What is False is Also Corrupt

Archpriest Victor Potapov | July 22, 1992 | Washington, D.C.

 

 

“Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor; for we are members of one another.” (Eph. 4: 25)

 

One cannot but welcome an honest discussion of the spiritual paths of the Church of Russia and an open debate on the complex problems of our Russian ecclesiastical history. But such an exchange becomes problematic when one of the participants does not observe the fundamental rules of objective polemics.

Unfortunately, this is how matters stand with the Canadian historian Dimitry Pospielovsky, who has in recent years become for the Moscow Patriarchate the acknowledged “expert” on “exposing” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). This professor from Canada has long striven with all possible means to denigrate the ROCOR, that terrible enemy of both him and his sponsor, the Moscow Patriarchate. In an interview given by Dimitry Pospielovsky in Nezavisimayagazeta [“Independent Newspaper”] (July 15, 1992), entitled “The Church Is One Thing, Politics Is Another”, Dimitry Pospielovsky “tolerates” a series of inaccuracies which may lead into error those readers of Independent Newspaper [IN] who are neither familiar with history nor with the daily life of the ROCOR.

“Representatives of the ROCOR are becoming close to ‘Pamyat’ and other odious organizations,” D. Shusharin, who conducts the interview, informs us at the beginning of the conversation. He apparently has in mind the relationship between the Moscow priest Aleksei Averyanov and that wing of “Pamyat” headed by Dimitry Vasilyev. Averyanov asked Vasilyev to organize from the ranks of “Pamyat” detachments capable of rapid response, for use in the conflict with the Moscow Patriarchate.

On this subject, as early as April of this year, Archbishop Mark of Berlin made a special statement, “Preserve the Dignity of the Church of Christ.” Opportunely, D. Shusharin wrote about this in IN. In his note The Church Abroad: The Prognosis of “IN” is Confirmed: Archbishop Mark Fastidiously Withdraws (April 8,1992), Shusharin cites the following extract from Archbishop Mark’s statement:

“The actions of a few clergymen cannot express the opinion of the whole Church of Russia”, and “from time to time may be used to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church, and especially that part of it which is free. We remind all faithful Orthodox Christians who are prepared to heed our voice, that we cannot use force, just as we cannot employ falsehood in the struggle against falsehood.”

The question of the Church and politics in connection with “Pamyat” was discussed in late June of this year, in Munich, Germany, at an expanded session of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR. The archpastors resolved that the Church cannot identify itself with any political or social organization. The Synod directed Archbishop Mark of Berlin to publish his statement again in Russia, but this time in the name of the ROCOR, so that the position of our Church on this matter might be clear to all.

Persons such as Vasilyev are delighted to use the Church for their own narrowly political ends. The alliance between the provocateur Averyanov and Vasilyev, the ringleader of the misanthropic organization “Pamyat,” which by all its fascist methods discredits the ideal of patriotism, has nothing in common with the mission of the Church. A brown-shirted clergyman is in nowise any different from a clergyman who is a K.G.B. stooge. The Synod of the ROCOR resolved to take disciplinary measures against Archpriest Averyanov, and delivered a warning to one of its bishops who was so careless as to contact “Pamyat.”

I now ask D. Shusharin: With what other odious organizations, besides “Pamyat,” has the ROCOR grown close in Russia? Give me their names. If in fact such a rapprochement is taking place with other odious organizations, the hierarchs of the ROCOR must be informed immediately, that they may take corresponding measures to terminate any such rapprochement.

The historian Pospielovsky, confirming the words of Shusharin concerning “Pamyat” and these other “odious organizations” and their alleged closeness to the ROCOR, quotes his own investigation into the history of the Russian Church:

“In 1921, the Supreme Monarchist Council entered into contact with Hitler through Rosenburg. It is in part with money from Russian monarchists that the Nazis purchased the newspaper Felkischer beobachter...”

I beg leave to explain: What has this monarchist council to do with the ROCOR? Even if some member of this council were also a member of the ROCOR (and at that time there was no other Russian Church in the diaspora—in 1921 the Parisian and American jurisdictions had not yet broken away from the ROCOR), the Church cannot be held answerable for the political views of its individual members. I fail to understand the connection between some monarchist council in 1921 and the fact that “recently, in 1992, representatives of the ROCOR in Russia are becoming close to (besides ‘Pamyat’) other odious organizations.” I’m sure you will agree that some-thing is not quite right with this statement.

