‘zeal not according to
knowledge’—that zeal which is devalued by the absence of the most important
Christian virtue: discernment, and therefore, instead of doing good, it can
bring harm. There is also an imagined, false zeal, under the guise of which
hides the boiling of ordinary sinful passions—most often pride, love of power
and ambition, and party interests, which, unfortunately, are very often
encountered in our time and are the chief instigators of all kinds of church
disputes and disturbances, whose ringleaders and inspirers often cover
themselves with some sort of supposed idealism, while in reality pursuing only
their own personal goals, striving to please not God, but their own ‘self.’”
(Modernity in
the Light of the Word of God, Vol. 4, “Holy Zeal”)
To avoid this ruinous condition,
as Fr. Seraphim wrote, it is necessary “to maintain living contact with the
older generation of Russian priests (in other words, above all, to preserve
tradition—that is, spiritual continuity with the fathers of ROCOR), even if
some of them may seem to us too ‘liberal’—otherwise, we will lose our way in
the jungle of zealotry, which is growing wildly around us...”
“We see the
necessity of defining a reasonable, moderate position, in which primary
attention will be given to pure Orthodoxy, a firm stand will be taken against
ecumenism and modernism, without falling into such extremes as determining the
absence or presence of grace or rebaptizing those who have already embraced
Orthodoxy...”
(from the 1976
letters of Fr. Alexey Young)
“Unfortunately, it sometimes
happens, especially in the heat of polemics, that essentially sound Orthodox
positions are exaggerated on the one hand and misunderstood on the other,
thereby creating for some the mistaken impression that today the cause of true
Orthodoxy is extremism, something like a ‘right-wing’ reaction to the
predominantly ‘left-wing’ course followed by the leadership of the ‘official’
Orthodox Churches. Such a political view of the struggle for true Orthodoxy is
incorrect. On the contrary, among its best representatives—whether in Russia,
Greece, or the diaspora—this struggle has taken the form of a return to the
patristic path of moderation, the middle way between two extremes, which the
holy fathers called the royal path.”
Thus,
“Applying this
teaching to our circumstances, we can say that the ‘royal path’ of true
Orthodoxy today is the middle between the extremes of ecumenism and reformism
on the one hand, and ‘zeal not according to knowledge’ (Rom. 10:2) on the
other. True Orthodoxy does not ‘keep in step with the times’ on the one hand,
but at the same time does not make ‘strictness,’ or ‘correctness,’ or
‘canonicity’ (concepts good in themselves) an excuse for Pharisaical
self-satisfaction, exclusivity, or distrust. One must not confuse this truly
Orthodox moderation with lukewarmness and indifference, or with any kind of
compromise between political extremes.”
(Hieromonk
Seraphim, The Royal Path: True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy)
***
But will modern people who attend
MP parishes or churches of “World Orthodoxy” follow the “super-correct” and the
“exclusively-true” in their stand for ecclesiastical truth, if they declare
them to be graceless “servants of Satan,” who must also be rebaptized?
It would seem that not only will
they not follow them, but will think ill of these “zealots.”
In this regard, it is fitting to
recall the well-known story from the life of St. Macarius the Great. Once, a
disciple of the saint, upon encountering a pagan priest, insulted him by
calling him a demon (that is, a servant of Satan), for which he was beaten. But
St. Macarius, when he later met the same priest, praised him instead for his
diligence in labor, and so inclined his heart toward the knowledge of truth
that the man even began to beg the saint to make him a Christian and tonsure
him a monk. “Inspired by his example, many idol-worshipers afterward turned to
Christ. On this occasion, Abba Macarius said: ‘A proud and evil word turns even
good people to evil, while a humble and kind word turns even evil people to
good,’” or: “An evil word makes even the good evil, but a kind word makes even
the evil good.” (Bp. Ignatius, Patericon, p. 312, no. 12; St. Dimitry of
Rostov, Life of St. Macarius the Great, January 19, vol. 2)
Moreover, the pagan priest was
indeed a “servant of Satan,” and yet this truth—so evident to the disciple of
St. Macarius—only provoked the priest’s rage and did nothing to bring about his
conversion. The same can be said regarding the MP: calling its members
“graceless servants of Satan” will achieve nothing from them except anger and
hardness of heart. The conversion of the erring is founded on love. It is well
known from the Holy Fathers that even confessing the faith (a word quite
popular today) without love is from the devil.
To paraphrase a well-known
saying, one might say that the truth of the Church is best shown, not told. If
someone comes to a parish that is formally under the jurisdiction of the true
Church and finds there various disorders—and above all, a lack of love among
its members (replaced instead by suspicion bordering on paranoia), and worse
still, malice toward the erring or those who think differently, with
indiscriminate accusations of heresy against everyone except themselves—it will
be impossible to convince him that he has come to a good place.
In the conversation “On Fr.
Dimitry Dudko and the Catacomb Church,” Metropolitan Philaret recounted how a
man from ROCOR once attended a service at a secret parish of the Catacomb
Church:
“He immediately
noticed how bright and calm the faces of the youth were—completely different
from those of the unfortunate Soviet common folk... And so, he said, there was
a Liturgy there, and he said, I’ve never seen such prayer before, the way these
young people prayed, and I myself had never prayed like that. Then I asked
them: Aren’t you afraid of being discovered? — ‘We may be discovered,’ they
replied completely calmly, ‘but we are not afraid... There have been cases—we
were discovered. Severe repressions followed, concentration camps, and so on
and so forth, but that does not frighten us. We have found our treasure—the
Orthodox faith—and for it we are ready even to die. No threats, no
repressions—nothing frightens us, because we possess this treasure, and with
it, nothing is terrifying.’ That’s how the youth of Soviet Russia... from the
Catacomb Church answered him.”
(http://www.geocities.com/ppav2002/propov2_15.htm)
It seems that such “advertising”
of the Church’s truth is better than any threats or denunciations. One who
comes to a Church that claims to be the true one must feel the difference from
an apostatizing Church—and in this lies the essence of the matter. He will
gladly join Her if he sees a reasonable zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy,
permeated with Christian love and mercy toward those who have fallen away.
[End of Part 1]
It is one thing to point out that
such-and-such a group is in retreat, standing on the wrong path, and quite
another to declare—without a competent judgment—that it is already a “graceless
synagogue of Satan.” For who can “on the spot,” or with the help of some
device, determine at what stage the process of falling away stands in a given
jurisdiction or, even more so, in a local Church?
Certainly, only a proper Council
can do so, according to the formula: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
us.”
As Metropolitan Vitaly wrote on
January 1, 1997, to Archbishop Seraphim [of Brussels] (in response to the
appeal of the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian to condemn the local Churches):
“There is no
doubt that the Ecumenical Patriarchs, together with the other heads of the
local Orthodox Churches, by actively participating in ecumenism, have placed
themselves on the judgment seat. However, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
does not presume to have such authority and right as to pronounce judgment upon
them, leaving this grave matter to a possible future lawful Ecumenical Council.
Any other attempt at condemnation would be a pitiful spectacle, incompatible
with our honorable seventy-five-year-long faithful and canonical stand on the
path of the thousand-year history of the Russian Church.”
Moreover, who can guarantee that
certain local Churches will never leave the World Council of Churches and
condemn ecumenism? Is this truly impossible? This is precisely what
Metropolitan Vitaly spoke about at the pastoral gathering at Lesna Monastery in
1997:
“I say ‘they
slipped’—I am using a very gentle word. But they are still ours—we feel that
they can still return, as the Patriarch of Jerusalem returned. At one time he
went into ‘ecumenism,’ then renounced it... In any case, there have already
been such examples, where a Patriarch renounced ‘ecumenism.’”
***
And was the practice of fear
tactics (“scare stories”) ever characteristic of ROCOR’s pastoral approach,
even toward groups that separated from it?
Never, and here is why:
“The harshness
of condemning groups that have separated from us—declaring that their grace is
not grace, that their sacraments are not sacraments but ‘food of demons’—has
never been beneficial, as it only inflames hostility and often becomes an
obstacle when such a group or part of it attempts to return to the right path.”
(Archbishop
Nathaniel [Lvov], On the Question of Renewing Sanctions Against
Jurisdictional Groups, Conversations... vol. 5, p. 51)
Even such a zealot for Orthodoxy
as St. Philaret (Voznesensky), despite the categorical nature of his judgments
regarding the MP, called satanists only the atheist communists and the Soviet
regime—referring to it as a “satanocracy”—but not the various schismatics,
ecumenist modernists, or representatives of the MP, and all the more not the
simple faithful who were born within that structure and know nothing else.
Moreover, it is necessary here to distinguish between the simple sheep and the
false shepherds—even if the latter are leading them to perdition—the degree of
responsibility is fundamentally different.
“We do not pronounce judgment
upon every human soul that is there [in the MP], that believes in God and, so
to speak, strives toward Him in its own way. This is God’s affair. These
destinies belong to the Lord God alone,” said Metropolitan Philaret (The
Glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia).
In connection with this, I will
quote the statement of the respected Catacomb pastor Fr. Michael Rozhdestvensky
(published in Orthodox Life): “Not all in the Catacomb Church are being
saved, and not all in the Moscow Patriarchate are perishing.”
