"Orthodox Christians Facing the 1980s"
Excerpts from a lecture given by Fr. Seraphim Rose
at the St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage, Platina, CA, August 9, 1979.
Looking at Orthodoxy, at its present state and its prospects in the period before us, we may see two opposed aspects. First of all, there is the spirit of worldliness which is so present in the Orthodox Churches today, leading to a watering-down of Orthodoxy, a loss of the difference between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This worldliness has produced the Ecumenical movement, which is leading to the approaching Unia with Rome and the Western confessions—something that may well occur in the 1980s. In itself, this will probably not be a spectacular event: most Orthodox people have become so unaware of their faith, and so indifferent to it, that they will only welcome the opportunity to receive communion in a Roman or Anglican church. This spirit of worldliness is what is in the air and seems natural today; it is the religious equivalent of the atheist-agnostic atmosphere that prevails in the world.
What should be our response to this worldly ecumenical movement? Fortunately, our bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia have given us a sound policy to follow: we do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement, and our Metropolitan [Philaret] has warned other Orthodox Christians of the disastrous results of their ecumenical course if they continue; but at the same time our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement, recognizing that it is still a tendency that has not yet come to its conclusion (the Unia with Rome) and that (at least in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and other churches behind the Iron Curtain) it is a political policy forced upon the Church by secular authorities. But because of this policy, our Church suffers attacks both from the left side (from ecumenists who accuse us of being uncharitable, behind the times,and the like) and from the right side (by groups in Greece that demand that we break communion with all Orthodox Churches and declare them to be without grace).
Indeed, if one looks at the state of the Orthodox Church in Greece, we can see that the Ecumenical Movement has produced a reaction that has often become excessive, and sometimes is almost as bad as the disease it seeks to cure. The more moderate of the Old Calendarist groups in Greece has a position similar to that of our Russian Church Abroad; but schism after schism has occurred among the Old Calendarists over the question of strictness. A few years ago one of these groups cut off communion with our Russian Church Abroad because our bishops refused to declare that all other Orthodox Churches are without grace; this group now declares that it alone has grace, only it is Orthodox. Recently this group has attracted some converts from our Russian Church Abroad, and we should be aware that this attitude is a danger to some of our American and European converts: with our calculating, rationalistic minds it is very easy to think we are being zealous and strict, when actually we are chiefly indulging our passion for self-righteousness.
One Old Calendarist bishop in Greece has written to us that incalculable harm has been done to the Orthodox Church in Greece by what he calls the correctness disease, when people quote canons, Fathers, the typicon in order to prove they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Correctness can truly become a disease when it is administered without love and tolerance and awareness of ones own imperfect understanding. Such a correctness only produces continual schisms, and in the end only helps the Ecumenical Movement by reducing the witness of sound Orthodoxy.
Conspicuous among Orthodox today—certain to be with us into the 1980s—is the worldly spirit by which Orthodoxy is losing its savor, expressed in the Ecumenical Movement, together with the reaction against it, which is often excessive precisely because the same worldly spirit is present in it.
There will undoubtedly be an increasing number of Orthodox converts in America and Europe in the coming decade, and we must strive that our missionary witness to them will help to produce, not cold, calculating, correct experts in the letter of the law, but warm, loving, simple Christians—at least as far as our haughty Western temperament will allow.
Once Fr. Dimitri [Dudko] was asked about how much better off religion was in the free world than in Russia, and he answered: Yes, they have freedom and many churches, but theirs is a spirituality with comfort. We in Russia have a different path, a path of suffering that can produce real fruit.
We should remember this phrase when we look at our own feeble Orthodoxy in the free world: are we content to have beautiful churches and chanting; do we perhaps boast that we keep the fasts and the church calendar, have good icons and congregational singing, that we give to the poor and perhaps tithe to the Church? Do we delight in exalted patristic teachings and theological conferences without having the simplicity of Christ in our hearts? Then ours is a spirituality with comfort, and we will not have the spiritual fruits that will be exhibited by those without all these comforts, who deeply suffer and struggle for Christ. In this sense we should take our tone from the suffering Church in Russia and place the externals of the Churchs worship in their proper place.
Our most important task, perhaps, is the Christian enlightenment of ourselves and others. We must go deeper into our faith—not by studying the canons of Ecumenical Councils or the typicon (although they also have their place), but by knowing how God acts in our lives; by reading the lives of God-pleasers in the Old and New Testaments (we read the Old Testament far too little; it is very instructive); by reading the lives of Saints and the writings of the Holy Fathers on practical spiritual life; by reading about the suffering of Christians today and in recent years. In all of this learning our eyes must be on heaven above, the goal we strive for, not on the problems and disasters of earth below.
Our Christian life and learning must be such that it will enable us to know the true Christ and to recognize the false Christ (Antichrist) when he comes. It is not theoretical knowledge or correctness that will give this knowledge to us. Vladimir Soloviev in his parable of Antichrist has a valuable insight when he notes that Antichrist will build a museum of all possible Byzantine antiquities for the Orthodox, if only they accept him. So, too, mere correctness in Orthodoxy without a loving Christian heart will not be able to resist Antichrist; one will recognize him and be firm to stand against him chiefly by the heart and not the head. We must develop in ourselves the right Christian feelings and instincts, and put off all fascination with the spiritual comforts of the Orthodox way of life, or else we will be—as one discerning observer of present-day converts has observed—Orthodox but not Christian.
Concerning Super-Correctness
Concerning Super Correctness
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately, their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of traditional views. This "temptation from the right side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of "heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own "party". The present warning, in the form of a letter to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a "super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."
We must begin with a few words on our confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion with new calendarists.
From the above, two questions arise: firstly, have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern three categories:
(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."
(2) Those who, while they in no way negate their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.
(3) Those who, while they disagree to a greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using economy.
We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now), and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.
These troubles we will summarize very briefly: in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937 separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He replied no, only a future council could condemn the new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if they have grace, what justification exists for separation from them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been obliged to return to the old calendar.
We can cite other examples of this "overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however, proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a "heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized. This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St. Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.
Another example is provided for us by a group of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.
We should, however, in fairness point out that these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions which the State Church has launched from time to time.
One of the most disastrous examples of the phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on details, and all too often, in their lack of theological education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however, become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that mentality which leads to division and schism.
Now, to return to the questions mentioned at the beginning, we would like to relate something which we observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally, to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches." To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought: it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who, with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece who have no conception of the calendar question. For every category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of economy.
In conclusion, we would say that the error of "over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the old believers of Russia.
We hope that these few words may help your American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy which your publications always seek to put forth.
From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.
source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately, their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of traditional views. This "temptation from the right side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of "heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own "party". The present warning, in the form of a letter to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a "super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."
We must begin with a few words on our confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion with new calendarists.
From the above, two questions arise: firstly, have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern three categories:
(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."
(2) Those who, while they in no way negate their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.
(3) Those who, while they disagree to a greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using economy.
We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now), and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.
These troubles we will summarize very briefly: in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937 separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He replied no, only a future council could condemn the new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if they have grace, what justification exists for separation from them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been obliged to return to the old calendar.
We can cite other examples of this "overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however, proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a "heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized. This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St. Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.
Another example is provided for us by a group of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.
We should, however, in fairness point out that these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions which the State Church has launched from time to time.
One of the most disastrous examples of the phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on details, and all too often, in their lack of theological education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however, become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that mentality which leads to division and schism.
Now, to return to the questions mentioned at the beginning, we would like to relate something which we observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally, to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches." To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought: it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who, with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece who have no conception of the calendar question. For every category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of economy.
In conclusion, we would say that the error of "over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the old believers of Russia.
We hope that these few words may help your American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy which your publications always seek to put forth.
From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.
source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx
Is MP Sick Or Graceless?
ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco
All the parts of the universal Church have one common goal -- the preaching of the word of God, the preparation of people that they might become capable of being members of the Body of Christ and having become such, more and more, more sincerely and strongly would become one with the divine salvific life of the Body of Christ, for in that is the salvation of people.
In the achievement of this common goal every local Church has its significance.
To every people, through God's providence, unique gifts are given.
Every Church fulfills its mission, in keeping with these gifts. For this reason every people, or combination of related peoples, has its own Church, and such a division of ecclesiastical authority furthers the activity of preaching.
For this reason the Orthodox Church allows the establishment of new local Churches and so, new centers of preaching. In this manner arose both the Russian and Slavic Churches.
Thus, every people has its own unique characteristics of the spirit, and this is the basis for the formation of local national Churches.
All of them together comprise One Universal Church and they all bring into it these unique characteristics and gifts, just as good servants bring the fruits of those talents that God has given them. In this manner is formed the pleasing to God amalgamation of spiritual sounds and colors with which the Church that unites all peoples to the glory of God, is decorated.
This beauty the earth brings to heaven as a sweet-smelling censer.
Into this beauty the Russian Church, as well, brings its colors and its sounds: let us compare the severe at times strictness of the righteous ones of the East with the compunctionate spirit of Russian saints.
Being scattered around the whole world, we preserve the expressions of our spirit, which are given to us by God. This calls us to preserve unity with the Church, to which God appointed activity among us, our spiritual nourishment and development, the support of our spiritual zeal, the development of our talents. For this reason, scattered across the entire world, we established our Russian churches and all together we comprise one Russian Church Outside of Russia.
The spiritual manifestations of the Church are the same in all people, but their appearances -- colors and sounds -- are different. The differentiation of ways to serve and spiritual gifts was pleasing to the Creator of all -- God the Savior. We know and sense spiritual benefits and feel joy when we see how different people of different characters and gifts give glory to the one God. For this reason, for example, being led by true ecclesiastical understanding and feeling, the Serbian Church with joy took in the Russian Church, thus giving witness to the spiritual benefits of its existence in its midst.
Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is the free part of the Russian Church. Its unity is witnessed also in the fact that the mercy of God, which was shown in our Homeland in the self-renovation of icons, did not limit this manifestation to the borders of Russia but has manifested itself also in diasporan Russia, in Russian churches among Russian Orthodox people of the diaspora.
Spiritually the Russian Church is indivisible: it is always one and the same Russian Church, wherever we might be.
Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot be in communion with the ecclesiastical authorities which are in submission and subjugation to a power which is inimical to the Church. To be in a position of such subjugation and dependence -- is a situation that would be spiritually sick: because for Church authority it is against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself. And those who are found in such subjugation cannot not feel, cannot recognize the sickness of such a condition: some, in whom their consciences are alive, are suffering; others, with burnt-out consciences, accept this situation.
Ecclesiastical authority in Russia is found in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what is done under duress. The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: there is neither freedom of will nor freedom of action.
We have no one to be in communion with: there is no free ecclesiastical authority!
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for this reason is not administratively tied to such an authority. But we are united spiritually with the holy Russian Church, because we are a part of the Russian Church.
We should not think that on our homeland everyone is spiritually downtrodden by the authority that exists there. We believe in the opposite. We do not interrogate hearts, which are known to God alone, but we know that there, there is no freedom of conscience and will; that there, closed-in-ness has taken root. There is no social inter-communication. There, people cannot choose the path of their lives, following their hearts. There, one finds the situation about which the Prophet Micah prophesied: There an individual "does not trust in his friends, does not put confidence in his guides," "and the members of his household are his enemies" (Micah 7:5-6), The atheistic power influences people in a destructive way. It subjugates to itself not only the body, but it also captures the soul. It depersonalizes people, and their sincere and open Russian souls become distorted.
We, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preserve our unity, while being in communion with all Churches with which it is possible to being communion with.
Being scattered around the entire world we do not submit to the local Churches -- not because we are inimically disposed to them, but because we cherish our holy Russian Church and the characteristics of the Russian soul. Our ecclesiastical unity is expressed in our submission to a single ecclesiastical authority for the entire diaspora, and this unity preserves the Russian people in the diaspora in faithfulness to the podvig that has been placed upon them by God.
1960
source: http://www.stjohnthebaptist.org.au/articles/roca-significance.html
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco
All the parts of the universal Church have one common goal -- the preaching of the word of God, the preparation of people that they might become capable of being members of the Body of Christ and having become such, more and more, more sincerely and strongly would become one with the divine salvific life of the Body of Christ, for in that is the salvation of people.
In the achievement of this common goal every local Church has its significance.
To every people, through God's providence, unique gifts are given.
Every Church fulfills its mission, in keeping with these gifts. For this reason every people, or combination of related peoples, has its own Church, and such a division of ecclesiastical authority furthers the activity of preaching.
For this reason the Orthodox Church allows the establishment of new local Churches and so, new centers of preaching. In this manner arose both the Russian and Slavic Churches.
Thus, every people has its own unique characteristics of the spirit, and this is the basis for the formation of local national Churches.
All of them together comprise One Universal Church and they all bring into it these unique characteristics and gifts, just as good servants bring the fruits of those talents that God has given them. In this manner is formed the pleasing to God amalgamation of spiritual sounds and colors with which the Church that unites all peoples to the glory of God, is decorated.
This beauty the earth brings to heaven as a sweet-smelling censer.
Into this beauty the Russian Church, as well, brings its colors and its sounds: let us compare the severe at times strictness of the righteous ones of the East with the compunctionate spirit of Russian saints.
Being scattered around the whole world, we preserve the expressions of our spirit, which are given to us by God. This calls us to preserve unity with the Church, to which God appointed activity among us, our spiritual nourishment and development, the support of our spiritual zeal, the development of our talents. For this reason, scattered across the entire world, we established our Russian churches and all together we comprise one Russian Church Outside of Russia.
The spiritual manifestations of the Church are the same in all people, but their appearances -- colors and sounds -- are different. The differentiation of ways to serve and spiritual gifts was pleasing to the Creator of all -- God the Savior. We know and sense spiritual benefits and feel joy when we see how different people of different characters and gifts give glory to the one God. For this reason, for example, being led by true ecclesiastical understanding and feeling, the Serbian Church with joy took in the Russian Church, thus giving witness to the spiritual benefits of its existence in its midst.
Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is the free part of the Russian Church. Its unity is witnessed also in the fact that the mercy of God, which was shown in our Homeland in the self-renovation of icons, did not limit this manifestation to the borders of Russia but has manifested itself also in diasporan Russia, in Russian churches among Russian Orthodox people of the diaspora.
Spiritually the Russian Church is indivisible: it is always one and the same Russian Church, wherever we might be.
Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot be in communion with the ecclesiastical authorities which are in submission and subjugation to a power which is inimical to the Church. To be in a position of such subjugation and dependence -- is a situation that would be spiritually sick: because for Church authority it is against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself. And those who are found in such subjugation cannot not feel, cannot recognize the sickness of such a condition: some, in whom their consciences are alive, are suffering; others, with burnt-out consciences, accept this situation.
Ecclesiastical authority in Russia is found in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what is done under duress. The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: there is neither freedom of will nor freedom of action.
We have no one to be in communion with: there is no free ecclesiastical authority!
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for this reason is not administratively tied to such an authority. But we are united spiritually with the holy Russian Church, because we are a part of the Russian Church.
We should not think that on our homeland everyone is spiritually downtrodden by the authority that exists there. We believe in the opposite. We do not interrogate hearts, which are known to God alone, but we know that there, there is no freedom of conscience and will; that there, closed-in-ness has taken root. There is no social inter-communication. There, people cannot choose the path of their lives, following their hearts. There, one finds the situation about which the Prophet Micah prophesied: There an individual "does not trust in his friends, does not put confidence in his guides," "and the members of his household are his enemies" (Micah 7:5-6), The atheistic power influences people in a destructive way. It subjugates to itself not only the body, but it also captures the soul. It depersonalizes people, and their sincere and open Russian souls become distorted.
We, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preserve our unity, while being in communion with all Churches with which it is possible to being communion with.
Being scattered around the entire world we do not submit to the local Churches -- not because we are inimically disposed to them, but because we cherish our holy Russian Church and the characteristics of the Russian soul. Our ecclesiastical unity is expressed in our submission to a single ecclesiastical authority for the entire diaspora, and this unity preserves the Russian people in the diaspora in faithfulness to the podvig that has been placed upon them by God.