In the very beginning of his interview with IN, Dimitry Pospielovsky states categorically that the Church Abroad is primarily concerned with political matters. As proof, Pospielovsky cites the Pan- Diaspora Council held in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in 1921, which spoke out for the restoration of the Romanov dynasty. This is supposed to prove that “the clergy and hierarchy of the ROCOR equate themselves with a definite political system, a state structure, transforming the Church into a political party.”

The children of the Church Abroad hold the most diverse political views, and one does find monarchists among them. Having finished the five-year course of theology at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, New York, I can bear witness that there was no study of politics in the seminary program, and that none of the instructors ever tried to persuade me or the other seminarians of the necessity of becoming a monarchist. The late Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, who ordained me to the priesthood, did not question me about my political views before ordaining me. Metropolitan Philaret was interested solely in my loyalty to the Church of Christ.

At the Pan-Diaspora Church Council in Karlovtsy there actually was an epistle adopted, in which the Romanov dynasty was mentioned. The clergy and laity who gathered in Karlovtsy had lived through the loss of their homeland in the most poignant way possible, and were eyewitnesses to the unprecedented sufferings of the Church and their compatriots, as a consequence of the apostasy of the people; they also witnessed the dismissal and bestial murder of the anointed of God and his family. Let us examine this epistle of the Council in Karlovtsy, that the context in which the statement concerning the Romanov dynasty was made may become clearer:

“...From of old the Russian land was saved and organized through the centuries by faith, through the supplications of holy hierarchs and ascetics, and through the labors of its anointed sovereigns.

“And now let our prayer burst into perpetual flame, that the Lord may show our native land the paths of salvation and order; that He grant defense unto the Faith and the Church, and to all the Russian land, and overshadow the hearts of the people; that He return to the throne of all Russia an anointed [sovereign], strong in the love of the people, a lawful Orthodox tsar of the house of Romanov.

“Praying for the forgiveness of sins, asking for light in the paths of the future, let everyone take upon himself the burden of his brother, that, united by faith and love, we may all enter our homes whenever the Lord will open the doors unto us, as the one flock of the one Shepherd, and with sacrificial readiness may serve our native land and the good of the people.

“May God bless every labor and struggle for the benefit of the Orthodox Church, and the order of the Russian realm which is sanctified by it.” (“Epistle of the Council of the Russian Church Abroad to the Children of the Russian Orthodox Church in Diaspora and Exile,” Acts of the Russian Pan-Diaspora Church Council in Sremsky-Karlovtsy, [Sremsky-Karlovtsy, 1922], pp. 82-83)

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galich, who presided at the Council and was then the senior hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and founder of the ROCOR, in his article “Ecclesiasticity or Politics?’ clarifies the contents of this epistle:

“No one was speaking about imposing anything, no one was speaking about any actual order for the restoration of Russia. The Council proposed that prayers be offered for its restoration, i.e. of monarchical and theocratic Russia, such as existed before the Revolution.” (Acts of the Russian Pan-Diaspora Church Council in Sremsky-Karlovtsy, [Sremsky- Karlovtsy, 1922], p. 128)

Can one consider the epistle of the Council of Karlovtsy an exclusively political act? That would depend upon how one understands the word “politics.” Let us turn again to the article of Metropolitan Anthony:

“...If by politics one understands all that touches upon the life of the people, beginning with the rightful position of the Church within the realm, then the ecclesiastical authorities and Church councils must participate in political life, and from this point of view definite demands are made upon it. Thus, the holy hierarch Hermogenes laid his life on the line by first demanding that the people be loyal to Tsar Basil Shuisky, and when the Poles imprisoned him, he demanded the election of Tsar Michael Romanov. At the present time, the paths of the political life of the people are diverging to various sides in a far more definite way: some, in a positive sense, for the Faith and the Church, others in an inimical sense; some in support of the army and against socialism and communism, others exactly the opposite. Thus, the Karlovtsy Council not only had the right, but was obligated to bless the army for the struggle against the Bolsheviks, and also, following the Great Council of Moscow of 1917-1918, to condemn socialism and communism.” (Ibid., p. 126).