These words echo the well-known
statement from 1937 by the New Hieromartyr Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan:
“Whether the
faithful who remain in Sergianism will be saved, we cannot know, because the
matter of eternal salvation is a matter of God’s mercy and grace; but for those
who see and feel the falsehood of Sergianism… it would be an inexcusable
hypocrisy to close one's eyes to this falsehood and to seek [spiritual
guidance] there...”
(Orthodox
Russia, No. 16, 1997)
In another letter (1934),
Metropolitan Kirill wrote that
“the sacraments
performed by Sergianists, properly ordained and not prohibited from serving,
are undoubtedly salvific sacraments for those who receive them with faith, in
simplicity, without questioning or doubting their efficacy, and without
suspecting anything amiss in the Sergianist arrangement of the Church. But at
the same time, they serve as judgment and condemnation upon the celebrants
themselves, and upon those among the communicants who are well aware of the
falsehood in Sergianism and by their lack of resistance show a criminal
indifference to the desecration of the Church. This is why a true Orthodox
bishop or priest must refrain from prayerful communion with Sergianists. The
same is required of laypeople who are consciously attentive to all aspects of
Church life.”
(Acts of St.
Patriarch Tikhon..., p. 702)
Moreover, in his 1937 letter,
Metropolitan Kirill noted that among the clergy of the Vyatka diocese, “there
sometimes arise extremes in attitude toward Sergianism (for example,
rebaptizing those already baptized), but this zeal not according to knowledge
seems to me not a doctrinal confession accepted by the Vykovtsy, but
rather a regrettable incident born of the personal temperament of certain
misguided zealots.”
At the Council of Bishops in
1971, even with regard to the clergy of the MP, Metropolitan Philaret affirmed
“that there are people who, although they have erred, do so while reproaching
themselves inwardly; nevertheless, they serve the flock and uphold the faith.” (Protocol
of the Council of Bishops, 1971, September 1/14, pp. 6–7) Or as St. John
(Maximovitch) said:
“We are a part
of the Russian Church and breathe the spirit of the Russian Church of all
centuries. But from this it is dangerous to draw the extreme conclusion that we
are the only Church, and that one should pay no attention to others or take
them into account. We are walking the right path, and others are straying from
it, but one must not arrogantly disregard others, for everywhere there are
Orthodox bishops and priests... People often cite the words of Maximus the
Confessor: ‘If the whole world partakes [with heretics], I alone will not
partake.’ But he said: ‘if.’ And to the Prophet Elias, when he thought that he
alone preserved the faith, the Lord revealed that there were still 7,000
others... Among the ordinary clergy there are very good men, and those who are
at the head must be subjected to strict scrutiny.”
(ROCOR Council
of Bishops, 1958, Protocol No. 5, October 3/16, 1953, p. 15)
Certainly, the process of
apostasy in our time is only intensifying; nevertheless, it would not be
superfluous for some of the “exclusively-true,” so as not to fall into “zeal
not according to knowledge,” to heed the words of the Holy Hierarch.
Concerned that members of ROCOR
traveling to the USSR might suffer spiritual harm, Metropolitan Philaret and
the Synod of ROCOR on November 2/15, 1983, resolved:
“Members of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad who travel to the Soviet Union should bear in
mind that they may find themselves in churches where the priests are KGB agents
or, for some other reason, require us to refrain from communion with them in
the sacraments, as active participants in the ungodly collaboration of the
Moscow Patriarchate with the Godless, the enemies of the Church.
“Our Church,
while not issuing a blanket condemnation of the Moscow hierarchy and clergy,
nevertheless considers it necessary to warn her children against seeking the
sacraments—especially confession and communion—in the churches of the Moscow
Patriarchate.”
I draw attention to the fact that
in this Directive of the First Hierarch there is not a single word about the
gracelessness of the MP’s sacraments, and the reason for refraining from
participation in the MP’s sacraments is entirely different.
In another Synodal Decree, the
procedure (based on the principle of economia) for reception into ROCOR
from the MP and the OCA was determined:
“May 16/29, 1980
Considered
various questions of pastoral practice in connection with the report of His
Grace Bishop Gregory at the most recent Council of Bishops.
Resolved:
1.
To recognize that members of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad, when visiting churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, must
refrain from communing in them.
2.
Clergy seeking to enter our jurisdiction from
the Moscow Patriarchate, after proper examination, are to be received, as was
previously established, following confession and the prayer of absolution read
by a bishop, and the signing of the previously established statement.
Laypeople, after confession and communion, are to be registered in the nearest
parish.
3.
In doubtful cases as to whether a person coming
from Russia has been baptized or not, baptism is to be performed according to
the formula ‘if not baptized.’ In cases where it is certain that baptism was
performed, but it is unknown whether by a priest or a layman, the rite of
completion of baptism with chrismation should be performed. <…>
4.
From the American Metropolia [Orthodox Church in
America] – laypeople are to be received into our parishes through confession.
The same applies to the Western European Archdiocese...” (From the Decree of
the Synod of Bishops No. 143 of July 1/14, 1980)
Moreover, despite such a “gentle”
and balanced pastoral practice, a number of ROCOR ideologues regarded the
Moscow Patriarchate as a canonically defective organism, a counterfeit of the
Church, a false church—even graceless and having lost apostolic succession (as,
for example, Metropolitan Vitaly*), while others, though less categorical,
firmly refused to have any communion with it, leaving the resolution of such
“complex and delicate matters” to a lawful Local Council.
(* “From the moment when
Metropolitan Sergius ceased to regard Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy as his
superior, he deprived himself of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and became a usurper.
This is the path that Metropolitan Sergius took, and after him all the other patriarchs
and metropolitans to this day; this is why we have no communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate. It is a FALSE PATRIARCHATE, headed by a FALSE PATRIARCH. This is
the real reason. We are not railing or calling it names, but the essence of the
matter is that the MP has lost apostolic succession, that is, it has lost the
grace of Christ.” [from a 1998 letter of Metropolitan Vitaly to Protopriest
Roman Lukianov])
***
Thus, ROCOR’s approach to
“complex and delicate matters” was, above all, differentiated and—most
importantly—pastoral. The goal was to direct people onto the path of salvation,
to explain the truth, not to repel them with excessive harshness by indiscriminately
attaching labels such as “Satanists,” “heretics,” or by endlessly repeating,
like an incantation, the same “mathematical” judgment about the “gracelessness”
of this or that church jurisdiction—especially when such a judgment has not
been confirmed by a conciliar decision of the Church.
Moreover, it is one thing to
express one’s personal opinion on this issue in private conversation, and quite
another to proclaim it publicly, presenting it as the opinion of the whole
Church (as do the “super-correct” and the “exclusively-true,” whose judgments
are based not on conciliar decisions but on someone’s private opinion, often
given orally).
It is clear that “complex and
delicate matters,” taking all factors into account, must be resolved first and
foremost by an authoritative Council (whether a lawfully convened Ecumenical or
Local Council), and not by individual readers, hieromonks, or even bishops. It
is another matter to hold a judgment regarding the canonicity of a particular
church organization (a topic on which the “super-correct” typically remain
silent), or to uncompromisingly point out the apostatic processes occurring in
Churches that have deviated. For, as Archbishop Nathaniel (Lvov) wrote,
the Lord has not
given us concrete data by which to judge whether or not a particular sacrament
has been performed. One thing we do know, believe, and confess: that in our
immaculate, holy, and right-believing Church—and in all Churches that are in
communion with Her—the Sacraments are truly accomplished by the grace of God,
and when we partake, we truly partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. As for
those who have separated from us, we do not know and cannot know whether the
Holy Mysteries are performed among them or not. Ignoramus et ignoramus.
As for the
positions of schismatic groups, we are able to judge. The Lord has given us
reason and conscience for this, and we know that their positions are incorrect,
untrue.
Let us then hold
fast to what the Lord has revealed to us, and not attempt to penetrate
mysteries that are hidden from us. We should be deeply afraid of the
possibility of making a mistake and falling into dreadful blasphemy—the
possibility of calling the true Body and Blood of Christ “food of demons.”
(On the
Question of Renewing Sanctions Against Jurisdictional Groups, Conversations...
vol. 5, p. 51)
***
I will now present excerpts from
various ROCOR documents, including personal opinions of some of Her hierarchs,
on this “complex and delicate matter” (not in order to preempt the Church’s
judgment one way or another, but in order to show the complexity of this
question and to indicate the necessity of its conciliar resolution, when it
will be according to the will of God):
“Chairman
(Metropolitan Vitaly): ...the presence or absence of grace can be determined
only after a judgment of the Moscow Patriarchate. We acknowledge that they are
subject to judgment, but not yet condemned. Therefore, we are not in communion
with them.”
(Council of
Bishops of ROCOR, Protocol No. 5, October 8/21, 1991)
This same thought was expressed
by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose):
“...of course,
no communion can be had with such an organization (the MP), which is under the
power of atheists, but an exact judgment of its condition is best left to a
future free council of the Russian Orthodox Church.”
(The Royal
Path: True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy, The Orthodox Word, No.
70, 1976)
Chairman (Metropolitan Anastasy):
“Do we have the
boldness to declare it [the MP] entirely without grace? Until now we have not
posed the question so radically... Only heresy, accepted by the whole Church,
corrupts the entire Church. In this case, the people are not responsible for
the conduct of the leaders, and the Church as such remains uncorrupted. No one
dares to say that the entire Church is without grace, but since the priests had
dealings with a deceitful hierarchy and compromised their own conscience,
repentance is necessary.”
