Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Taurida: On Sergianism

[Written c. 1998. Translated from the original Russian.]

 

It is gradually becoming a tradition to assume that the Soviet government, from the beginning of its rule, aimed to subjugate the Church and that it persistently pressured its hierarchs into cooperation for that very purpose. However, this is not quite so—in fact, not so at all. Over time, we forget the original nature of this regime, and in our minds begins to form an image of it that is quite far from reality. In reality, the Soviet government, proceeding from its very essence as a God-fighting power, had no desire whatsoever to cooperate with the Church, and until 1943—and then again from the late 1950s until the early 1990s—it had only one goal: the complete destruction of the Church.

To carry out its intentions, in the very first days of Vladimir Ulyanov’s rule, a decree “On the Separation of Church and State” was drafted and adopted by him together with several associates. Even today, its content is outrageous—not to mention how it was received by the faithful in 1918. According to this decree, all Church property was taken away and declared by a group of “people’s commissars” to be “some sort of so-called national property.” The Church's relations with the state authorities were terminated, and it was deprived of the opportunity to educate the people in Orthodoxy and to conduct ecclesiastical activities. Simultaneously, instructions were sent to local authorities on how this decree should be implemented. As is evident from the documents, in localities, the directives were carried out with such zeal that the “center” sometimes had to restrain the enthusiasm of its own appointees. The next stage of the assault on the Church after the Decree was the appropriation of the Church’s so-called movable property (since all immovable property had already been confiscated by the Decree) under the pretext of a famine—strikingly skillfully exploited by the Soviet authorities to deprive the people of all material means and to suppress them completely and finally. This is the well-known grand “campaign for the confiscation of Church valuables in favor of the starving.” What followed was the closure of monasteries, the desecration of holy relics, and so on and so forth.

As if in response to these actions—unambiguously directed toward the destruction of the Church—came the anathema pronounced by Patriarch St. Tikhon against the Soviet authorities, whose representatives were called “monsters of the human race.” This anathema has not been lifted to this day and remains an active testimony of the Orthodox Church regarding its stance toward the government of V. Ulyanov, his successors, and his present-day followers.

II

The “monsters of the human race,” who seized power in October 1917, strove with all their might to establish an absolute dictatorship over the state, destroying—literally uprooting—all their potential competitors and rivals. In order to stay in power, this group went so far as to sign the so-called Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which turned the Russian Empire into a pitiful scrap of land and marked them as traitors to their allied duty and military honor. They were ready for any similar actions. As one of the leaders of this group, Trotsky, stated at the time: they needed either everything—i.e., absolute power—or nothing. They were not prepared to accept any compromises, deals, or agreements that would limit them in any way. The struggle against the Church was part of the global plan of the God-fighters to establish in our state a new type of slave-owning system.* According to the plan of these individuals—as we all know well—Russia was to have “neither rich nor poor,” and all were to become equally destitute (or more precisely, people whose life and death would be entirely in the hands of the new state), receiving an equal ration for the maintenance of life and work capacity (among the people this was called “equalization”). To achieve this, it was of course necessary to destroy the “rich” (i.e., those independent of the authorities) and make the state as a whole—more precisely, a group of administrators—the sole possessor of all the values existing in the country without exception. Thus, just a few years after coming to power, according to their plan, the Bolshevik state was to emerge as a unified, all-powerful monopolist slaveholder of all the people and nations artificially driven into destitution, who populated the former Russian Empire. Such a power, naturally, had no use for people who thought differently from the way it was profitable for the newly emerged dictators. Even the mere thought of God was unacceptable to it, since even God was regarded as a “competitor.”

III

The Russian Orthodox Church was very wealthy and independent from external influences. Therefore, in order to implement the plans for establishing “universal equality,” the Orthodox Church had to be destroyed—first by suppressing, breaking, and robbing it, depriving it of all its property, and physically eliminating its representatives who expressed active dissent. To crush the Church through a “cavalry attack” and at “Bolshevik speed” did not succeed. Therefore, it was decided that after establishing control (i.e., once a noose had been thrown around its “neck”), the Church would be gradually pushed toward death through the use of special “organs” created for this purpose. This, or something close to it, was the Bolsheviks’ plan at the time.