In his interview with IN, the historian Pospielovsky says:

“The Church has the right and must speak out on questions of national policies.”

Seemingly departing from his own principle, why does the Canadian historian now condemn Metropolitan Anthony for the above-cited statement? On the contrary, an entirely one-sided and prejudiced picture presents itself: What is possible for the Moscow Patriarchate is for some reason denied to the Church Abroad!

Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, at the conclusion of his article, states that all the members of the Karlovtsy Council of 1921 declared that it was desirable that the Romanov dynasty be restored; there were merely some members who did not feel that it was the right time to express the desirability of such a restoration in the Council’s epistle. The latter comprised three bishops, among whom was Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky); yet this did not hinder his being elected First Hierarch of the ROCOR after the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

The members of the Karlovtsy Council of 1921, and of subsequent councils, considered regicide a sin of all the people, and the restoration of the anointed of God to be an act of repentance. At the Second Pan-Diaspora Council, held in Karlovtsy in 1938, Archbishop John (Maximovich), a saint of our times, said:

“...The tribulation which has befallen Russia is the direct result of grievous sins, and [Russia’s] rebirth can take place only after it has cleansed itself of them. Yet hitherto there has been no genuine repentance; the crimes which have been committed have not been openly condemned; and many active participants in the Revolution maintain that at that time they could not have done otherwise.

“By failing to give voice to a direct condemnation of the February Revolution, the uprising against the anointed one, the Russian people continue to share in that sin, especially when they defend the fruits of the Revolution.” (Acts of the Second Pan-Diaspora Council [Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1938], pp. 149-150)

According to certain information, the Moscow Patriarchate intends to number the last imperial family among the choir of the new martyrs. How does Professor Pospielovsky assess this imminent canonization by the Moscow Patriarchate? As a political act, such as he characterized their canonization by the ROCOR in 1981?

Pospielovsky maintains that for the clergy of the Church Abroad the spiritual life “indisputably” does not occupy the first place. Is there some way in which we can defend ourselves from this accusation and demonstrate that the opposite is true without appearing gauche? One need only pray during the divine services in the churches and monasteries of the ROCOR, to familiarize oneself with the lives of its hierarchs and ascetics, to be convinced of what is most important to it. One need only mention Archbishop John (Maximovich), Archbishop Averky (Taushov) and Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), who are widely venerated in Russia. The writings of the latter are printed in many Russian newspapers and magazines, even in the publications of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, in the periodicals of the Moscow Patriarchate they are careful to conceal the fact that Fr. Seraphim (Rose) was an opponent of Sergianism and a clergyman of the Church Abroad. Let us not forget, moreover, the labors of the ROCOR, under difficult circumstances, in publishing religious educational literature. I doubt that the Lord would have entrusted to the care of the ROCOR the venerated wonder-working icons of the Mother of God, e.g., the myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon and the Kursk-Root Icon, if the ROCOR were a soulless political party.

Pospielovsky accuses the ROCOR of collaboration with Hitler. The bishops of the Church Abroad did not live under easy circumstances during the war. Pospielovsky himself, in his two-volume study of the history of the Russian Church of the Soviet period, writes that

“...after the Soviet-German war had broken out the Nazi government showed itself in no hurry to permit the Synod to leave its virtual captivity in Yugoslavia...” (The Russian Church Under the Soviet Regime, 1917-1982 [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984], Vol. I, pp. 223-224)

In October of 1990, in its “Appeal of the Council of Bishops,” the Moscow Patriarchate reproached the ROCOR for allegedly using the Gestapo to seize the parishes of the Western European Exarchate. Pospielovsky repeats the Patriarchate’s accusations in his interview with IN. On this subject, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR spoke out on December 13, 1990:

“... In actual fact, Metropolitan Seraphim of Berlin & Germany [a German by nationality—V.P.] protected the priests of these parishes, among whom was John Shakhovskoi, who was the only one to deliver an address to Hitler full of laudatory expressions, and who was himself an inveterate enemy of the Church Abroad.” (“Orthodox Russia,” 1990, #24, p. 8)