(Council of
Bishops, 1953, Protocol No. 5, October 3/16, p. 16)
“As for the
Moscow Patriarchate and its hierarchs, ... the Church Abroad, in preserving her
purity, must not have any canonical, prayerful, or even ordinary social contact
with them, while at the same time leaving each of them to the final judgment of
the Council of the future free Russian Church.”
(From the
Testament of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anastasy)
Here, Metropolitan Anastasy
points to the only correct, “royal path”: to withdraw from all forms of
communion with the MP and to leave its apostate hierarchy to the final judgment
of the Council of the future free Russian Church—not to the judgment of any
individual bishop or group of bishops, and even less to that of a single
hieromonk, reader, or layperson. Moreover, “the cornerstone of their mutual
relations,” as the First Hierarch also bequeathed in the same testament, “must
be the 34th Apostolic Canon, in which the spirit of conciliar governance in the
Church is so deeply and clearly expressed,” and not the spirit of
arbitrariness, usurpation, or factionalism which the “super-correct” are fond
of promoting.
At the 1998 ROCOR Council of
Bishops, the question of the Moscow Patriarchate was discussed. In conclusion,
the Chairman (Metropolitan Vitaly), who personally believed “that the MP is
without grace in its leadership” (since it “is a heretical organization,” and
“heresy is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”), summed up:
“We should stand
on the 70-year position of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad—that is, not to
speak on the question of the grace or gracelessness of the MP. We have always
lived peacefully, and now this has become some sort of temptation. Everyone may
have their own opinion, but there is no need to publish it.”
(Protocol No. 6,
April 28/May 11, 1998)
In other words, the Metropolitan
emphasized the importance of conciliar adherence to the “70-year” tradition and
continuity in approaching this “complex and delicate matter,” despite various
personal opinions, which are often mutually opposed.
Thus, for example, St. John
(Maximovitch) believed that the MP “has not been deprived of the grace of God,
despite the fact that many of its hierarchs conduct themselves in an
impermissible manner,” and this opinion was shared by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva,
who added on his part: “…if only for the sake of the faithful.” All the more so
since,
“There is not a
single act of our Councils abroad declaring the Moscow Patriarchate to be
without grace. It is not for us to judge this!”
(Letter of
Archbishop Anthony to Hieromonk Lazarus, June 7/20, 1980)
Nevertheless, in another letter
(dated February 8, 1990) to the same recipient, Vladyka Anthony rendered a
judgment “on this matter”:
“It is evident
that the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate are grace-bearing—not for the
sake of those performing them, but for the sake of those receiving them with
faith.”
A similar opinion was expressed
by Archbishop Paul of Sydney in a letter to Russia dated October 21/November 3,
1989:
“Not long ago,
at a session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,
after reviewing letters and testimonies from Russia concerning the harmful
influence of figures in the Moscow Patriarchate on the souls of the faithful,
we discussed the very question that so troubles and concerns you—namely, the
question of grace. All the actions of a certain part of the figures of the
Moscow Patriarchate speak against them. But what then are we to say about the
many millions of faithful Orthodox Russian people?! Can it really be that they
are deprived of the grace-filled Holy Mysteries?! And all of us, bishops of the
free part of the much-suffering, persecuted Russian Orthodox Church—completely
and categorically rejecting Sergianism—expressed the view that it is precisely
for the sake of these little ones that, despite the unworthiness of the
ministers, the Lord does not withdraw His grace. The Lord Jesus Christ says to
the people and His disciples: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not
ye after their works’ (Matt. 23:1–3). From this it is clear that the Lord, to a
certain extent, acknowledged in those who had betrayed Him some remaining
authority to teach in the Old Testament Church. This can likewise be applied to
the present situation. However, by these words we in no way defend or justify
the Moscow Patriarchate.”
Indeed, not a single Council of
Bishops of ROCOR ever openly spoke on the question of the presence or absence
of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the MP—except for the
Council of Bishops in 1990, at which a Message was adopted (signed by all,
including the uncompromising Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles), in which the
bishops for the first time attempted to address this “delicate” matter: “We believe and confess that in the churches
of the Moscow Patriarchate—in those of them where the priest believes fervently
and prays sincerely, being not merely a ritual functionary but a good shepherd
who loves his sheep—the saving grace is bestowed in the sacraments, according
to the faith of those who approach. These churches are few across the vast
expanse of the Russian Land.”
A decision was also made
regarding the proper attitude toward MP clergy: “as to those who have fallen
away, as to erring brothers—not accepting them for concelebration, as if they
are under suspension ‘until repentance,’ yet without adopting a proud or condescending
attitude” (from the Statute on the Parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox
Church).
At the 1991 Council of Bishops,
Archbishop Lazar raised, at the request of confused believers from Russia, the
issue that the excerpt cited above from the 1990 Message was a cause of scandal
and needed to be removed. The Chairman (Metropolitan Vitaly) agreed that “the
mentioned passage in the Message is a mistake” and that it should be
corrected—which was done. “But,” said the First Hierarch,
“the
determination of grace can only be made after a judgment has been passed on the
Moscow Patriarchate. We acknowledge that they [the hierarchs of the MP] are to
be judged, but not yet condemned. Therefore, we are not in communion with
them.”
At the same time, Archbishop
Anthony of Western America added that
“a mistake
cannot be corrected by another mistake, by now saying that the Patriarchate is
without grace. At present, we cannot claim to stand above the All-Russian
Council. This must be decided by an All-Russian Council.”
Summing up the discussion, the
Metropolitan expressed the general consensus:
“We must respond
that we are not given the authority to judge the Moscow Patriarchate and that
we were mistaken in our assertion regarding the grace present in certain
priests.”
(Protocol No. 5,
pp. 12–13)
Thus, the Council returned to the
position that had by then become traditional.
Metropolitan Philaret, in turn,
wrote that the MP is without grace, since it has been subjected to various
anathemas, and its “empty” sacramental forms are filled with grace only upon
entering the true Church:
“The Catacomb
Church in Russia relates to the Church Abroad with love and complete trust. But
one thing is unclear to the Catacomb believers—it is unclear why our Church,
knowing with certainty that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no
longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy from the Soviet church
in their existing rank, without re-ordaining them, as though they already
possess grace. But grace—both clergy and laity—receive from the hierarchy; and
if the hierarchy has betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, then
whence comes grace to the clergy? This is what the Catacomb faithful ask.
The answer to
this is simple. The Church has the authority, in certain cases, to apply the
principle of so-called economia—condescension. Even St. Basil the Great
said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is sometimes
necessary to allow for condescension and not to apply the Church’s rules with
full strictness. When our Church received Roman Catholic clergy “in their
existing rank,” without re-ordaining them, it acted according to this
principle. And Metropolitan Anthony, explaining this matter, pointed out that
the external form—succession of ordination from apostolic times—is present
among the Catholics, while the grace lost by the Catholic Church is received by
those being joined to Orthodoxy from the fullness of grace inherent in the
Orthodox Church, at the moment of their joining. “The form is filled with
content,” said Vladyka Anthony.
In exactly the
same way, when we receive Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia.
And we receive clergy from Moscow not as those already possessing grace, but as
those who receive it at the very moment of their joining. But to recognize the
church of deceivers as a bearer and guardian of grace—we, of course, cannot.
For outside of Orthodoxy there is NO grace, and the Soviet church has deprived
itself of grace."
(From a 1980
letter to Priest Victor Potapov)
However, earlier, in 1971, in a
letter to Deacon Veniamin Zhukov, the First Hierarch expressed a much more
moderate position:
“If the entire
Church, in all its entirety, in the USSR is a false Church (of course, with the
exception of the Catacomb Church), then there are no sacraments in it, no
grace, and no church life at all. I personally cannot bring myself to make such
a dreadful assertion. Is it really possible that sincerely believing people,
who approach the Cup of Life with deep faith, partake not of the Heavenly
Bread, but of the food of demons? …Who would dare to affirm this? …His
Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony noted that the grace of God can pass even
through unworthy vessels—burning them spiritually unto perdition, yet being
communicated through them to those who receive it in faith. The betrayal of
Orthodoxy by the hierarchy is not yet a betrayal by the Church itself. The
guardian of right faith and piety is the believing people themselves… The
Soviet hierarchy, in its improper conduct, does not express the true voice of
the Russian Church.”
(http://www.listok.com/sobor270.htm)
It is noteworthy that
Metropolitan Philaret himself, when he lived in China, was for many years
compelled to remain under the jurisdiction of the MP. Once, when he expressed
his opinion on the gracelessness of the MP, Abbess Magdalena (Grabbe) posed to
him a question in this connection, to which he gave no reply:
“Holy Vladyka!
Do you think that the sacraments you performed in Harbin were invalid? After
all, you baptized and married people there!” (written testimony of B. Le Caro)
His successor, Metropolitan
Vitaly, asking the question: “And how is it that the Russian people still
partake of Communion?”, answered:
“I can only
understand it this way—the Lord performs an incredible economia for the
sake of the believing soul.” (Orthodox Russia, No. 12, 1992)
In another place, Metropolitan
Vitaly expressed himself even more specifically:
“It must be said
immediately that our Church, under no Metropolitan, has ever proclaimed that
the entire Moscow Patriarchate is completely without grace. What would that be?