The organs tasked with implementing this plan were, on the one hand, the Secret Department of the GPU for the destruction of the Church, and on the other (to give an appearance of legality to this destruction), the Commission for the Implementation of the Decree on the Separation of Church and State under the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Both departments, during the most difficult and decisive times, were headed by E. A. Tuchkov. Judging by his actions, Tuchkov saw his main task as neutralizing the functioning of the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church by removing from it uncompromising bishops, breaking it into fragments, and setting these fragments against one another. Thus, according to the Bolsheviks’ plan, the Church was to be transformed from a wealthy, numerous, and united body standing unanimously in the truth into a multitude of small groups, moreover, at odds with each other. Tragically, they succeeded in doing this. Their goal was achieved through pressure, deceit, intimidation, repressions, intrigue, bribery, and other such provocative actions. As a result of Tuchkov’s active operations, a whole scattering of renovationist movements arose: the “Living Church,” “Church Revival,” “Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church,” and others. As can be seen from the documents, Tuchkov rushed from one bishop to another, at first offering nearly each of them the primacy of the Russian Church from the hands of the Soviet authorities in exchange for certain kinds of concessions, while at the same time making every effort to stir up discord among the bishops.

IV

In the second volume of the book Martyrs, Confessors, and Ascetics of Piety of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th Century by Hieromonk Damascene (Orlovsky), documents from the Central Party Archive are presented, leaving no doubt as to the methods and tactics of the God-fighters in their war against Christ. However, being a continuator of the work of Sergius (Stragorodsky), Hieromonk Damascene halts his publication at the year 1926 and resumes it only in 1937, wishing to pass over in silence the facts of betrayal and apostasy by Metropolitan Sergius. Nevertheless, even what he has made public is sufficient to speak, with documentary evidence, of the great crime committed by Sergius (Stragorodsky) before God and the Church.

In our days, it is already possible to assume with full certainty the nature of the “organs’” interaction with this man. On page 477 of his book, Hieromonk Damascene quotes:

“For the arrest and ‘case’ of Metropolitan Peter, the creation of turmoil connected with Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), the final formation of the schismatic group of Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky), and the publication of the ‘Declaration’ of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Tuchkov was awarded in 1927 with a certificate of commendation and a gold watch.”

An interesting situation arises: Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) issued the Declaration, but it was Tuchkov who was rewarded for it—that is, this document clearly indicates that it was Tuchkov who in fact issued it, not Metropolitan Sergius, who by that time no longer represented an independent figure in Russian Orthodoxy.

Let us also quote from the petition of the head of the OGPU Secret Political Department, Y. S. Agranov, dated September 1, 1931, requesting that Tuchkov be awarded the Order of the Red Banner, in which his principal achievements are listed:

“Under the leadership of Comrade TUCHKOV and with his direct participation, enormous work was carried out in the splitting of the Orthodox Church (into Renovationists, Tikhonites, and a number of other currents). In this work he achieved brilliant success.

In 1923–25 he conducted two Church Councils (All-Union Congresses of Churchmen), at which Patriarch Tikhon was deposed and a resolution was passed on the abolition of monasteries, relics, as well as on the Church’s loyal attitude toward Soviet power.

For a number of years Comrade TUCHKOV carried out serious work to split the Russian Orthodox Church abroad.”

These are not empty words; they are backed by facts. From the available documents it is clearly evident that all the forces of the Bolsheviks were directed precisely toward the creation of schisms in the Orthodox Church.

Moreover, the Jesuitism of the God-fighters extended to such a degree that, as we see from Protocol №55 dated September 3, 1924, Tuchkov was instructed “to take measures to strengthen the right-wing current opposing Tikhon, and to try to separate it into an independent anti-Tikhonite hierarchy.” That is, for the sake of expanding the schism, the Bolsheviks even went so far as to attempt to form, with their own hands, a group of right-wing clergy who would criticize Patriarch Tikhon for his diplomacy toward the Soviet authorities!