Archimandrite John Shakhovskoi, who subsequently became a prominent hierarch of the Orthodox Church in America, was a fervent proponent of the Moscow Patriarchate, and also a vehement opponent of the Church Abroad. In the newspaper Novoye slovo [New Word], in its June 29, 1941 issue, he wrote:

“Providence is delivering the Russian people from a new civil war, summoning a foreign power to carry out its own destiny... It was no longer possible for this objective to be pursued by those so-called ‘Christian’ governments which in the recent Spanish conflict were not, either materially or ideologically, on the side of the defenders of faith and culture... What has been needed is the iron hand of the German army... This army, which has passed over all of Europe in its victories, is now powerful not only in the might of its arms and principles, but in its obedience to the summons from on High, imposed upon it by a Providence transcending all political and economic advantages.”

The Canadian historian forgives John Shakhovskoi the encomia he directed at Hitler: Shakhovskoi was, you see, acting on his own.

In Berlin, in 1939, there took place the consecration of a cathedral constructed for the Russians with German funds, which was at that time considered an important event for the German diocese of the ROCOR. Metropolitan Anastasy expressed his thanks to the government for this. In his monograph on the history of the Russian Church, Pospielovsky quotes Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky’s) address of gratitude in full, as though it were a valuable historical document allegedly proving that the ROCOR collaborated with Hitler, preceding this with the introductory remark:

“... [Metropolitan] Anastasy and his Synod were then in neutral Yugoslavia, and hence there is no parallel between his situation and that of Russian bishops and patriarchs inside the Soviet Union. Neither is the comparison valid between this message and the one sent to Hitler by Fr. John (Shakhovskoi), a priest in Berlin and the future bishop of San Francisco in the Orthodox Church in America, in 1941 on the occasion of the German attack against the USSR. The illusion that the war would liberate Russia from communism was shared by millions of Russians on both sides of the front; and Fr. John was an ordinary priest and his errors were only his own, while Metropolitan Anastasy was speaking in the name of his entire Church organization.” (Ibid., Vol. II, p. 491)

There exists a difference in principle between the statements of Metropolitan Anastasy and that of Archimandrite John. It lies in the fact that the erection and consecration of the church in Berlin took place prior to the beginning of World War II, when many government functionaries and the representatives of the most diverse religious confessions had dealings with the German government; Fr. John wrote during the War, when the horrific crimes committed by Hitler against humanity had already become known.

One should also remark in connection with this that at the beginning of the War several emigre social activists in Belgrade approached Metropolitan Anastasy, the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, suggesting that he send Hitler a telegram and invoke a blessing upon his battles. Metropolitan Anastasy, perceiving the true face of the dictator, declined to do so. And in general, Metropolitan Anastasy did nothing to please Hitler; on the contrary, he maintained an independent stance and even voiced criticism of Hitler’s policies with regard to the Russian people. Concerning this period in the life of Metropolitan Anastasy, Professor I. M. Andreyev writes in his book Kratky obzor istorii Russkoi Tserkvi ot revolutsii do nashikh dnei (Jordanville, NY: St. Job of Pochaev Press, 1952):

“The German occupation [of Yugoslavia] began. The Gestapo subjected the quarters of Metropolitan Anastasy to a search and took away the minutes of the Synod. The Germans suggested to Metropolitan Anastasy himself that he issue a special appeal to the Russian people, urging them to cooperate with the German Army, which was allegedly conducting a crusade to free Russia from the Bolsheviks. This proposal was strengthened by the threat that he would be imprisoned if he refused to do so. Nevertheless, Metropolitan Anastasy refused to act upon this suggestion, indicating that with the vagueness of German policy with regard to himself and the unclear goals which the Germans hoped to achieve by invading Russia, he was unable to issue such an appeal.

“Concerning all of Metropolitan Anastasy’s further actions during the period of the German occupation of Yugoslavia, His Holiness Patriarch Gabriel of Serbia gave important testimony in London, in 1945, to various ecclesiastical and social circles, both Russian and non-Russian. He stated that Metropolitan Anastasy had comported himself with the Germans with great wisdom and tact, was always loyal to the Serbs, had been subjected to searches several times, and had never enjoyed the trust of the Germans” (p. 134).