A betrayal of the Truth? By no means! We deeply understand ourselves to be a
part of the FREE Russian Church and do not possess such fullness of authority
as to make such a declaration, which belongs solely to an All-Russian Council
of the entire episcopate. We express our complete disagreement with Moscow by
the fact that we have no communion whatsoever, not even on a social level, with
their episcopate. Moscow is a defendant body and awaits its judgment. The Lord
visibly performs for us an utterly incredible economia for many truly
believing people and communicates to them His grace, let us say, in Baptism… Under
such circumstances, can we proclaim anathema upon all of them? That would be an
absolutely irreparable mistake, a tragedy for many, or simply a foolishness
born of zeal not according to knowledge...” (from a 1991 letter to Archbishop
Lazar)
[End of Part 2]
Nevertheless, since Metropolitan
Vitaly believed that “the highest administration of the Moscow Patriarchate is
simply a graceless, state institution, and its members are merely state
officials in cassocks” (“The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and Its
Contemporary Significance”), he occasionally had the desire to bring the
question of the MP’s grace for discussion before the Council of Bishops of
ROCOR. However, the sense of conciliarity, continuity, and adherence to the
traditional approach always prevailed.
Thus, for example, at the 1996
Council, Metropolitan Vitaly stated that,
“having spoken
with certain bishops..., he renounces his intention to raise for discussion the
question of the gracelessness of the MP, since this would cause great confusion
and misunderstanding among the faithful in Russia.” (Protocol No. 5, August
27/September 9, 1996)
Reflecting on this topic in 1997,
the well-known spiritual writer Protopriest Lev Lebedev wrote:
“As for the
intention of His Eminence the Metropolitan to write about the ‘gracelessness’
of the MP, I am convinced that this would be premature. In that ‘Appeal’ of
mine to the Metropolitan, which Fr. Venyamin sent you, it is shown that the
question of the validity or invalidity of the sacraments in the MP and in other
ecumenical Orthodox Churches is, for the time being, precisely a question. It
may well turn out (and judging by everything, it appears so) that the
sacraments are nonetheless performed there, though only by the mercy of God and
His condescension to mankind. In that case, they [the sacraments] most
certainly go unto terrible condemnation for the hierarchs of the MP—the
celebrants themselves—as well as for those who, understanding their apostasy
and heresy, yet, being indifferent to the Truth, still resort to them.” (Here
Fr. Lev echoes the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan cited above.)
It is necessary,
at some broad Council of several truly Orthodox Churches, to decisively condemn
both Sergianism and Ecumenism, as well as, personally, those who propagate all
of this—that is, the heresiarchs—and only after that to declare that henceforth
the sacraments from these apostates, heretics, and impostors are to be
considered invalid. But for this, a special blessing from God is needed, so
that the fathers of such a Council may, with a clear conscience, conclude: “It
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
Otherwise, it
will turn out the same as with the 1983 anathema against ecumenism,
when—contrary to the canons—no one was personally named as a heretic, and later
Vladyka Vitaly stated that this anathema does not apply to anyone at all, does
not mean the assertion of gracelessness of the ecumenical churches, but serves
merely as a kind of warning for our own, for the members of ROCOR...” (from a
letter to Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Trinadtsaty)
Falling away from the Church,
believed Protopriest Lev Lebedev, is a whole process that unfolds over time.
“To our zealots
I have always said: the process of separation of a heretical community from the
Church is exactly that—a process, that is, a phenomenon that unfolds in time,
and is characterized by the fact that, on the one hand, death is already
coming, but on the other, ‘life’ still continues (i.e., grace in the
sacraments).” (from a letter to Priest Timofey Alferov, February 17, 1998)
Thus, for example, the falling
away of the Catholic Church from Orthodoxy was not a sudden act, but a process
lasting several centuries.
Clarifying his position,
Protopriest Lev Lebedev wrote to the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian:
“If the
ecumenical churches have fallen away from the Body of Christ, having cut
themselves off from the Vine, then how much life—received earlier from the
Vine—still remains in each of them, no one can know. This is known to God
alone. And ‘life’ in this case means the grace of the Holy Spirit, the grace of
God. Therefore, the Synod of the Resisters [i.e., the Synod in Resistance]
cannot officially declare either the gracelessness or the grace-filled state of
the ecumenical ‘Orthodox’ churches, nor the invalidity or validity of the
sacraments performed there. For indeed, no one can now determine in which cases
the sacraments in the ecumenical churches might still be valid, and in which
they are already no longer so...” (from a 1997 letter to Metropolitan Cyprian)
Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles
held an uncompromising position toward the MP, considering it a completely
apostate and heretical organization. “The question of the gracelessness of the
Moscow Patriarchate is so obvious that it requires no special proof,” wrote
Vladyka Anthony in his article “Why the Moscow Patriarchate Is Without
Grace.” Moreover, to support his position, Archbishop Anthony refers, among
other things, to the 1993 words of Protopriest Lev Lebedev:
“The
Patriarchate cannot be regarded as part of the Russian Orthodox Church in
bondage to God-fighting forces… it is an organization that has voluntarily and
consciously given itself over to the ‘father of lies’ and to antichristian
powers.”
And here is the opinion of
Archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev), generally the most ideologically consistent
opponent of the MP:
“Yet I cannot
abandon the thought that within the diverse array of phenomena outwardly
encompassed by the concept of the ‘Soviet Church,’ there may appear, in certain
cases, actions of grace, by virtue of which the corruption of the priesthood
and the invalidity of the sacraments can be overcome. The possibility of such
an inner enlightenment of the satanic darkness contained in the Soviet Church
may be determined both by what the particular priest represents in a given
instance and by what the one who comes to him represents. If from stones the
Lord can raise up children unto Abraham, can He not also—condescending to
weakness, to tears of repentance, to the simplicity of faith, to the painful
state of being without the Church, unbearable for the simple believer’s
heart—pour forth grace in specific, concrete cases from a substance worse than
‘stone,’ the substance of the Soviet Church?...
We are here
touching upon a great mystery. We are approaching a certain boundary line
between the Light of Christ and the Darkness of Antichrist... Yet one must
firmly warn against a simplistically optimistic perception of the positive
aspects of the complex phenomenon of the Soviet Church that we have indicated.”
(Pastoral Theology, part II, p. 149).
I will also present the position
on this question of Prof. Ivan Andreyev:
“Knowing the
nature of the Soviet state (the spirit of Antichrist) and the nature of the
Soviet church (collaboration with Antichrist), we dare not avoid doubting the
grace of that church. But can an Orthodox Christian approach the Holy Chalice
with doubt? Yet why do we say ‘we doubt’ instead of simply saying ‘no’? Because
there is still one consideration in defense of the possibility of the
preservation of grace, for some time, even in the Soviet church...
‘The life of the
Church is always a process... When the Church of Christ separated from the Old
Testament church, this too was a long process, one with many stages... The
question posed by these processes stands before each person. “Patriarch” Alexei
and his closest collaborators have clearly resolved it for themselves: they are
in full, unambiguous, confessed union with the God-fighting power and against
the martyrs of Christ. But the rest—all those people filling the churches—are
they in agreement with the “patriarch” on this matter? No, they do not
participate in their counsel and deeds, do not take part in the affairs of the
Patriarchate—i.e., in that dark side of its actions which binds it to the
enemies of God and separates it from Christ. And if they do not formally
separate themselves from the patriarch and his clergy, it is only due to
external causes, to the immaturity of the matter at the given moment...’
That the falling
away of a church from God and its transformation into a ‘synagogue of Satan’ is
a PROCESS—this cannot be denied. But the Soviet church has set itself on a path
that leads to this ‘synagogue’—in this there can be no doubt...
This horrifies
us. And we, Orthodox Russian people, without pre-judging the final judgment
over the Soviet church—a judgment which, by the ‘will’ of the Holy Spirit, will
be rendered in due time by the Russian Orthodox Council—must clearly and firmly
say: we renounce any and all communion with the Soviet church, for we doubt its
grace.” (“Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church?”, 1948).
"Your question as to whether
the Moscow Patriarchate has preserved apostolic succession and whether the
sacraments performed within its confines are valid is an extremely complex
issue and requires special caution in answering," wrote the long-time
Secretary of the Synod, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), in a letter dated March 1/14,
1991.
"If you
compare the Orthodox Church to a mighty tree, perhaps the answer will seem more
understandable. Here grows a beautiful tree, but suddenly you notice that some
branches on it begin to wither, turn yellow, and even completely dry up. To
determine precisely the moment of irreversible drying is very difficult, for
the gardener always holds out hope that the branch may yet recover. Therefore,
there is no possibility of pointing with certainty to the moment when the sap
of the tree no longer nourishes a given branch. We only see that the tree is
undeniably ill. Consequently, the Church has never rushed to cut off a diseased
branch—just as, for example, was the case with Roman Catholicism: the
transitional period lasted about two centuries before the Church could
definitively determine that the Catholics had hopelessly fallen into heresy.
The Church knows
a number of gradations in its condemnation of a diseased hierarchy. Thus, there
are cases where there is no communion only with the episcopate, but it is
allowed with the lower clergy. There are cases where even this is discontinued,
but laypeople are still admitted to the chalice, as they have little
understanding of complex ecclesiastical matters. For example, in our practice
with the so-called “American Autocephalous Church,” communion was broken with
their hierarchy and clergy, but laypeople were allowed to receive Communion.
