The Catacomb Tikhonite Church 1974

The super-correct have the misconception that our accepting the SIR as a sister church in 1994 was a step towards the ROCOR-MP union.  This makes no sense.  The fact is that the SIR objected to the ROCOR-MP union from the beginning and even broke off communion with us because of it.  The following papers are a part of ROCOR history that reveal ROCOR's long-standing compatibility with so-called "cyprianism."   In reading this article remember that the term "true" as in "true Orthodoxy" and "true Church" did not mean then what it means today.  Today those calling themselves "true" are the super-correct fragments, both Greek and Russian.  The highlighted parts are my emphases. -jh 

The Catacomb Tikhonite Church 1974

THE FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION IN THE WEST CONCERNING

BY METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS, CHIEF HIERARCH OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF RUSSIA

MANY TRUE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS in the free world were shocked and disturbed when the world-renowned Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, now living in exile in Switzerland, wrote in his Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, meeting at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, in September of this year, that "one should not substitute in imaginary fashion a catacomb church for the real Russian Orthodox people," denied the very existence of a "secret church organization," and warned the hierarchs of the Church Outside of Russia that they should not "show solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb." The enemies of True Orthodoxy and defenders of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate were quick to take advantage of these phrases for their own propagandistic purposes, reporting them under such headlines as No "Catacomb" Church.  [1]  It would indeed benefit greatly the progress of renovationist "Orthodoxy" if it could be "proved"— or at least shouted loudly enough—that there is no "Catacomb Church" in Russia, that the only Orthodoxy in the USSR is the renovated Sergianist version of it presented to the world by the Moscow Patriarchate, which indeed, Solzhenitsyn believes, is not at all "fallen" but is the real Orthodox Church of Russia. These statements of Solzhenitsyn raise important questions of two kinds: of fact, and of theology.

To be sure, at the beginning of his Letter Solzhenitsyn writes: "Realizing my unpreparedness for stepping out on an ecclesiastical question before a gathering of priests and hierarchs who have devoted their whole life to the service of the Church... I only beg condescension for my possible mistakes in terminology or in the very essence of my judgments"; and at the end he again apologizes: "I do not fancy myself called to decide ecclesiastical questions." It would therefore surely be no offense to Solzhenitsyn, who speaks so convincingly and truthfully on other questions, to point out, for those who wish to hear the truth, his mistakes both in fact and theology regarding the True-Orthodox Church of Russia.

These mistakes of Solzhenitsyn, as it turns out, have had one fortunate consequence: they have caused several persons who have more accurate information than he about church life in the Soviet Union to speak out and directly refute his claim that there is no "secret church organization" there:

1. One revealing glimpse of the continuing life of Russia's Catacomb Church is contained in the brief biography of the young Vladimir Osipov, editor for four years of the now-defunct Samizdat periodical Veche, which was noted for its strong nationalist and Orthodox intent, expressing the "Slavophile" position in contemporary Russia. According to an article of Alexei Kiselev, based on an interview with Anatoly Levitin (Krasnov), [2] when Osipov was in a concentration camp in the 1960's "he met a strange old man whom all the prisoners called 'Vladika.' This was Michael, a bishop of the True-Orthodox Church. He made a powerful impression on Osipov and this encounter, it may be, is what turned him to religion." This very mention of a True-Orthodox (Catacomb) Bishop in the contemporary Soviet Union, and of his influence on the young generation of religious seekers, is already an important sign for those thirsting for every scrap of information on True Orthodoxy in Russia; but fortunately, from the same Krasnov and other sources, we now have a much better idea than this of the existence of Catacomb Bishops in the Soviet Union today.

2. The monthly bulletin Religion and Atheism in the USSR (in Russian), published in Munich by N. Theodorovich, has printed portions of three letters it has received from persons of German origin who recently emigrated from the Soviet Union and who, independently of each other, have reacted to Solzhenitsyn's statements on the Catacomb Church. One of them writes:

"A. I. Solzhenitsyn has not happened to meet any members of this Church. I was with them in prison and worked together with them in a corrective-labor colony. They are deeply believing people and very firm in faith. They are persecuted for belonging to this prohibited Church."

The second writes: "'Catacomb' or 'Secret' Church is the name used here (outside of Russia). In the USSR it is called the 'True-Orthodox' or 'Tikhonite' Church. To it belong deeply-believing Orthodox people who do not recognize the official church. For this the regime persecutes them. I know many of them who are now free, but I will not give their names or places of residence."

The third writer gives a more complete description of the life of the True-Orthodox Church, whose services are sometimes conducted by monks, nuns, and laymen: "The True-Orthodox Church has a hierarchy, but the majority of it is in prison or in corrective colonies. Members of the True-Orthodox Church conduct their services according to the rituals of the Orthodox Church. If they have no priest, the services are conducted by someone who knows most about them. I know of some who have not married and have dedicated themselves to God from childhood; they also conduct services. These are, as a rule, absolutely honest people who lead a morally pure life. In the USSR members of the True-Orthodox Church are cut off from the influences of the world on their life and are absolutely dedicated to God. The greater part of the believers of the True-Orthodox Church conduct their services under ordained priests Your suppositions that the members of the True-Orthodox Church are only old people who remain from the time of the schism of 1927 brought a smile to my lips. Those whom I personally knew were born after 1927. Of course, there are also those who remember 1927. They also have non-liturgical gatherings for prayer, when they read the Holy Scripture and spiritual books. Their prayer, for the most part, amounts to petitions for the awakening of faith in the Russian people. They sometimes allow young people at their Divine services if they know that they will not betray them to the militia or the KGB. The less publicity there is about them, the better for them. But it should be known that they need books of Holy Scripture and spiritual literature." [3]

3. The most striking information about the True-Orthodox Church of Russia to be given in recent months comes from the well-known fighter for "civil rights" in the Soviet Union, Anatoly Livitin (Krasnov), who left the USSR for exile in Switzerland in September of this year. In his youth he took an active part as a Deacon in the "Living Church" schism, and even today, long after repenting and returning to the Orthodox Church, his views can only be described as extremely "liberal" and "ecumenical." His testimony of the True-Orthodox Church is all the more valuable in that he cannot be accused of any preconceived sympathy for it; for him it is a "sect," and therefore it is as deserving of as much respect and freedom as any other "sect" in the contemporary Soviet Union.