1960
source: http://www.stjohnthebaptist.org.au/articles/roca-significance.html
Super-Correct Misunderstand Royal Path
Dear Reader,
Few of us can receive the news about the Finland Orthodox homos without reacting to the absurdity of the idea of an Orthodox being a homo. Here is one reaction to this news taken from a super-correct blog, which inadvertently reveals the great misunderstanding the Super-Correct have of the Royal Path. -jh
http://stmarkofephesus.blogspot.com/2008/12/orthodox-church-in-finland-is-in.html
Few of us can receive the news about the Finland Orthodox homos without reacting to the absurdity of the idea of an Orthodox being a homo. Here is one reaction to this news taken from a super-correct blog, which inadvertently reveals the great misunderstanding the Super-Correct have of the Royal Path. -jh
http://stmarkofephesus.blogspot.com/2008/12/orthodox-church-in-finland-is-in.html
"Monday, December 1, 2008
The Orthodox Church in Finland is in the control of Homosexuals
The Orthodox Church in Finland, long known for celebrating Pascha on the same date as the Western heretics, has now passed into the hands of homosexuals and their sympathizers with the acquiescense of Archbishop Leo.
"The registration of parishioners as same-sex couples does not constitute a problem, according to Archbishop Leo."
I don't wish to say anything more on the subject except to condemn this blasphemy.
For more information see: http://theoprovlitos.blogspot.com/2008/11/orthodox-church-of-finland-in-hands-of.html http://jn1034.blogspot.com/
I'm sure all the Orthodox Patriarchs of the world will immediately break communion with the heretic Leo of Finland - not. I'm sure Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili will now immediately wake up out of his coma and pronounce Leo graceless - not. Instead, the homophobic old calendarist Cyprianites will sit around the metaphorical campfire singing "Kum ba ya" with the ailing-yet-still-grace-filled gay-loving new calendarists. The Cyprianite chapter of the Orthodox Rainbow Society will announce that homosexuality was never condemned as a heresy by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and therefore the holy homosexuals are only potential heretics, not actual heretics, and must be accepted at the chalice with hopes that they will repent of their potential heresy.
Posted by Nathan Vanderhoofven at 9:37 PM"
Dr. Vladimir Moss LiveJournal
Dr. Vladimir's LiveJournal has some scholarly analyses that are of interest to us.
The CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1954.html
This is very critical of us and most unfair in much of the criticism. However, it is valuable to us.
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 1 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 2 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1594.html
These articles help to answer the question, "Why don't the R-splits just all unite?"
But the best explanation for the fragmentation of the R-splits is within St. John's (Maximovitch) report on The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad.
The CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1954.html
This is very critical of us and most unfair in much of the criticism. However, it is valuable to us.
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 1 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 2 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1594.html
These articles help to answer the question, "Why don't the R-splits just all unite?"
But the best explanation for the fragmentation of the R-splits is within St. John's (Maximovitch) report on The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad.
Dr. Moss Criticizes/Abp. Chrysostomos Responds
Feast of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker
To: Exarchate Clergy, Faithful, and Friends
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos
Boetheia mas o Agios Nikolaos.
May St. Nicholas come to our aid.
The following is the latest of Dr. Vladimir's Moss's statements, one sadly marked by contumely, personal enmity, and a truculent tone. It calls for a response only because it has been circulated among some sincere but undiscerning individuals who do not easily recognize the delusive arguments used in these now notorious attacks against almost anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moss's arguments. Thus, I have made some brief comments within the text.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This "revealing" information is nothing more than the latest report on union discussions that have been regularly referenced on our website and in our synodal publications.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Our Synod has not been "striving for unity with the G.O.C (sic)," but has for over a year been pleased to engage in informal and friendly discussions about a possible opening of communion with the Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (G.O.Ch.), following friendly overtures by Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) on the heels of Metropolitan Cyprian's collapse into a coma, following a massive stroke almost exactly a year ago.
Our Bishops reacted to this opening of personal contacts with much relief and great enthusiasm, given the animosity and conflict that were in the past displayed by various persons in both groups, leading to the kind of invective and misunderstanding that Dr. Moss's comments simply serve to perpetuate. Efforts towards union began, indeed, with love and requests for forgiveness on both sides -- a truly exemplary Christian thing!
Abp. Chrysostomos
Since I translated the words which Dr. Moss quotes here, and know their tone and, of course, their provenance, I can affirm that what I translated was written with complete sincerity and transparency. It simply states that "nonnegotiable" terms presented by the other party in the dialogue were of the kind that violated what we considered the basic principles of theological discourse on the matters being discussed.
Had this been a "complete" rejection of the points of the G.O.Ch., this is precisely what we would have said. Dr. Moss's conclusions are speculative, and especially since he has presumably never read the points that led to our statement.
It is also in the nature of dialogue that nothing is accepted unconditionally, until unanimity or agreement by two parties is achieved.
Dr. Moss fails, as well, to speak of the fraternal affection and good intentions that prevailed throughout these and other exchanges in the union dialogues, which are, at least at this time. ongoing.
Abp. Chrysostomos
One would hope that Dr. Moss is wrong in this assumption. Does he wish for a cessation of dialogue?
Abp. Chrysostomos
I should clarify a point: by this depersonalizing and derogatory epithet, Dr. Moss means the "Holy Synod in Resistance" and its Bishops and faithful. It is especially shameful, given the condition of Metropolitan Cyprian and the tremendous sadness that overcame those of us who love him.
Abp. Chrysostomos
We have never shown any desperation in agreeing to informal dialogue with the Church of G.O.Ch. In fact, our brothers in that Church have been even more enthusiastic in their desire for unity, which is something that commends them and which has inspired those of us, such as myself, who were more cautious and slow in seeking rapprochement at the moment -- even though I surely consider eventual unity, in synergy with God's Will and in love, wonderful and sacred.
Needless to say, were we working in a spirit of compromise, it would seem rather curious to accuse us of sabotaging unity, as Dr. Moss suggests above.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Dr. Moss's "analysis" here is bizarre: a contrived mental construct. Metropolitan Cyprian, when received into the Old Calendar movement from the New Calendar State Church of Greece, made it clear that he would not accept re-Ordination and did not believe that the State Church of Greece was without Grace. His statements to that effect were published many decades ago even in such American source as "The Orthodox Word," as we have repeatedly shown.
Dr. Moss's "reminiscences" aside, Metropolitan Cyprian's ecclesiology has always been the same; we have always realized that many with whom we have entered into communion did not hold exactly to our ecclesiology; and have, with them, maintained, in agreeing to disagree on minor points, that the final adjudication of such matters belongs to a future Oecumenical or General Synod.
Dr. Moss can violate, restate, and re-create these facts as he likes. but they remain facts. Our present position is that if we can enter into communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and his Bishops without violating our principles by the imposition of their views on us, we can work together in the pursuit of resisting ecumenism, which binds all of the Greek Old Calendarists together in a single family. Otherwise, our Synod will gain NOTHING, from a merely human standpoint, by union. We need no such union, since we are in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists and with the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel: the vast majority of anti-ecumenist Orthodox.
While we advocate, as we always have and always will, the Patristic tradition which Dr. Moss so rudely calls "Cyprianitism" and a heresy, it speaks for itself that we have never condemned the extremist Old Calendarists (who also officially call New Calendarists and ecumenists heretics and without Grace) as "heretics," even though we believe their views to be incorrect in this respect. We have always acknowledged that many extremists are simply that in public, whereas in private they agree with us. In fact that was the case when all of us Old Calendarists were in communion.
Dr. Moss would do well to remember Archbishop Peter of Astoria, who was my own guide for a time when I was at university and whose brother Baptized my assistant Bishop. He joined with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), even though he did not personally believe that the New Calendarists and ecumenists were without Grace. He taught us what we now believe (which Metropolitan Cyprian also believes) and, just before his death, when he visited our monastery (as he did Phyle, I should note), confessed to us that our ecclesiology was correct but that, to quote him, "his hands were tied" by personal issues and Church politics.
Was he (a man whom we loved and admired, even when he disappointed us with the human weaknesses that we all have) a hypocrite, insincere, and wrong? Or is it only the "Cyprianites" who are evil when, without tied hands, they seek to find some way to effect unity among the Old Calendarists? Is a broader way open only to others, but not to us?
Lock-step dogmatic advocacy based on personal views and interpretations that take on the character of "unquestionable authority" may be appropriate to Papism; however, Orthodox theology does not confess of an inability to accept differences of action and interpretation, until they are resolved by a General Church Synod.
Abp. Chrysostomos
A man who has accused us of hypocrisy, heresy, lying, and insincerity over the years is hardly being consistent in calling US elitists. To call us quasi-Anglican and compare our confession of Orthodoxy to Tolstoy's teaching of non-resistance to evil is likewise quite over the line and lamentable.
Dr. Moss deserves our prayers and our pity, since his enmity and hatred for us, most of whom he has never even meant, speak to a spiritual hurt in him that can only prompt in me, along with my shock at his sometimes vicious, unfair, and caustic accusations, a sincere love for him as an injured soul. The more he attacks the more I feel compelled to respond with logical guidance to others, yet with love for him.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This is, of course, not a true statement of the historical facts. Metropolitan Kallistos, in returning to a Matthewite viewpoint under the influence of certain individuals and in senescence, actually retired from the Synod. At the time, Metropolitan Cyprian remained in the Synod. Dr. Moss may call me a liar for saying this, but that does not change historical fact.
Moreover, to accuse Metropolitan Cyprian of "diplomacy" in avoiding the word "heretic" in speaking of Metropolitan Kallistos is something worthy of tears. Our love for Metropolitan Kallistos was such that a word like this would have caused all of us incredible pain, and in particular because, though in error in his return to extremism, he was not a heretic.
Metropolitan Kallistos himself, when he was the First Hierarch of our Synod, advised me NEVER to say that I would not bury the New Calendarists in the Greek side of my family. He chastised me severely when I presented him with a view that I had once, in youthful impetuosity, wrongly accepted with regard to the New Calendarists. My "Cyprianitism" was reinforced by none other than Metropolitan Kallistos when he was at our monastery in Ohio.
Dr. Moss I have never met and do not know one another. Metropolitan Kallistos I knew. Dr. Moss is simply off the mark.
Dr. Moss should hang his head in eternal shame for suggesting that Metropolitan Cyprian considered Metropolitan Kallistos a heretic. Rather, he considered him a holy man and lamented his fall, once more, to a Matthewite mentality in senility.
Abp. Chysostomos
This is just silliness and a kind of sad projection on Dr. Moss's part.
Abp. Chrysostomos
We began by being accused of preventing union with the Church of G.O.Ch. because of our tenacious adherence to our principles, whereas now we are chided for setting our principles aside, llike cheap opportunists, by seeking to join with G.O.Ch. Apparently, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Once again, if communion with the Church of G.O.Ch. can occur without our violating our ecclesiological principles, we have no difficulty with this, if it is God's Will. This entails no compromise.
It speaks volumes that it is Dr. Moss who is calling us heretics, not we who are calling him and his Bishops heretics.
Abp. Chrysostomos
What a sad misunderstanding. We are tied to our spiritual Father by love, which never traps one. It is hatred which traps one. Dr. Moss's personal hatred for us is so strong that, while he admits that Hierarchs can be wrong and can ask forgiveness for their errors and still be Orthodox, he calls us heretics for saying the same thing. He is trapped by his hatred for us (or the hatred for us that the Evil One has inspired in him). We believe what he does and apply it to those who have adopted an extremist attitude toward New Calendarists and ecumenists. Yet, we are heretics, since this does not agree with Dr. Moss or fulfill his expectations of hypocrisy, insincerity, and hypocrisy from us. Truly sad.
As for Archbishop Tikhon's group, one can contrast its condemnation of us to the communion that we maintain with Metropolitan Agafangel, who, unlike Archbishop Tikhon, was in fact a member of the ROCA right up to the time that it united with Moscow. He was the sole survivor of the union. Metropolitan Agafangel has not said that the ROCA/MP was wrong (for ten years!) in maintaining communion with us. And he still maintains communion with us. We hope and pray that Archbishop Tikhon and his group will seek unity in Russia, but it will not do so by condemning our Synod and others. Condemnation is not the way to unity.
Again, one can only pity such a thing and lovingly but firmly point out to Dr. Moss that it is HE who is providing the spirit of divisiveness and nastiness that impedes hope for unity.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Again, it curious that a man whose hatred has caused me to find love for him in my soul and whom I do NOT consider a heretic, even if I believe him to be very wrong, should condemn me and those with me as elitists. His truculence, which leads him to claim that we advocate things that we do not and never have, is a true sign of arrogance and elitism: the kind that marks those who refuse to love others, who degrade them, who mock them, and thus who fail to understand that those whom they perceive to be heretics and "terrible enemies" are actually friends.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Let us not slap one another, but kiss one another with the kiss of peace. Let us not emulate the act of a Saint and man of love whose feet we are unworthy to kiss, but the humble spirit of the prostitute and sinner and, rather than call upon the covenant of the Old Testament, "speak," like those of the New Covenant, "the truth in love," imploring God to join what is separated. What sinner among us dares to raise his hand against a brother or to take solace in disagreement and walking apart from his brother?
All of you who have read Dr. Moss's words: I exhort you to pray for him and to offer him, as do I, a kiss of Christian love. Ask God to show him that we make enemies of people only when we fail to see the good in them and to love them. Our supposed enemies become our friends when we sense, see, and admit that they, too, have the same good that we seek in ourselves; and, indeed, sometimes those whom we hold in enmity, but hold us in love, can move our minds to higher things and join what is at odds. We should all hold Dr. Moss in love, for there is surely much good in him, much tortured affection in him, and even virtuous but misguided zeal, if we see him through the eyes of the Theotokos' love.
To: Exarchate Clergy, Faithful, and Friends
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos
Boetheia mas o Agios Nikolaos.
May St. Nicholas come to our aid.
The following is the latest of Dr. Vladimir's Moss's statements, one sadly marked by contumely, personal enmity, and a truculent tone. It calls for a response only because it has been circulated among some sincere but undiscerning individuals who do not easily recognize the delusive arguments used in these now notorious attacks against almost anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moss's arguments. Thus, I have made some brief comments within the text.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Subject: THE HERESY OF ECCLESIASTICAL ELITISM
The Cyprianites have published on their website an account of their Hierarchical Council of October 4/17, 2008. It contains interesting and revealing information on their "efforts at union with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece" - that is, the GOC headed by Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens. It reveals that since February five meetings have taken place between the two sides (three Bishops from both sides), which have "now reached a historical turning-point".
Abp. Chrysostomos
This "revealing" information is nothing more than the latest report on union discussions that have been regularly referenced on our website and in our synodal publications.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Although still striving for unity with the GOC, the Cyprianites reveal that they cannot accept the ten "non-negotiable points" laid down by the GOC on September 9/22. Since the Cyprianites regard these points as "inappropriate for publication", and since the GOC have also not published them, we can only guess at what they might be. Nevertheless, from what the Cyprianites write, and from other sources, it is clear what the main stumbling-blocks are the GOC's insistence that Metropolitan Cyprian created a schism in the 1980s, and that the new calendarists must be anathematized.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Our Synod has not been "striving for unity with the G.O.C (sic)," but has for over a year been pleased to engage in informal and friendly discussions about a possible opening of communion with the Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (G.O.Ch.), following friendly overtures by Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) on the heels of Metropolitan Cyprian's collapse into a coma, following a massive stroke almost exactly a year ago.
Our Bishops reacted to this opening of personal contacts with much relief and great enthusiasm, given the animosity and conflict that were in the past displayed by various persons in both groups, leading to the kind of invective and misunderstanding that Dr. Moss's comments simply serve to perpetuate. Efforts towards union began, indeed, with love and requests for forgiveness on both sides -- a truly exemplary Christian thing!
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Regarding these ten points, the Cyprianite Synod came to the following conclusions "after a very protracted discussion":
"In principle, it would be possible for us to agree with several of these points, once various improvements and modifications have been made to the wording thereof.
