Letter of St. Philaret the Confessor to Deacon (later Protopriest) Veniamin Zhukov on the Moscow Patriarchate

Fr. V. Zhukov: “Metropolitan Philaret shared with us his rich experience and conveyed to us his worldview. Once, on the occasion of our Council of 1971, I wrote to him a ‘memorandum’ regarding the election of ‘Patriarch’ Pimen and the corresponding decision of the Council. I was perplexed that the fathers of the Council placed the emphasis not so much on the illegitimacy of the Moscow Patriarchate as such, as on the incorrect procedure of the election. Wishing to reassure me, Metropolitan Philaret assured me of the faithfulness of our episcopate and gave his assessment on the question of the grace of the MP.”

 

December 7/20 1971

Beloved in the Lord Fr. Veniamin!

Taking advantage of free time during the voyage, I want to write you a few lines concerning the Epistle of the Council and your related concerns.

Having reread your letter-report (or whatever else to call it?), I see that my response will somewhat resemble the response of Fr. George Grabbe.

First of all: you can be absolutely assured regarding our episcopate in the matter of its attitude toward the Moscow Patriarchate – toward its hierarchy. It is unanimous and negative. And if we say that we do not condemn the Soviet hierarchs, then it is a matter of condemnation (or non-condemnation) on a personal moral level, for in the history of mankind there has never yet been such a deceitful, blasphemous, malicious, and treacherous authority as the communist authority. One must be under its pressure in order to judge the personal, moral guilt of these hierarchs! But if we do not judge them personally, then in principle, we absolutely reject their actions and position and do not consider them to be the voice of the Russian Church.

It seems to me that Fr. George is correct in pointing out that you have not sufficiently compared the Epistle of the Council with its principled resolutions. You write about the Patriarchate as a false Church. But did you not take note of the decision of the Council regarding the election of “Patriarch” Pimen? The Council declared the elections invalid; consequently, Pimen is a false patriarch. This characterizes not only him alone, but also all who elected him, does it not?

When the Council spoke approvingly about the statements of B. V. Talantov, this by no means implied that the members of the Council were in full 100% solidarity with him. The Council pointed out what new courageous voices have now sounded in Soviet Russia – by this indicating the undoubted spiritual movement among the people in defense of the faith.

It must also be taken into account that the Russian people now have a psychology very different from ours. While we, free from the pressure of the communist authority, clearly see the monstrosity of the state system and the pernicious wrongness of the position … which the Soviet hierarchy takes – those living there, in the unfortunate USSR, have become accustomed to seeing only one state authority and one church hierarchy. The Catacomb Church, after all, is hidden deep in its secret existence; the believing masses do not know about it, and in this there is the mercy of the Providence of God, for if many knew about it, the hidden would inevitably become manifest, and it would be destroyed. The overwhelming majority of believers know only the “legal” hierarchy.

From this hierarchy the faithful receive the sacraments… Let us take stock. If the entire Church, in its whole composition, in the USSR is a false Church (of course, with the exception of the Catacomb Church), then in it there are neither sacraments, nor grace, nor any church life. I personally will by no means dare to make such a terrible assertion. Has the Lord really, because of Sergius, his company, and his successors, left the many-million Russian people without sacraments, without the grace-filled means to salvation?... Is it really the case that the sincerely believing, approaching the Cup of Life with deep faith, instead of the Heavenly Bread, commune of the food of demons? (Thus the holy fathers define the graceless false-eucharist). Who will dare to assert this?... His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony pointed out that the grace of God can pass even through unworthy vessels, spiritually searing them to perdition, but communicating through them to those receiving it with 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, as is precisely stated in the epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs. When the whole Church, by the voice of an Ecumenical Council, condemned as heretics the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius and his like-minded associates, of whom there were many, this condemnation did not fall upon the whole Church of Constantinople and its flock. In making their heretical assertions, Nestorius and his company were not the voice of the Church of Constantinople. Likewise, the Soviet hierarchy in its wrongful actions does not express the true voice of the Russian Church. In the time of Nestorius there was no pressure from the state and no persecutions, therefore the Church of Constantinople, at the Council, freely expressed its true opinion apart from its Patriarch and contrary to him, condemning him together with the whole 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 it free (as in the time of Nestorius), it would have spoken its word. Once long ago, when the Russian Metropolitan Isidore joined the Unia and began commemorating the Pope, the Grand Prince Vasily publicly called him a heretic and put him in prison, with the full approval of the flock. But now the rulers are different, and the Church is voiceless, while its hierarchy lies, presenting itself as its representative.

As you know, the Church Abroad receives clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate through repentance and an appropriate declaration on their part. But it does not re-ordain them. Would this be conceivable if they were deprived of grace, as those ordained in a false Church?

In general, your letter is written sincerely and in many places convincingly, and in the spirit of pure devotion to the spirit of Orthodoxy and churchliness. May the Lord save you for your lively, ardent attitude toward that which is “one thing needful,” and for the defense of the truth of the Church. May God’s blessing be with you!

From me – a blessing and regards to your wife and your splendid little daughters.

With love, Metropolitan Philaret.

P.S.: The late Vladyka [St.] John decisively parted ways with Archimandrite Constantine [Zaitsev], who did not acknowledge grace in the Moscow Church, and Vladyka John strongly objected to this, as Fr. Constantine himself told me.

 

Source: Анафема РПЦЗ экуменизму: факты и значение (Новая редакция) [The Anathema of the ROCOR against Ecumenism: Facts and Significance (New Edition)], by Subdeacon Vladimir Kirillov, Paris, 2023, pp. 170-171.