The first statement of Krasnov's that we shall quote comes from his Samizdat declaration to the Committee on Human Rights in Moscow, made on September 5, just before his departure from the Soviet Union. Here, together with his protests against the persecution of Uniats, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostalists, and Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a section on "Persecutions Against the True-Orthodox Church (TOC)." Here he writes: "This Church has been subjected to persecutions for the course of 47 years." He continues with an historical account of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 and the protests of a number of bishops against it; of how all the bishops who took part in the "Schism of 1927" perished in the 1930's in the concentration camps; and of how they managed to ordain a number of bishops in the camps as their successors, from whom the present secret hierarchy of the True-Orthodox Church derives its existence. He continues: "The number of members of the TOC is not subject to reckoning. However, according to information received from members of this Church, it has from eight to ten bishops, about 200 priests, and several thousand laymen. The activity of the TOC is strictly persecuted. The regime fears its spread." [4]

4. Yet more detailed information on the True-Orthodox Church was given by Krasnov after his arrival in the West, where he discovered that, once again, a part of the Russian "liberal" intelligentsia was rejoicing over the "non-existence of the Catacomb Church," which this time had been "proved" by Solzhenitsyn. This is what Krasnov said in an interview with the Paris Russian weekly, La Pensee Russe (December 5, 1974, p. 5):

"As for the Catacomb Church—it exists, it is not an invention. According to my information, it has about ten bishops. These bishops have their hierarchical succession from the Josephites, the bishops who separated from Metropolitan Sergius in 1927... At the present time there are, as far as I know, perhaps twelve, perhaps eight bishops. They were all ordained in the camps by the hierarchs who were there, and all of them are developing their own activity. There are also priests. But all the same, this is a very small layer of the population. In the first place, all of this is so profoundly secret that it is very difficult to find out anything for sure. I know one nun who came to an Orthodox archimandrite in order to persuade him to go over to the 'True-Orthodox Church.' When he began to ask her more details, she replied to him: 'When you come over to us, they will tell you everything.' I know that there is an underground Metropolitan Theodosius—he is their head, and in connection with the election of Patriarch Pimen he published [in Samizdat] his own proclamation, which went about Moscow, Peter, [5] and Kiev, under the signature of 'Metropolitan Theodosius,' where in the name of the 'True-Orthodox Church' a negative attitude was declared toward the Patriarchate. In private conversations they usually say that they consider the closest current to themselves to be the Orthodox Synodal Church, the so-called 'Karlovitz' Church [the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia]. They usually say: strictly speaking we are not against the regime; we are monarchists, but we are not against the regime, inasmuch as every authority is from God. [6] They only cannot accept the hierarchy, inasmuch as it is in dependence on the atheists. Well, they consider Patriarch Tikhon their last head [i e., patriarch], which is why usually in the camps they are called 'Tikhonites.' It should be said that their adherents are usually old people, or those released from the camps. Their Divine services usually occur in private apartments, and at these secret Liturgies three or four people are present.... The True-Orthodox Church hides itself too much in the underground; it has the character of something so secret, so mysterious, that literally no one can find it; although, to be sure, one cannot refuse to respect these people who are very firm, very sincere."

EVEN BEFORE THIS it was not possible to deny at least the existence of Catacomb True-Orthodox Christians in Russia, about whom even the Soviet press speaks; and now no objective observer can well deny the existence of their "secret church organization," either. Solzhenitsyn's "facts" in the matter are clearly mistaken; his very position in the Soviet Union as a world-famous writer constantly under the close watch of the Secret Police has effectively insulated him against contact with the secret life of the True-Orthodox Church.

Even when his mistaken facts have been corrected, however, the main contention of Solzhenitsyn remains: Orthodox Christians of the West, he believes, should not show solidarity with perhaps some thousands (or tens of thousands) of Catacomb Christians, but rather with the "many millions" of the "real Russian Orthodox people." To justify this position he hazards a bold ecclesiological statement (of whose full implications he is doubtless unaware): "The sins of submission and betrayal allowed by the hierarchs have lain as an earthly and heavenly responsibility upon these leaders, but they do not extend to the church body, to the numerous conscientious priests, to the mass of those who pray in the churches—and they can never be transmitted to the church people; the whole history of Christianity persuades us of this. If the sins of the hierarchs were relayed to the faithful, the Church of Christ would not be eternal and invincible, but would depend entirely on the accidents of character and conduct."

Here Solzhenitsyn doubtless speaks for all those who defend and justify the Moscow Patriarchate, and if he were speaking only of the personal sins of hierarchs, he would be speaking the truth. But the Catacomb hierarchs and faithful have not in the least separated from the Moscow Patriarchate because of the personal sins of its hierarchs—but rather because of their apostasy from Christ, which does indeed involve not merely the hierarchs, but also the whole of the Church's faithful.

Let us here make clear several points, because the proponents of a "liberal" Orthodox theology and ecclesiology have so clouded the issue with their emotional arguments that it has become very difficult to see things clearly and calmly as they actually are.

Let it be said first of all that those, whether in Russia or outside, who accuse the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate not of any personal sins, but of apostasy, do not in the least "curse" or condemn the simple people who go to the open churches in the Soviet Union, nor the conscientious priests who serve as well as they can under the inhuman pressures exerted by the Communist Government, nor even the betraying hierarchs themselves; people who say this are, purely and simply, slandering the position of the True-Orthodox Christians. While considering the clergy and faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate as participants in apostasy and schism, True-Orthodox Christians view them with sympathy and love, but also speak the truth about them and refuse to participate in their deeds or have communion in prayer and sacraments with them, leaving their judgment to the future free All-Russian Council, when and if God should grant that it might be convened. In previous Councils like this in the history of the Church, those most guilty for schism have been punished, while the innocent followers of schism have been forgiven and restored to communion with the Church (as indicated in the Epistle of St. Athanasius the Great to Rufinianus).

Secondly, True-Orthodox Christians do not at all regard the Moscow Patriarchate simply as "fallen" and its followers as equal to heretics or pagans. There are degrees of schism and apostasy, and the fresher is the break with the true Church of Christ, and the more it has been caused by outward rather than inward causes—the greater is the possibility for the eventual restoration of the fallen-away body to the Church. True-Orthodox Christians, for the sake of the purity of Christ's Church,must remain separate from the schismatic body and thereby show it the way of return to the True Church of Christ.

Solzhenitsyn speaks, not with the voice of Christian truth, but only with the voice of human common sense

Solzhenitsyn speaks, not with the voice of Christian truth, but only with the voice of human common sense, when he writes in his Letter: "The majority of people are not saints, but ordinary men. Both faith and the Divine services are called to accompany their usual life, and not to demand every time a super-heroic act." Yes, it is true: True-Orthodox Christians today are the heroes of Orthodoxy in Russia, and the whole history of Christ's Church is the history of the triumph of Christ's heroes. "Ordinary" people follow the heroes, not vice versa. The standard is heroism, not "ordinary life." The confession of the True-Orthodox Church is absolutely indispensable for the "ordinary" Orthodox Christians of Russia today, if they hope to remain Orthodox and not go further on the path of apostasy.