"However, any final 'convergence' of both sides on these points would be rather artificial and superficial, as long as there remain crucial 'points' on which there is no possibility of concession on our part - that is, on points non-negotiable in terms of a theology of Orthodox resistance.
"These crucial 'points' (the repetition of Chrismation and Baptism - even when simply improperly performed - and the nominal anathematization of New Calendarists), if adopted and explicitly proclaimed by us, would lead to a different interpretation of the other 'points' as well, and to an outright denial of our ecclesiological principles."
Put in less diplomatic terms, this amounts to a more or less complete rejection of the GOC's points. Some points relating to their ecclesiological principles are rejected outright; others require "various improvements". Nothing is accepted unconditionally.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Since I translated the words which Dr. Moss quotes here, and know their tone and, of course, their provenance, I can affirm that what I translated was written with complete sincerity and transparency. It simply states that "nonnegotiable" terms presented by the other party in the dialogue were of the kind that violated what we considered the basic principles of theological discourse on the matters being discussed.
Had this been a "complete" rejection of the points of the G.O.Ch., this is precisely what we would have said. Dr. Moss's conclusions are speculative, and especially since he has presumably never read the points that led to our statement.
It is also in the nature of dialogue that nothing is accepted unconditionally, until unanimity or agreement by two parties is achieved.
Dr. Moss fails, as well, to speak of the fraternal affection and good intentions that prevailed throughout these and other exchanges in the union dialogues, which are, at least at this time. ongoing.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Since the GOC's points were laid down as "non-negotiable", this looks like the end of the road for the unity talks.
Abp. Chrysostomos
One would hope that Dr. Moss is wrong in this assumption. Does he wish for a cessation of dialogue?
Dr. Vladimir Moss
However, the Cyprianites,
Abp. Chrysostomos
I should clarify a point: by this depersonalizing and derogatory epithet, Dr. Moss means the "Holy Synod in Resistance" and its Bishops and faithful. It is especially shameful, given the condition of Metropolitan Cyprian and the tremendous sadness that overcame those of us who love him.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
still desperately cling on to the hope of unity through a vague kind of doctrinal compromise:
Abp. Chrysostomos
We have never shown any desperation in agreeing to informal dialogue with the Church of G.O.Ch. In fact, our brothers in that Church have been even more enthusiastic in their desire for unity, which is something that commends them and which has inspired those of us, such as myself, who were more cautious and slow in seeking rapprochement at the moment -- even though I surely consider eventual unity, in synergy with God's Will and in love, wonderful and sacred.
Needless to say, were we working in a spirit of compromise, it would seem rather curious to accuse us of sabotaging unity, as Dr. Moss suggests above.
Dr.Vladimir Moss
"There arises the question of the extent to which, for the sake of the supreme good of unity, we can without absolute ecclesiological uniformity on both sides - as was the case at least up until 1984 - achieve oneness with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece on the basis of fundamental points of agreement, leading to a General, Pan-Orthodox, or Oecumenical Synod for decisive adjudication and resolution of those points still in dispute." In other words: let's agree to disagree on certain things, and just get together on the basis of what we do agree on - a truly Anglican solution!
In fact, the Cyprianite ecclesiology is reminiscent of the Anglican Church's "High", "Middle" and "Low" structure. As is well-known, the Cyprianites believe that the Church is composed of "healthy" members (the Orthodox) and "sick" members (the heretics) until and unless a "Unifying Ecumenical" Council decides to expel the heretics. We might call this the division of the Church into "High" and "Low". But now, through their suggestion of a compromise union with the GOC, they are also adding a "Middle" layer - the GOC itself. So the Greek Church, in their understanding, is composed of three levels: a "High", or supremely healthy level, composed of the Cyprianites, who alone hold the true ecclesiology; a "Middle" level, composed of Old Calendarists who reject ecumenism but are unfortunately tainted with the illness of an over-zealous ecclesiology; and a "Low" level, composed of the new calendarists, who are sick with the still worse illness of the pan-heresy of ecumenism.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Dr. Moss's "analysis" here is bizarre: a contrived mental construct. Metropolitan Cyprian, when received into the Old Calendar movement from the New Calendar State Church of Greece, made it clear that he would not accept re-Ordination and did not believe that the State Church of Greece was without Grace. His statements to that effect were published many decades ago even in such American source as "The Orthodox Word," as we have repeatedly shown.
Dr. Moss's "reminiscences" aside, Metropolitan Cyprian's ecclesiology has always been the same; we have always realized that many with whom we have entered into communion did not hold exactly to our ecclesiology; and have, with them, maintained, in agreeing to disagree on minor points, that the final adjudication of such matters belongs to a future Oecumenical or General Synod.
Dr. Moss can violate, restate, and re-create these facts as he likes. but they remain facts. Our present position is that if we can enter into communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and his Bishops without violating our principles by the imposition of their views on us, we can work together in the pursuit of resisting ecumenism, which binds all of the Greek Old Calendarists together in a single family. Otherwise, our Synod will gain NOTHING, from a merely human standpoint, by union. We need no such union, since we are in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists and with the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel: the vast majority of anti-ecumenist Orthodox.
While we advocate, as we always have and always will, the Patristic tradition which Dr. Moss so rudely calls "Cyprianitism" and a heresy, it speaks for itself that we have never condemned the extremist Old Calendarists (who also officially call New Calendarists and ecumenists heretics and without Grace) as "heretics," even though we believe their views to be incorrect in this respect. We have always acknowledged that many extremists are simply that in public, whereas in private they agree with us. In fact that was the case when all of us Old Calendarists were in communion.
Dr. Moss would do well to remember Archbishop Peter of Astoria, who was my own guide for a time when I was at university and whose brother Baptized my assistant Bishop. He joined with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), even though he did not personally believe that the New Calendarists and ecumenists were without Grace. He taught us what we now believe (which Metropolitan Cyprian also believes) and, just before his death, when he visited our monastery (as he did Phyle, I should note), confessed to us that our ecclesiology was correct but that, to quote him, "his hands were tied" by personal issues and Church politics.
Was he (a man whom we loved and admired, even when he disappointed us with the human weaknesses that we all have) a hypocrite, insincere, and wrong? Or is it only the "Cyprianites" who are evil when, without tied hands, they seek to find some way to effect unity among the Old Calendarists? Is a broader way open only to others, but not to us?
Lock-step dogmatic advocacy based on personal views and interpretations that take on the character of "unquestionable authority" may be appropriate to Papism; however, Orthodox theology does not confess of an inability to accept differences of action and interpretation, until they are resolved by a General Church Synod.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
But this is the broad way of the Broad Church which, as the Lord says, leads so many to destruction! Of course, it is true that differences of opinion have always existed in the One True Church, and there have probably always been hidden heretics within the Church's single organizational structure. But the Church can never be reconciled with differences on dogmatic questions; it must always seek to eradicate them and remove impenitent heretics; it can never say: "You are a heretic, nevertheless you are a member of the True Church and are permitted to receive the Body of Christ". The Cyprianites' elitist, quasi-Anglican model seeks to institutionalize dogmatic differences, making them the norm. It is the dogmatic equivalent of the Tolstoyan moral teaching on the necessity of non-resistance to evil.
Abp. Chrysostomos
A man who has accused us of hypocrisy, heresy, lying, and insincerity over the years is hardly being consistent in calling US elitists. To call us quasi-Anglican and compare our confession of Orthodoxy to Tolstoy's teaching of non-resistance to evil is likewise quite over the line and lamentable.
Dr. Moss deserves our prayers and our pity, since his enmity and hatred for us, most of whom he has never even meant, speak to a spiritual hurt in him that can only prompt in me, along with my shock at his sometimes vicious, unfair, and caustic accusations, a sincere love for him as an injured soul. The more he attacks the more I feel compelled to respond with logical guidance to others, yet with love for him.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
It should be remembered that in 1984 Metropolitan Cyprian broke communion with his first-hierarch, Metropolitan Callistus, and with all the other "Florinite" hierarchs, explicitly for reasons of the faith. He regarded the confession of faith of Metropolitan Callistus, which is identical to the confession of faith of today's GOC, as "without witness, unproven, anti-patristic, and hence un-Orthodox" (Agios Kiprianos, July, 1983, p. 210). In other words, he regarded Metropolitan Callistus' views to be heretical - even if he did not use the word "heretical" for diplomatic reasons.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This is, of course, not a true statement of the historical facts. Metropolitan Kallistos, in returning to a Matthewite viewpoint under the influence of certain individuals and in senescence, actually retired from the Synod. At the time, Metropolitan Cyprian remained in the Synod. Dr. Moss may call me a liar for saying this, but that does not change historical fact.
Moreover, to accuse Metropolitan Cyprian of "diplomacy" in avoiding the word "heretic" in speaking of Metropolitan Kallistos is something worthy of tears. Our love for Metropolitan Kallistos was such that a word like this would have caused all of us incredible pain, and in particular because, though in error in his return to extremism, he was not a heretic.
Metropolitan Kallistos himself, when he was the First Hierarch of our Synod, advised me NEVER to say that I would not bury the New Calendarists in the Greek side of my family. He chastised me severely when I presented him with a view that I had once, in youthful impetuosity, wrongly accepted with regard to the New Calendarists. My "Cyprianitism" was reinforced by none other than Metropolitan Kallistos when he was at our monastery in Ohio.
Dr. Moss I have never met and do not know one another. Metropolitan Kallistos I knew. Dr. Moss is simply off the mark.
Dr. Moss should hang his head in eternal shame for suggesting that Metropolitan Cyprian considered Metropolitan Kallistos a heretic. Rather, he considered him a holy man and lamented his fall, once more, to a Matthewite mentality in senility.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Now, believing this, it was quite natural for Metropolitan Cyprian to break communion with Callistus and to refuse to enter into communion with any hierarch who thought like him.
Abp. Chysostomos
This is just silliness and a kind of sad projection on Dr. Moss's part.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
But then why are his successors now seeking to re-enter communion with our Church, although our hierarchs have not changed their confession in any way? Either Metropolitan Cyprian was wrong to break communion with Metropolitan Callistus, or the present Cyprianite hierarchs are wrong to seek to enter into communion with the GOC hierarchs who think like Metropolitan Callistus - there is no "third way".
Abp. Chrysostomos
We began by being accused of preventing union with the Church of G.O.Ch. because of our tenacious adherence to our principles, whereas now we are chided for setting our principles aside, llike cheap opportunists, by seeking to join with G.O.Ch. Apparently, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Once again, if communion with the Church of G.O.Ch. can occur without our violating our ecclesiological principles, we have no difficulty with this, if it is God's Will. This entails no compromise.
It speaks volumes that it is Dr. Moss who is calling us heretics, not we who are calling him and his Bishops heretics.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
The present Cyprianite hierarchs are trapped by their loyalty to their founder, by their refusal to admit that he made a serious mistake. How different has been the behaviour of the Tikhonites, who in their recent Odessa Council clearly and unambiguously renounced Cyprianism and admitted that the ROCOR hierarchs' entrance into communion with the Cyprianites in 1994 was wrong. This is the way forward: to place the True Confession of Faith as the first value, and to admit honestly and honourably that mistakes can and have been made in relation to it even by the most distinguished of hierarchs - there is no place for man-pleasing or man-worship in the Church of Christ.
Abp. Chrysostomos
What a sad misunderstanding. We are tied to our spiritual Father by love, which never traps one. It is hatred which traps one. Dr. Moss's personal hatred for us is so strong that, while he admits that Hierarchs can be wrong and can ask forgiveness for their errors and still be Orthodox, he calls us heretics for saying the same thing. He is trapped by his hatred for us (or the hatred for us that the Evil One has inspired in him). We believe what he does and apply it to those who have adopted an extremist attitude toward New Calendarists and ecumenists. Yet, we are heretics, since this does not agree with Dr. Moss or fulfill his expectations of hypocrisy, insincerity, and hypocrisy from us. Truly sad.
As for Archbishop Tikhon's group, one can contrast its condemnation of us to the communion that we maintain with Metropolitan Agafangel, who, unlike Archbishop Tikhon, was in fact a member of the ROCA right up to the time that it united with Moscow. He was the sole survivor of the union. Metropolitan Agafangel has not said that the ROCA/MP was wrong (for ten years!) in maintaining communion with us. And he still maintains communion with us. We hope and pray that Archbishop Tikhon and his group will seek unity in Russia, but it will not do so by condemning our Synod and others. Condemnation is not the way to unity.
Again, one can only pity such a thing and lovingly but firmly point out to Dr. Moss that it is HE who is providing the spirit of divisiveness and nastiness that impedes hope for unity.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Nor is there any place for elitism, for a hierarchy of Orthodox, semi-Orthodox and heretics within the One Church. The Body of Christ is composed solely and exclusively of those who confess the True Orthodox Faith in its entirety, and those who publicly reject any part of that Faith cannot be admitted to the Holy Mysteries. If this were not so, then the Church would not be One, but would actually be an aggregate or confederation or alliance of many sub-churches, differing from each other in one or more articles of the Faith, on the model of the Anglicans or the World Council of Churches.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Again, it curious that a man whose hatred has caused me to find love for him in my soul and whom I do NOT consider a heretic, even if I believe him to be very wrong, should condemn me and those with me as elitists. His truculence, which leads him to claim that we advocate things that we do not and never have, is a true sign of arrogance and elitism: the kind that marks those who refuse to love others, who degrade them, who mock them, and thus who fail to understand that those whom they perceive to be heretics and "terrible enemies" are actually friends.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
At the First Ecumenical Council St. Nicholas of Myra slapped the face of the heretic Arius. He did not wait for the Council to condemn him officially - and the Lord and the Mother of God approved of his act. If the Cyprianites claim to have the same faith and zeal as St. Nicholas, let them (metaphorically) slap the face of the ecumenist heretics and confess that they are outside the One True Church and deprived of the grace of sacraments. Then there will truly be a sound basis for them to re-enter the True Church, having sincerely repented of the schism they created. But if they do not repent, then the True Church, holding fast to the principles of the true ecclesiology, must refuse them entry; for, as the Prophet says, "how can two walk together if they be not agreed?" (Amos 3.3).
Abp. Chrysostomos
Let us not slap one another, but kiss one another with the kiss of peace. Let us not emulate the act of a Saint and man of love whose feet we are unworthy to kiss, but the humble spirit of the prostitute and sinner and, rather than call upon the covenant of the Old Testament, "speak," like those of the New Covenant, "the truth in love," imploring God to join what is separated. What sinner among us dares to raise his hand against a brother or to take solace in disagreement and walking apart from his brother?
All of you who have read Dr. Moss's words: I exhort you to pray for him and to offer him, as do I, a kiss of Christian love. Ask God to show him that we make enemies of people only when we fail to see the good in them and to love them. Our supposed enemies become our friends when we sense, see, and admit that they, too, have the same good that we seek in ourselves; and, indeed, sometimes those whom we hold in enmity, but hold us in love, can move our minds to higher things and join what is at odds. We should all hold Dr. Moss in love, for there is surely much good in him, much tortured affection in him, and even virtuous but misguided zeal, if we see him through the eyes of the Theotokos' love.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Vladimir Moss
December 6/19, 2008.
St. Nicholas of Myra, the Wonderworker.
Letter from ? to Archbishop Chrysostomos
There is just enough English on this page to glean what this might be about. How these two friends view the presence or absence of grace in erring Churches, is of interest to us. Since they are our friends, too.
Taken from this link:
http://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/slovo/home/mp/ac_mp-ordination2006.htm
::: † :::
Етнийски архиепископ Хризостом
Коментари на архиепископ Хризостом върху ръкоположението на духовен син на архиеп. Марк (Арнд) в МП.
От: Archbishop Chrysostomos
До: Monastery
Дата: 2006-3-15 16:31
Тема: Re: link
[http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=30105&lng=0]
Прочетох това. Твърде тъжно. Какво да каже човек?