The Serbian theologian, Veselin Kesich, in his survey dedicated to the Serbian Orthodox Church during the Second World War, mentions the ROCOR at that period:

“This Church [i.e., the ROCOR—V.P.] saw to the needs of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany, for which the Soviet press smeared it as collaborationist. After the War, this accusation was uncritically re-peated in the Western press, without any attempt to identify the source of this disinformation. The Ortho-dox Churches of the “liberated” lands of Eastern Eu-rope, under pressure from the Moscow Patriarchate, terminated relations with the ROCOR. Among them only the Orthodox Church of Serbia continues to ac-knowledge its canonical existence.” (Veselin Kesich, The Martyrdom of the Serbs: The Church in the Ustache State [Calendar of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada, 1991], p. 105.)

It is pertinent to add to this that the present First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), early in May of 1945, for several days prior to the fall of Hamburg to the English  while serving as a hieromonk (and not him alone, but other clergymen of the ROCOR as well), personally saved from forcible repatriation thousands of refugees from the U.S.S.R.— prisoners of war and “guest-workers”, simple Russian people who found themselves performing forced labor in Germany. Repatriation meant the firing squad for many, or at least a ten-year term of imprisonment in Stalin’s system of slave labor camps (for Stalin, everyone who was captured by the Germans was a “traitor to the homeland”). This mission of compassion was clearly described in the memoirs of the late Archbishop Nathanail (L’vov), who labored heroically together with Hieromonk Vitaly early in 1945, to save his compatriots in the Hamburgregion, in the camps of Fischbek, Kverkamp, and others. Metropolitan Vitaly saved from execution and repatriation to the U.S.S.R. such people as my own father, a Russian prisoner of war who escaped from the Soviet zone to that part of Germany occupied by the allies.

The historian Pospielovsky maintains that

“...The Second Karlovtsy Council in 1938 condemned the Roman Catholic Church for criticizing the antisemitic policies of Hitler.”

I earnestly beg the Canadian historian to show me this document of condemnation, to provide me with a citation to it. I have gone through all 750 pages of the acts of that Council, and have found nothing of the like. It is possible that what Pospielovsky has in mind is the report of a certain N. F. Stepanov, entitled “Judeo-Catholic Rapprochement & Perspectives on the Further Evolution of the Ecumenical Movement in Connection Therewith.” This report provides a dry recital of facts gleaned from newspapers concerning the development of the Judeo-Chris- tian dialogue between Catholics and Jews. Following Stepanov’s report, no resolutions were adopted or promulgated by the Second Karlovtsy Council, contrary to the statements of the Canadian historian.

“A multitude of facts concerning the collaboration of the clergy of the ROCOR with the Gestapo are quite well known,”

Pospielovsky writes. “A multitude...are quite well known”. Who are these clergymen?

“It is sufficient to give the names of Grabbe, father and son — bishop and archimandrite,” replies the Canadian historian. I hate to disappoint the professor. The elder Grabbe was not a clergyman during the War, becoming one only after the War, when the Gestapo was no longer in existence; and the younger Grabbe was a mere youth during the War, at most invested with the sticharion of an altar-server. * Regarding Archbishop John (Shakhovskoi) and his praise of Hitler, Pospielovsky writes in his two- volume history of the Russian Church:

“Fr. John was an ordinary priest, and his errors were only his own.”

These words of Pospielovsky may equally apply to Yuri Grabbe, for he was an ordinary layman, and his alleged errors were his own (although I personally do not consider that Yuri Grabbe was an ordinary layman, anymore than I consider Fr. John [Shakhovskoi] to be an ordinary priest).

Yet with regard to the rest of the multitude of clergymen who allegedly collaborated with Hitler and the Gestapo, I ask Professor Pospielovsky to provide me with their names. If there were many of them, and this fact, as you maintain, is well known, where have they been hiding all these years?

The “multitude of facts attesting to the collaboration of the clergy of the ROCOR with the Gestapo” is the purest fabrication; otherwise, we would have read these “facts” in the two-volume monograph of the Canadian historian. Yet they are not to be found in his books.