However, on an individual basis, the priest during confession would explain the
reason for such a situation and advise them to make a decision, rather than
wander from place to place.
The Russian
Church Abroad has absolutely no communion with the hierarchy or clergy of the
Moscow Patriarchate due to the Sergianist betrayal, ecumenism, and a number of
other significant reasons. When clergy from the Patriarchate are received by
us, it is always through a Bishop and by means of confession. In some cases, if
the given clergyman had considerable weight in the Patriarchate, then also
through public repentance from the ambo during the reading of the Hours.
(http://www.holmogorov.rossia.org/libr/grabbe/pisma3.htm)
So that it may be seen that this
“complex” question also arose before the New Martyrs, I will present the
opinion of the New Hieromartyr Damascene (Cedrik), expressed in a 1934 letter
to the New Hieromartyr Seraphim (Samoylovich), which was discovered during a
search of the New Hieromartyr Kirill, Metropolitan of Kazan. The latter himself
wrote in 1929 that the sacraments in the Sergian Church are performed, but to
the condemnation of those who perform them and of those who know the falsehood
of Sergianism:
“The path of
M[etropolitan] S[ergius] is the path of undeniable apostasy. Hence the loss of
grace in him is undeniable. Undeniable also is the departure from grace of
anyone consciously implementing in life the plan of the ‘wisest one.’
M[etropolitan] S[ergius], X, Y, Z have lost grace, but as long as they are not
cut off — does the position confessed by the Church not still operate in the
Church, namely that ‘instead of unworthy ministers of the Lord’s altar, the
Lord invisibly sends His angels for the fulfillment of the blessed mystery’? If
such a condition exists (I believe that it does), then would it not be more
prudent to endure...
Such a condition
I consider tolerable with regard to those weak and unenlightened ones, to whom,
due to their infantile ignorance and simplicity, the sin of Sergianism cannot
be imputed.
Those among them
err who understand all the falsehood and the resulting evil of Sergianism, yet,
due to inertia or faintheartedness, remain in the ranks of those...
I find it
possible “to endure,” not to accuse of the lawlessness of conscious Sergianism
the masses of simple, unenlightened people, until the Church (i.e., “a
conciliar judgment over the lawless” – from the same letter) cuts off the
access of grace-filled light to the thickets of Sergianism; healthy seeds or
saplings that have happened to end up there by chance may still partake of the
gifts of the grace of the Holy Spirit, in proportion to their faith, in
proportion to their spiritual maturity. We, together with you, confess that the
same Holy Mysteries serve some unto salvation, and others “unto judgment and
condemnation.”"
And this opinion
of the Holy Hieromartyr Damaskin was expressed taking into account that “the
judgment, as the expression of the Church’s [consciousness] on this issue, in
its ideal content, has already taken place. The Church has expressed its
complete condemnation of Metropolitan Sergius and his lawless deeds, and
together with him, of all the participants and companions of Metropolitan
Sergius on his... path. She has expressed this through dozens of protests sent
to Metropolitan Sergius by Orthodox archpastors and by a multitude of similar
protests from faithful presbyters and laymen. She has expressed this through
the mass departure of believers from the Sergianists, who ceased to attend
their churches and communicate with them...
Nevertheless,
the visible court in the Church has also been established for the edification
of the perishing and for the warning of those prone to scandal, and each of us
must do everything in his power to hasten such a moment for the common good of
the Church.”
(Theological
Collection, Issue X, Moscow, 2002, pp. 454–465).
In turn, the Catacomb Church at
the Ust-Kut Council of 1937, without considering the question of grace (known
fully only to God), merely forbade “the faithful to receive spiritual
nourishment through clergy legalized by the anti-Christian government,” since
“the oath-anathema pronounced by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon is effective,
and by its power all clergy and church ministers who have dared to regard it as
a church error or a political measure are placed under its binding force.” (Important
Resolution of the Catacomb Church, Orthodox Russia, No. 18, 1949).
However, it must be said that the
Catacomb Christians’ attitude toward the MP (and, in particular, toward its
clergy) was, overall, far more severe than that of their émigré counterparts
(noting, however, the scarcity of historical evidence on this matter).
A strict stance toward
Metropolitan Sergius and his structure—even to the point of declaring it
graceless—was also expressed by a number of New Martyrs and Confessors of
Russia, the founders of the Catacomb Church. This is understandable: for the
Catacomb faithful, the MP, loyal to the God-haters, was a direct ideological
opponent (an antithesis), whose negative actions they saw firsthand. Moreover,
any contact with its clergy could (and did) result in the loss of freedom for
the entire Catacomb group, hence the harsher stance (up to total rejection)
compared to the Russian Church Abroad, whose freedom was under no such threat.
This is probably the reason for
the “mild” resolution of the ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1938, which might
perplex zealots:
“Metropolitan
Anastasy points out that clergy arriving from Russia who belonged to the said
jurisdiction [MP – V.K.] are allowed immediate prayerful communion and
cites the opinion of Metropolitan Kyrill of Kazan, expressed in his message
published in Church Life, that the sin of Metropolitan Sergius does not
extend to the clergy under his authority. It was resolved: To recognize that
there are no obstacles to prayerful communion and concelebration with the
clergy of Metropolitan Sergius.”
(Protocol No. 8,
August 16, 1938).
In other words, being at liberty,
the Church could take a more lenient and pastoral attitude toward the ordinary
clergy of the MP who wished to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Church
Abroad. Moreover, “The Church Abroad,” as Metropolitan Philaret wrote in the
already cited letter to Deacon V. Zhukov, “receives clergy of the Moscow
Patriarchate through repentance and an appropriate declaration on their part.
But it does not re-ordain them. Could this even be conceivable if they were
deprived of grace, as those ordained in a false church?”
I note in this connection that
there is, nevertheless, a danger of falling into the opposite extreme, when
gradually not only the simple and ‘unaware,’ but even the ‘knowing’ leadership
of the MP begins to be considered as possessing grace—which, under certain
circumstances, cannot but lead to a desire for union with them (i.e., to unia,
which is what we are currently witnessing).
The attitude of the two true
parts of the Russian Church toward the MP, being in different circumstances,
was expressed by one of the ideologists of ROCOR, Prof. Ivan Andreyev (who
before the war had been a member of the Catacomb Church):
“Traitors of
Orthodoxy in general and of the Russian [Orthodoxy] in particular ... are not
only not recognized as truly Orthodox Russian people either in the homeland or
in the diaspora throughout the world, but are anathematized by the Catacomb
Church and have no prayerful communion with the Russian Church Abroad.
‘There’ — the
Catacomb Russian Church has the right, even before the judgment of the Russian
Local Council, to preliminarily condemn the treacherous activities of the
Soviet patriarchs Sergius and Alexis (i.e., to deliver them to anathema).
‘Here’ — the
conciliar Russian Church Abroad has the right, having broken all communion with
the Soviet church, to await the Russian Local Council for the condemnation of
the Soviet high hierarchy.”
(“St.
Patriarch Tikhon and the Fates of the Russian Church,” Orthodox Russia
No. 6, 1950).
Thus, the above has presented a
whole spectrum of various opinions from ideologists of the ROCOR on the
question of the grace-bearing or graceless nature of the sacraments of the MP
(and indeed, each of them could be debated and counterarguments raised), from
which the complexity and delicacy of this issue becomes evident, requiring
particular boldness for its resolution. And it is precisely the presence of
differing opinions—some of which, moreover, have undergone changes over
time—that indicates that this question has not yet been resolved at a conciliar
level. In such a case, doubt regarding the grace-bearing nature of the
sacraments in the MP will likely represent the most balanced point of view.
To me as well, the position of
Metropolitan Vitaly appears worthy of attention. He spoke of the “incredible economia”
performed by the Lord until the final judgment of the Church, despite the
gracelessness of the MP “in its leadership,” for the sake of the faithful of
the MP who do not share in the Sergianism and Ecumenism of its hierarchy. At
the same time, the opinion of the New Hieromartyr Damascene explains how this “economia”
can be understood—namely, when the sacraments are performed by angels “instead
of the unworthy (i.e., graceless) ministers of the altar.” And in this case, it
turns out that grace acts in the Patriarchate not through the graceless
“leadership” (“Personally, I,” said Metropolitan Vitaly in one sermon, “cannot
believe in the grace-bearing nature of the Moscow hierarchy”), but from the
Lord, who performs, with the help of angels, an “incredible economia.”
In confirmation of such a point of view, the author of these lines once
happened to hear a story about a clairvoyant eldress, who said that in reality
the sacraments are not performed by the MP’s Metropolitan Chrysostom
(Martishkin)—and she lived in his area—but by angels. The bishop himself, at
that time, lies bound in the altar.
***
The “super-correct,” both in the
past and today, try to overly simplify this “complex and delicate issue” and
artificially interrupt the “process” of falling away from the Church—proposing,
for this purpose, to condemn the Moscow Patriarchate by their own private
judgment as soon as possible, in the hope that this will lead to a departure of
the flock from it.
What more is there to wait for?
asked one “super-correct” person—for the MP is “anathematized four times,” and
it must be definitively separated from the Body of Christ. “Do the anathemas
not speak of the deprivation of grace for those subjected to them?”