The tragic thing is that, from a theological or ecclesiological standpoint, it is a mockery of the ROCA. Orthodox theologians have for some time, and quite wrongly, adopted the Latin notion that Eucharistic communion and Grace are standards of external ecclesiastical communion. This is not, in fact, the basis of our Orthodox concept of unity in the Church. We are at all times unified in the Eucharist (in Christ), often with those from whom we are temporarily (and rightly) separated administratively and jurisdictionally and who may, despite the infractions that justify and indeed necessitate our separation from them, have, by God's Providence, Grace (and this for the sake of misled souls).
Трагичното е, че — от богословско или еклезиологично гледище — това е подигравка с РПЗЦ. Православни богослови за известно време и то съвсем погрешно са възприели латинското разбиране, че евхаристийното общение и благодатта са мерило за външното църковно общение. Това всъщност не е основата на нашето православно схващане за единство в Църквата. През всяко време ние сме обединени в Евхаристията (в Христа) често пъти с онези, от които временно (и справедливо) сме отделени административно и юрисдикционно, и които може — въпреки нарушенията, които оправдават и всъщност изискват нашето отделяне от тях — да имат по Божий промисъл благодат (и то заради заблудените души).
This is made abundantly clear in St. Basil the Great's canonical ruminations on Baptismal Grace among those who may have fallen to some heresy. He makes very careful and subtle distinctions between the various heretical groups, in fact, telling us where Grace may or may not be. (Ironically, it is an abuse of this subtlety that led Father Florovsky, in an article written early in his career and which he constantly said that he regretted, to speculate about St. Augustine's notion of Grace beyond certain established boundaries. One can understand this speculation, of course, in a way that the ecumenists do not. Father Georges came to understand the proper boundaries of the Church, as he saw the ecumenical veer in directions that disappointed and then shocked him.)
Това е изяснено в изобилна мяра в каноническите размишления на св. Василий Велики върху кръщенската благодат у ония, които може да са изпаднали в дадена ерес. Той прави твърде внимателни и тънки разграничения между различните еретически общности, като всъщност ни казва къде може и къде не може да има благодат. (По ирония някаква, тъкмо неразбирането на тази тънкост довежда отец Флоровски, в статия, написана в ранното му развитие, за която той винаги съжаляваше, да размишлява върху схващанията на св. Августин за благодатта отвъд известни установени граници. Човек може да разбере тези размишления, естествено, по начин, по какъвто не ги разбират икуменистите. Отец Георги стигна до разбирането на същинските граници на Църквата, като наблюдаваше [постепенната] промяна в икуменическия курс в направления, които го разочароваха и по-късно го потресоха.)
The point is that we are measured by the purity of our confession of Faith, as Bishop Photii in Bulgaria once so eloquently pointed out in addressing an assembly of our clergy, not by the question of who has or does not have Grace or by the incidental issue of whether we maintain external communion with this or that group. It is, in fact, in jurisdictional terms that we express the purity of our witness, walling ourselves off from error or spiritual ailments, in order to preserve our confessional purity. It is here that Metropolitan Cyorian so perfectly and so correctly planted the roots of our resistance. The question of Grace or external Eucharistic communion transcends this responsibility of ours. If we are cured of ontological disease by the Mysteries, it is by the purity of our confessional witness that we are protected from heresy and spiritual malaise and vouchsafed the salvific action of the Mysteries. This lesson from Church history and the Fathers is lost on the superficial thing that passes itself off as "theology" today: an exercise in folly at the expense of the spirit.
Смисълът е, че ние се измерваме чрез чистотата на нашето изповядване на Вярата — както веднъж в България тъй красноречиво посочи епископ Фотий в обръщение на конферецния на нашите свещенослужители, — а не от въпроса кой има и кой няма благодат или от страничния въпрос дали поддържаме външно общение с тази или с онази група. Всъщност, именно по силата на юрисдикционното [си положение] ние изразяваме чистотата на нашето свидетелство, ограждайки се (като със стена) от заблудата или духовното заболяване, с цел да запазим чистотата на нашата вероизповед. Това именно, тъй съвършено и толкова правилно, е вложил в корените на нашето противостоене митрополит Киприан. Въпросът за благодатта или външното евхаристийно общение надвишава тази наша отговорност. Ако ние се лекуваме от онтологичната болест чрез Тайнствата, то именно чрез чистотата на нашето вероизповедно свидетелство ние се предпазваме от ереста и духовното заболяване и сме удостоени със спасителното действие на Тайнствата. Този урок от историята на Църквата и от светите отци се губи при повърхностия предмет, който днес се преподава като "богословие": упражнение по глупост за сметка на духовното.
Thus, since Ordination is, as the pronouncements of the Oecumenical Synods so clearly attest, a matter of jurisdiction and administrative integrity, this act is a clear mockery of the ROCA. It is a binding statement that the ROCA is subject to the MP and that the MP is its standard of Faith and confession. Thus, should it surprise us that the ROCA website now sponsors the ecumenical confession of the MP's Bishop Hilarion? Not in the least. It must now line up with its "master," little knowing that it has relinquished its integrity. Who could do anything but lament?
Ето защо, понеже — както съвсем ясно удостоверяват решенията на Вселенските събори — ръкоположението е въпрос на юрисдикционна и административна целокупност, това действие е очевидна гавра с РПЗЦ. Обвързващо е твърдението, че РПЗЦ е подчинена на МП и че МП е нейното мерило за вероизповед. Тъй че, бива ли да ни изненадва това, че [официалната] интернет-страница на РПЗЦ сега поръчителствува за икуменическата вероизповед на епископа на МП Иларион? Ни най-малко. Сега тя трябва да застане наедно със своя "господар", знаейки малко за това, че е изоставила своята целокупност. Може ли да се направи друго, освен човек да жалее?
The tragedy in all of this is that you and I are probably much more universalist in our views and far more tolerant of other religions, in terms of genuine Christian love for all men, than those who would prefer to see the Church as an ethnic priority. The worst aspect of ecumenism is, indeed, its intolerance of those of us who have embraced the criterion of Truth and wish to preserve it. God preserve us. I wonder: who, in the Church today will have the stamina to hold forth?
Трагичното във всичко това е, че ти и аз сме може би много повече универсалисти във възгледите си и далеч по-толерантни към другите религии по силата на истинската християнска любов към всички човеци, отколкото онези, които предпочитат да виждат Църквата като етнически приоритет. Най-лошата страна на икуменизма е всъщност неговата нетолерантност към нас, които държим мерилото на Истината и желаем да го запазим. Бог да ни пази! Чудя се, кой днес в Църквата ще има издържливостта да говори на всеослушание?
Least Among Monks, + AC
Най-малкият сред монасите, архиеп. Хр.
© Домашен отдел на библиотеката. Не подлежи на обнародване.
© Закрытая часть библиотеки "Слово". Не подлежит публикации.
© Private Sector. Not for copying or reproducing.
Taken from this link:
http://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/slovo/home/mp/ac_mp-ordination2006.htm
::: † :::
Етнийски архиепископ Хризостом
Коментари на архиепископ Хризостом върху ръкоположението на духовен син на архиеп. Марк (Арнд) в МП.
От: Archbishop Chrysostomos
До: Monastery
Дата: 2006-3-15 16:31
Тема: Re: link
[http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=30105&lng=0]
Прочетох това. Твърде тъжно. Какво да каже човек?
The tragic thing is that, from a theological or ecclesiological standpoint, it is a mockery of the ROCA. Orthodox theologians have for some time, and quite wrongly, adopted the Latin notion that Eucharistic communion and Grace are standards of external ecclesiastical communion. This is not, in fact, the basis of our Orthodox concept of unity in the Church. We are at all times unified in the Eucharist (in Christ), often with those from whom we are temporarily (and rightly) separated administratively and jurisdictionally and who may, despite the infractions that justify and indeed necessitate our separation from them, have, by God's Providence, Grace (and this for the sake of misled souls).
Трагичното е, че — от богословско или еклезиологично гледище — това е подигравка с РПЗЦ. Православни богослови за известно време и то съвсем погрешно са възприели латинското разбиране, че евхаристийното общение и благодатта са мерило за външното църковно общение. Това всъщност не е основата на нашето православно схващане за единство в Църквата. През всяко време ние сме обединени в Евхаристията (в Христа) често пъти с онези, от които временно (и справедливо) сме отделени административно и юрисдикционно, и които може — въпреки нарушенията, които оправдават и всъщност изискват нашето отделяне от тях — да имат по Божий промисъл благодат (и то заради заблудените души).
This is made abundantly clear in St. Basil the Great's canonical ruminations on Baptismal Grace among those who may have fallen to some heresy. He makes very careful and subtle distinctions between the various heretical groups, in fact, telling us where Grace may or may not be. (Ironically, it is an abuse of this subtlety that led Father Florovsky, in an article written early in his career and which he constantly said that he regretted, to speculate about St. Augustine's notion of Grace beyond certain established boundaries. One can understand this speculation, of course, in a way that the ecumenists do not. Father Georges came to understand the proper boundaries of the Church, as he saw the ecumenical veer in directions that disappointed and then shocked him.)
Това е изяснено в изобилна мяра в каноническите размишления на св. Василий Велики върху кръщенската благодат у ония, които може да са изпаднали в дадена ерес. Той прави твърде внимателни и тънки разграничения между различните еретически общности, като всъщност ни казва къде може и къде не може да има благодат. (По ирония някаква, тъкмо неразбирането на тази тънкост довежда отец Флоровски, в статия, написана в ранното му развитие, за която той винаги съжаляваше, да размишлява върху схващанията на св. Августин за благодатта отвъд известни установени граници. Човек може да разбере тези размишления, естествено, по начин, по какъвто не ги разбират икуменистите. Отец Георги стигна до разбирането на същинските граници на Църквата, като наблюдаваше [постепенната] промяна в икуменическия курс в направления, които го разочароваха и по-късно го потресоха.)
The point is that we are measured by the purity of our confession of Faith, as Bishop Photii in Bulgaria once so eloquently pointed out in addressing an assembly of our clergy, not by the question of who has or does not have Grace or by the incidental issue of whether we maintain external communion with this or that group. It is, in fact, in jurisdictional terms that we express the purity of our witness, walling ourselves off from error or spiritual ailments, in order to preserve our confessional purity. It is here that Metropolitan Cyorian so perfectly and so correctly planted the roots of our resistance. The question of Grace or external Eucharistic communion transcends this responsibility of ours. If we are cured of ontological disease by the Mysteries, it is by the purity of our confessional witness that we are protected from heresy and spiritual malaise and vouchsafed the salvific action of the Mysteries. This lesson from Church history and the Fathers is lost on the superficial thing that passes itself off as "theology" today: an exercise in folly at the expense of the spirit.
Смисълът е, че ние се измерваме чрез чистотата на нашето изповядване на Вярата — както веднъж в България тъй красноречиво посочи епископ Фотий в обръщение на конферецния на нашите свещенослужители, — а не от въпроса кой има и кой няма благодат или от страничния въпрос дали поддържаме външно общение с тази или с онази група. Всъщност, именно по силата на юрисдикционното [си положение] ние изразяваме чистотата на нашето свидетелство, ограждайки се (като със стена) от заблудата или духовното заболяване, с цел да запазим чистотата на нашата вероизповед. Това именно, тъй съвършено и толкова правилно, е вложил в корените на нашето противостоене митрополит Киприан. Въпросът за благодатта или външното евхаристийно общение надвишава тази наша отговорност. Ако ние се лекуваме от онтологичната болест чрез Тайнствата, то именно чрез чистотата на нашето вероизповедно свидетелство ние се предпазваме от ереста и духовното заболяване и сме удостоени със спасителното действие на Тайнствата. Този урок от историята на Църквата и от светите отци се губи при повърхностия предмет, който днес се преподава като "богословие": упражнение по глупост за сметка на духовното.
Thus, since Ordination is, as the pronouncements of the Oecumenical Synods so clearly attest, a matter of jurisdiction and administrative integrity, this act is a clear mockery of the ROCA. It is a binding statement that the ROCA is subject to the MP and that the MP is its standard of Faith and confession. Thus, should it surprise us that the ROCA website now sponsors the ecumenical confession of the MP's Bishop Hilarion? Not in the least. It must now line up with its "master," little knowing that it has relinquished its integrity. Who could do anything but lament?
Ето защо, понеже — както съвсем ясно удостоверяват решенията на Вселенските събори — ръкоположението е въпрос на юрисдикционна и административна целокупност, това действие е очевидна гавра с РПЗЦ. Обвързващо е твърдението, че РПЗЦ е подчинена на МП и че МП е нейното мерило за вероизповед. Тъй че, бива ли да ни изненадва това, че [официалната] интернет-страница на РПЗЦ сега поръчителствува за икуменическата вероизповед на епископа на МП Иларион? Ни най-малко. Сега тя трябва да застане наедно със своя "господар", знаейки малко за това, че е изоставила своята целокупност. Може ли да се направи друго, освен човек да жалее?
The tragedy in all of this is that you and I are probably much more universalist in our views and far more tolerant of other religions, in terms of genuine Christian love for all men, than those who would prefer to see the Church as an ethnic priority. The worst aspect of ecumenism is, indeed, its intolerance of those of us who have embraced the criterion of Truth and wish to preserve it. God preserve us. I wonder: who, in the Church today will have the stamina to hold forth?
Трагичното във всичко това е, че ти и аз сме може би много повече универсалисти във възгледите си и далеч по-толерантни към другите религии по силата на истинската християнска любов към всички човеци, отколкото онези, които предпочитат да виждат Църквата като етнически приоритет. Най-лошата страна на икуменизма е всъщност неговата нетолерантност към нас, които държим мерилото на Истината и желаем да го запазим. Бог да ни пази! Чудя се, кой днес в Църквата ще има издържливостта да говори на всеослушание?
Least Among Monks, + AC
Най-малкият сред монасите, архиеп. Хр.
© Домашен отдел на библиотеката. Не подлежи на обнародване.
© Закрытая часть библиотеки "Слово". Не подлежит публикации.
© Private Sector. Not for copying or reproducing.
Letter from Fr. Gregory
This is a letter from Fr. Gregory to Joanna responding to her concerns-of-the-day regarding Cyprianism, Old Believers, and confusing metaphors (example: MP is "mother"). Irrelavant portions of Fr. Gregory's response are omitted.
From: "Fr. Gregory Williams"
Subject: Re: your concerns
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:47:04 -0500
To: "Joanna Higginbotham"
Blessings in the Risen Christ!
...
... First -- the Church has always had some ambiguity in its dealings with "ailing" members, even outright heretical ones. Even after the departure of Rome into heresy, there were periods of time when there was de facto communion between Rome and some part of the Orthodox Church (I'm a rotten historian, but "you could look it up"). Same thing with the other major heresies -- until a final conciliar declaration put an end to the ambiguity.
While I would hesitate to use the word, "heresy" might more aptly be applied to the notion (as seen by humans; God is a different matter!) that someone, or some hierarchy, is either "in" or "out". That kind of thinking characterizes both Matthewites and Old Believers -- and goes hand in glove (or finger in hand) with notions such as that one is either saved or damned by how many fingers are put where when making the sign of the Cross.
To play with the "cut-off branch" metaphor (even though you distrust metaphors) a bit: certainly, a cut-off branch may show signs of life for a long time. (Undoubtedly I sometimes preached about the big old walnut up by the house I had to cut down decades ago. It put up leafy branches for quite a number of years before finally giving up, even though it was completely hollow.) Perhaps more important (given the right conditions and the right kind of tree), such a cut-off branch may very well take root and spring up anew. Is that what happens when there is a wholesale (or retail) return of heretics to the Church?
I don't much like the "mother" metaphor either but, be that as it may, if my mother is a whore and a drunkard (thankfully, neither) and a heretic as well (she is), she is still my mother; no point in denying it. The real issue is whether and to what extent the present-day MP is a continuation of our undisputed mother, the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Church of Russia (which had plenty of its own problems; no point in denying it). I would not anticipate much likelihood of successfully banning the terminology -- for Russians. No matter how ecclesiologically clear-headed they may be (and I'm convinced Vl. Agafangel is), there is still a very powerful emotional component, which has relatively little impact on folks like us.