Finally, the True-Orthodox Church of Russia, as far as we know, has made no official proclamation as to the Grace, or lack of it, of the Sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Individual hierarchs of the Catacomb Church in the past have expressed different opinions on this subject, some actually allowing the reception of Holy Communion from a Sergianist priest when in danger of death, and others insisting on the new Baptism of those baptized by Sergianist clergy. This question could be decided only by a Council of Bishops. If the schism of the Moscow Patriarchate is only temporary, and if it will eventually be restored to communion with the True-Orthodox Church in a free Russia, then this question may never need to be officially decided at all. Individual cases of True-Orthodox Christians in Russia receiving or not receiving Holy Communion in Sergianist churches do not, of course, establish any general rule or decide the question. The strict rule of the Russian Church Outside of Russia forbidding her members from receiving Sacraments from clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate is not founded on any statement that these Sacraments lack Grace, but rather on the sacred testament of Metropolitan Anastassy and other great hierarchs of the Diaspora forbidding any kind of communion with the Patriarchate as long as its leaders betray the Faith and are in submission to atheists.

Now that these points have been made clear, let us return to the belief of Solzhenitsyn and all the defenders of the Moscow Patriarchate that the betrayal of her hierarchs does not affect the Church's faithful. This view is based on an entirely false view of the nature of the Church which artificially separates the hierarchs from the believing people and allows "church life as normal" to go on no matter what happens to the Church leaders. On the contrary, the whole history of the Church of Christ persuades us of the exact opposite. Who else was it but the Bishops of Rome who led the Church of the West into apostasy and schism and heresy? Is it the fault of ordinary believing Roman Catholics that they, the largest group of "Christians" in the world, are today outside the Church of Christ, and that in order to return to the true Church they must not only reject the false doctrines of Rome, but also completely reform their religious mentality and unlearn the false piety which has been transmitted to them precisely by their bishops? Today, it is true, the Moscow Patriarchate allows Roman Catholics to receive its Sacraments and implicitly already teaches the ecumenist doctrine that these Catholics too are "part of the Church." But this fact only shows how far the Moscow Patriarchate has departed from the universal Orthodox tradition of the Church into an erroneous ecclesiology, and how correct the True-Orthodox Church is in refusing to have communion with an ecclesiastical body which not only allows its policies to be dictated by atheists, but openly preaches the modern heresies of ecumenism and chiliasm. If normal Orthodox Church life is not restored to Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate will follow the path of Roman Catholicism and eventually wither and die in apostasy, and the innocent people who follow it will find themselves beyond any doubt outside the Church of Christ. And then it will only be those who are one with the True-Orthodox Christians of Russia who will still be in the Church's saving enclosure.

Solzhenitsyn and the Russian intelligentsia in general, whether inside or outside Russia, are obviously quite unaware of the real crisis of Orthodoxy today. It is, of course, in itself a good thing to boldly challenge the inhuman Soviet tyranny, to speak up for the oppressed, to call for "moral renewal" and preach "not living by lies": but this is not yet Orthodox Christianity, this is not what the Christian martyrs died for and the Orthodox confessors suffered for. Baptists are doing this much today in the Soviet Union, as also are well-meaning agnostics and atheists; but this does not make them belong to the Church of Christ. In general one may say that the unparalleled sufferings of contemporary Russia have caused many of us to be rather too loose with our use of the words "martyr" and "confessor". These words have a specific meaning for Orthodox Christians: they refer to those who consciously suffer and die for Christ and His True Church, not for "humanity" or "Christianity in general" or even for "Orthodoxy" if it is not true Orthodoxy.

The real crisis of Orthodoxy today—not only in Russia but throughout the world—has not been caused by submission to orders from atheists, and it will not be overcome by refusing to accept these orders. The crisis of Orthodoxy lies in the loss of the savor of True Christianity.

The real crisis of Orthodoxy today—not only in Russia but throughout the world—has not been caused by submission to orders from atheists, and it will not be overcome by refusing to accept these orders. The crisis of Orthodoxy lies in the loss of the savor of True Christianity. This savor has been largely lost not only by the Moscow hierarchs, but by most of the Russian "dissidents" as well, as likewise by the "Paris" school of émigré theologians, by the apostate Patriarch of Constantinople and all who follow him, by new calendarists and renovationists and modernists of every sort, and by the simple people everywhere who imagine they are Orthodox because their fathers were or because they belong to a "canonical church organization." Against this loss of the savor of Orthodoxy there has arisen one great movement of protest in the 20th-century: that of the True-Orthodox Christians whether of Russia, Greece, Mount Athos, or the Orthodox Diaspora. Among these True-Orthodox Christians are to be found the authentic Orthodox confessors and martyrs of our times.

A veritable "unity-fever" has gripped emigrant circles in recent months, partly under the influence of Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn himself wants to be "one" with the millions of ordinary Orthodox believers in Russia, and with all Russian Orthodox believers abroad. May God grant that he be one with them in the Truth. But if it be not in the Truth, but by means of some compromise in the Truth—such unity is abhorrent to God and His Holy Church; better for Russia to perish than to be "one" not in the Truth. The great confessors of Orthodox history have been precisely those who rose up against false unity, preferring, if necessary, to be alone against the world if only they might be with Christ and His Truth. Let us take only one example.

The Church of Christ knows no greater champion than St. Maximus the Confessor, to whom the partisans of "church unity" offered all the same arguments that are offered today to the True-Orthodox Christians who refuse to be in communion with those "Orthodox" who have left the path of piety and truth. Of St. Maximus only two things were asked: that he accept a compromise statement of faith (the "Typos") and receive communion with the Patriarchs and bishops who accepted it. The emissaries of the Byzantine Emperor explained to St. Maximus that "the Typos does not deny the two wills in Christ, but only obliges one to be silent about them for the sake of the peace of the Church"; they told him "have in your heart whatever faith you want, no one forbids you this"; they accused him of causing disturbance in the Church out of his stubbornness: "You alone are grieving everyone, for it is precisely because of you that many wish not to have communion with the local Church"; they threw in his face the favorite argument of "Christian liberals" of all times: "You mean that you alone are being saved and everyone else is damned?" and they culminated their argument with the appeal so powerful today: you will be left behind, for not only have all the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the Typos, even the emissaries of the Pope of Rome, the last Orthodox Patriarch then in the world—"tomorrow, Sunday, will receive communion of the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch of Constantinople." And to this St. Maximus, a simple monk who for all he knew might be the only Christian left to believe as he did, replied in words that should be written in gold for every True-Orthodox Christian today to read: "Even if the whole world should receive communion with the Patriarch, I will not." All of this is stated quite clearly in the Life of St. Maximus (Lives of Saints, Jan. 21); but those who have lost the savor of Orthodoxy seldom read the lives of Saints, and if they do they most certainly do not base their lives on this primary source of true Orthodox Christianity.