The main meaning of anathema, as
taught by St. John (Maximovich), is, above all, that the heretic subjected to
it is separated from the Church and handed over to the Judgment of God, while
still retaining the possibility of returning to Her through repentance.
Now it is necessary to examine
the nature of these anathemas—specifically, to whom they apply—since this is
the main argument of the “super-correct” concerning the automatic loss of grace
in the MP.
Thus, in the case of the anathema
of the ROCOR(V) against Sergianism, only Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky)
was subjected to ecclesiastical excommunication in 2004 by the Council of
Bishops—along with those consciously adhering to this pernicious path, though
no one else was named personally. I will add that ROCOR has never recognized
the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate as lawful and canonical leaders of the
Russian Orthodox Church (it has never recognized any of its patriarchs), but it
has also never passed “final judgment” upon them (let alone upon the ordinary
people attending MP churches), tactfully leaving this matter to the anticipated
lawful Local Council (especially since, as is known, not every uncanonical act
automatically leads to loss of grace).
As for the 1983 anathema against
ecumenism, it is even more impersonal (as Archpriest Lev Lebedev wrote
above)—there is not a single individual specifically excommunicated from the
Church. Moreover, by its meaning, an anathema is the excommunication from the
Church of a specific person who previously belonged to it, and of those whom he
draws into heresy—not of a doctrine itself (a doctrine is condemned by the
Church, while the heresiarch is excommunicated from it). Therefore, this
anathema is more correctly regarded, in my view, as a law on the basis of which
judgment will be rendered upon specific persons suspected of participating in
this heresy. As Archbishop Anthony of Geneva explained, “the text of this
anathema does not point to anyone personally. It is difficult and impossible to
judge to what extent someone fully rejects the dogma of the one and only
Church, invincible to the gates of hell, and fully accepts the teaching that
the Church has broken apart, has divided, and that it no longer exists” (“What
is an ‘Anathema’?”).
“Ecumenism becomes a heresy,” Fr.
Seraphim warned, “only in that case when it denies the identity of Orthodoxy
and the true Church of Christ.
Some Orthodox leaders of the
ecumenical movement have indeed crossed that boundary; however, the majority of
Orthodox ecumenists have undoubtedly not reached it, and some (such as the late
Fr. Georges Florovsky) repeatedly and publicly declared that Orthodoxy is
precisely the One and Holy Church, which greatly irritated the Protestants” (Orthodox
Life, no. 1, 1994, p. 6). Therefore, it is important to avoid
generalizations and exaggerations, since they, in the words of Hieromonk
Seraphim, “are only a hindrance in our present war for the purity of the
Orthodox faith.”
However, explaining the meaning
of this anathema, Vladyka Vitaly wrote in 1984:
“De jure,
the anathema we proclaimed is of a purely local character, that of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense historical and
universal significance, and only because ecumenism itself is a heresy on a
global scale”
(Orthodox
Russia, no. 10, May 15/28, 1984).
The same can be said about the
Catacomb anathema against Sergianism (which also has a local character) as
about the one from the Russian Church Abroad (in which only Metropolitan
Sergius and his followers were anathematized); moreover, there are only a few
fragmentary references to it, and for understandable reasons it did not receive
widespread dissemination throughout the Church (since it was not proclaimed
openly).
The anathema of St. Patriarch
Tikhon against the Soviet power also undoubtedly weighs upon those
representatives of the Patriarchate who served the Soviet authorities not out
of fear, but out of conviction. But how is it possible to determine concretely who
falls under this anathema without a trial? And is this even within the power of
human judgment, aside from a few obvious Sergianists? Hardly.
Thus, based on the anathemas
concerning the Sergianists, it is specifically Metropolitan Sergius and his
followers—i.e., conscious Sergianists, primarily representatives of the
hierarchy—who have been cut off from the Church, and not the entire Moscow Patriarchate,
“since the hierarchy, as St. John (Maximovich) wrote, is not the whole Church.”
Often, the faithful people attend
the churches of the MP simply because there are no others nearby, there is no
one to guide them into the truth, while “the most righteous,” through their
“zeal not according to knowledge” and internal strife, instead of attracting
others, drive them away.
Of course, these circumstances do
not remove the grave guilt of indifference to the truth (lukewarmness) or the
sin of ignorance from the patriarchal parishioners (who, according to Fr. Lev
Lebedev, “want to believe a lie”), but still, God is their judge, not the
“super-correct” ones who, with the help of their “higher mathematics,” try to
penetrate the mysteries of God and reduce the unrevealed to some rational
formula known only to themselves, dividing everything into black and white.
The Church of Christ is a
mystery, in which the rational is interwoven with the irrational, the revealed
with the unrevealed, the understandable with the incomprehensible.
I will cite just one example for
illustration, namely, the appearance of the Holy Great Martyr Theodore the
Recruit during the first week of Great Lent to Archbishop Eudoxius of
Constantinople, a follower of the Arian delusion. Let us note that the holy martyr
appeared to a bishop-heretic and warned him and his flock of coming calamities,
after which this event (Theodore’s Saturday) is commemorated every year by the
Orthodox Church. Now try to make sense of why the holy martyr appeared
precisely to this false shepherd—who denied the consubstantiality of God the
Son with God the Father and had been deposed for heresy—and not to some
faithful one.
So it turns out that what may
seem a simple and clear answer to a question often, when it comes to the
Church, becomes far from simple and obvious.
[End of part 3]
In his 1996 work “The
Boundaries of the Church,” Protopriest Lev Lebedev (an ideological opponent
of the Moscow Patriarchate) wrote that it seems that with the MP, in comparison
to the ROCOR, everything is simple and “a person only needs to determine” which
“of these Churches has fallen away from Christ, is no longer part of His
‘Body’”; “however, standing in the way of such a radical and, it would seem,
... clear and straightforward question is the great obstacle of the evident
presence in both Churches of God’s signs, miracles, and other grace-filled
actions, and of the living Orthodox faith of a multitude of Russian people who
do not share in any heretical delusions!”
“There were,” continued Fr. Lev,
“in the
‘Patriarchate’ also evident miracles and signs of God. There were also
righteous people—even elders among the monastics. These circumstances we must
testify to with full responsibility before God and the Church, both from our
personal experience of being in the MP since 1962 as a layman, and since 1968
as a priest, and from the experience of many people known to us—laymen and
priests (and even some bishops)...”
Yes, the
majority of the episcopate was apostate and traitorous [“The leaders of the
Moscow ‘Patriarchate’ make it appear as if they are Orthodox, but inwardly they
are united with the powerful of this world, with the very ‘spirit of this
world,’ which is the spirit of antichrists!” — from Fr. Lev’s second letter to
Metr. Cyprian, 1997]. And all of us either felt this to some extent or even
knew it. But the Church people strove to keep the faith firmly. This means that
the guardian of the faith, the guardian of the Church in Orthodoxy, is not only
the hierarchy, but as a whole — the “body of the Church,” that is, the people
themselves... And if part of the hierarchy, in the person of the supreme
ecclesiastical authority, falls away from Christ, concealing this from the
people, this does not yet make the people themselves, as the body of the
Church, also apostate — that is, it does not sever them from unity with Christ.
We see within the fold of the Moscow “Patriarchate” not only bishops and
priests who have broken the continuity of the faith through conscious and
voluntary Sergianism, but also bishops and priests who have preserved both the
apostolic canonical succession of ordination and the spiritual succession of
the faith! ...
If we have
established that sincerely believing bishops, priests, and parishioners of the
Moscow “Patriarchate” can still be considered as belonging to the Body of
Christ—the Church, as being a “branch of the vine,” then this is such a branch
that is half-broken and continues to break off from the false patriarchate,
which has completely fallen away from Christ; or, to be more precise, from
certain figures of the highest church authority and clergy in key positions who
hold decisive influence in church matters. Those who belong to the half-broken
branch, still retaining a minimal connection with Christ, have made no
decisions and cannot make decisions in the church life of Russia...
The Moscow
“Patriarchate” cannot be regarded as a unified Local Church that has deviated
or is deviating into schism and apostasy from the truth. Here, Church and
anti-church are closely intertwined... If anyone has seen a tree thickly and
tightly entwined and being choked by ivy parasitizing upon it, so that it is
already difficult to distinguish where the branches and leaves of the ivy are
and where the still-living leaves of the already dying tree are—then he may
imagine what is taking place in the church life of Russia...
A few words must
also be said about the anti-church that has entangled the Church in Russia. We
have noted the main point: that it consists of those bishops, priests, and
other church officials who are devoted to the antichrists and their power “not
out of fear, but out of conviction,” being believers only in outward
appearance. But this means that, having thereby broken and severed the
Apostolic succession of the faith, they have ceased to be truly bishops and
priests, and consequently, their Mysteries became invalid, not being performed.
Therefore, those who persistently spoke of the “Patriarchate’s” gracelessness
were partly right. In relation to the true “Sergianists,” this is indeed the
case. But alongside them, as if intermixed, served also those bishops and
priests who were Sergianists only outwardly, while remaining faithful both in
soul and in deed—thus their Mysteries were valid, and grace was present in
their sacred actions. To distinguish some from others was not always easy—at
times, impossible.