The question arises: Why do the “multitude of facts attesting to the collaboration of the clergy of the ROCOR with the Gestapo” disquiet Dimitry Pospielovsky, when he is not in the least disturbed by the long-standing collaboration of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Communist Party and the K.G.B.? What difference is there between the Communist Party and K.G.B. and the Gestapo? Does the historian from Canada really think that by blackening the ROCOR he is thereby whitewashing the Moscow Patriarchate?

Let us continue...

“In March two deputies from the Russian Parliament, the priest Gleb Yakunin and the layman Lev Ponomarev, visited the U.S.A. They were the guests of the Karlovtsians...”

Again, the professor is in error. The Russian parliamentarians were officially invited to the U.S.A. by Dr. James Billington, the director of the Library of Congress, who was at that time preparing in Washington, conjointly with the Russian government, a display of documents from the archives of the Communist Party and the K.G.B. Fr. Gleb Yakunin and Lev Ponomarev were invited to the U.S.A. as members of the Commission of the Supreme Council investigating the reasons and circumstances of the attempted coup d’etat in August of 1991. The administration of Dr. Billington labored greatly in setting up and coordinating meetings with the two deputies, in conjunction with the Jamestown Foundation.

Apparently, the historian Pospielovsky is so preoccupied with his revision of Russian Church history that he does not have the time to measure seven times before cutting once. Moreover, he is talking through his hat. The Canadian historian is obviously not paying proper attention to official information, since the hosts who invited the two deputies were clearly identified for all to hear at the press conference given by the two Russian parliamentarians at the Congress of the United States.

Thus, having misinformed the readers of IN as to who the hosts of the two deputies’ visit were, the Canadian historian decided

“to explain under what conditions this visit was arranged.” It seems that “the popularity of Patriarch Alexis II throughout all levels of American society gives no rest to the Synod Abroad. This popularity His Holiness acquired during his visit to the U.S.A. in November of last year.”

It is not the Church Abroad which is concerned with the earthly popularity of the Patriarch, but the Canadian professor and that ecclesiastical jurisdiction which he represents. Representatives of the Orthodox Church in America and advertising firms hired by them prepared for the arrival of the Moscow Patriarch with a fanfare such as professional politicians conduct during their election campaigns. It is no secret that the vast sums which the O.C.A. expended on the visit of the Patriarch to the U.S.A. caused considerable dissatisfaction within that Church. Out of the O.C.A.’s budget, $337,741.00 were expended on advertising the Patriarch’s arrival and his visit itself. For the little American autocephalous Church $337,741.00 is a considerable sum, yet one, I fear, that is insufficient to gain for the Patriarch that continued “popularity” of which the Canadian scholar dreams. In America far greater expenditure is required to gain worldly glory artificially. In general, it is a strange thing to hear talk of earthly popularity from the mouth of a churchly man. Human glory is ephemeral and irrelevant to a servant of the Church, for true greatness has no need of any pedestal. The Church calls upon us not to seek glory: “Trust ye not in princes, in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation” (Ps. 145: 3).

Moreover, the “popularity” of Patriarch Alexis II in America has begun to vanish “like smoke”. Soon after his departure, the American newspapers began to publish information concerning the connections between the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Patriarch himself, with the K.G.B.

Further on in his conversation with IN we learn that in autumn of last year the Patriarch met in the U.S.A. with “Karlovtsian parishioners” and, as the historian from Canada would have us believe...

“As a consequence of these meetings, a large assembly took place in the Russian emigre center in Nyack, near New York, where six hundred gathered in December. The assembly drafted an appeal to Metropolitan Vitaly, the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, which spoke of the necessity of convoking a joint council. Hitherto there has been no reply from the Karlovtsians.”