A typical result of the anti-Orthodox mentality which St. Maximus combated may be seen in the newest attempt of the Russian Metropolia in America to destroy the confessing stand of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Solzhenitsyn in this same Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Sobor had expressed his discouragement at finding church disunity in the Russian Diaspora, and the Bishops of the Sobor expressed their willingness once more to seek unity with the American Metropolia and the Paris Exarchate—it being understood that this unity must be in the Truth and not by means of any compromise. With regard to the Metropolia, a chief obstacle to unity lies, of course, in the "autocephaly" it received in 1970 from the Moscow Patriarchate at the price of acknowledging to the world the complete "canonicity" and "Orthodoxy" of the Sergianist church organization. In an exchange of letters with the Metropolia, Metr. Philaret took due note of this obstacle, to which Metr. Ireney of the Metropolia replied: "In the Church there have always been disagreements, disputes, and searchings.... Let it be that we think differently about the path and aim of the Church in America, that we think differently about our participation in the battle for Christ's righteousness in the world and in the suffering Russian land. Is all this really capable of violating our unity in Christ?... We offer nothing impossible... we offer only a renunciation of the prohibition from visiting each other's churches, praying together, and receiving the Holy Mysteries together."

Indeed, such a small step! Just as in the days of St. Maximus the Confessor, let us "have in our heart whatever faith we want," but "be silent about our differences for the sake of the peace of the Church." We can each interpret "Christ's righteousness" as we please—a privilege we share with Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others! With what "mercy" and "love" this offer of "eucharistic communion" is made, in the interest of bringing back the Russian Church Outside of Russia into communion with "world Orthodoxy" —that apostate "Orthodoxy" which has lost the savor of Christianity—and deprive it precisely of solidarity with the True-Orthodox Church of Russia. The devil himself could not have devised a slyer, more "innocent" temptation, which plays so strongly on the emotions and on humanitarian motives.

It is therefore undoubtedly a great mercy of God that, just at the hour of this temptation, we should receive reliable information, not only about the "secret church organization" of the True-Orthodox Church in Russia, but even about her chief hierarch, Metropolitan Theodosius. To be sure, the "Orthodox" wolves in sheep's clothing will continue to take cruel advantage of the fact that those who do know more about the Catacomb Church, whether in Russia or abroad, will of coursenot reveal it so as not to betray the True-Orthodox Christians in any way. Even if the Catacomb Church did not exist at all, the Moscow Patriarchate would still be guilty of schism and apostasy, even as Roman Catholicism did not become Orthodox once the last Orthodox communities were finally wiped out in the West. But it is now surely beyond any doubt that the Catacomb Church does exist and is even to some degree organized; and so we Orthodox Christians in the free world are without any excuse if we fail to show precisely our solidarity with her and her fearless confession of God's Truth and righteousness.The True-Orthodox Church is the standard of Orthodoxy in Russia today, and it requires no "imagination" or secret information for us to know that standard and measure ourselves by it. The standard of Holy Orthodoxy does not change; if we ourselves are struggling to be True-Orthodox Christians we are living by the same standard as the True-Orthodox Church of Russia. The True-Orthodox Christians of Greece already know this quite well, for their struggle is very similar to that in Russia; it is only we of the Orthodox Diaspora who are so slow to follow their confessing path, because we have not learned from suffering as they have.

Is it not time at last, then, for the True-Orthodox Christians of the free world to raise their voices in defense of the trampled-down Truth? Is it only the persecuted Orthodox in Russia who have the courage to speak boldly against the lies and hypocrisies of the Church leaders and proclaim their separateness, on grounds of Truth and Orthodox principle, from the apostate hierarchs? As a matter of Church principle, the question is in reality the same here as there; the only difference is that in the Soviet Union the hierarchs participate in apostasy ostensibly under the dictatorship of atheists, whereas in the free world the hierarchs do the same thing freely. And if any naively hold that the Paris and American "jurisdictions" abroad are still "conservative" and are largely unaffected by the ecumenical madness of "Greek Orthodoxy," let him read the account in the Russian émigré newspaper La Pensee Rasse (Feb. 20, 1975), under the headline "Ecumenism in the Cathedral of the Paris Mother of God" (Notre-Dame de Paris), of the "grandiose ecumenical prayer-service of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, headed by the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Marty, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Meletios, and the representative of the Protestant Federation, Monsieur Courvoisier." Here the choir and clergy of the Paris Russian (Eulogian) Cathedral took full part in the "grandiose ecumenical prayer-service" together with the heretics (for which sin, according to the sacred canons, they must be excommunicated), and the Protodeacon "thunderously, with a mighty bass voice," read the Gospel, fully vested, after bowing to the three presiding dignitaries of the assembly, as if to Orthodox bishops. As a result, "hardly in the eight centuries of its existence has Notre-Dame Cathedral heard such a reading of the Word of God, and it is understandable that those present were shaken"—shaken by a dramatically effective voice which helped to close off salvation for those present by not daring to tell them that they are outside the Church of Christ.

The same "ecumenical" message is proclaimed by Archbishop John Shahovskoy of the American Metropolia when he begs "forgiveness" of "our Catholic and Protestant brethren" because the Russian Church Outside of Russia continues to declare the Orthodox teaching that they are unbaptized. [7]

True Orthodoxy is one and the same whether in outward freedom or outward slavery; it is free internally to preach the unchanging Truth of Christ's Church, and the questions before it are one and the same here and there: Can we be with Christ and still be one with those who disdain the ecclesiastical calendar, renovate theology and piety, legitimize the Sergianist schism, pray with heretics, and by word and act proclaim that "nothing separates us" from those most miserable and unfortunate "Christians" of the West who for centuries have not known the grace of God? Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, in his first "Sorrowful Epistle" to all Orthodox bishops in the world (1969) has already given the battle-cry for all True-Orthodox Christians against those who participate by word or act in the soul-destroying heresy of ecumenism: "We have already protested against the unorthodox ecumenical actions of Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos.... But now the time has come to make our protest heard more loudly still, and then even yet more loudly, so as to stop the action of this poison before it has become as potent as the ancient heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, or Eutychianism, which in their time so shook the whole body of the Church as to make it seem that heresy was apt to overcome Orthodoxy."

We must obey God, not men; we must remain in the unchanging Orthodox Faith, which is Divine, and not listen to the rationalistic arguments of worldly men who only wish to please each other and conform the Faith to the humanitarian spirit of the age. Let all True-Orthodox Christians in the world remain unbending in the confession of Russia's Catacomb Church, a confession whose very words the divine St. Maximus has given us:

Even if the whole world should receive communion with the apostate hierarchs, we will not. Amen.

Endnotes

1. So The Orthodox Church, official organ of the American Metropolia [now the OCA], November, 1974, p. 2.

2. Russian text in Novoye Russkaye Slovo, about Feb. 1, 1975, p. 3.

3. Religion and Atheism in the USSR, December, 1974, p. 9.

4. Religion and Atheism in the USSR, December, 1974, p 2

5. A pre-Revolutionary nickname for St. Petersburg (now "Leningrad").

6. This is probably not an accurate statement about the position of the True-Orthodox Church in Russia on this point. See the Samizdat Catacomb document "Church and Authority" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no. 3 pp. 133-135), where the Soviet regime is called an "anti-authority."

7. Novoye Russkaye Slovo, Feb. 18, 1975, p. 2.

From The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1974 (59), 235-246. 