V

Let us not, for the sake of saving space and time, cite the numerous other confirmations available regarding what has been said. The task assigned by the Party to this "liquidator" is entirely clear. Whom did Tuchkov find as his accomplices and assistants within the Russian Orthodox Church? The main ones were: Bishops Gregory (Yatskovsky), Antonin (Granovsky), Protopriests Vvedensky and Krasnitsky, and others like them—and the most important of all, of course, was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Such a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church, as Tuchkov managed to effect through the hands of Metropolitan Sergius, our land had not seen since the time of Patriarch Nikon. Tuchkov’s discovery of such a venerable "collaborator" for his undertakings was undoubtedly the greatest success of the Soviet authorities in their campaign to destroy the Church.

Metropolitan Sergius approached the opportunity given to him by the God-fighters to head the Russian Church with such a measure of filial devotion that, to please the Soviet authorities, he seriously began to demand of the faithful to serve them “not out of fear, but out of conscience.” Now it can be stated with complete certainty that he deliberately and resolutely moved toward the creation of a church schism, suspending from ministry numerous hierarchs who disagreed with him and praising the God-fighting government—though he perfectly understood that such actions could not benefit the Church, but only bring turmoil and division into it. He did what Tuchkov suggested to him, completely disregarding the interests of the Church and the will of the senior bishops. He even had to intentionally reject their will, having but one desire: to retain, by any means, the power that had come into his hands. In doing so, Sergius (Stragorodsky) labored much to justify his actions and to give an appearance of canonicity to the lawlessness he was committing, by which he also confused many and caused great harm to the Church.

Let us emphasize once more: during that period, the Soviet government had no intention whatsoever of cooperating with Metropolitan Sergius or with any other hierarch in any form. The objective of that regime was to divide the Russian Church so as to destroy it as quickly as possible. It clearly understood that such actions as the issuance of the Declaration by Metropolitan Sergius, his statement of loyalty to the Bolsheviks, and so forth, would deepen the schism that had been instigated and would facilitate the God-fighters’ task of “liquidating” the Church. The Soviet authorities entered into “negotiations” with representatives of the Church solely for one purpose—to hasten its destruction. It is precisely the church schism, carried out by the Soviet government through the hands of Metropolitan Sergius, that may in fact be the gravest sin of this man, placing him under the necessity of ecclesiastical excommunication. Our shared tragedy, however, is that in those circumstances, the Lord did not allow a pan-Orthodox Council to convene and issue an impartial judgment regarding the actions undertaken by Metropolitan Sergius. But there was a clear and unambiguous verdict of the spiritual Council—the rejection of Metropolitan Sergius’ actions by a multitude of Orthodox hierarchs, expressed by them in letters, epistles, and instructions to their spiritual children. As we know, Church Councils have condemned not only the actions of their contemporaries but also events that occurred several centuries earlier (e.g., Origen, who died in 253, was anathematized at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553); therefore, only a future lawful and free Council of the Orthodox Church can issue a final decision on this long-delayed question.

In light of the above, it is incorrect to call Metropolitan Sergius the progenitor of Sergianism and of the Moscow Patriarchate, as is often done. To say so is to vastly overstate his personal role. The originator of these evils is the devil, who, through the God-fighting government and its faithful servant Tuchkov, lured this unfortunate man with temptations and, having broken his conscience, made him a loyal lackey. The hierarchy of that authority at the time looked like this: over Metropolitan Sergius stood Tuchkov (not Metropolitan Peter, whose will was not considered at all); over Tuchkov stood the God-fighting government; and the head of the God-fighting power is the devil. Thus, Metropolitan Sergius is not the progenitor—he is the voluntary executor of the devil’s plan to destroy Orthodoxy in our land and his faithful servant. And such a servant, moreover, whom they intended simply to throw into the garbage (“to be disposed of”) once used. However, this of course in no way removes the guilt of his crime against the Church, but only vividly demonstrates the worthlessness of his soul and the depth of his fall.

A significant flaw in many works on Sergianism is the exaggerated overestimation of Metropolitan Sergius’ personality and the near-total neglect of the evil will of the God-fighters, which replaced within the Church’s enclosure the will of the Orthodox Emperor who once restrained lawlessness. Great is the sin of those in whose hearts this evil will has found rest.