There was never any such gathering in Nyack in December of 1991. Could Dimitry Pospielovsky perhaps have in mind the gathering which took place in February of 1992, in the town of Spring Valley, at a cultural-educational meeting of the “Otrada” Society? At this gathering Protopresbyter Alexander Kiselev and the author of these lines both delivered lectures. There were 140 people at the meeting, nowhere near 600, and no appeal to Metropolitan Vitaly was drafted. I was one of the principal participants at this gathering, and I have a very clear recollection that on the spur of the moment one of those present suggested that an appeal be sent to Metropolitan Vitaly; yet no vote was taken on this proposal. I offer to the editors of IN tape-recordings of the meeting at “Otrada,” which will corroborate what I have said. Further:

“...And so after all this, in March, two deputies arrived in the U.S.A., whom Archpriest Victor Potapov, the rector of the Karlovtsy parish in Washington and the head of religious broadcasting for the ‘Voice of America,’ met and accompanied. Fr. Victor Potapov was the organizer and, essentially, the host of the two meetings/press conferences in one of the buildings of the Congress of the United States, and of the debate in which representatives of various Churches took part. I was called to these ‘events’ by His Beatitude Theodosius, Metropolitan of All America & Canada. I shall most likely generalize my impressions of these two encounters...”

The professor is correct. He has in fact generalized the encounters. He garbles them together. The Canadian historian affords me too much honor. I did indeed have the pleasure of receiving the two respected Russian deputies in my home. But as regards their schedule, this was the exclusive concern of the administration of the Director of the Library of Congress and the Jamestown Foundation. I was present at the press conference at the U. S. Congress, on March 20, 1992, solely as a correspondent of the “Voice of America”. It was organized by two private American institutes — the Jamestown Foundation and the Center for Ethics & Social Policy.

As regards the second meeting, on March 22, 1992, the debate in which representatives of various Churches took part, Pospielovsky is correct: I was indeed its host, for the simple reason that it took place in the church hall of my parish in Washington. One noteworthy detail: In the evening of the day of the press conference given by Yakunin and Ponomarev at the U. S. Congress, a meeting was organized at the O.C.A.’s St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, concerning the press conference, but in the absence of the two parliamentarians. But one of the organizers of the press conference at Congress, Larry Uzell (who now heads the Moscow bureau of the Jamestown Foundation) went to it and reported that Bishop Vasily (Rodzyanko), Archpriest Dimitry Grigoriev and Dimitry Pospielovsky spoke about the forthcoming appearance of Yakunin and Ponomarev in a distorted manner. This circumstance prompted me to organize a joint meeting in my parish hall, including all interested parties. I invited the three representatives of the O.C.A. to discuss face to face the problems of contemporary Russian Church life with representatives of the Church Abroad and with Fr. Gleb Yakunin of the Moscow Patriarchate. This was the first such meeting of three jurisdictions in Washington, and its purpose was to make it possible for all to speak out about actual Church problems. At this meeting I made a joke about Fr. Yakunin’s “little black book,” which Pospielovsky took seriously. I offer the editors of IN the audiotapes of this meeting.

Further on in the interview with IN one finds Pospielovsky’s thoughts on the allegedly insignificant and unpersuasive documents from the archives of the Communist Party and the K.G.B., which Fr. Gleb Yakunin read aloud. Pospielovsky tries in every way possible to justify the collaboration of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate with the K.G.B.:

“...The Church did not live and does not live in a vacuum... It had to make compromises with the authorities...”

What does this mean? Does this imply that one must fill the vacuum with the sin of Judas? For Pospielovsky concrete information of the following sort is necessary:

“...Are there facts that one or another of the hierarchs is guilty, through his own collaboration with the K.G.B., of causing the arrest or persecution of identifiable individuals?...”

The professor has obviously forgotten the tragic biography of Boris Talantov, a confessor of our times, who was destroyed by Metropolitan Nikodim, viz. the agent “Svyatoslav”. And what about Archbishop Ermogen Golubev? Who, if not the Patriarchate, including the present Patriarch Alexis II, drove him out because he was governing in an exemplary manner his own Diocese of Tashkent, in which not one church was closed during the persecutions under Khrushchev? Who, and for what reason, suspended Fr. Gleb Yakunin and the late Fr. N. Eshliman from performing the divine services for twenty-one years? Why were Zoya A. Krakhmalnikova and the deacon Vladimir Rusak arrested? The hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate not only declined to help them, but often poured oil upon the fire, bearing false witness against these confessors. All of this was entirely in the spirit of Sergianism. Pospielovsky says of Fr. Gleb Yakunin that he

“is threatened by the loss of a sense of self-criticism, through the growth in him of mass-meeting demagogy and failure to provide substantiation.”