...
ROCiE is, and I think has always been, a dead letter. It was spawned more of ambition than any kind of principle, though of course it swept a number of well-intentioned folk along. I'm afraid the same thing has to be said of ROAC (the "Valentinians" if I've got my acronyms straight), with the added complication there is altogether too much evidence of tolerance for sexual deviants. Of Abp. Tikhon and his followers I'm much less clear, though it seems obvious that at best this was a schism in anticipation of something which might happen, rather than a measured response to present reality.
I'm afraid I must object to the notion that there's such a thing as "Cyprianism" at all. FWIW, I was from the very beginning (1980, long before there was any meaningful contact with Fili) taught that our position was that (1) the "modernist" jurisdictions were at best badly infected parts of the Body, and that (2) we should therefore refrain from sacramental contact with them, and that (3) we were not competent at this point to make any final judgement as to whether they were or were not legitimately part of the Church. To the best of my knowledge, this is about as close as you can get to what the SIR seems to be saying; and so declared our bishops upon entering into communion with them.
...
It's in God's hands.
In Christ Jesus,
Fr. Gregory Williams
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Saint John of Kronstadt Press
The Haitian Orthodox Mission
The Orthodox Church of the Annunciation/Agape Community
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
1180 Orthodox Way
Liberty, TN 37095-4366 USA
Catalog of books & recordings: www.sjkp.org
Information on the Haitian Mission: www.haitianorthodoxmission.org
Information on Church of the Annunciation: www.annunciation.us
Phone: (615) 536-5239
FAX: (615) 536-5945
E-mail: frgregory@sjkp.org
From: "Fr. Gregory Williams"
Subject: Re: your concerns
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:47:04 -0500
To: "Joanna Higginbotham"
Blessings in the Risen Christ!
...
... First -- the Church has always had some ambiguity in its dealings with "ailing" members, even outright heretical ones. Even after the departure of Rome into heresy, there were periods of time when there was de facto communion between Rome and some part of the Orthodox Church (I'm a rotten historian, but "you could look it up"). Same thing with the other major heresies -- until a final conciliar declaration put an end to the ambiguity.
While I would hesitate to use the word, "heresy" might more aptly be applied to the notion (as seen by humans; God is a different matter!) that someone, or some hierarchy, is either "in" or "out". That kind of thinking characterizes both Matthewites and Old Believers -- and goes hand in glove (or finger in hand) with notions such as that one is either saved or damned by how many fingers are put where when making the sign of the Cross.
To play with the "cut-off branch" metaphor (even though you distrust metaphors) a bit: certainly, a cut-off branch may show signs of life for a long time. (Undoubtedly I sometimes preached about the big old walnut up by the house I had to cut down decades ago. It put up leafy branches for quite a number of years before finally giving up, even though it was completely hollow.) Perhaps more important (given the right conditions and the right kind of tree), such a cut-off branch may very well take root and spring up anew. Is that what happens when there is a wholesale (or retail) return of heretics to the Church?
I don't much like the "mother" metaphor either but, be that as it may, if my mother is a whore and a drunkard (thankfully, neither) and a heretic as well (she is), she is still my mother; no point in denying it. The real issue is whether and to what extent the present-day MP is a continuation of our undisputed mother, the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Church of Russia (which had plenty of its own problems; no point in denying it). I would not anticipate much likelihood of successfully banning the terminology -- for Russians. No matter how ecclesiologically clear-headed they may be (and I'm convinced Vl. Agafangel is), there is still a very powerful emotional component, which has relatively little impact on folks like us.
...
ROCiE is, and I think has always been, a dead letter. It was spawned more of ambition than any kind of principle, though of course it swept a number of well-intentioned folk along. I'm afraid the same thing has to be said of ROAC (the "Valentinians" if I've got my acronyms straight), with the added complication there is altogether too much evidence of tolerance for sexual deviants. Of Abp. Tikhon and his followers I'm much less clear, though it seems obvious that at best this was a schism in anticipation of something which might happen, rather than a measured response to present reality.
I'm afraid I must object to the notion that there's such a thing as "Cyprianism" at all. FWIW, I was from the very beginning (1980, long before there was any meaningful contact with Fili) taught that our position was that (1) the "modernist" jurisdictions were at best badly infected parts of the Body, and that (2) we should therefore refrain from sacramental contact with them, and that (3) we were not competent at this point to make any final judgement as to whether they were or were not legitimately part of the Church. To the best of my knowledge, this is about as close as you can get to what the SIR seems to be saying; and so declared our bishops upon entering into communion with them.
...
It's in God's hands.
In Christ Jesus,
Fr. Gregory Williams
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Saint John of Kronstadt Press
The Haitian Orthodox Mission
The Orthodox Church of the Annunciation/Agape Community
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
1180 Orthodox Way
Liberty, TN 37095-4366 USA
Catalog of books & recordings: www.sjkp.org
Information on the Haitian Mission: www.haitianorthodoxmission.org
Information on Church of the Annunciation: www.annunciation.us
Phone: (615) 536-5239
FAX: (615) 536-5945
E-mail: frgregory@sjkp.org
Catacomb Church on MP's Grace
Orthodox America
June 1990
Issue #100
Out From the Catacombs
I have to admit that in going to meet Bishop Lazarus I went with certain prejudices. I thought that a person from the underground was sure to be embittered, that he would consider that he alone was honest, that he alone was right, l thought he would be proud of his correctness and purity, and that he would consider the rest of us to have gone astray, perhaps even to be lost. But I must say, I was very favorably impressed by Bishop Lazarus. This is truly a hierarch by the mercy of God. -- Priest Georgi Edelstein
This spring, Bishop Lazarus, a member of Russia's Catacomb Church now guiding the free Russian parishes under the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad, granted the following interview to Archprlest Victor Potapov.
Fr. Victor: Vladika Lazarus, I am so very happy to be able to talk with you. You are unusual in that you are a bishop but you do not represent the official Church. You are a catacomb bishop, but here in the West you serve openly and, by virtue of the fact that we are talking here on the airwaves of "Voice of America', you are now making yourself known to the entire Soviet Union.
I should like to begin our discussion by asking you to tell us briefly about yourself and the path which led you to the Catacomb Church and to the episcopate.
Bishop Lazarus: I grew up practically an orphan. My mother died in 1933, of hunger, in the district of Belgorod, while my father went away to Kuban where he found work as a carpenter. At least he received what was left after sunflowers are pressed for oil, and this is what he ate. After mother died my sister took me to Voronezh, then I was sent to my father.
During the war some churches were opened in Kuban. We lived near the town of Kropotkin, which - used to be a farm belonging to the Romanovsky family. Someone came to the market and announced that a church had been opened in town. It was a metochion belonging to the Abalsk-Caucasus Missionary Monastery. The following Sunday I went to church. There were a lot of people; even the church yard was full. I had never been in a church and felt rather awkward at first. The saints looking down at me from the walls scared me. But I soon got over this initial reaction and stood through the service. I watched how people crossed themselves and began to make the sign of the cross myself. The next Sunday I went again and squeezed my way through the crowd. The old women pushed me to the front. I gradually became bolder, began to pray better. And from that time I was always drawn to church. At home, of course, there was a lot of work; we had a large household. When a church opened in the capital, I started going there to services, on Sundays, feastdays. 1 came to the attention of the churchgoers and was invited to help out. I was constantly in the altar, helping the priest.
There was a wonderful batiushka, Archpriest Konstantin Vysotsky, from Yaroslavl, Metropolitan Agafangel's diocese. He greatly revered St. John of Kronstadt, who cured him in his student years (he studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) of a passion for gambling; he served panikhidas for him, spoke a lot about him, with tears.. He was a great preacher and attracted many people, Old Believers, Baptists came to listen. On Sunday evenings after vespers he always held discussions. As an acolyte, I accompanied him when he made house calls to serve molebens, panikhidas.., and then other priests. The priests, of course, were frequently transferred.
In 1944 our church was closed; it was turned into a club for young people. At first no one showed up, but then they were pressed to come, and since the youth had nowhere to go, they began coming.
In 1945 I met some catacomb monks who told me about renovationism [1], about Sergianism, [2] about all these various church currents in Russia. After the war years when I had to leave home where I was no longer needed, some kind people took me in and introduced me to many catacomb believers. I became acquainted with Fr. Samuel, a well-known wandering elder of the Catacomb Church, then with Hiero-schemamonk Elder Theodosius from Mt. Athos, who died in 1948. This was a rare elder: he received everyone--the Tikhonites, as we were so-called then, and from the official church; he made no distinctions and received everyone with love. His manners reminded one of St. Seraphim: affectionate, kind; it was as if a light emanated from him; it drew people, they became glued to him, as it were, and didn't want to leave him. Even today there are people who remember him. For three years I was in contact with him. I was 16 years old at the time. I came with some believers, and he said to me, "Why don't I make you some wings?" which was his way of suggesting he make me a monk. I agreed and was tonsured. After Fr. Theodosius died, some believers recommended that I meet a secret bishop who lived in the Caucasus. I spent two years under his guidance, fulfilling various obediences.
In 1950 I was arrested. At that time I was in the area of Rostov and wrote a letter asking to see this bishop, not knowing that he had already been arrested. I was sent a telegram and went immediately to Boloshdv, in the Saratov district, and there on the street, at one o'clock at night, I was arrested. They had been waiting for me. I, of course, suspected nothing. They arrested me, brought me to the Party headquarters, and began interrogating me. I denied everything, afraid of betrayal. For three days they tortured me. I still did not admit to knowing him, but they showed me the telegram and my letter. I replied that I was simply going to see a woman who had invited me, and spoke as though I were going to Moscow to Patriarch Alexis [3] in order to be assigned somewhere. I was scared, naturally, and lost my head. I was 19 at the time. They wanted to make a separate case of it there in Rostov, but since I was adamant they decided to take me to Saratov for
a face to face meeting with the bishop. They brought me into a large room. Sitting there were ten Chekists. I was scared; they all looked at me. With his back to me sat an old man. When they led me to him and ordered him to stand, I saw it was [my bishop], although I hardly recognized him: his beard was shaved, and he was blue, emaciated, with sunken eyes, but they were affectionate, kind. He told me that we were all here; there was no need to resist: "We are all on the cross, and it will get worse; they will torture us." He blessed me to ascend the cross, and we parted.
They arrested 150 of us in all, including two hieromonks, in various cities and villages around the country. After the six months it took to decide our case we were sent to prison camp. They couldn t pin anything on us: there were no witnesses, no evidence; we were arrested simply because we were believers of the True Orthodox Church (TOC), who didn't agree with [Metropolitan Sergius'] Declaration; after 1927 our hierarchs and clergy were obliged to go underground. Renovationists were making a strong case for themselves; then came the Declaration, in Ukraine you had self-made clergy. all around the Church was being tormented. Since they took the churches away from our bishops and priests we were forced to go underground. Furthermore, we saw that Stalin was behind Patriarch Alexis' election; the Sobor which elected him was not free; it was under strong pressure of the NKVD. Therefore our priests did not recognize him and continued their [underground] existence. And for merely not recognizing Patriarch Alexis, priests were given 25 years' imprisonment and laymen were given 10 years. So it was with us. Our bishop was sentenced to be executed, but it was commuted to 25 years since people were no longer being executed for violation of that particular statute, 58-11 of the criminal code. They charged us with "group agitation and propaganda". In fact, we conducted no propaganda whatsoever: we gathered secretly when a priest or hierarch came, fulfilled our religious needs, the Mysteries, had discussions when we could, and dispersed. We didn't print any leaflets, we didn't write any books, we didn't preach on the streets against the authorities. But they were set against us, accusing us of being monarchists, members of the True Orthodox Church, that we didn't recognize the Soviet regime... They sought for us everywhere. Not just us personally, our group; there are catacomb believers all over the country; there's not a single city in which, to this day, there aren't at least a few people belonging to the Catacomb Church. Most are concentrated in the central republics.
1950. The Church was in ruins; things were confiscated, even houses were confiscated, books were taken, vestments, mantias. I myself saw crosses bent down. They cursed, blasphemed; they called us antichrists. Whenever we went in to the examiner they always gave the order, "Stand up, antichrist!"
Fr. Victor: During this wave of arrests, did any bishops avoid arrest? Were they all arrested?
Bishop Lazarus: Our bishop was arrested, of course But some bishops remained: Bishop Peter Ladigin who was consecrated by [New Martyr] Archbishop Andrew of Ufa when he was already in exile; he was recognized by Metropolitan Agathangel and Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa...
Fr. Victor: In this period of the '50s, was the Moscow Patriarchate used against you by the Soviet authorities?
Bishop Lazarus: The catacomb believers feared the Moscow Patriarchate priests even more than the police. Whenever a priest came for some reason or other, he was met by a feeling of dread. The catacomb people would say, "A red detective has come." He was sent deliberately, and he was obliged to report everything to the authorities. Not infrequently, hierarchs and priests told the people outright, directly from the ambo, "Look around, Orthodox people. There are those who do not come to church. Find out who they are and report to us; these are enemies of the Soviet regime who stand in the way of the building of socialism." We were very much afraid of these Sergianist-oriented priests.
When, in 1961, the priests' rights were taken away from them and given to the church council, they quieted down and it was easier for us; at least we could, get to our priests and priests began more freely to come to us, to confess and commune us. From 1961 the Moscow Patriarchate calmed down in its attitude towards us. Of course, when foreigners asked representatives of the M.P., "Does a catacomb church exist?" the answer was always "No". That was a lie. There were catacomb believers all over Russia, just as there are today. Today, however, there is a great disorder caused by the fact that when a bishop died they would send us various impostors who passed themselves off as bishops. We were obliged, of course, to investigate them; we'd discover they were false, planted in our midst, or simply impostors. Naturally, when people learned they had been deceived, they splintered into small groups. This caused great confusion in our midst. This was all caused, as we understood it, by the official Church or its secret collaborators. Even today there are various rumors circulating concerning the Church Abroad, and against me personally.
Fr. Victor.. Vladika, earlier you said that representatives of the Catacomb Church did not accept Patriarch Alexis' election as lawful: they considered him to have been placed in that position by Stalin. I should like to know the reasons you did not enter the Moscow Patriarchate.
Bishop Lazarus: We did not recognize Metropolitan Scrgius' Declaration because to do so one had to betray Orthodoxy. How? It would mean becoming a builder of socialism, renouncing... not the dogmas of Orthodoxy, but gradually stepping away from Orthodoxy, from the faith. This was the idea behind it. Perhaps Sergius himself didn't do this; he was told to by enemies of the Church; they wrote the Declaration in such a way as to paralyze church activity. We wanted no part of such evil. This was betrayal, and we didn't join this Judas business.
Fr. Victor, In what way, concretely, do you see this as a betrayal?
Bishop Lazarus: You see, church leaders are not doing church work; they are merely fulfilling rituals. In their sermons they may say a few words on the meaning of the Feast--and then they turn to socialism and world peace. Furthermore, they have to denounce their sheep to the government deputy, i.e., to the KGB. In the Moscow Patriarchate there was no other way. If, let's say, a priest showed resistance, they either transferred him to such a remote place that he could die of hunger, or they kicked him out and he was forced to take up an illegal existence.
We considered it an act of Judas to become tied up with the Soviet regime, a regime that was theomachist, traitorous, blasphemous. It directed all its strength to destroy religion, especially Orthodoxy. In order not to participate in this, in order to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy, we went into the catacombs. We did not leave the Church, we did not leave Orthodoxy, we preserved everything, but we left the organization which had been organized by the Soviet regime with the help of Metropolitan Sergius and his dubious synod, people who weren't very reliable as far as the good of the Church was concerned--renovationists, priestless people... While the better hierarchs, locum tenens, were arrested, harassed; the better bishops, clergy were arrested; they were sought out everywhere, wherever they remained: clergy, monastics..· We considered the Moscow Patriarchate organization to be the KGB, just in a different guise.