The Response to Elder Tavrion

THE LIFE of Archimandrite Tavrion published in The Orthodox Word, no. 96, evoked for the most part a positive response: readers on the whole, judging from their comments to the editors, accepted it in the way it was intended to be read—as an inspiring example of genuine Orthodox courage and spiritual life in the almost impossible conditions of Soviet life. The accompanying articles, "What Does the Catacomb Church Think?" and especially the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962," set forth a position of uncompromising non-acceptance of the betrayal of the Moscow Patriarchate and refusal to have communion with it, while at the same time showing pastoral concern for the priests and faithful who try their best to be Orthodox even in the Moscow Patriarchate, where they find themselves by force of circumstances.

Some readers, however, noting that Elder Tavrion was a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, interpreted the publication of his life as a betrayal of the Catacomb Church and as a total reversal of our [Platina -The OrtHOdoX Word editors] stand with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate; and because the life of Elder Tavrion was sent for publication by Metropolitan Philaret, together with the Metropolitan's note explaining Fr. Tavrion's attempt to stand apart from the betraying policies of the Moscow Patriarchate, some of these readers did not hesitate to express their criticism of the Metropolitan himself, as if this indicated that he and even the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia had radically changed their opinion with regard to the Russian Church situation. The disturbance created by this criticism reached the Synod of Bishops and resulted in the "Decision" on this controversy which is printed below in this issue, which reaffirms the unchanging position of the Church Outside of Russia and admonishes those who are too quick in their criticism even of their own Metropolitan.

This disturbance (which one may hope is now a thing of the past, after the authoritative statement of the Synod) has served to remind us all that the position of the Church Outside of Russia within the Russian Church as a whole is by no means correctly understood by everyone. The problem is not that this position is really very difficult to understand, but that it is all too easy to oversimplify it and to state, at one extreme, that the betrayal of Sergianism (the compromising position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has become a slavish tool of Communist purposes) is something unimportant towards which our attitude can change with time; or, at the other extreme, that the Moscow Patriarchate is entirely fallen away from Orthodoxy and is without grace and its fate is of no more interest to us than that of any sect in Russia.

Since the cause of this disturbance was the mistaken belief that the Metropolitan, The Orthodox Word, and presumably a large part of the Church Outside of Russia had "reversed their attitude" towards the Catacomb Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, let us examine here some of the main aspects of our Church's attitude to the Russian Church situation, comparing statements from the new "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops with other authoritative statements, both within the Catacomb Church and the Church Outside of Russia, and comments made in The Orthodox Word over the years from 1965 to the present.

1. The new "Decision" of the Synod states: "The condemnation by our hierarchy of the agreement with the atheists promulgated by the Moscow Patriarchate at the time of Metropolitan Sergius certainly remains in effect and cannot be changed except by the repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate. This policy, which seeks to serve both Christ and Belial, is unquestionably a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Therefore, we can have no liturgical communion with any bishop or cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate.... We can fully approve only that part of the Church in Russia which is called the Catacomb Church, and only with her can we have full communion."

The Orthodox Word has set forth this fundamental position of the Church Outside of Russia (which is identical to the position of the Catacomb Church) year after year. The latest expression of it, the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962," states it in the language of a Catacomb Church representative, and this expression is certainly no less strong in tone than the Catacomb document of ten years ago, "Russia and the Church Today" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no.44). The Orthodox Word in its recent article defending Fr. Dimitry Dudko repeated this position once again: "the very principle of 'Sergianism' is a betrayal of Orthodoxy, as Fr. Dimitry has said; this is why the free Russian Church Outside of Russia can have no communion with this jurisdiction.... We have no communion with his hierarchs and even with him (until he becomes free of them)" (no. 92, pp. 122, 137).

2. We have no hope that the church situation in Russia will change in any fundamental way as long as Communism is in power. This admittedly is a private opinion rather than an official position, but it is an opinion widely shared among the clergy and laymen of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, and over sixty years of experience with the Communist regime has only confirmed it. In particular, every "liberalization" in the regime's attitude towards the Church has only been a tactical device within the larger purpose of the total liquidation of the Church.

The Orthodox Word in 1966 stated:"The rescue of the Soviet Church... cannot come from within itself, and most definitely not under Soviet conditions.... Nothing is to be hoped for from any 'changes' within the USSR; the necessary precondition for the healing of the infected organism is the total overthrow of the Communist system. Only then can there be even talk of a return to normal religious life in Russia" (no. 10, p. 148).

The same thing was repeated in 1981: "The Moscow Patriarchate has not changed and undoubtedly will not change until Communism itself falls in Russia; there is no hope whatever that a return to normal Orthodox church life will occur through the official church"(no. 96, p.22).

3. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states: "The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately."  Despite the uncompromisingness of our stand against the betrayal of "Sergianism," we make no "definitions" about it; in particular, our bishops have refused to make any statement that the Moscow Patriarchate is "without grace" and "fallen away" from Orthodoxy. This position has been set forth many times in The Orthodox Word in an uncompromisingly anti-Sergianist article in 1974 (no. 59, pp. 240-1).

This position is very difficult to understand for those who would like the church situation to be "simple" and "black or white."  For such people it is incomprehensible how a Catacomb Church zealot like the author of the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962" could recommend that his spiritual children receive communion in a Sergianist church if they can find no Catacomb church, or how a Catacomb priest like Archimandrite Tavrion could join the official church. Not all members of the Catacomb Church, to be sure, would approve such actions: but those who do approve and practice them have in mind only the benefit of their flocks, who might otherwise be deprived entirely of church communion and fall into despair. Such practical questions, in Soviet conditions, cannot always be given categorical answers. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops notes positively that "we see some efforts to remain outside the apostate policies of the Patriarchate's leaders in an attempt to attain salvation even in the territory of Antichrist's kingdom."

That at least a part of the Moscow Patriarchate is still regarded by the free Russian Church as not entirely having lost its Orthodoxy may be seen in the 1976 Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, "To the Russian People in the Homeland, "where the bishops address the courageous priests both of the Catacomb Church and of the Moscow Patriarchate as genuine priests (The Orthodox Word, 1976, no. 70, p. 164). Expressing the same view, Bishop Gregory of Manhattan has written: "Those in Russia who are holding fast to Orthodoxy and preaching the truth, not submitting to the influence of outside powers,, are not merely our allies, but our brethren in one end the same Church" (Orthodox Life, 1979, no. 6, p. 40). Ten years ago The Orthodox Word remarked: "As John Dunlop has noted, on the popular level the boundary between the 'official' and the 'catacomb' Church is somewhat fluid. The writings of Boris Talantov testify to the presence of a deep division today within the Moscow Patriarchate between the 'Sergianist' hierarchy with its 'Communist Christianity' and the truly Orthodox faithful who reject this impious 'adaptation to atheism"' (1971, no. 36, p. 38).