In the above excerpt, Fr. Lev
described the complex situation that had developed in the Patriarchate before
its entry into the WCC and which became even more aggravated as the MP
assimilated the ecumenist heresy, further expanding within it the “realm of
gracelessness.”
“And yet we want once again to
note and emphasize,” continued Fr. Lev,
“that at present
in Russia there still remain two or three (perhaps three or four) bishops and a
very small number of priests who received ordination not from ecumenists and
who personally do not agree with the heresy of ecumenism... Lawful and good
clergymen do not decide anything in church governance, but the Mysteries
through them may be performed, may be valid.”
These words were written by
Protopriest Lev Lebedev in 1996. Whether the “realm of gracelessness” has by
now completely engulfed the Moscow Patriarchate or not is difficult to say, but
it is evident that to resolve “this question, complex for ordinary reasoning,”
is not within the power of a “super-correct” rationalist (who, according to Fr.
Seraphim’s words, wants “to simplify everything, to present it as either white
or black”), but only of a “particular,” and moreover, spirit-bearing Council of
the Church, which at present cannot realistically be convened.
To what has already been said, it
must be added that, perhaps, in the history of the Orthodox Church there has
never been a single case where some of Her parts were recognized by others as
entirely devoid of grace. Thus, during the dominance of heresies, only specific
heresiarchs and their followers were anathematized (cut off from the Church),
and not Local Churches, even when headed by hierarchs who were heretics,
“for the
hierarchy is not the entire Church, although it speaks in Her name. In the
Cathedral of Constantinople there were Paul the Confessor, Macedonius, Gregory
the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, Proclus, Flavian, Germanus—some
shone with holiness and Orthodoxy, others were founders of heresies, yet the
Church remained Orthodox. During the time of iconoclasm, after the expulsion of
Severinus, Nicephorus, and others, not only were their sees but most episcopal
positions filled by Arians; other Churches even refused communion with it,
according to the testimony of St. Paul, who abandoned both the heresy and the
throne, not wishing to have communion through the iconoclasts—but still the
Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people,
especially the guard and officials, were drawn into iconoclasm.”
Blessed Metropolitan Anthony
(Khrapovitsky) also taught the same:
“When during the
time of Metropolitan Anthony people began to speak of the ‘improper actions of
the Church,’ he would stop them, pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy
cannot be attributed to the Church” (St. John [Maximovitch], from a letter of 1963,
http://otechestvo.org.ua/vesti/2003/2003_12/v_17_02.htm).
The same opinion was expressed by
Metropolitan Philaret in a 1971 letter to Deacon V. Zhukov:
“When the entire
Church, by the voice of an Ecumenical Council, condemned as heretics the
Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius and his like-minded supporters—of whom
there were many—this condemnation did not fall upon the entire Church of
Constantinople and its flock. In making their heretical assertions, Nestorius
and his comp[any] were not expressing the opinion of the Church of
Constantinople. In the same way, the Soviet hierarchy in its improper actions
does not express the true voice of the Russian Church. In the time of
Nestorius, there was no state pressure and persecution; therefore, the Church
of Constantinople at the Council freely expressed its true opinion, apart from
its Patriarch and in opposition to him, condemning him along with the entire
Council. In the USSR this is impossible; but just as Nestorius in antiquity, so
also Sergius, Alexy, and Pimen now do not express the true voice of the Russian
Church. Were she free (as she was in the time of Nestorius), she would speak
her 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 her hierarchy lies, presenting
itself as her representative.”
The hierarchs of the ROCOR had
hoped that after the fall of the God-fighting regime, the Moscow Patriarchate,
having been freed from the guardianship of the godless, would embark on the
path of repentance. But this has not happened to this day, and it—entangled,
above all, through the majority of its hierarchy, in Sergianism and
Ecumenism—has not spoken its word, which indicates its continuing falling away
from Orthodoxy. It is true that in recent times there have been individual
protests against the falsehoods of the MP on the part of Bishops Diomid and
Hippolytus, but they still remain exceptions to the general rule. And what will
come of these isolated glimpses of repentance, time will tell.
But,
“How, indeed,
can one determine—has enough time passed for repentance or not? And who should
and has the right to determine this? In the deepest sense, and ultimately—it is
Christ Himself who determines. But in reality, this happens through the
conciliar decision (definition) of the Church” (from a letter by Protopriest
Lev Lebedev to Priest Timofey Alferov, February 17, 1998).
Thus, on the basis of the listed
anathemas alone, it is hardly possible to automatically recognize the entire MP
as completely devoid of grace (as overzealous zealots do); a conciliar
determination of the Church is still needed. And Metropolitan Vitaly wrote
about this:
“...Our Church
has never, under any Metropolitan, proclaimed that the entire Moscow
Patriarchate is completely without grace. What is this? A betrayal of the
Truth? By no means! We deeply understand ourselves to be a part of the FREE
Russian Church and do not possess such fullness of authority as to issue such a
resolution, which belongs solely to an All-Russian Council of the entire
episcopate.”
Nevertheless, are these anathemas
sufficient as a basis for examining the deeds of the MP?
It seems that they are. There is
more than enough accumulated material for judicial proceedings against the
“apocalyptic harlot,” but the issue, as already mentioned, lies not in that,
but in the very “conciliar judgment” of the Fullness of the Church, which,
until lawful authority is restored in Russia (the Orthodox Monarchy), it is not
possible to convene.
And will a hasty and canonically
incorrect declaration of the MP as graceless now yield any positive results? I
think not (and this was clearly demonstrated by the “Pivovarov-Orlov schism,”
whose leaders, having declared the MP graceless, achieved nothing by that
step). For under the current disastrous state of affairs, the expectations of
the “super-correct” are in vain—that after the recognition of gracelessness,
there will be a mass exodus of believers from the official Church. Most likely,
due to lukewarmness, no one will even pay attention to such an act.
For example, the ROCOR(V)
proclaimed an anathema against Sergianism. And what happened—did anyone pay
attention to it? As far as I can tell, there was not a single published
response to this act of the ROCOR(V) Council, nor a single conversion to the
true Church because of it.
So also now—will anyone believe
the peremptory declarations of the “sole true ones,” that they alone remain
Orthodox, especially given that they are in a state of almost constant
disorder, discord, and mutual accusations broadcast to the whole world?
Alas, no one will believe it. And
moreover, such a declaration leads to a dead end.
“What then—perhaps indeed there
remains on earth only a handful of preservers of completely ‘strict’ and ‘pure’
Orthodoxy,” (wrote Hieromonk Seraphim [Rose]),
“but that in the
whole world there would be only a dozen Orthodox Christians with whom one could
maintain unity of faith and Holy Communion—this, undoubtedly, cannot be. It is
as clear as day that this is a dead end: even if the mind agrees with such formal
Orthodoxy, the believing heart will never accept it—for in it there is no room
for genuine Christian life” (‘Orthodoxy in America: Past and Present’).
To the question of whether there
are still Orthodox Christians in Russia, Metropolitan Vitaly replies in the
already cited 1991 letter to Archbishop Lazar:
“I could quote
for you hundreds of excerpts from letters from Russia, in which many young
people are fighting for the faith, getting baptized, and completely
transforming their lives—something that only the grace of the Holy Spirit can
accomplish. And am I supposed to suddenly tell them that it is all a lie, that
they are not baptized at all? They simply would not believe me and would take
me for some kind of sectarian, because in their souls there is joy, they pray
to God with tears, their lives have been completely changed—and I am to insist
that it is all an illusion? No, holy Vladyka, neither I nor you will act in
such a way, of this I am completely certain. Give them time, and gradually,
under the action of God’s grace, they will be enlightened, the eyes of their
understanding will be opened. After all, at Baptism we say, ‘Thou art baptized,
thou art enlightened, thou art anointed with Chrism, thou art sanctified,’ etc.
Evidently, enlightenment acts gradually, overcoming our weaknesses, overcoming
our distortions. We must give them time, and ourselves—patience.”
And is this really, at present,
the most urgent and pressing matter—to resolve the question of the gracefulness
of the MP’s sacraments?
I don’t think so.
For even to this day, the Council
of ROCOR(V) has not yet defined the canonical status of the parts of the
Russian Orthodox Church on the basis of Patriarchal Ukaz No. 362, which
is often interpreted within ROCOR(V) itself apart from its context—that is,
abstractly—and sometimes, for example by the “super-correct,” even distortedly.
The Church’s position regarding what authority should be considered the lawful
authority in Russia also remains unconfirmed.
And most importantly: would such
an act be authoritative and recognized by all?
Hardly.
The judgment of the MP, as
Metropolitan Vitaly wrote, must take place not at some private council—such as
that of ROCOR(V)—but at a lawful and representative Council of the entire true
Church, for only such a Council, in accordance with the formula “It seemed good
to the Holy Spirit and to us,” can determine at what stage the process of
falling away in the Patriarchate stands, and whether the time has come to move
from calls to repentance to actual severance.
There is no doubt—the MP is an
apostatizing organization of usurpers of ecclesiastical authority, subject to
the lawful judgment of the Church (“a subject of judgment,” in the words of
Metropolitan Vitaly). And it was precisely this lawful Council, at which the
“final” judgment upon the apostate hierarchy of the MP would be carried out,
that the New Martyrs of Russia and the founding Fathers of ROCOR hoped for—and
we hope for it as well.