Fr. Victor, Vladika, what were the conditions of your imprisonment? You were in the camps for five years for your faith. How did they treat you there?
Bishop Lazarus: When 1 was arrested, I was held six months for interrogation: day or night, the entire six months they interrogated me, harassed me. Twice I fell unconscious from hunger and exhaustion.
When I was transferred to a regime prison, I was thrown in with thieves, recidivists, frightful people. From these I heard the worst imaginable language, immoral. Prison fare, of course, is well known. We were taken out for 15 minutes for a walk, we weren't allowed to stop, hands had to be held behind the back. The slightest infraction was punished with three days in solitary. I was given seven and a half. I was held in a basement cell where people were shot; there was water, it was damp. I was supposed to be there for five days. But they kept me and kept me. Finally I knocked for the warden: if they had added more time I should have been told. He went and found out. When I was let out from this cell I fell unconscious, overcome by the warm prison air.
In prison I didn't meet a single believer. I prayed fervently that at least some Tatar would be put in with me. I felt they were piercing me with swords, morally defiling me, but I didn't give in. I prayed inwardly. I tried to protect myself from hearing their filthy conversations by stuffing cotton into my ears, but they noticed and pulled it out.
In the camp, of course, I met many believers, priests--worthy priests: Archpriest Paul Kovalevsky from Odessa, Hierodeacon Polycarp from Moldavia--a good singer, very humble; a radiant man. I met Hieromonk Cosma Trnsov who belonged to our "case". And there were other believers. In the last, the so-called "death camp," there were 25,000 prisoners. It was located in the village of Spas, in the district of Karagandinsk. There I met Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutski, a priest from Moscow, who had already been imprisoned: the first time because he would not join the renovationists, the second because he didn't accept Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration, and the third time because he didn't recognize Patriarch Alexis. One might ask what this has to do with the Soviet authorities. Why was it that at the trials the examining magistrates always spoke of Patriarch Alexis in such reverential tones; this was very obvious. They took just the opposite tone if Patriarch Tikhon's name was mentioned; they'd even spit on the floor. And now the Moscow Patriarchate has even glorified him. This amazes us; it almost seems ludicrous.
Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutski was arrested on Pascha night, 1948. A group had gathered; they were all surrounded and each given ten years for not recognizing Patriarch Alexis. Fr. Vladimir was a well-educated priest, ordained by Patriarch Tikhon, a very worthy priest-elder—in looks, in intelligence and by his life; a radiant batiushka. There are still some people from his community left in Moscow, but for the most part we were scattered and lost contact over the years. In 1956 he wanted to come to the northern Caucasus; he sent some books, but then we received news from his close relatives that Fr. Vladimir had died. We were so sorry, so very sorry.
There was Fr. Sergius Tikhrov from Tambov a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy. He had also been imprisoned twice. An amazing priest, pastor. After his release in 1955 he went underground. I had no permanent residence and moved about from place to place; it was risky to keep addresses and I would lose track of people. Fr, Sergius died in 1977, in Tambov; he was an extraordinary pastor-confessor.
Then there was Alexander Andrcevich Chefnov, a highly educated man, who also belonged to our group. A secret theological school was established where believers attended theological lectures; there were spirited discussions. Alexander would tell us about the diaspora. It was from him I first heard about Metropolitans Anthony [Khrapovitsky] and Anastassy, and later from others. Many prisoners there came from western Ukraine, from Volhynia, worthy priests; they likewise told us about blessed Metropolitan Anthony whom they recalled with great warmth.
Fr. Victor: Vladika, on one hand you do not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate; you did not become a member of the M.P., but, as I understand, you do not deny the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Your branch of the Catacomb Church does not rebaptize, it does not re-ordain priests.
Bishop Lazarus: This is not my Personal opinion; it is the position of those well-educated priests with whom [ associated. Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutsky belonged to a group led by Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, a moderate. Fr. Sergius Tigrov was of like mind. They recognized the Mysteries [of the Moscow Patriarchate] because dogmatically there were no violations concerning the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, and the Mysteries were performed according to the rules of the office. True, they do not immerse, but after all, there were Periods in the Church's history-in the time of Hieromartyr Cyprian, for example----when the Church recognized baptism by sprinkling by virtue of necessity. Not because this was the only way: it should be performed by immersion, and we immerse. But this is not always possible. When I was moving about the country, sometimes there was no water, sometimes there was no suitable vessel, and yet I had to perform the baptism; it couldn't be postponed. And so we would simply pour water over the head, in the name of the Holy Trinity. And we accept the Mystery of Chrismation as a lawful baptism.
We likewise do not deny their ordinations. Re-ordinations were performed only for renovationists, following the instructions of Patriarch Tikhon. And there were exceptions even here. If a renovationist bishop renounced his monastic vows, or if the bishop were married, the ordinations he performed were not considered canonical. But if he were an old bishop, that is, if the bishop performing the ordination were a monk who hadn't renounced his vows, in that case Patriarch Tikhon accepted the ordination.
The Arians weren't all rebaptized, the monophysites weren't rebaptized; all that was required was that they renounce their heresy. The iconoclasts weren't rebaptized... One can find many examples. Roman Catholics were and were not rebaptized, depending on the times and the local Church. Even in Russia there was no consistent policy with regard to receiving Roman Catholics: some patriarchs in the 17th century rebaptized, others did not. And masmuch as a final judgment on the Moscow Patriarchate has not been made, we consider that the grace of God has not left the people. After all, there are many pious people [within the Moscow Patriarchate], many good priests grieving, tormented. Not everyone knows of the Catacomb Church, and not everyone can emigrate; they are, after all, in bonds, in prison. For this reason, with respect to those living in the Soviet Union there are no such strict demands. Those in freedom, however, are of course to be faulted for belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate; with regard to them it's an entirely different matter. But for those in bends there is a certain condescension. After all, not everyone is to blame; a long time has passed.
Fr. Victor:. Vladika, how would you assess the present state of the Moscow Patriarchate?
Bishop Lazarus: We, of course, have little to do with the Moscow Patriarchate. In general, we have nothing to do with any of the bishops or priests of the Patriarchate. And we certainly don't concelebrate---not with a single bishop, not with a single priest of the Moscow Patriarchate. If it happens that we meet by chance, somewhere in an apartment, we might talk and we might see that here is a good priest, that he sympathizes with us and the Russian Church Abroad, and if, God grant, he should come to us, well and good; we'll accept him with love, of course. But we've heard from priests themselves, from the people, that the Moscow Patriarchate itself is altogether corrupt: it is immoral, it has lost faith in God, it simply serves the authorities who want to use it to build socialism. Communists don't believe in God, but they want their children to be taught the Law of God. They've made a mess of the country, they've paralyzed the Church, and now they want to inspire their children with something. What is this?! Without repentance, without turning to God, to Christ, nothing will come of it; it's all empty.
Today the Patriarchate conducts magnificent services, especially in Moscow where there are churches, singing, many people attend. And why shouldn't the churches be full? It's a city of ten million people, and people come to Moscow from all over the country. But there are few in the Moscow Patriarchate who are discerning, who really know the Church. Cultured people are trying to understand what religion is all about, but it's not the kind of knowledge that is easily acquired; it is given only to those who have a pious heart, who are trying to be with Christ, with Orthodoxy, with the truth.
All these years the Moscow Patriarchate has been denied the fight to preach, to conduct pastoral work; it has simply fulfilled rituals. Among its ranks are those who were planted there. There are, we know, komsomol organizations in the seminaries. Graduates are ordained and it turns out that they are unbelievers. Believers who have entered the seminaries have discovered that they are expected to report on classmates, and it becomes obvious who is a believer and who is an unbeliever. Then there are those who simply have no place to go, they can't find a place in the secular world and they enter seminary to have a career; they don't care about the Faith, about the people...
Fr. Victor: Vladika, people have been asking: from whom did you receive your episcopacy?
Bishop Lazarus: Our last bishop in Moscow was Sergius, the former rector of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Milevsky. He lived secretly in an apartment not far from the Kremlin. After his death we experienced considerable confusion: we were tossed to and fro, we were infiltrated by vagante bishops. It was all very sad. We priests all searched for a bishop who had survived prison, exile, but we didn't find a one. We knew something about the Church Abroad, that she had lost neither canonicity nor the fullness of Orthodoxy. And in 1981, at the Sobor preceding the canonization of the New Martyrs, the Church Abroad decided to consecrate a bishop. At that time I was already corresponding with Archbishop Leonty of Chile. I was introduced to him by Archimandrite Eugene Zhukov who lived on Mount Athos, in the kellion of Archangel Michael· and through Vladika Leonty we made contact with the Church Abroad. We began asking that they send us a bishop and consecrate someone. I suggested two candidates: Fr. Michael Rozhdestvensky, living in Petersburg, and Fr. Nikita Kharkov, but when the hierarch arrived neither of them showed up. I had no thoughts of becoming a bishop myself, I didn't even imagine such a thing; I was scared, but I had to take up this cross. This was in Moscow, in 1982. Of course, I endured a lot of slander; all kinds of rumors spread--that I had been consecrated by Patriarch Pimen, that Patriarch Pimen came here to America and called me here... All sorts of foolishness, dreadful... I cannot name the bishop, but he belongs to the Russian Church Abroad.
Fr. Victor:. Vladika, many believers and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate have become very interested in the Church Abroad. There is a call now to open parishes of the Church Abroad [there in Russia]. But this has raised a question in people's minds. According to the canons of the Orthodox Church it is forbidden to have more than one bishop in a city. How can the Church Abroad open parishes in Russia without violating these canons?
Bishop Lazarus: In the Thirty Apostolic Canons we read:" If a bishop or presbyter uses worldly leaders, through them receives his episcopal authority, let him be cast out and excommunicated, and all those associated with him." Inasmuch as we consider the Moscow Patriarchate hierarchy to be unlawful-although it was passed down along the apostolic chain, it is still unlawful because all the bishops are filtered by the KGB, by the Kremlin--these bishops are unlawful, uncanonical. Therefore one can have a canonical bishop in the same city with an uncanonical bishop. Just as in the time of Arianism and all subsequent heresies----rnonophysitism, iconoclasm,--next to the catholic church was an iconoclast bishop. We consider the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius to be a new form of idol worship, a burning of incense before the devil, the worship of form, of a system of false freedom....One can say this is worse than heresy.
Fr. Victor: Against this background, how do you plan to act on your return to the Soviet Union?
Bishop Lazarus: If we find the means, suitable people, church people who with all their heart and soul will serve God and the Holy Orthodox Church, who won't lead us astray, who won't dissolve us, who will help us acquire a church building, we shall exist of course. And if the authorities don't interfere in the internal affairs of the Church we shall exist openly. Before leaving I met with the priests; some of them have agreed to come into the open, while others prefer to hold back for a time. What if something should happen, what if we are arrested, isolated, and our community is left without any pastors? This can happen. The Moscow Patriarchate can even cooperate in this.
Fr. Victor:. Now that you will be serving openly, Vladika, do you anticipate more trouble from the [State] authorities or from the Moscow Patriarchate? How will the Moscow Patriarchate react to your coming into the open?
Bishop Lazarus: Here we cannot say. There experience will tell. Whether the authorities will pressure us, or whether the Moscow Patriachate will try to destroy us by means of various provocations--we don't know. Of course, the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. And the Lord said, Fear not, little flock, Take up your cross... We have renounced everything; we don't need anything pertaining to this World; we have given ourselves over entirely to Christ and desire to serve Him, as best we know how.
[1] A state-supported movement in the '20s to 'modernize' the Orthodox Church in the direction of Protestantism
[2] The doctrine of loyalty to the Soviet state, proclaimed in the 1927 Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, which effectively crippled the Church in Russia and limited its activity to a formal performance of rites.
[3] Patriarch from 1945-70.
[OA/_private/oabot.htm]
June 1990
Issue #100
Out From the Catacombs
I have to admit that in going to meet Bishop Lazarus I went with certain prejudices. I thought that a person from the underground was sure to be embittered, that he would consider that he alone was honest, that he alone was right, l thought he would be proud of his correctness and purity, and that he would consider the rest of us to have gone astray, perhaps even to be lost. But I must say, I was very favorably impressed by Bishop Lazarus. This is truly a hierarch by the mercy of God. -- Priest Georgi Edelstein
This spring, Bishop Lazarus, a member of Russia's Catacomb Church now guiding the free Russian parishes under the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad, granted the following interview to Archprlest Victor Potapov.
Fr. Victor: Vladika Lazarus, I am so very happy to be able to talk with you. You are unusual in that you are a bishop but you do not represent the official Church. You are a catacomb bishop, but here in the West you serve openly and, by virtue of the fact that we are talking here on the airwaves of "Voice of America', you are now making yourself known to the entire Soviet Union.
I should like to begin our discussion by asking you to tell us briefly about yourself and the path which led you to the Catacomb Church and to the episcopate.
Bishop Lazarus: I grew up practically an orphan. My mother died in 1933, of hunger, in the district of Belgorod, while my father went away to Kuban where he found work as a carpenter. At least he received what was left after sunflowers are pressed for oil, and this is what he ate. After mother died my sister took me to Voronezh, then I was sent to my father.
During the war some churches were opened in Kuban. We lived near the town of Kropotkin, which - used to be a farm belonging to the Romanovsky family. Someone came to the market and announced that a church had been opened in town. It was a metochion belonging to the Abalsk-Caucasus Missionary Monastery. The following Sunday I went to church. There were a lot of people; even the church yard was full. I had never been in a church and felt rather awkward at first. The saints looking down at me from the walls scared me. But I soon got over this initial reaction and stood through the service. I watched how people crossed themselves and began to make the sign of the cross myself. The next Sunday I went again and squeezed my way through the crowd. The old women pushed me to the front. I gradually became bolder, began to pray better. And from that time I was always drawn to church. At home, of course, there was a lot of work; we had a large household. When a church opened in the capital, I started going there to services, on Sundays, feastdays. 1 came to the attention of the churchgoers and was invited to help out. I was constantly in the altar, helping the priest.
There was a wonderful batiushka, Archpriest Konstantin Vysotsky, from Yaroslavl, Metropolitan Agafangel's diocese. He greatly revered St. John of Kronstadt, who cured him in his student years (he studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) of a passion for gambling; he served panikhidas for him, spoke a lot about him, with tears.. He was a great preacher and attracted many people, Old Believers, Baptists came to listen. On Sunday evenings after vespers he always held discussions. As an acolyte, I accompanied him when he made house calls to serve molebens, panikhidas.., and then other priests. The priests, of course, were frequently transferred.
In 1944 our church was closed; it was turned into a club for young people. At first no one showed up, but then they were pressed to come, and since the youth had nowhere to go, they began coming.
In 1945 I met some catacomb monks who told me about renovationism [1], about Sergianism, [2] about all these various church currents in Russia. After the war years when I had to leave home where I was no longer needed, some kind people took me in and introduced me to many catacomb believers. I became acquainted with Fr. Samuel, a well-known wandering elder of the Catacomb Church, then with Hiero-schemamonk Elder Theodosius from Mt. Athos, who died in 1948. This was a rare elder: he received everyone--the Tikhonites, as we were so-called then, and from the official church; he made no distinctions and received everyone with love. His manners reminded one of St. Seraphim: affectionate, kind; it was as if a light emanated from him; it drew people, they became glued to him, as it were, and didn't want to leave him. Even today there are people who remember him. For three years I was in contact with him. I was 16 years old at the time. I came with some believers, and he said to me, "Why don't I make you some wings?" which was his way of suggesting he make me a monk. I agreed and was tonsured. After Fr. Theodosius died, some believers recommended that I meet a secret bishop who lived in the Caucasus. I spent two years under his guidance, fulfilling various obediences.