Perhaps the best statement on this whole question comes from a leading Catacomb hierarch of the 1920's and '30's, now to be canonized as a New Martyr, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan. In answer to the ecclesiastical legalism of Metropolitan Sergius, he wrote to him in 1929: "It amazes you that, while refraining from celebrating Liturgy with you, I nonetheless do not consider either myself or you to be outside the Church. 'For church thinking such a theory is completely unacceptable, ' you declare; 'it is an attempt to keep ice on a hot grill.' If in this case there is any attempt on my part, it is not to keep ice on a hot grill, but rather to melt away the ice of a dialectical bookish application of the canons and to preserve the sacredness of their spirit. I refrain from liturgizing with you not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be actualized at our joint celebration, but because the communion of the Chalice of the Lord would be to both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our inward attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility of offering in complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise. Therefore, the whole fullness of my refraining concerns only you and the hierarchs one in mind with you, but not the ordinary clergy, and even less laymen" (The Orthodox Word, 1977, no. 75, p. 183-4).

4. In accordance with the famous "Testament" of Metropolitan Anastassy, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia from 1936 to 1964, a final judgment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian church situation cannot be made now, but must wait for a free Church Council, which can obviously be assembled only after the fall of Communism. The last paragraph of this "Testament" states: "As for the Moscow Patriarchate and her hierarchs, inasmuch as they are in an intimate, active, and well-wishing union with the Soviet power which openly confesses its complete godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire Russian people, with them the Church Abroad, preserving its purity, must not have any communion whatever, whether canonically, in prayer, or even in ordinary everyday contact, at the same time giving each of them over to the final judgment of the Sobor (Council) of the future free Russian Church" (The Orthodox Word, 1970, no. 33-34, p. 239).

(Some have quoted this passage to indicate the impossibility of our having any contact whatever with priests of the Moscow Patriarchate. It should therefore be noted that Metropolitan Anastassy here points only to the "hierarchs" who are in a "well-wishing union with the Soviet power. " The priests and laymen who are bravely protesting against the "Sergianism" of the Patriarchate are clearly in a different category.)

The subject of this future free Council is one that has occupied the thoughts both of the Catacomb Church and the Church Outside of Russia ever since the Sergian Declaration of 1927. In that year Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, the first real head of the Catacomb Church, wrote: "In separating from Metropolitan Sergius and his acts, we do not separate from our lawful Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Peter, nor from the Council, which will meet at some time in the future, of those Orthodox hierarchs who have remained faithful. May this Council, our sole competent judge, not then hold us guilty for our boldness"(The Orthodox Word, 1971, no. 36, p. 26).

Similarly, in 1934 Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan wrote: " I firmly believe that the Orthodox Episcopate, with brotherly union and mutual support, will preserve the Russian Church, with God's help, in age-old Orthodoxy all the time of the validity of the Patriarchal Testament (of Patriarch Tikhon), and will conduct it to a lawful Council" (The Orthodox Word, 1977, no . 75, p. 189).

In 1962 the anonymous author of the "Catacomb Epistle" wrote: "We believe that if human life is to continue on earth, then some time there will gather a council which will justify our boldness and will justly evaluate the 'wise policy' of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers who wished to 'save the Church' at the price of her immaculateness and truth" (The Orthodox Word, 1981, no. 96, p. 31).

In 1970 the Catacomb authors of "Russia and the Church Today" stated: "We believe that if the world does not perish, sooner or later in liberated Russia there will be a Local Council of our Church, to which the fruits of their labors and exploits for the long period without a Council. . . will be brought forth by the Moscow Patriarchate and by the persecuted Russian ‘Catacomb' Church, to which the authors of this article belong" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no. 44. p. 132).

And in 1971 The Orthodox Word, commenting on the writings of Boris Talantov, nosed that they "will doubtless be used as testimony at that longed-for Council of the entire free Russian Church, including the Churches of the Catacombs and of the Diaspora, that will finally judge the situation created by the Communist Yoke and Sergianism" (no. 36, p. 38).

5. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states: "Any departure from atheism and 'Sergianism' must be seen as a positive step towards pure Orthodoxy even though it not yet be the opening of the way to ecclesiastical union with us... Our interest in all aspects of religious life in Russia cannot ignore any positive event we see against the background of total apostasy. We should not focus our attention exclusively on those facts which merit unconditional condemnation."

And in fact, the interest and sympathy which the Church Outside of Russia as a whole has shown to such priests as Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite Tavrion is by no means a thing of the past few years. This interest and sympathy has been reflected in the pages of The Orthodox Word from the very first year of its existence.

The third issue of The Orthodox Word in l965 published an "Appeal" from believers of the Moscow Patriarchate in Pochaev. A number of suffering clergy of the Patriarchate are mentioned, with a special description of "Abbot Joseph... a great man of prayer and our spiritual and bodily physician" (p. 109). This same "Appeal" states that "the Orthodox Church is in great danger. . . Only the Pochaev monks and a small number of the clergy stand firmly for the apostolic traditions and don't give in an inch to the Antichrist" (pp. 110-111). The editorial comment at the end of this "Appeal" stated: "One must choose: to support, in any way, the puppets of Communism, who serve the ultimate aim of the complete liquidation of religion; or to stand with the persecuted believers" (here, specifically of the Moscow Patriarchate) "who have dared to tell the world what is really happening today behind the Iron Curtain" (p. 114).

The next issue of The Orthodox Word in 1965 contained a favorable description of a "Brotherhood of Orthodox Youth" composed of "sons and daughters of the Orthodox Church" which acts because the clergy is not free, but "without making any attempt against the canonical authority of the hierarchs" (no . 4, p . 159) .

In 1971 a large part of two issues of The Orthodox Word was devoted to the life and writings of Boris Talantov, a layman of the Moscow Patriarchate who mercilessly exposed the betrayal of Sergianism even while believing that the Catacomb Church, while fully Orthodox, was a "sect. " In the title of one article about him he is called an "Orthodox confessor," and in the article he is presented as "an inspiring example of Christian courage against overwhelming obstacles" and "a fearless confessor of the holy Orthodox faith" (1971, no. 36, p. 35). Like Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Talantov believed that "because of the corruption end betrayal of the bishops the believers should not disperse to their homes and organize separate sects, but rather preserving unity, they should begin the accusation by the whole people of the corrupt false pastors and cleanse the Church of them" (1971, no. 41, p. 292).

In these years, despite such support shown for courageous members of the Moscow Patriarchate, there were no Protests at all against these articles in The Orthodox Word. The articles in recent years on Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite Tavrion, and remarks on other courageous priests of the Moscow Patriarchate, are only a continuation of these earlier articles.

Perhaps the most eloquent expression of the sympathy of the free Russian Church for the struggling priests within the Moscow Patriarchate who have spoken out against Sergianism is the statement addressed to them by the Sobor of Bishops of the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia in 1976, in their Epistle "To the Russian People in the Homeland": "We kiss the Cross which you also have taken upon yourself, O pastors who have found the courage and the power of spirit to be open accusers of the faint heartedness of your hierarchs who have capitulated to the atheists, to be fearless gatherers and instructors of those who seek spiritual food—first of all young people. We know of your exploit, we read about you, we read what you have written, we pray for you and ask your prayers for our flock in the Diaspora. Christ is in our midst! He is and shall be!