I suggest that the readers of IN ponder this and decide for themselves who suffers from these weaknesses — Fr. Gleb Yakunin or Dimitry Pospielovsky?

Professor Pospielovsky is disturbed:

“Were they [the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate—V.P.] criminals in the usual sense of generally accepted morality?”

Professor, explain to me, please: If there are criminals in the usual sense of generally accepted morality, does this mean that there are criminals in an unusual sense?

It is difficult to conduct a serious conversation with the man who considers that the collaboration of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate with the K.G.B. is merely “contact”, and the personal life and the K.G.B. agent status of Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko) are of secondary significance. What then is primary in the eyes of the Canadian historian? Why then is collaboration with the Gestapo not also of secondary importance? Why does he find it necessary to mention the name of a defrocked clergyman of the Church Abroad? According to the logic of Pospielovsky that clergyman’s “actions” are also of secondary importance. Why is the connection with “Pamyat” and other odious organizations also not of secondary importance?

Pospielovsky has no need of the documents of the K.G.B. and the Communist Party which Fr. Yakunin has discovered. Even without these documents the Canadian historian is well aware of their collaboration. And he is right. One need only study the history of the Moscow Patriarchate to become convinced that false witness and collaboration with the godless organizations of the Communist Party and the K.G.B. are part and parcel of Sergianism. Yet the Sergianists would have us believe that it was through compromises and collaboration that they saved the Church. The martyrs and, following them, the Karlovtsians, have exacerbated the situation and made their work difficult. Many years before the discovery of these documents Saint Seraphim of Sarov prophesied:

“...There will come a time when the ungodliness of the bishops of Russia will exceed the ungodliness of the Greek bishops of the time of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger. Then will be fulfilled that which was spoken: These people draw nigh to Me with their mouth, and they honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, yet in vain do they worship Me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men. (Is. 29:13)... In the land of Russia there will be great tribulations. The hierarchs of the Church of God and other clergymen will fall away from the purity of Orthodoxy, and for this the Lord will punish them grievously.”

Pospielovsky’s interview in IN, so full of disinformation, with so many distortions and manifest untruths, reminds one of the pre-perestroika interviews given by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate in Soviet magazines, which with loyalty and honor served the godless socialist work which they shared in common with the Communist Party. How awkward this is for the respected “Independent Newspaper”, and a real pity for its readers... Meanwhile, in all his works dedicated to the recent history of the Russian Church, Dimitry Pospielovsky resorts to distortions, to the juggling of historical facts, and to patent falsehood in his attempt to discredit the Church Abroad. As the author of a three-volume study of Soviet atheistic propaganda (Soviet Atheism in Theory & Practice, and the Believer, 3 vols. [London, Ont., 1987-1988]), the Canadian historian has successfully imitated the methodology and main principle of the governmental atheists: Repeat a lie often enough, and people will accept your lie as the truth. Yet, as Russian popular wisdom has it: “What is false is also corrupt.”

If in his single interview published in IN, Professor Pospielovsky has permitted such a monstrous number of historical inaccuracies, and a series of others, can one place any trust in his other “scholarly” works? He is now travelling throughout Russia delivering lectures, sowing his unconscionable lies. His poor audiences! For decades they were forced to live in an atmosphere of total falsehood. We should cry out to the Lord with the words of King David:

“Incline not my heart unto words of evil, to make excuse with excuses in sins, with men that work iniquity; and I will not join with their chosen” (Ps. 140:4-5).

I shall conclude my remarks with a few words of appreciation to the Canadian historian. By his unfounded accusations directed at the hierarchs and other representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Professor Pospielovsky has prompted me to look more deeply into the history of my own Church. This has given me the possibility once more to be convinced of the worthiness of its First Hierarchs and other archpastors, and of the rightness of the path which they have chosen: to stand guard over Orthodoxy. May the Lord grant that this be fully reflected in a history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century, which will be written dispassionately by a historian of some future Russian generation.

 

Source (typos corrected): Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, January-February 1992. Translated from the Russian by Reader Isaac E. Lambertsen.