In 1950 I was arrested. At that time I was in the area of Rostov and wrote a letter asking to see this bishop, not knowing that he had already been arrested. I was sent a telegram and went immediately to Boloshdv, in the Saratov district, and there on the street, at one o'clock at night, I was arrested. They had been waiting for me. I, of course, suspected nothing. They arrested me, brought me to the Party headquarters, and began interrogating me. I denied everything, afraid of betrayal. For three days they tortured me. I still did not admit to knowing him, but they showed me the telegram and my letter. I replied that I was simply going to see a woman who had invited me, and spoke as though I were going to Moscow to Patriarch Alexis [3] in order to be assigned somewhere. I was scared, naturally, and lost my head. I was 19 at the time. They wanted to make a separate case of it there in Rostov, but since I was adamant they decided to take me to Saratov for
a face to face meeting with the bishop. They brought me into a large room. Sitting there were ten Chekists. I was scared; they all looked at me. With his back to me sat an old man. When they led me to him and ordered him to stand, I saw it was [my bishop], although I hardly recognized him: his beard was shaved, and he was blue, emaciated, with sunken eyes, but they were affectionate, kind. He told me that we were all here; there was no need to resist: "We are all on the cross, and it will get worse; they will torture us." He blessed me to ascend the cross, and we parted.
They arrested 150 of us in all, including two hieromonks, in various cities and villages around the country. After the six months it took to decide our case we were sent to prison camp. They couldn t pin anything on us: there were no witnesses, no evidence; we were arrested simply because we were believers of the True Orthodox Church (TOC), who didn't agree with [Metropolitan Sergius'] Declaration; after 1927 our hierarchs and clergy were obliged to go underground. Renovationists were making a strong case for themselves; then came the Declaration, in Ukraine you had self-made clergy. all around the Church was being tormented. Since they took the churches away from our bishops and priests we were forced to go underground. Furthermore, we saw that Stalin was behind Patriarch Alexis' election; the Sobor which elected him was not free; it was under strong pressure of the NKVD. Therefore our priests did not recognize him and continued their [underground] existence. And for merely not recognizing Patriarch Alexis, priests were given 25 years' imprisonment and laymen were given 10 years. So it was with us. Our bishop was sentenced to be executed, but it was commuted to 25 years since people were no longer being executed for violation of that particular statute, 58-11 of the criminal code. They charged us with "group agitation and propaganda". In fact, we conducted no propaganda whatsoever: we gathered secretly when a priest or hierarch came, fulfilled our religious needs, the Mysteries, had discussions when we could, and dispersed. We didn't print any leaflets, we didn't write any books, we didn't preach on the streets against the authorities. But they were set against us, accusing us of being monarchists, members of the True Orthodox Church, that we didn't recognize the Soviet regime... They sought for us everywhere. Not just us personally, our group; there are catacomb believers all over the country; there's not a single city in which, to this day, there aren't at least a few people belonging to the Catacomb Church. Most are concentrated in the central republics.
1950. The Church was in ruins; things were confiscated, even houses were confiscated, books were taken, vestments, mantias. I myself saw crosses bent down. They cursed, blasphemed; they called us antichrists. Whenever we went in to the examiner they always gave the order, "Stand up, antichrist!"
Fr. Victor: During this wave of arrests, did any bishops avoid arrest? Were they all arrested?
Bishop Lazarus: Our bishop was arrested, of course But some bishops remained: Bishop Peter Ladigin who was consecrated by [New Martyr] Archbishop Andrew of Ufa when he was already in exile; he was recognized by Metropolitan Agathangel and Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa...
Fr. Victor: In this period of the '50s, was the Moscow Patriarchate used against you by the Soviet authorities?
Bishop Lazarus: The catacomb believers feared the Moscow Patriarchate priests even more than the police. Whenever a priest came for some reason or other, he was met by a feeling of dread. The catacomb people would say, "A red detective has come." He was sent deliberately, and he was obliged to report everything to the authorities. Not infrequently, hierarchs and priests told the people outright, directly from the ambo, "Look around, Orthodox people. There are those who do not come to church. Find out who they are and report to us; these are enemies of the Soviet regime who stand in the way of the building of socialism." We were very much afraid of these Sergianist-oriented priests.
When, in 1961, the priests' rights were taken away from them and given to the church council, they quieted down and it was easier for us; at least we could, get to our priests and priests began more freely to come to us, to confess and commune us. From 1961 the Moscow Patriarchate calmed down in its attitude towards us. Of course, when foreigners asked representatives of the M.P., "Does a catacomb church exist?" the answer was always "No". That was a lie. There were catacomb believers all over Russia, just as there are today. Today, however, there is a great disorder caused by the fact that when a bishop died they would send us various impostors who passed themselves off as bishops. We were obliged, of course, to investigate them; we'd discover they were false, planted in our midst, or simply impostors. Naturally, when people learned they had been deceived, they splintered into small groups. This caused great confusion in our midst. This was all caused, as we understood it, by the official Church or its secret collaborators. Even today there are various rumors circulating concerning the Church Abroad, and against me personally.
Fr. Victor.. Vladika, earlier you said that representatives of the Catacomb Church did not accept Patriarch Alexis' election as lawful: they considered him to have been placed in that position by Stalin. I should like to know the reasons you did not enter the Moscow Patriarchate.
Bishop Lazarus: We did not recognize Metropolitan Scrgius' Declaration because to do so one had to betray Orthodoxy. How? It would mean becoming a builder of socialism, renouncing... not the dogmas of Orthodoxy, but gradually stepping away from Orthodoxy, from the faith. This was the idea behind it. Perhaps Sergius himself didn't do this; he was told to by enemies of the Church; they wrote the Declaration in such a way as to paralyze church activity. We wanted no part of such evil. This was betrayal, and we didn't join this Judas business.
Fr. Victor, In what way, concretely, do you see this as a betrayal?
Bishop Lazarus: You see, church leaders are not doing church work; they are merely fulfilling rituals. In their sermons they may say a few words on the meaning of the Feast--and then they turn to socialism and world peace. Furthermore, they have to denounce their sheep to the government deputy, i.e., to the KGB. In the Moscow Patriarchate there was no other way. If, let's say, a priest showed resistance, they either transferred him to such a remote place that he could die of hunger, or they kicked him out and he was forced to take up an illegal existence.
We considered it an act of Judas to become tied up with the Soviet regime, a regime that was theomachist, traitorous, blasphemous. It directed all its strength to destroy religion, especially Orthodoxy. In order not to participate in this, in order to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy, we went into the catacombs. We did not leave the Church, we did not leave Orthodoxy, we preserved everything, but we left the organization which had been organized by the Soviet regime with the help of Metropolitan Sergius and his dubious synod, people who weren't very reliable as far as the good of the Church was concerned--renovationists, priestless people... While the better hierarchs, locum tenens, were arrested, harassed; the better bishops, clergy were arrested; they were sought out everywhere, wherever they remained: clergy, monastics..· We considered the Moscow Patriarchate organization to be the KGB, just in a different guise.
Fr. Victor, Vladika, what were the conditions of your imprisonment? You were in the camps for five years for your faith. How did they treat you there?
Bishop Lazarus: When 1 was arrested, I was held six months for interrogation: day or night, the entire six months they interrogated me, harassed me. Twice I fell unconscious from hunger and exhaustion.
When I was transferred to a regime prison, I was thrown in with thieves, recidivists, frightful people. From these I heard the worst imaginable language, immoral. Prison fare, of course, is well known. We were taken out for 15 minutes for a walk, we weren't allowed to stop, hands had to be held behind the back. The slightest infraction was punished with three days in solitary. I was given seven and a half. I was held in a basement cell where people were shot; there was water, it was damp. I was supposed to be there for five days. But they kept me and kept me. Finally I knocked for the warden: if they had added more time I should have been told. He went and found out. When I was let out from this cell I fell unconscious, overcome by the warm prison air.
In prison I didn't meet a single believer. I prayed fervently that at least some Tatar would be put in with me. I felt they were piercing me with swords, morally defiling me, but I didn't give in. I prayed inwardly. I tried to protect myself from hearing their filthy conversations by stuffing cotton into my ears, but they noticed and pulled it out.
In the camp, of course, I met many believers, priests--worthy priests: Archpriest Paul Kovalevsky from Odessa, Hierodeacon Polycarp from Moldavia--a good singer, very humble; a radiant man. I met Hieromonk Cosma Trnsov who belonged to our "case". And there were other believers. In the last, the so-called "death camp," there were 25,000 prisoners. It was located in the village of Spas, in the district of Karagandinsk. There I met Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutski, a priest from Moscow, who had already been imprisoned: the first time because he would not join the renovationists, the second because he didn't accept Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration, and the third time because he didn't recognize Patriarch Alexis. One might ask what this has to do with the Soviet authorities. Why was it that at the trials the examining magistrates always spoke of Patriarch Alexis in such reverential tones; this was very obvious. They took just the opposite tone if Patriarch Tikhon's name was mentioned; they'd even spit on the floor. And now the Moscow Patriarchate has even glorified him. This amazes us; it almost seems ludicrous.
Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutski was arrested on Pascha night, 1948. A group had gathered; they were all surrounded and each given ten years for not recognizing Patriarch Alexis. Fr. Vladimir was a well-educated priest, ordained by Patriarch Tikhon, a very worthy priest-elder—in looks, in intelligence and by his life; a radiant batiushka. There are still some people from his community left in Moscow, but for the most part we were scattered and lost contact over the years. In 1956 he wanted to come to the northern Caucasus; he sent some books, but then we received news from his close relatives that Fr. Vladimir had died. We were so sorry, so very sorry.
There was Fr. Sergius Tikhrov from Tambov a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy. He had also been imprisoned twice. An amazing priest, pastor. After his release in 1955 he went underground. I had no permanent residence and moved about from place to place; it was risky to keep addresses and I would lose track of people. Fr, Sergius died in 1977, in Tambov; he was an extraordinary pastor-confessor.
Then there was Alexander Andrcevich Chefnov, a highly educated man, who also belonged to our group. A secret theological school was established where believers attended theological lectures; there were spirited discussions. Alexander would tell us about the diaspora. It was from him I first heard about Metropolitans Anthony [Khrapovitsky] and Anastassy, and later from others. Many prisoners there came from western Ukraine, from Volhynia, worthy priests; they likewise told us about blessed Metropolitan Anthony whom they recalled with great warmth.
Fr. Victor: Vladika, on one hand you do not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate; you did not become a member of the M.P., but, as I understand, you do not deny the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Your branch of the Catacomb Church does not rebaptize, it does not re-ordain priests.
Bishop Lazarus: This is not my Personal opinion; it is the position of those well-educated priests with whom [ associated. Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutsky belonged to a group led by Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, a moderate. Fr. Sergius Tigrov was of like mind. They recognized the Mysteries [of the Moscow Patriarchate] because dogmatically there were no violations concerning the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, and the Mysteries were performed according to the rules of the office. True, they do not immerse, but after all, there were Periods in the Church's history-in the time of Hieromartyr Cyprian, for example----when the Church recognized baptism by sprinkling by virtue of necessity. Not because this was the only way: it should be performed by immersion, and we immerse. But this is not always possible. When I was moving about the country, sometimes there was no water, sometimes there was no suitable vessel, and yet I had to perform the baptism; it couldn't be postponed. And so we would simply pour water over the head, in the name of the Holy Trinity. And we accept the Mystery of Chrismation as a lawful baptism.
We likewise do not deny their ordinations. Re-ordinations were performed only for renovationists, following the instructions of Patriarch Tikhon. And there were exceptions even here. If a renovationist bishop renounced his monastic vows, or if the bishop were married, the ordinations he performed were not considered canonical. But if he were an old bishop, that is, if the bishop performing the ordination were a monk who hadn't renounced his vows, in that case Patriarch Tikhon accepted the ordination.
The Arians weren't all rebaptized, the monophysites weren't rebaptized; all that was required was that they renounce their heresy. The iconoclasts weren't rebaptized... One can find many examples. Roman Catholics were and were not rebaptized, depending on the times and the local Church. Even in Russia there was no consistent policy with regard to receiving Roman Catholics: some patriarchs in the 17th century rebaptized, others did not. And masmuch as a final judgment on the Moscow Patriarchate has not been made, we consider that the grace of God has not left the people. After all, there are many pious people [within the Moscow Patriarchate], many good priests grieving, tormented. Not everyone knows of the Catacomb Church, and not everyone can emigrate; they are, after all, in bonds, in prison. For this reason, with respect to those living in the Soviet Union there are no such strict demands. Those in freedom, however, are of course to be faulted for belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate; with regard to them it's an entirely different matter. But for those in bends there is a certain condescension. After all, not everyone is to blame; a long time has passed.
Fr. Victor:. Vladika, how would you assess the present state of the Moscow Patriarchate?
Bishop Lazarus: We, of course, have little to do with the Moscow Patriarchate. In general, we have nothing to do with any of the bishops or priests of the Patriarchate. And we certainly don't concelebrate---not with a single bishop, not with a single priest of the Moscow Patriarchate. If it happens that we meet by chance, somewhere in an apartment, we might talk and we might see that here is a good priest, that he sympathizes with us and the Russian Church Abroad, and if, God grant, he should come to us, well and good; we'll accept him with love, of course. But we've heard from priests themselves, from the people, that the Moscow Patriarchate itself is altogether corrupt: it is immoral, it has lost faith in God, it simply serves the authorities who want to use it to build socialism. Communists don't believe in God, but they want their children to be taught the Law of God. They've made a mess of the country, they've paralyzed the Church, and now they want to inspire their children with something. What is this?! Without repentance, without turning to God, to Christ, nothing will come of it; it's all empty.
Today the Patriarchate conducts magnificent services, especially in Moscow where there are churches, singing, many people attend. And why shouldn't the churches be full? It's a city of ten million people, and people come to Moscow from all over the country. But there are few in the Moscow Patriarchate who are discerning, who really know the Church. Cultured people are trying to understand what religion is all about, but it's not the kind of knowledge that is easily acquired; it is given only to those who have a pious heart, who are trying to be with Christ, with Orthodoxy, with the truth.
All these years the Moscow Patriarchate has been denied the fight to preach, to conduct pastoral work; it has simply fulfilled rituals. Among its ranks are those who were planted there. There are, we know, komsomol organizations in the seminaries. Graduates are ordained and it turns out that they are unbelievers. Believers who have entered the seminaries have discovered that they are expected to report on classmates, and it becomes obvious who is a believer and who is an unbeliever. Then there are those who simply have no place to go, they can't find a place in the secular world and they enter seminary to have a career; they don't care about the Faith, about the people...
Fr. Victor: Vladika, people have been asking: from whom did you receive your episcopacy?
Bishop Lazarus: Our last bishop in Moscow was Sergius, the former rector of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Milevsky. He lived secretly in an apartment not far from the Kremlin. After his death we experienced considerable confusion: we were tossed to and fro, we were infiltrated by vagante bishops. It was all very sad. We priests all searched for a bishop who had survived prison, exile, but we didn't find a one. We knew something about the Church Abroad, that she had lost neither canonicity nor the fullness of Orthodoxy. And in 1981, at the Sobor preceding the canonization of the New Martyrs, the Church Abroad decided to consecrate a bishop. At that time I was already corresponding with Archbishop Leonty of Chile. I was introduced to him by Archimandrite Eugene Zhukov who lived on Mount Athos, in the kellion of Archangel Michael· and through Vladika Leonty we made contact with the Church Abroad. We began asking that they send us a bishop and consecrate someone. I suggested two candidates: Fr. Michael Rozhdestvensky, living in Petersburg, and Fr. Nikita Kharkov, but when the hierarch arrived neither of them showed up. I had no thoughts of becoming a bishop myself, I didn't even imagine such a thing; I was scared, but I had to take up this cross. This was in Moscow, in 1982. Of course, I endured a lot of slander; all kinds of rumors spread--that I had been consecrated by Patriarch Pimen, that Patriarch Pimen came here to America and called me here... All sorts of foolishness, dreadful... I cannot name the bishop, but he belongs to the Russian Church Abroad.
Fr. Victor:. Vladika, many believers and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate have become very interested in the Church Abroad. There is a call now to open parishes of the Church Abroad [there in Russia]. But this has raised a question in people's minds. According to the canons of the Orthodox Church it is forbidden to have more than one bishop in a city. How can the Church Abroad open parishes in Russia without violating these canons?