"The life of the Church continues even under the pressure of atheism, often taking, thanks to the pressure and violence, forms unusual in peaceful circumstances, breaking out through the bonds and chains into the freedom of spirit and the victory of the children of God! With love we follow this process in our Homeland and rejoice over it" (The Orthodox Word, 1976, no . 70, p . 164).

The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops notes that the criticism evoked by the "Elder Tavrion" Article involved "especially those who are not very familiar with the conditions of church life in the USSR." Such critics have failed to notice, as the "Decision" also says, that "the situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately." The attempt to fit the Russian church situation into some standard canonical "norm" that will enable one to dismiss the Moscow Patriarchate entirely as a formal "schism" or even "heresy"—is a mistake.

The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops is a welcome correction of this mistake and is a clear sign to us that in these perilous days our Orthodoxy must not become something narrow, negative, and critical. We must temper the overlogicalness of our Western mentality (which has formed all of us in the modern world, whether we realize it or not) with a loving, pastoral concern for all those who still wish to be Orthodox, despite the terrible conditions of our times and even the outright betrayal of many hierarchs.

A young priest of the Greek Archdiocese in America, before his tragic death several years ago, once called The Orthodox Worda "conscience of Orthodoxy" today. This is precisely what the Russian Church Outside of Russia could and should be for the Orthodox world today. This church body has maintained its existence now for sixty years in a Russian church situation that is entirely abnormal and in some respects unprecedented in church history. It has done so by means of a kind of church "instinct" which has not betrayed it, end which allows it to maintain its separateness from the betrayal of a large part of the Orthodox Church leadership today without losing contact with the still living conscience of the sound part of the Orthodox clergy and faithful in many jurisdictions.

This church instinct is by no means blind, but is quite capable of discerning mistaken attitudes even in the suffering faithful for whom our Church is at pains to show such support. Thus, in en open letter to Father Gleb Yakunin, a courageous and self-sacrificing priest now suffering ecclesiastical suspension and cruel imprisonment in Russia for his defense of believers' rights, Metropolitan Philaret not long ago found it necessary to point out this priest's mistaken support for the Roman Catholic religious literature being sent into Russia, poisoned as it is by false teaching and heresy (Orthodox Russia, June 28, 1979, pp. 1-2). 

Likewise, The Orthodox Word in 1966 criticized the false "ecumenical" and "Berdyaevan" views of the famous open letters of the two Moscow priests (no. 10, pp. 145-148). Such criticism, it is true, must be charitable and take into account the poverty of the Orthodox literature available in Russia; one very conservative emigre, Eugene Vagin, has pointed out that often pseudo-Orthodox writings like those of Berdyaev are almost all that is available to a sincere Orthodox searcher, and the mistakes such a searcher might make under their influence can be corrected later on by exposure to sounder Orthodox texts. In our freedom, we are able to help with this process of correction, but we must do so with patience and love, especially bearing in mind that we in the West are exposed to the ravages of a different spiritual infirmity—the Western passion for over-logicalness and "super-correctness" which makes us want to "define" church matters more precisely than our abnormal conditions will allow.

In such conditions we should keep more often in mind the prophetic words of the last testament of Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd (martyred in 1922): "Now we must put off our learning and self-opinion and give way to grace." It is this grace, and not our calculations and definitions of it, that has preserved the Russian Church in this frightful century of its worst trial, and it is nothing else that will yet preserve it until the calling of the free Council that one day, as we all hope, will at last bring peace and order to church life.

From The Orthodox Word, May-June 1981 (98), 123-136.

+ + +

The Decision of the Synod of Bishops

The following document is printed at the request of the Synod of Bishops and Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco. The editors of The Orthodox Word are entirely in agreement with it and pray that it will cause an end to discord in the Church.

On 12/25 August, 1981, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia heard the report of the President of the Synod of Bishops on the following matter: the appearance of an article about Archimandrite Tavrion published in issue number 96 of The Orthodox Word has caused great consternation among some readers, especially those who are not very familiar with the conditions of church life in the USSR. In my covering letter to the editor of the magazine (which was not intended to be published with the article), they saw what they believed to be a kind of approval of the dual position taken by the late archimandrite rather than the simple forwarding of some interesting, informative material. Archimandrite Tavrion, after long years of imprisonment as a member of the Catacomb Church, somehow came to join the Moscow Patriarchate while never sharing its policies. None of us has ever had any relations with him. We only know that he advised those of his spiritual children leaving the USSR and going West to join the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. It is also known that when talking to his spiritual children, he condemned the political subservience of the Patriarchate to the atheistic authorities. His pastoral and spiritual methods were rather unusual. In the favorable description of his life written by his spiritual daughter, some readers found not only the fact that he brought people into the Church, but they also suspected us of approving his compromising attitude toward the Church This is not true.

The condemnation by our hierarchy of the agreement with the atheists promulgated by the Moscow Patriarchate at the time of Metropolitan Sergius certainly remains in effect and cannot be changed except by the repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate. This policy. which seeks to serve both Christ and Belial, is unquestionably a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Therefore, we can have no liturgical communion with any bishop or cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate. But this does not prevent us from studying with love and sorrow the religious life in Russia. In some cases we see a complete collapse while in others we see some efforts to remain outside the apostate policies of the Patriarchate’s leaders in an attempt to attain salvation even in the territory of Antichrist's kingdom (as in the case mentioned in Canon II of St. Athanasius), and bearing in mind the words of our Saviour that by a hasty judgment one might root up the wheat along with the tares (Matt. 13:29). Under varying circumstances. the venom of sinful compromise poisons the soul in varying degrees.

As the free part of the Russian Church, we can fully approve only that part of the Church in Russia which is called the Catacomb Church, and only with her can we have full communion. Yet any departure from atheism and "Sergianism" must be seen as a positive step towards pure Orthodoxy even though it not yet be the opening of the way to ecclesiastical union with us. Beyond this, our present evaluation and judgment cannot proceed, due to lack of information. However, our interest in all aspects of religious life in Russia cannot ignore any positive event we see against the background of total apostasy. We should not focus our attention exclusively on those facts which merit unconditional condemnation.

In light of this, the life and activity of the late Archimandrite Tavrion was an interesting phenomenon. And for this reason, I found his biography worthy of attention and publication while certainly disapproving his membership in the Sergian church organization. This was apparently misunderstood by some readers: I was not offering his example as worthy of imitation.

RESOLVED: To take into consideration the report of the President of the Synod of Bishops and, sharing his opinion, to publish his account in the religious press. At the same time, the Synod of Bishops deems it necessary to remind its flock that first of all, we must strongly uphold our own faith and exercise our zeal in the authentic life of the Church under the conditions in which God has placed each one of us, striving towards the salvation of our souls. Due to insufficient information, deliberations about the significance and quality of various events in Russia do not at present provide adequate guidance for the faithful. Indeed, in the majority of cases these deliberations cannot serve as instruction but must rather be regarded as personal opinions.