VI

The intrigue successfully carried out by Tuchkov allowed the God-fighters, in addition to provoking a truly grandiose schism, to obtain a “legal pretext” for yet another attack on the Church—an assault far stronger than the repressions during the confiscation of church valuables. It is well known that the first question asked by an investigator during the interrogation of a believer was how that person regarded the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius. And if the “suspect” responded negatively, he was immediately classified as a counterrevolutionary, because—as the investigator would explain—one can be a believer and still be loyal to the God-fighting regime, just as Metropolitan Sergius and those with him are. But if one does not accept the Declaration, this is already a political crime, supposedly having nothing to do with faith or the Church (for “Sergianists,” after all, are believers—and loyal). Thus, allegedly not for faith, but for political opposition, for counterrevolution, such a confessor would be judged with the full severity of that lawless time.

Nevertheless, despite this, solely for the purpose of maintaining the Church in a state of schism, the Soviet regime still permitted, even into the 1930s, services in certain churches conducted by those who did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius.

VII

However, the Declaration was merely a ruse for the Soviet authorities; naturally, they had no intention of indulging even the Sergianists, applying repressions to them as well—albeit not with the same severity as against the “non-commemorators” and the Catacomb faithful—while still maintaining, for appearances’ sake, a certain number of Sergianist churches, which were gradually closed down, the regime fearing to provoke mass protest through excessively abrupt actions against Orthodoxy. Under these conditions, Metropolitan Sergius attempted by all means to preserve only the shell, the outward appearance of the Church (this was his only argument, his sole justification before the believing people), at the cost of the complete collapse of its inner essence. On the eve of the Great Patriotic War (1941), there remained only about a hundred functioning Sergianist churches in all of Russia, while secret, Catacomb, and Tikhonite churches numbered in the thousands—a vivid illustration of the result of “saving the Church” by the method of Judas’ betrayal. The Renovationist church also suffered repressions; its last printed organ was shut down in 1928, although its parishes existed until 1943 (once again, to maintain the state of schism), until Stalin issued the order to merge them into the administration of Metropolitan Sergius. But neither the Sergianists nor the Renovationists can be considered martyrs or confessors—even in light of the fact that they were persecuted—for the simple reason that they had no need of martyrs or  confessors at that time, and immediately renounced those whom the Soviet regime condemned, repressed, and executed. Throughout that entire period, they continued, regardless of circumstances, to sing praises to the persecutors of the Church. Moreover, they had learned to renounce the martyrs “not out of fear, but out of conscience.”**

VIII

The position taken by Sergius (Stragorodsky) appears especially shameful in our days, when in the light of newly revealed documents it is clearly evident that, in the fundamental questions of the Church’s existence, he sided with the God-fighting regime and, with its support, consciously opposed the senior hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church: Metropolitans Peter (Polyansky), Cyril (Smirnov), Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), and Anthony (Khrapovitsky). As a result, the God-fighters, with the help of Metropolitan Sergius, succeeded in preserving the outward appearance of the canonical Church while removing from it all true confessors of Christ and replacing them with traitors—Judases.

However, neither the betrayal of the Church nor the filial loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius was able to induce the Soviet regime to change its core principle—Metropolitan Sergius never managed to earn from it even the right for the Church to exist in such a form in the communist future (at least, this remained the case until 1943). All manipulations carried out by the Soviet authorities with Sergius (Stragorodsky) were simply tactical maneuvers in the broader process of destroying religion. From the perspective of that regime, Metropolitan Sergius was the most convenient hierarch among those it could tolerate—for a time: he instantly and uncomplainingly fulfilled any of its directives; he shamelessly lied to the entire world about the condition of the Church in the USSR; he suspended from service any hierarchs and clergy undesirable to the regime; and, most importantly, he firmly kept the Russian Church in a state of schism.