“The accountability of the
Patriarchate,” wrote Protopriest Michael Polsky, “is irrefutable, except only
for the physical impossibility of carrying out this judgment... It may be
postponed for as long as necessary, but it is inevitable, as inevitable also is
the condemnation of the Sergianist Patriarchate” (The Canonical Position of
the Supreme Church Authority in the USSR and Abroad, Jordanville, 1948, p.
109).
And the very fact that such a
Council (of all lawful parts of the Russian Local Church, assembled in a lawful
manner) has not yet taken place (while debates over grace or gracelessness have
been conducted fruitlessly for decades) only indicates that the time of
judgment has not yet come.
As Protopriest Lev Lebedev wrote
in 1998:
“If there are
truly no questions regarding church life in the MP, for this is not life but
the steady disintegration of church life, then the grace—or validity—of the
MP’s sacraments has always been and remains a very serious question! Debates on
this issue began among the Orthodox back in 1927 and continue to this day...
In our times, it
is being fervently discussed among members of ROCOR in Russia. Opinions differ:
some stand on the position expressed in 1934 by Metropolitan Kirill, while
others hold to the position of Vladyka Joseph and the bishops of the Catacomb
Church. There is no agreement in sight. Clearly, only a special Council of
ROCOR is authorized, according to the formula ‘It seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and to us,’ to resolve this question, which is difficult for ordinary
reasoning. Therefore, no group of ROCOR members has the right to declare on
behalf of the entire Church that the grace of the MP’s sacraments ‘is not in
question.’ It is in question! And very much so!” (‘The Dialogue of ROCOR
with the MP: For What Purpose and How?’).
True, this was written at a time
when ROCOR still represented a unified whole, and its Council—despite signs of
deviation from the historical path—remained sufficiently authoritative, while
the continued existence of the Catacomb Church was questioned by Fr. Lev.
Therefore, Fr. Lev considered the Council of ROCOR—specifically a “special”
one—a sufficiently competent body to resolve “this question, difficult for
ordinary reasoning.” But even up to the present moment, for understandable
reasons, the time for such a “special Council of ROCOR” has not yet come, and
the corresponding “decision” on this question by the RosPTs [the
Pivovarov-Orlov group], which broke away from ROCOR(V), cannot be taken
seriously.
It is also evident that the time
has not yet come to define the status of the ecumenical Churches. “As can be
seen,” wrote Protopriest Lev Lebedev,
“debates,
exchanges of opinions, and discussions are not finished and will continue. To
resolve this fundamental disagreement among Orthodox anti-ecumenists, a broad
representative Council is truly needed! It must first be a Council of all those
who oppose ecumenism. And it must receive the clear good pleasure
(illumination) of the Holy Spirit, so that its decisions may be adopted
according to the Apostolic formula: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
us...’ For neither a single human mind nor even the unanimous opinion of a
group of bishops from one or another individual anti-ecumenist Synod can, as we
see, yet formulate a view on the current boundaries of the Church that is
acceptable to all faithful Orthodox. These boundaries must be revealed to us by
the Lord Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit” (from a letter by Protopriest
Lev Lebedev to Greek Metropolitan Cyprian, July 21, 1997).
***
Based on the above materials, it
becomes evident that the Russian Church Abroad has, until recent times, adhered
to the narrow “royal path,” generally avoiding deviation from it either to the
right or to the left. And those “zealots not according to knowledge” are
mistaken who wish to impose on this “path” characteristics alien to it,
attempting through their opinions and revisions to distort the tradition of the
Church Abroad. “The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was, by God's
Providence, placed in a very favorable position to preserve the ‘royal path’
amidst the confusion of twentieth-century Orthodoxy,” wrote Hieromonk Seraphim
(Rose). Therefore, any deviation from this “royal path of true Orthodoxy,”
regardless of who commits it (whether by the Laurusites, the Pivovarovites, or
anyone else), is a violation of the traditional path of ROCOR, a break in
continuity with the Fathers of the Russian Church Abroad.
“The apostasy of our time, unique
in its degree in the history of Christianity,” testified Fr. Seraphim,
“is carried
out... more through a false understanding of Orthodoxy by those who, in their
dogmatic teaching and canonical status, may be fully Orthodox...
The leaders of
‘world Orthodoxy’ are conducting a destructive policy of renovationism and
apostasy, but it would be risky and presumptuous to attempt to determine the
exact point at which they—and especially their involuntary followers—will have
departed from Orthodoxy with no hope of return. It is not our task to pronounce
such a judgment. But we are given to stand firmly in the true tradition of
Orthodoxy handed down to us by our Fathers, withdrawing from communion with
those who participate in the falling away from true Christianity, and seeking
those of like mind with us who have resolved to remain faithful to Orthodoxy
unto death” (“The Saints of the Russian Catacombs,” 1982).
“Our independent existence
(independent from other jurisdictions) is justified only if we are zealots of
the faith and offer an example to the jurisdictions that have fallen away or
are falling away from Orthodoxy” (from a letter by Hieromonk Seraphim [Rose],
1975).
These words of Fr. Seraphim are
echoed by the words of Archbishop Seraphim (Dulgov):
“By our (i.e.,
ROCOR’s) existence, independent from the MP, we bring and will continue to
bring benefit to all of Orthodoxy, as well as to the MP itself. As long as we
exist, no matter how small in number we may be, the MP is forced to take us
into account! We serve as a saving brake upon its downward slide. Were we to
disappear, to merge with them, the MP’s hands would be completely untied” (http://cherksoft.narod.ru/fds48.htm).
And in the condition of
independent existence, as Metropolitan Vitaly explained,
“we do not wish
to judge anyone, ... And may God forbid us to decide that we are the salt of
the earth and have the right to judge anyone. We have been placed here by the
Lord as a witness (i.e., to bear witness to the Truth in the face of Apostasy).
And grant us strength, O Lord, not to depart from this path!” (http://cherksoft.narod.ru/mtc99.htm).
Moreover, “The fate ... (of our
Church),” wrote Prof. I. Andreyev,
“is becoming
more and more like the fate of that Christian Church which existed in the early
dawn of Christianity (when Christian communities were, in the pagan world, only
small and alien inclusions). The evening dawn of Christianity, according to
prophecy, will be very similar to the morning dawn, for both will merge in the
radiance of the unending light of the Glory of the Crucified Christ” (“St.
Patriarch Tikhon and the Fate of the Russian Church,” Orthodox Russia,
No. 6, 1950).
***
But how are we, the “emigres,” to
act in this “dreadful, responsible time,” when our former brethren are falling
away in various directions from the “royal path of true Orthodoxy” (some,
having ceased their “witness,” merge with the MP on its terms and, along with
it, with so-called “World Orthodoxy”; others, proclaiming themselves to be the
“only-true,” put on the “mantle of judges” and judge the whole world; still
others, having already “buried” ROCOR, seek out their own special “truths”
elsewhere)?
To this important question,
Metropolitan Vitaly gave a simple but wise answer to the pastors gathered at
Lesna Monastery in 1997:
“We are alone,
we are very alone, and this loneliness is felt ... by all our pastors, and
especially by the laity...
You know, well
what can we do?...
Yes ... we
simply continue to live the life ... that the Church has lived for 2000 years.
We must continue this very same life—and nothing more,” that is, to walk the
same “royal path” along which our predecessors walked.
“The ‘royal
path’ of true Orthodoxy today is the middle between the extremes of ecumenism
and reformism on the one hand, and ‘zeal not according to knowledge’ (Rom.
10:2) on the other.”
And in order not to stray from
this narrow “path,”
“above all we
must strive to preserve the true fragrance of Orthodoxy; at the same time we
must be ‘not of this world’... nourished by the spiritual food which the Church
gives us in abundance,” adds Hieromonk Seraphim (“The Royal Path: True
Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy,” Letters of Father Seraphim [Rose],
p. 187).
To the question of what must be
done concretely and what kind of “spiritual food” one must partake of,
Metropolitan Vitaly responds in his Paschal Message of 1997:
“First of all,
to understand what a dreadful, responsible time we are living in.
Then, to place
oneself within the bounds of a prayerful discipline: to pray morning and
evening. To pray the Jesus Prayer wherever and whenever possible.
To receive
Communion more frequently in the True Church, and not in a church that is the
shell of an emptied egg.
No one... will
be saved by any theological doctorate, nor by knowledge of the kliros, nor by
the rank of bishop, priest, or any other clerical dignity. Only personal,
heartfelt love for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and faithfulness to
Him—even unto death—will save the human soul. Did not the Lord Himself
prophetically say: ‘When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the
earth?’ (Luke 18:8) and at the same time the Lord promised the
indestructibility of His Church unto the very end of this world. And this means
that by the Second Coming, the Church of Christ will be reduced to the extreme;
there will remain one or two churches in which the True Body of Christ and the
True Blood of Christ will be imparted. In the remaining churches there will be
only an empty shell—outwardly richly adorned, but empty.”
“Our Church,” wrote the First
Hierarch of ROCOR in the “Letter to Young People in Russia,” “will be given the
authority to confront its implacable enemy—the Antichrist.
And you, my young friends, do not
lose heart. Do you not see how the grace of the Holy Spirit is breaking through
a path for His Church?”
V. Yu. Kirillov
July 8, 2006 – March 15,
2008
Paris
Russian sources:
Part 1: https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/7776.html
Part 2: https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/8131.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.