The Synod of Bishops is grieved by the reaction to the article about Archimandrite Tavrion and the hasty conclusions which some zealous believers, and even some clergymen, have drawn. Mutual love and concern for Church unity, which is especially necessary in times of heresy and schism, require from each of us great caution in what we say. If no one is supposed to condemn his neighbor in haste, even more care is demanded where our own primate is concerned. Rash implications about his allegedly unorthodox preaching as well as open criticism in sermons reveal a tendency towards condemnation and division which is unseemly in Christians. The Apostle said, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" How much more appropriate might it be to say. "Who art thou that judgest thy metropolitan?" Such an attitude, which can easily develop into schism, is strongly censured by the canons of the Church, for it shows willful appropriation by clerics of the "Judgment belonging to metropolitans" (Canon XIII of the First-and-Second Council). 

Everyone must be very careful in his criticism, particularly when expressing it publicly, remembering that "Judgment and justice take hold on thee"(Job 36:17). If, contrary to the apostolic teaching about hierarchical distribution of duties and responsibilities all the clerics and laymen were to supervise their hierarchs (I Cor. 12:28-30), then instead of being a hierarchical Body of Christ, our Church would turn into a kind of democratic anarchy where the sheep assume the function of the shepherd. A special grace is bestowed upon bishops to help them in their work. Those who seek to control their bishop should be reminded of Canon LXIV of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which quotes the words of St. Gregory the Theologian:

Learning in docility and abounding in cheerfulness, and ministering with alacrity, we shall not all be the tongue which is the more active member, not all of us apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret.

And again:

Why cost thou make thyself a shepherd when thou art a sheep? Why become a head when thou art a foot? Why cost thou try to be a commander when thou art enrolled in the number of the soldiers?

The canon ends with the following words:

But if anyone be found weakening the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days.

The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately. If the position of the Catacomb Church would change relative to its position in past years, any change in our attitude would have to be reviewed not by individual clergymen or laymen but only by the Council of Bishops, to which all pertinent matters should be submitted.

The above decision must be published and a copy of it forwarded to the Secretariat of the Council while the diocesan bishops should give instructions, each in his own diocese, to the clerics who have too hastily voiced their opinion.

From "The Catacomb Tikhonite Church, 1974: First Public Information in the West Concerning", by Metropolitan Theodosius, Chief Hierarch of the True-Orthodox Church of Russia (The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1974, 240-241).

from: Not Of This World, pages 865-867

... With his basically non-partisan approach, Fr. Seraphim was not to be spared in the the fall of 1981, one final run-in with the super-correct, super-partisan ecclesiology.  This time even the chief hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret, unwittingly got involved.  In September he had written to the Brotherhood:

Dear Fr. Herman,

I am sending you material for printing ... about the last elder of Glinsk Hermitage, Archimandrite Tavrion. According to the information I have, this wise and pious elder belonged at first to the Catacomb Church; but seeing the believing people were scattered like sheep without a shepherd, he joined the official church, but in his activity stood absolutely apart from it, giving all his strength to the spiritual guidance of believing souls.

May God help you.  Peace be to you and the brethren.

With love,

Metropolitan Philaret

As it turned out, what the Metropolitan had sent was a tremendously inspiring document, showing true Church life in Russia in the midst of almost impossible Soviet conditions, and a righteous loving clairvoyant Elder who was very much in the spirit of the Elders of Optina.  Interestingly, Elder Tavrion, who had reposed only two years before in 1978, had shown great love for Fr. Dimitry Dudko saying, "Fr. Dimitry has such a simple, child-like faith that God has chosen him to be a confessor.  There's nothing to fear."

At the same time there were several other such inspiring manuscripts about contemporary righteous ones being secretly written and circulated in Russia, but most of these -- save for what was published in samizdat by the confessor Zoly Krakhalnikova -- never made it to the west before Russia became [supposedly] free again.  On receiving such a rare, up-to-date document, therefore, the Platina fathers lost no time in publishing it.  And to quell any objections from the super-correct wing about their publishing the life of a catacomb priest who later served in the MP, they accompanied it with Metropolitan Philaret's cover letter, as well as two documents from the Catacomb Church.

Far from warding off disturbances, however, the Metropolitan's letter raised a cry of indignation from those on the far right, who could hardly believe that their own Metropolitan could call someone in the MP a "wise and pious elder."  This time the super-corrrectparty started a whole campaign, with petitions sent out for everyone to sign, and an official delegation sent to protest at the Metropolitan's residence in New York.  The petition stated that the photograph of and article on Archimandrite Tavrion which the Metropolitan had sent "serve as Soviet propaganda to mitigate our attitude toward Soviet clergy and the Soviet Church by showing us that there are in fact 'wise and pious elders' who are part of the Soviet Church... Our bishops must come together and make a public statement with regard to this grave matter.  The editors of The Orthodox Word ned to rectify the damage done by retracting their statements and printing a statement of our Synod of Bishops on this most important mater."

One of the super-correct priests, Fr. Seraphim noted, "is trying to force our old Russian parishioners to write letters of protest to the Metropolitan, and the poor old ladies don't understand what it's all about!  What a narrow strait jacket of logic they want to force us into, and how little it suits the real needs of the Orthodox mission today... [They] are just not 'where it's at' -- they're fighting windmills with their jesuit logic and justifying their own 'purity,' while what's needed is loving and aware hearts to help the suffering and searching and bring them to Christ."  In another letter Fr. Seraphim called this kind of Christianity "Alice-in-Wonderland Orthodoxy."

The Metropolitan and other bishops felt called upon to put an end to the disturbance by issuing a "Decision," which stated that we cannot ignore any positive events in Russia, including those occurring within the MP.  This was published in The Orthodox Word along with an article by Fr. Seraphim, "The Response to Elder Tavrion," which demonstrated that The Orthodox Word had not changed it's position regarding the Church situation in Russia.  The articles on Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Elder Tavrion, Fr. Seraphim pointed out, were only a continuation of earlier articles -- beginning with the third issue -- on positive events occurring with the MP, in spite of the compromises of its bishops.

Fr. Seraphim's quick and thorough defense of Fr. Dimitry and Elder Tavrion may seem surprising, coming as it did from one who, as we have seen, preferred to avoid church disputes. Even his own novice Gregory, who had arrived at the St. Herman Monastery during the "Tavrion incident," recalls being at first scandalized by Fr. Seraphim's seeming obsession with such issues.  "We're Americans," Gregory thought.  "Why does he have to get so caught up in something that only concerns Russia?!"

Later Br. Gregory understood:  The defense of Elder Tavrion was a defense of the true spirit of Christianity against the mere letter.  But there was even more involved.  The phenomenon of Elder Tavrion and others like him testified that Holy Russia had not disappeared, that it would resurrect.  And the resurrection of Russia, as Fr. Seraphim stated many times, would not affect Russia alone: upon it depended the fate of the whole world ...