IX

To our great sorrow, even to this day, parts of the Church continue to dispute “canonical” questions among themselves, while the true culprits—conscious heirs and continuators of the work of Lenin, Stalin, and Stragorodsky—remain “on the sidelines,” and even from time to time assume the role of advisors or arbiters: those they deem acceptable they praise, and those they choose they criticize. In the Moscow Patriarchate, such individuals are once again attempting to set the tone in the formation of the doctrine of that organization. God grant that this situation may gradually begin to improve over time. However, it will not change fundamentally until Orthodox Christians clearly and precisely identify the true source of evil. That source—the very concentration of evil for the Orthodox Church—is undoubtedly God-fighting [богоборчество]. It is with God-fighting that Christians must make a complete and total separation. It was God-fighting that was anathematized by Patriarch St. Tikhon. And it is in this sin—cooperation with the God-fighters, participation with them in their plans—that our national repentance must take place. Yet, paradoxically, even now within the Moscow Patriarchate there are such “Christians” who, arm in arm with the God-fighters, plan to build a “bright future” for the Russian Church. Do they truly have no eyes, no ears, no conscience, not to see and recognize the results of the God-fighting captivity of our country? It is simply incredible. It is impossible to believe with sound mind. What is happening is that within Orthodox circles, heretics and provocateurs are once again attempting to raise their voice—those who continue the work of Sergius (Stragorodsky), his secret and open collaborators and leaders. Things have reached the point that even openly declared communists like General Makashov have been recorded among the “Orthodox Stalinists.” Where else can it go? It is known that in his time, Trotsky was almost on friendly terms with Fr. Pavel Florensky. We all know how that “friendship” ended. The same will happen to today’s “Orthodox patriots” (or rather, to those whom they deceive), once they are no longer needed—exactly according to the laws of Marxist dialectics, by which the Godless live.

I am certain that every sound-minded person, reading these lines, will not believe it possible: can it really be that the Orthodox Church would unite with God-fighters—or, as they themselves call themselves, atheists? Of course not! The fact of such a union is only further confirmation that the movement of today’s “Orthodox patriots” and “zealots of piety” within the Moscow Patriarchate has no relation whatsoever to the Orthodox Church of Christ, for an Orthodox person simply cannot descend to such a level of delusion.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14).

X

We, perhaps, ought not to condemn the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves—they did and continue to do their own work and are in no need of our condemnation. These are forces external to the Church, condemned by the Lord Himself. Between us lies a chasm, and their Judge is God. But we must denounce the actions of those who call themselves Orthodox, who have taken the path of collaboration with the God-fighters in their work of destroying the Church. We must protect the faithful from the temptation that draws them outside the bounds of the Church.

The guilt of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in relation to the Orthodox Church, in my view, can be defined as follows: the deliberate destruction of the conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church; the trampling of the will of senior hierarchs; and the implementation, together with the God-fighters, of a schism within the Orthodox Church, followed by the subordination of the breakaway part under his control to the power of global evil; the prideful defense of his false thoughts and actions; and his complicity in the persecution of the martyrs and confessors of Orthodoxy.

The subjugation of the fallen part of the Church to the power of global evil led to the irreversible and irreparable destruction of the administration of that part of the Church, expressed in the fact that people were appointed to hierarchical positions who, by their very qualities, were incapable of occupying them. These formed a powerful faction opposed to every positive principle in the Church and found themselves in total submission to the power of global evil. For this reason, no negotiations, no persuasion or exhortation can be applied to them. Still less can there be any talk whatsoever of unification with them. These individuals neither can nor desire to repent and likewise train their flock accordingly.

The heresy of Sergianism is an apostasy from the Symbol of Faith (its 9th article)—a rejection of the God-established conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church and a setting of oneself in opposition to the Holy Tradition that formed this structure, which Metropolitan Sergius himself referred to as a “New Church Order.” This “New Church Order” established, in the part of the Church subordinate to the Sergianists, dictatorship in place of conciliarity—specifically, the dictatorship of God-fighting and the “New World Order.” Under no circumstances can a single person or a group of people administratively decide the fate of the Church contrary to the will of its other members, without ultimately submitting the matter to conciliar judgment, or by directly trampling upon the Church’s conciliar opinion (as Metropolitan Sergius did).

To our great regret, even to this day, many Christians are tempted and disturbed by this “troubled” period of our Church history. The time has come to make a clear and unequivocal assessment of our recent past. It is undeniable that the actions of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) will, sooner or later, be condemned by a Council of the Orthodox Church, and that this schism-leader and heresiarch will receive a just pan-Orthodox judgment.

 

*It is appropriate to note here that not only the fate of the Church, but also the fate of any independent association of citizens—and even the fate of any individual who disagreed with the dictatorship, or simply held differing thoughts—was predetermined in the minds of those hotheads who had seized power.

**Even in our own very recent time, Patriarch Alexy II of the Moscow Patriarchate made the rehabilitation of the new martyrs by the Soviet authorities a mandatory condition for their canonization by his structure.