Bishop Lazarus: In the Thirty Apostolic Canons we read:" If a bishop or presbyter uses worldly leaders, through them receives his episcopal authority, let him be cast out and excommunicated, and all those associated with him." Inasmuch as we consider the Moscow Patriarchate hierarchy to be unlawful-although it was passed down along the apostolic chain, it is still unlawful because all the bishops are filtered by the KGB, by the Kremlin--these bishops are unlawful, uncanonical. Therefore one can have a canonical bishop in the same city with an uncanonical bishop. Just as in the time of Arianism and all subsequent heresies----rnonophysitism, iconoclasm,--next to the catholic church was an iconoclast bishop. We consider the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius to be a new form of idol worship, a burning of incense before the devil, the worship of form, of a system of false freedom....One can say this is worse than heresy.
Fr. Victor: Against this background, how do you plan to act on your return to the Soviet Union?
Bishop Lazarus: If we find the means, suitable people, church people who with all their heart and soul will serve God and the Holy Orthodox Church, who won't lead us astray, who won't dissolve us, who will help us acquire a church building, we shall exist of course. And if the authorities don't interfere in the internal affairs of the Church we shall exist openly. Before leaving I met with the priests; some of them have agreed to come into the open, while others prefer to hold back for a time. What if something should happen, what if we are arrested, isolated, and our community is left without any pastors? This can happen. The Moscow Patriarchate can even cooperate in this.
Fr. Victor:. Now that you will be serving openly, Vladika, do you anticipate more trouble from the [State] authorities or from the Moscow Patriarchate? How will the Moscow Patriarchate react to your coming into the open?
Bishop Lazarus: Here we cannot say. There experience will tell. Whether the authorities will pressure us, or whether the Moscow Patriachate will try to destroy us by means of various provocations--we don't know. Of course, the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. And the Lord said, Fear not, little flock, Take up your cross... We have renounced everything; we don't need anything pertaining to this World; we have given ourselves over entirely to Christ and desire to serve Him, as best we know how.
[1] A state-supported movement in the '20s to 'modernize' the Orthodox Church in the direction of Protestantism
[2] The doctrine of loyalty to the Soviet state, proclaimed in the 1927 Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, which effectively crippled the Church in Russia and limited its activity to a formal performance of rites.
[3] Patriarch from 1945-70.
[OA/_private/oabot.htm]
Some Thoughts From Daniel
...trying to better understand/better explain the Cyprianites, etc.
One major conclusion that I have already come to, regarding the "Cyprianite" controversies, is the distinct possibility that there is NO full explanation of their positions, (just as none of the other Greek Old Calendarists seem to approve of each other EITHER!) which will satisfy....everyone. Just as there doesn't seem to be any ONE (accepted by all) concensus as to which bishop or jurisdiction is THE rightful-heir to the old ROCOR, or to the "Catacomb Church", or......WHO? is...part of "THE UNIVERSAL ORTHODOX CHURCH"....and WHO? is not, etc.....Also. "where is Grace?...and where is no Grace?"
The entire history of the Christian Religion, is filled with many many ambiguities and contradictions and differances of views and lots of FIGHTS between believers, etc. (And here, I am speaking of course, of canonical Orthodox Christian Church History).One can read of this in the pages of the New Testament, at the very start of our religion.
But, yes, you are correct in desiring to more fully research the Synod In Resistance....in the context of the entire "Greek Old Calendar Movement"/versus the Ecumenist's Innovations, etc.....which Greek Church history has many different aspects to it, than in post Bolshevik-Russian Church history-either inside of Soviet-Russia or Russian Orthodoxy Outside Russia, etc.....but these related subjects are VERY deep and VERY hard to fully grasp!...and it means obtaining a lot of documents...many of which were never translated into English, for one problem, etc. One needs to become an EXPERT on canon-law, the Holy Fathers, Russian and Greek Church History, familiar with epistles/church documents/various OPINIONS on various church-events of the recent past...up to today, etc. WHERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT??? I am not.
On the specific statement of our Vl. Agafangel, that: "The ecclesiology of the Cyprianites and that of our church...is exactly the same". However, Vl. Agafangel further explains, that: just because we are in communion with each other, we are never-the-less, two separate churches, with different approaches to our different internal pastoral problems....hence we will not automatically agree on every detail of every issue.
This is but his...restatement of what ROCOR stated years ago, when they approved the SIR and full intercommunion with the SIR...and thus, ipso facto, REJECTED!!! the Matthewite/exclusivisitic/condemning of ALL others, but themselves -ecclesiology...of most of the OTHER Greek Old Calendarist churches/synods. Our Vl. Agafangel... still, also rejects that Greek-extremist ecclesiology, and he says so. Here, I will be so bold as to try to paraphrase MY ROUGH estimation of what that comparison-similarity of the two ecclesiologies means:
...We (Vl. Agafangel's church) know what it means to be fully Orthodox in doctrine and church life, in being fully canonical, etc. AND WE KNOW THAT OUR CHURCH IS SUCH!...but (a big "but")....we have NO RIGHT!...in condemning other-Orthodox (in general), as ...not in the CHURCH whatsoever/totally "graceless"/"heretics"/etc. But, we do have the right and indeed duty, to be ...in communion with/in fraternal relations with...only those other local-Orthodox churches which we consider as...fellow...like minded true Orthodox Christians.......and that category does NOT include the. Sergianist..Moscow Patriarchy...or so-called World-Orthodoxy.
And....apparently, the SIR ecclesiology is QUITE similar....as it regards their own SELF-identiy and in their perspective towards ALL other Orthodox :(other Greek Old Calendarists)....or...The State Church of Greece! In the case of the SIR, they refrain from condemning all Orthodox outside their own synod....but!.....they are NOT in communion with them, either, & not with the State Church either!
To critics of the Cyprianites, it is BECAUSE-they refuse to say that the State Church is...entirely without Grace and is entirely .."Non-Orthodox"..... ...THAT! is the number one reason that their critics label them as...in heresy, etc....i.e. because they believe that, merely because of calendar/and SOME other innovations....that the Official State Greek National Church (which after all, includes the vast majority of the total population of Greece!)...is...hopeless of reformation/repentance/....bound for Hell, etc....i.e. it is "SICK" but not yet...DEAD, and can yet be...HEALED and SAVED. Also, much that the State Church does do right, is perfectly Orthodox....those things we encourage in them. The SIR see themselves as those who are trying to SAVE the Greek Church (&entire Greek NATION!) Pretty much, all of the other Greek Old Calendarists, in essence, say....let them go to Hell! (Anathema!), etc....i.e. they are beyond saving!...as is evryone not in OUR particular and unique synod!!!
Our Vl. Agafangel believes....about the Moscow Patriarchy....very much the same GENERAL concept(with it's peculiar Russian-differences)....that it is not entirely "without Grace", and can be, (or...MAY BE?)..yet...cleansed/transformed and....SAVED (God willing!)...and that also, the entire Russian NATION is also not beyond saving, etc. That stance, like it or not, was the (mainstream) ROCOR stance...and hope...for a Future Russia & Future Restored Russian Church. Of course, that the so-called (Stalin engineered) "Moscow Patriarchy" might have to be 100% dismantled FIRST, and then RECONSTRUCTED....was also always seen as....a distinct likelihood too. Now! we have instead, the total surrender of ROCOR to this monstrosity, this unreformed still KGB-government controlled Moscow Patriarchy....all under the lie and excuse, that: "It is time now!", "Russia and it's church are 'free' now", etc.
Of course, such a somewhat complicated view of things, as our Vl. Agafangel has annunciated and as the Synod In Resistance has stated, (as life itself is complicated!) does not easily fit into any NEAT/QUICKIE abbreviated-reading of SOME canons, but it is rather an over-view of ALL the canons, and is getting to the main point of all the canons: TO, IF BY ANY MEANS, TO SAVE SOME!...."Economia"....why Christ became a Man. The Church exists to SAVE Mankind, not to condemn it.....that is the point! So, at this point, you (as many others today also) are probably...confused somewhat, but....that's them apples, I'm afraid. These church matters, are NOT today, nor where they in the past ages-cut-and-dried and are thus open to MANY varied applications of...sundry canons/doctrines/& EPISCOPAL interpretations., not even to mention the personal AMBITIONS of individual "bishops", who really only care about their own power/glory....which in my opinion is what Tikhon of Omsk and Valentine of Suzdal are about. Few if any, of currently living Orthodox bishops (in any local Orthodox churches whatsosever!)....are experts in canon-law.
In fact, the best such "canon-law experts" are in the KGB! And that is because those folks, HAVE to know our Orthodox Church laws, so as to better control us....from our episcopate downwards....and...to USE our own laws to weaken and eventually destroy our religion, etc. This they have done in Russia, since Lennin and Stalin.
Yes, and regarding Bp.Ambrose's responses to "my" questions, (really what questions the critics of the SIR pose, often)....of course, his short responses don't answer everything, by no means. But then, I did ask him for some concise answers, which he gave. If you re-read his answers to me, he refered to those long original SIR Greek/Russian documents, which his synod gave to the ROCOR bishops to study, and which documents convinced those bishops to heartily accept the SIR as equals/sister churches/etc. But, those documents have never been translated into English...so...you and I cannot read them...and thus, we are bereft of what great value, they might have provided us...now
One major conclusion that I have already come to, regarding the "Cyprianite" controversies, is the distinct possibility that there is NO full explanation of their positions, (just as none of the other Greek Old Calendarists seem to approve of each other EITHER!) which will satisfy....everyone. Just as there doesn't seem to be any ONE (accepted by all) concensus as to which bishop or jurisdiction is THE rightful-heir to the old ROCOR, or to the "Catacomb Church", or......WHO? is...part of "THE UNIVERSAL ORTHODOX CHURCH"....and WHO? is not, etc.....Also. "where is Grace?...and where is no Grace?"
The entire history of the Christian Religion, is filled with many many ambiguities and contradictions and differances of views and lots of FIGHTS between believers, etc. (And here, I am speaking of course, of canonical Orthodox Christian Church History).One can read of this in the pages of the New Testament, at the very start of our religion.
But, yes, you are correct in desiring to more fully research the Synod In Resistance....in the context of the entire "Greek Old Calendar Movement"/versus the Ecumenist's Innovations, etc.....which Greek Church history has many different aspects to it, than in post Bolshevik-Russian Church history-either inside of Soviet-Russia or Russian Orthodoxy Outside Russia, etc.....but these related subjects are VERY deep and VERY hard to fully grasp!...and it means obtaining a lot of documents...many of which were never translated into English, for one problem, etc. One needs to become an EXPERT on canon-law, the Holy Fathers, Russian and Greek Church History, familiar with epistles/church documents/various OPINIONS on various church-events of the recent past...up to today, etc. WHERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT??? I am not.
On the specific statement of our Vl. Agafangel, that: "The ecclesiology of the Cyprianites and that of our church...is exactly the same". However, Vl. Agafangel further explains, that: just because we are in communion with each other, we are never-the-less, two separate churches, with different approaches to our different internal pastoral problems....hence we will not automatically agree on every detail of every issue.
This is but his...restatement of what ROCOR stated years ago, when they approved the SIR and full intercommunion with the SIR...and thus, ipso facto, REJECTED!!! the Matthewite/exclusivisitic/condemning of ALL others, but themselves -ecclesiology...of most of the OTHER Greek Old Calendarist churches/synods. Our Vl. Agafangel... still, also rejects that Greek-extremist ecclesiology, and he says so. Here, I will be so bold as to try to paraphrase MY ROUGH estimation of what that comparison-similarity of the two ecclesiologies means:
...We (Vl. Agafangel's church) know what it means to be fully Orthodox in doctrine and church life, in being fully canonical, etc. AND WE KNOW THAT OUR CHURCH IS SUCH!...but (a big "but")....we have NO RIGHT!...in condemning other-Orthodox (in general), as ...not in the CHURCH whatsoever/totally "graceless"/"heretics"/etc. But, we do have the right and indeed duty, to be ...in communion with/in fraternal relations with...only those other local-Orthodox churches which we consider as...fellow...like minded true Orthodox Christians.......and that category does NOT include the. Sergianist..Moscow Patriarchy...or so-called World-Orthodoxy.
And....apparently, the SIR ecclesiology is QUITE similar....as it regards their own SELF-identiy and in their perspective towards ALL other Orthodox :(other Greek Old Calendarists)....or...The State Church of Greece! In the case of the SIR, they refrain from condemning all Orthodox outside their own synod....but!.....they are NOT in communion with them, either, & not with the State Church either!
To critics of the Cyprianites, it is BECAUSE-they refuse to say that the State Church is...entirely without Grace and is entirely .."Non-Orthodox"..... ...THAT! is the number one reason that their critics label them as...in heresy, etc....i.e. because they believe that, merely because of calendar/and SOME other innovations....that the Official State Greek National Church (which after all, includes the vast majority of the total population of Greece!)...is...hopeless of reformation/repentance/....bound for Hell, etc....i.e. it is "SICK" but not yet...DEAD, and can yet be...HEALED and SAVED. Also, much that the State Church does do right, is perfectly Orthodox....those things we encourage in them. The SIR see themselves as those who are trying to SAVE the Greek Church (&entire Greek NATION!) Pretty much, all of the other Greek Old Calendarists, in essence, say....let them go to Hell! (Anathema!), etc....i.e. they are beyond saving!...as is evryone not in OUR particular and unique synod!!!
Our Vl. Agafangel believes....about the Moscow Patriarchy....very much the same GENERAL concept(with it's peculiar Russian-differences)....that it is not entirely "without Grace", and can be, (or...MAY BE?)..yet...cleansed/transformed and....SAVED (God willing!)...and that also, the entire Russian NATION is also not beyond saving, etc. That stance, like it or not, was the (mainstream) ROCOR stance...and hope...for a Future Russia & Future Restored Russian Church. Of course, that the so-called (Stalin engineered) "Moscow Patriarchy" might have to be 100% dismantled FIRST, and then RECONSTRUCTED....was also always seen as....a distinct likelihood too. Now! we have instead, the total surrender of ROCOR to this monstrosity, this unreformed still KGB-government controlled Moscow Patriarchy....all under the lie and excuse, that: "It is time now!", "Russia and it's church are 'free' now", etc.
Of course, such a somewhat complicated view of things, as our Vl. Agafangel has annunciated and as the Synod In Resistance has stated, (as life itself is complicated!) does not easily fit into any NEAT/QUICKIE abbreviated-reading of SOME canons, but it is rather an over-view of ALL the canons, and is getting to the main point of all the canons: TO, IF BY ANY MEANS, TO SAVE SOME!...."Economia"....why Christ became a Man. The Church exists to SAVE Mankind, not to condemn it.....that is the point! So, at this point, you (as many others today also) are probably...confused somewhat, but....that's them apples, I'm afraid. These church matters, are NOT today, nor where they in the past ages-cut-and-dried and are thus open to MANY varied applications of...sundry canons/doctrines/& EPISCOPAL interpretations., not even to mention the personal AMBITIONS of individual "bishops", who really only care about their own power/glory....which in my opinion is what Tikhon of Omsk and Valentine of Suzdal are about. Few if any, of currently living Orthodox bishops (in any local Orthodox churches whatsosever!)....are experts in canon-law.
In fact, the best such "canon-law experts" are in the KGB! And that is because those folks, HAVE to know our Orthodox Church laws, so as to better control us....from our episcopate downwards....and...to USE our own laws to weaken and eventually destroy our religion, etc. This they have done in Russia, since Lennin and Stalin.
Yes, and regarding Bp.Ambrose's responses to "my" questions, (really what questions the critics of the SIR pose, often)....of course, his short responses don't answer everything, by no means. But then, I did ask him for some concise answers, which he gave. If you re-read his answers to me, he refered to those long original SIR Greek/Russian documents, which his synod gave to the ROCOR bishops to study, and which documents convinced those bishops to heartily accept the SIR as equals/sister churches/etc. But, those documents have never been translated into English...so...you and I cannot read them...and thus, we are bereft of what great value, they might have provided us...now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
